Korea's History in the Takeshima Island Dispute: Seoul Continues to Protest Japan's Claim

Dispute over the ownership of Dokdo Island is one of the most complex geopolitical issues in East Asia, with deep roots in Korean history and bilateral relations. On February 22, diplomatic tensions escalated again when South Korea officially objected to Japan’s holding of “Takeshima Day” in Shimane Prefecture, revisiting the fundamental question of who has the rights to this historically rich island.

Root of the Conflict: Claims Based on History and International Law

Dokdo—known as Takeshima in Japanese—is located in the middle of the Sea of Japan and has become a symbol of conflicting interests between the two countries. South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs firmly claims that the island is an integral part of its territory, based on strong foundations including extensive Korean historical evidence, its geographic proximity to the Korean coast, and relevant international legal principles. Korea’s argument is built on historical records showing administration and management of the area over the years, making Korean history an authentic proof of undisturbed sovereignty.

South Korea’s Official Protest and Diplomatic Challenges

In an official statement, a ministry spokesperson warned that Japan’s claims lack a solid basis and contradict historical facts. Japan’s annual celebrations claiming the island are viewed as a systematic effort to challenge Korea’s sovereignty and ignore Korea’s undeniable historical reality. The South Korean government demands that Japan cease activities and statements that criticize the unilateral process of integrating the island into its territorial claims.

Ongoing Strategy: Strengthening Sovereignty Through Physical Presence

South Korea’s commitment to Dokdo goes beyond diplomatic statements. The government has maintained a presence of security guards on the island as tangible proof of ongoing administrative control. This practical step complements Korea’s historical arguments and ensures that sovereignty is not only articulated through diplomatic forums but also demonstrated through direct management of the disputed territory. This decades-long conflict continues to influence the dynamics of bilateral relations, reflecting how Korean history remains a central consideration in modern geopolitical negotiations.