Dokdo is a small group of islets in the East Sea, between Korea and Japan – to which both countries are laying claim. At stake are Dokdo’s rich fishing stocks, gas hydrates on the adjacent seabed, and an exclusive economic zone. The Dokdo region is populated by Korean fishing communities and host to a thriving tourism industry.

Korea has had administrative control over Dokdo prior to 1905 and after 1945. Existing Japanese and Korean government documents clearly indicate early Korean sovereignty. 

Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs claims that the Korean occupation of Dokdo since World War II is in violation of international law. It claims as evidence the omission of Dokdo from major peace treaties between Japan and the Allied Powers.

How do we evaluate legitimate ownership when property claims conflict? First, we should agree on a definition of ‘property.’ A socialist’s estimation of ‘property,’ for example, differs radically from a capitalist’s. Similarly, the view of ‘property’ prevalent during an age of imperialism bears little resemblance to how we define that term today. 

What definition should we give to ’property,’ when we no longer recognize force as a legitimate means of gain? 

Ayn Rand once wrote, “Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property – by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.” ’Property’ is that simplest but most important of notions – a man’s entitlement to the product of his work.

What is Dokdo other than a rock in the middle of the sea? As full of fish as this sea may be, it has no value until fished. Its potential as a tourist attraction is merely that – potential, until developed. Gas hydrates are useless, unless mined and processed. An investment of time and industry is prerequisite to value. Have any such investments been made in the Dokdo region by either Korea or Japan? 

On the Korean side, we have a fishing and tourism industry that has, over the past sixty years, quite literally created the value by which the Dokdo region is measured today. The coasts of Ulleungdo, home to Dokdo’s fishing community, are replete with hotels, factories, apartment buildings, restaurants - all part of a substantial and long-term economic investment in the area.

Japan has also had a relationship with the region, but of a different nature. Its story begins roughly three centuries ago when Japanese citizens were banned from fishing Dokdo’s waters. Evidence tells us that Korean sovereignty over the area was recognized by the Japanese government. Japanese activity in the region was limited to occasional fishing, and a small group of squatters living alongside a tolerant Korean community.

Circumstances changed dramatically approaching the twentieth century. In 1877, Japan, equipped with an increasingly modern navy, gained full access to Korean waters through implied threats and a very one-sided treaty. By 1899, the population of Japanese squatters (mostly criminals and outcasts) on Ulleungdo had grown. In response to rising violence, a Japanese police force was dispatched. The Korean population on Ulleungdo became subjugated.  

In 1905, Japan annexed Dokdo. It was incorporated into the Shimane province, as uninhabited land never before claimed by a sovereign nation (terra nullius). Around this same time, Japan gained ‘temporary’ rights to occupy key areas of Korea, in order to better wage war on Russia.

Japan eventually abandoned pretexts of diplomacy and began a formal occupation of Korea. This occupation, the vicious nature of which is known to us today, continued up to Japan’s defeat in 1945. Japanese lobbying and Allied military concerns over the looming Cold War caused Dokdo to be left out of all final peace treaty drafts. It was mentioned neither as Korean, nor Japanese territory.

Intent on expanding, Imperialist Japan brought war, looting, and all forms of subjugation across the East Sea to its neighbors. During the course of its occupation, Japan was involved with Dokdo – but certainly not invested there. Dokdo, Ulleungdo and the rest of Korea became part of Japan’s war machine - resources to be plundered, not developed.

Japan now seeks economic exclusivity to Dokdo – a property that has been developed successfully by Korea despite Japan’s plundering. 

The position repeatedly taken by Korea and Japan’s major trading partners is that Dokdo is a bilateral issue. What is it about this particular dispute that has the international community so set on remaining neutral? Foreign government press releases are peppered with words like ‘fairness,’ ’sensitivity,’ and ‘objectivity’ – as if these concepts somehow precluded the possibility of coming to a rational conclusion. However, I contend that siding with truth does represent the fairest, most sensitive and objective solution. Dokdo is Korean territory.