독도 에세이 콘테스트 수상

Historical criticism of treatment of Dokdo in peace treaty

Kim Suryn              surynk@gmail.com Kim Suryn is a junior student majoring in Political Science and International Relations at Yonsei University. After acquiring her undergraduate degree, she hopes to pursue a master’s degree in public policy.

The disagreement regarding Dokdo is one of the most sensitive and charged issues between Korea and Japan. It is needless to say that the dispute goes beyond territorial considerations to include the animosity that borne of the historic legacy of Japanese imperialism in Korea.

Thus, an analysis of the stances of the parties concerned must be preceded by a consideration of the document that set the dispute into motion – the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

The omission of Dokdo from the Treaty was the seminal factor of the territorial dispute, and this was largely due to the historical circumstances in the years leading up to its ratification in 1951.

The anti-communist alliance, the exclusion of Korea from the Allied Powers, and the failure to recognize Korea as a sovereign and independent state that existed before its being colonized all contributed to the skewed and questionable drafting process of the Treaty.

In the early stages of the drafting of the San Francisco Treaty, Dokdo was indeed included among the islands over which Japan would renounce right, title, and claim. In the final draft, however, Dokdo was omitted from the clause.

This has become one of the cornerstones of Japan’s argument for territorial rights.

They claim that because Dokdo was never relinquished in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, it still remains under Japanese jurisdiction.

Nonetheless, because this dispute is largely historical in nature, we must take a historical critical approach to gauge the circumstances of the time, rather than just applying a legalistic approach without context.

By the late 1940s and early 1950s, the Allied Powers, led by the United States, shifted its strategy from an anti-fascist alliance to an anti-communist alliance that sought to accommodate Japan.

This can be witnessed in the differences of nuance between the Cairo Declaration (1943) and the Potsdam Declaration (1945), and the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951.

The former declared that “Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed. The aforesaid three great powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, determined that Korea shall become free and independent.”

This language is very different from the Treaty, which refrained from including clauses that went against Japanese national interest. This greatly diluted the culpability of Japanese imperialism.

Consequentially, Korea was excluded from the Allied Powers, which meant that Korea’s historical claims also lost salience.

The San Francisco Treaty framed Korean statehood as newly emerging from its separation from the Japanese Empire. Korea essentially lost its status as a nation that existed far before its annexation.

Therefore, it was unfavorably positioned to clarify the unjust and illegal annexation of Dokdo by imperial Japan. Judging from this, the San Francisco Peace Treaty failed to adequately deal with Japan’s war responsibility.
The significance of the outcome of the San Francisco Treaty is that the context and circumstances under which a treaty is ratified greatly influences the drafting and interpretation of it.

This is why a historical critical approach should be taken with regard to the Dokdo question.

Rather than stopping at the legal perspective, historical context should also be taken into account.

One cannot deny that the San Francisco Peace Treaty, with regard to Dokdo, was drawn up under circumstances that were hostile to the full sovereignty of Korea.

The international community should heed those circumstances with regard to any territorial dispute that has such historical ramifications.