Analysis On The International Law Basis Of The Japan-south Korea Dokdo Sovereignty Dispute

The territorial issue is a major issue concerning national sovereignty.In recent years,countries have been paying more attention to the maritime rights and interests brought by islands,and disputes and conflicts concerning island sovereignty have increased.In order to demonstrate the ownership of disputed territory,all countries actively seek to justify their claims to sovereignty in the international law to argue for the ownership.Therefore,it is particularly important to study the rules of international law related to territorial sovereignty in island disputes.The Dokdo dispute involved the application of the rules of international law of original rights,preemption and prescription,which are the basis for countries to claim sovereignty in most territorial disputes.In the past international judicial practice,the above-mentioned international law rules were controversial in the application of the territorial dispute settlement process.Starting from the Dokdo dispute,this paper discusses the specific application of the territorial acquisition rules with the legal issues disputed by Japan and South Korea as the index,hoping to contribute to the settlement of territorial disputes in China.This paper first summarizes the origin,present situation,and causes of the Dokdo dispute,and after sorting out the important historical events,outlines the international legal basis for the sovereignty claims of Japan and South Korea over Dokdo.This paper analyzes the conflicts between the two countries on the basis of claiming sovereignty,including original rights,preemption,prescription,and specific interpretations relevant international treaties after World War II.According to the conflicts between the two countries,the disputes are summarized as the claims of territorial acquisition rules and the claims of international treaty interpretation.The second chapter discusses it from the perspective of original rights,which is one of the conflicts of territorial acquisition rules.Firstly,the definition and connotation of original right are explained,and the significance of original right focusing on discovery is emphasized.The applicability of the claim to territorial disputes,and the fact that the claim of occupation is not as strict as that of preemption.It is then argued at the practical level that this right has been recognized by International Court of Justice and state practice.Since both Japan and South Korea claim Dokdo as their own inherent territory,they have put forward a large number of historical documents,maps and other materials to prove the early knowledge and use of Dokdo by early governments.After summing up the original rights,it can be judged that South Korea has more advantages in obtaining Dokdo sovereignty through the original rights.It is discussed from the principle of preemption and prescription of the rule of territorial acquisition.Japan codified Dokdo into its territory in 1905 in accordance with the principle of preemption under international law,which South Korea considered as the first step of Japan’s invasion of South Korea,while Japan insisted that Dokdo was terra nullius.In fact,in judicial practice,the International Court of Justice rarely accepts the identification of terra nullius made by the parties,and Japan clearly knows that Dokdo is not terra nullius.Although Dokdo was actually occupied by from 1905 to 1945,South Korea’s protests continued to break Japan’s continuous occupation of Dokdo,and Japan could not obtain the sovereignty over Dokdo through prescription.From the perspective of international treaty interpretation,this paper judges its influence on the legal status of Dokdo.The Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation made it clear that Japan’s territorial scope should be decided by the common will of China,the United States,Britain and Russia.Britain and The United States signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty separately to determine Japan ’s territorial scope,and they should bear the national responsibility for breach of contract to China.Neither Japan nor South Korea can draw the conclusion that Dokdo belongs to their own country according to Article 2(a)of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.However,since SCAPIN No.677 was authoritative in defining Japanese territory,it can be judged that South Korea has more advantages in obtaining Dokdo sovereignty.Finally,from the perspective of China,comparing with the Diaoyu Islands dispute,the characteristics of the Dokdo dispute are analyzed,including the Japanese imperialist expansion and occupation and the strategic needs of the United States,which make the dispute complicated.In order to better deal with the Diaoyu Islands dispute,China should strengthen cross-strait cooperation,fully explore relevant historical materials,and at the same time continue to pay attention to and respond to the unfavorable evidence presented by the Japanese side.