Advertisement

Abstract

The Dokdo/Takeshima dispute has remained a major irritant in Japan-Korea relations, preventing a deepening of diplomatic ties. Nationalism and the quest for natural resources have, in the context of the Dokdo/ Takeshima issue, been locked in a complex relationship. The availability of abundant fisheries in the waters surrounding the islets has caused tensions between the two nations since the 1950s. This chapter discusses the prospect for resource management in the disputed territory by focusing on fisheries and to a lesser extent on hydrocarbon resources. It concludes that a climate of relations undermined by nationalistic sentiments and memory politics has not been conducive to negotiating a long-lasting agreement on the common development of natural resources.

Keywords

Dokdo/Takeshima Japan Korea natural resources nationalism joint development 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    The Korean name of the islands is romanized either Tokto or Dokdo. The ‘Dokdo’ spelling is used in this monograph, as it is the official name used by the Korean government. The islands are also referred to as Liancourt Rocks, after the French whaling ship–the Liancourt–which charted the islets in 1849. The name ‘Liancourt Rocks’ is often used by neutral observers of the dispute.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    I. Ue (20 March 2005) ‘An Island Dispute with a Past’, Yomiuri Shimbun.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M.A. Weinstein (10 May 2006) ‘South Korea’s and Japan’s Dokdo/Takeshima Dispute Escalates toward Confrontation’, (available at http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=487).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (not dated) ‘Outline of the Issue of Takeshima’, (available at http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/position.html).
  5. 5.
    M. H. Roh (25 April 2006) ‘Special Message by President Roh Moo-hyun on Korea-Japan Relations’, (available at http://www.mofat.go.kr/english/help/ include/newopenmofat.jsp.html).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    As cited in K. Hara (2007) Cold War Frontiers in the Asia–Pacific: Divided Territories in the San Francisco System (New York: Routledge), p. 17.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hara (2007) Cold War Frontiers in the Asia–Pacific, p. 17.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, (March 2004) ‘The Issue of Takeshima’.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ue (20 March 2005) ‘An Island Dispute with a Past’.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    See Hara (2007) Cold War Frontiers in the Asia–Pacific.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    V. D. Cha (2000) ‘Hate, Power, and Identity in Japan–Korea Security: Towards a Synthetic Material–Ideational Analytical Framework’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, vol. 54 (3), p. 314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cha (2000) ‘Hate, Power, and Identity in Japan–Korea security’, p. 314.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Valencia (16 June 2006) ‘Settling the Japan/Korea Dispute: An Opportunity to Being a New Era’, (available at http://www.glocom.org/debates/20060616_valencia_set/index.html).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weinstein (10 May 2006) ‘South Korea’s and Japan’s Dokdo/Takeshima Dispute Escalates toward Confrontation’ .Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. Buszynski (2011) ‘The Dokdo Dispute in Perspective and Avenues for Resolution’, in S. Lee and H. E. Lee (eds) Dokdo: Historical Appraisal and International Justice (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers), pp. 209–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Savage (19 April 2006) ‘Japan–South Korea Ties on the Rocks: Dokdo/Takeshima Dispute Once Again Roils the Waters’, My News International.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ’south Korea’ (1 November 2009), available at http://www.worldfishing.net/features101/new-horizons/south-korea; ‘Japan Targets Greater Self-Sufficiency’ 3 November 2010, available at http://www.worldfishing.net/features101/new-horizons/japan-targets-greater-self-sufficiency.
  18. 18.
    J. S. Kang (2003) ‘The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Fishery Relations between Korea, Japan and China’, Marine Policy, 2003, pp. 111–124.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. J. Green (March 1999) ‘Japan–ROK Security Relations: An American Perspective’, Shorenstein APARC, p. 10, (available at http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/10060/Green.pdf).
  20. 20.
    See article 74 (3) of the 1982 UNCLOS Convention in the United Nations (1983) Official Text of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea with Annexes and Index (New York: United Nations).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    See Kang (2003) ‘The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Fishery Relations between Korea, Japan and China’.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. P. Kim (2003) ‘The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and New Fisheries Agreements in North East Asia’, Marine Policy, vol. 27 (2), pp. 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Y. K. Kim (2008) ‘Sovereign Rivalry between Korea and Japan Fermented by a Distorted Fisheries Agreement’, in Y. K. Kim (ed.) An Empirical Analysis on Korean Government’s Policies Managing the Dokdo and NLL Issues (Busan: Dasom Publishers), p. 14.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim (2008) ‘Sovereign Rivalry between Korea and Japan Fermented by a Distorted Fisheries Agreement’,p. 42.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weinstein (10 May 2006) ‘South Korea’s and Japan’s Dokdo/Takeshima Dispute Escalates toward Confrontation’.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    K. T. Kim (20 April 2006) ‘South Korea Warns of Sea Clash with Japan Amid Talks on Disputed Islets; EU Urges Calm’, Associated Press.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kim (20 April 2006) ‘South Korea Warns of Sea Clash with Japan Amid Talks on Disputed Islets; EU Urges Calm’.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    As cited in Kim (20 April 2006) ‘South Korea Warns of Sea Clash with Japan Amid Talks on Disputed Islets; EU Urges Calm’.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ralf Emmers 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ralf Emmers

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations