Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

Historical Distortion or Ignorance?

April 27th, 2007 . by Gerry-Bevers

The following 1711 Korean map shows a small island just off the east coast of Ulleungdo in a location that is very close to where Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo is today (See more of the map here.) On the island is written the following:

所謂 于山島 – 海長竹田 (소위 우산도  – 해장죽전)

“the so-called Usando – fields of haejangjuk”

Hanmaumy, who is an occasional commenter here at Occidentalism, translated 海長竹田 on his Web site here as follows:

“해장죽전(海長竹田)”이라는 말은 “해안을 따라 길 게 늘어선 대나무의 밭”이라는 뜻으로 ….

Haejangjukjeon (海長竹田) means “a field of bamboo that stretches along the coastline.”

I do not know if Hanmaumy mistranslated haejangjuk (海長竹) on purpose or out of ignorance, but the real meaning of haejangjuk, according to Korea’s “National Institute of Korean Language” dictionary is as following:

해장-죽 (海藏竹)
〔해장죽만[해ː-중-]〕「명」『식』 볏과의 상록성 식물. 줄기의 높이는 6~7미터이며, 마디의 사이가 길고, 잎은 좁은 피침 모양이다. 5월에 보라색의 잔꽃이 잎겨드랑이에 원추(圓錐) 꽃차례로 피고 열매는 긴 타원형의 영과(穎果)로 가을에 익는다. 줄기는 낚싯대, 지팡이로 쓰고 죽순은 식용한다. 일본이 원산지로 바닷가나 촌락 부근에서 자라는데 우리나라 남부 지방에 분포한다. ≒식대01. (Arundinaria simonii)

The above definition describes haejangjuk as a unique kind of bamboo (Arundinaria simonii) that can grow 6-7 meters tall. That distinguishes the bamboo on “Usando” because it was the only place on the 1711 map  of Ulleungdo where “haejang bamboo” was written. By the way, in Korean historical documents, the 藏 in 海藏竹 was regularly replaced by the character 長, both of which have the same Korean pronunciation.

Hanmaumy was not the only one to made the translation error; Korea’s almighty “Northeast Asian History Foundation” (동북아역사재단) made a similar error. In fact, I think Hanmaumy may have gotten his translation from the foundation. Here is what Korea’s “Northeast Asian History Foundation” had to say about haejangjukjeon (See my post here):

“해장죽전(海長竹田) 소위 우산도”는 수토관이 구체적으로 조사하지 않고 해안을 따라 길게 대나무가 있는 죽도(대섬)와 당시 안용복의 활동을 통해 분명히 드러난 우산도(독도)를 그린 것으로 추정

Concerning “haejangjukjeon (海長竹田), the so-called Usando,” it is believed that the inspector did not conduct a “concrete” investigation, but just followed the coastline and drew Jukdo (Bamboo Island), with its tall bamboo, and Usando (Dokdo), which was determined clearly at about that time by the activities of An Yong-bok.

Notice that Korea’s almighty Northeast Asian History Foundation also mistranslated haejagjuk as “tall bamboo” along the coastline. Not only that, the foundation said that “Jukdo (Bamboo Island) and Usando (Dokdo)” were both drawn on the map, which was simply not true.

Are Korean historians intentionally distorting history, or are they really that ignorant? I think it is the former.

75 Responses to “Historical Distortion or Ignorance?”

  1. comment number 1 by: pacifist

    toadface wrote;

    Takeshima lobbyists always quote Dean Rusk’s opinion as representative of the overall American view on Dokdo. But of course this is a falsehood.

    Every one, if you read the following, you will notice that how toadface is deceiving people. It was not only Rusk’s will but also USA’s will. To follow is an old posting I made somewhere else:

    As for the San Francisco Peace Treaty, it didn’t include Takeshima/Dokdo in the list of Korean territory which was to be returned to Korea, it was intentionally delited from the list by USA.

    It is apparent if you read the following data – written in chronological order.

    1) 29th January 1946 – SCAPIN 677 (placed Takeshima/Dokdo outside Japan)

    2) 22nd June 1946 – SCAPIN 1033 (blocked Japan from exploiting the adjacent ocean resources)

    3) 16th September 1947 – SCAPIN 1778 (the islets for use by the Allied Powers as a bombing range for the Far East Air Force)

    4) 19th September 1949 – SCAPIN 2046 (Abolished SCAPIN 1033)

    5) 14th November 1949 – a telegram from William Sebald to W. Walton Butterworth:
    “Article 6: Recommend reconsideration Liancourt rocks (Takeshima), Japan’s claim to these islands is old and valid. Security considerations might conceivably envisage weather and rader stations thereon”.

    6) 19th November 1949 – a letter from Butterworth to the Secretary of the State:
    “With regard to the dispositon of islands formerly posessed by Japan in the direction of Korea it is suggested that Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima) be specified in our proposed Article 3 as belonging to Japan. Japan’s claim to these islands is old and appears valid, and it is difficult to regard them as islands off the shore of Korea. Security considerations might render the provision of weather and radar station on these islands a matter of interest to the United States”.

    7) 29th December 1949 – 6th amendment of the treaty draft:
    “Article 3 1.The Territory of Japan shall comprise the four principal Japanese islands of Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku and Hokkaido and all adjacent minor islands, including the islands of the Inland sea(seto Naikai); Tsushima,Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), Oki retto, Sado, Okujiri, Rebun, Riishiri and all other islands in the Japan Sea (Nippon Kai) within a line connecting the farther shores of Tsushima, Takeshima and Rebun; the Goto archipelago, the Ryukyu Islands north of 29° N. Latitude, and all other islanls of the East China Sea east of longtude 127° east of Greenwich and north of 29°N. Latitude; the Izu Islands southward to end including Sofu Gan (lot’s Wife) and all other islands of the Philippine Sea nearer to the four principal islands than the islands named; and the Habomai group and Shikotan lying to the east and south of a line extending from a point in 43°35′ N.Lati- tude, 145°35′ E. logitude to a point in 44°N. latitude, 146°30′ E. longitude, and to the south of a line drawn due east on the parsllel in 44° N. Lati- tude. All of the islands identified above, with a three-mile belt of territorial waters, shall belong to Japan”.

    8) July 1950 – Commentary on Draft Treaty of Peace with Japan:
    (It also says that takeshima belongs to Japan)

    9) 19th July 1951 – Korea wants amendment. Korean ambassador had a meeting with John Foster Dulles:
    “Mr. Dulles then inquired as to the location of the two islands, Dokdo and Parangdo. Mr. han stated that these were two small islands lying in the Sea of Japan, he believed in the general vicinity of Ullungdo. Mr. Dulles asked whether these islands had been Korean before the Japanese annexation, to which the Ambassador replied in the affirmative. If that were the case, Mr Dulles saw no particular problem in including these islands in the pertinent part of the treaty which related to the renunciation of Japanese territorial claims to Korean territory”.

    10) the last draft of treaty:
    “In the document footnote 2 above, Mr. Rusk continued : “As regards the island of Dokdo… this normally uninhibited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea”. (Korea had in the meantime withdrawn the claim to Parangdo.)

    11) 8th September 1951 peace Conference – (treaty coming into effect on 28th April 1952)

    12) 18th January 1952 – President Ree declared 海洋主権宣言
    (Japan made an objection on 28th January 1952)

    13) 1954 – “Report of Ambassador James A. Van Fleet”
    “Unilateral proclamation of sovereignty over the seas (Syngman Rhee line) is illegal.
    The United States had concluded Japanese sovereignty over the rocks.
    The dispute over the rocks might properly be referred to the International Court of Justice”.

    Addendum (Rusk’s document; 10th August 1951)
    Excerpt: “Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea.”


  2. comment number 2 by: ponta

    If you read Japanese,Tanaka
    ‘s site is the best introduction.
    In case you don’t read Japanese,
    site is also excellent and convincing both in view of historical ground and legal ground.
    prefecture recently publicized Japanese view in English. That will also help you understand the issue.
    reviews simple but clear presentation of Japanese position.

    The most important thing is to notice that there is no Korean document no map mentioning “dokdo”, and Usando which Korea used to claim
    was Dokdo turned out to be different from Dokdo.

    What does it all means?
    It means that Japanese 1905 incorporation of Takeshima is sufficient enough to establish Japanese title.
    Anyway enjoy your study of Japanese documents
    of Liancourt rocks before Japanese government made it clear in 1905 that it belonged to Japan.

  3. comment number 3 by: pacifist

    Please note that USA already decided to include Takeshima to Japanese territory in 1949 before the Rusk’s document in 1951.
    And J.F.Dulles who met Korean ambassador didn’t think Takeshima to be Korean territory (he didn’t recognise that it had been Korean territory before 1905).

  4. comment number 4 by: pacifist

    Thanks for your interest.

    At the beginning of the Edo period (1618) the Ohya and Murakawa families of Houki-Han were granted permission from the Tokugawa Shogunate to take feudal tenure of Utsuryo Island, and ever year the families conducted fishing on and around the island, sending some of their catch of abalone in tribute to the Shogunate. Takeshima was en route to Utsuryo Island and was used as a stopover port and for fishing. In addition, at the latest by 1661 the Ohya and Murakawa families had been granted feudal tenure of Takeshima from the Shogunate.
    As the documents, Otani family’s “竹島渡海由来記” (Book about the origin of voyages to Takeshima) is famous. You can read a part of the text at somewhere of the sites ponta introduced above.
    There are of course various other documents made by officials such as Tottori-han. To follow is an example;

                   永井信濃守 尚政 判
                   井上主計頭 正就 判
                   土井大炊頭 利勝 判
                   酒井雅楽頭 忠世 判
    And the 葵紋入船印 (Tokugawa Shogunate’s mallow-shaped crest given as a permission of the voyages), which was bestowed from the General Hidetada Tokugawa to Oya family in 1618, can be seen at the Yonago San-in History Museum.
    The photo of the 葵紋入船印 can be seen also in the pamphlet “発信竹島~真の日韓親善に向けて~下條正男・拓殖大学教授に聞く” (published by San-in Chuo Nippo Co. in July 2006, ¥500).
    As for the precise maps of Takeshima, opp’s site is useful (as ponta already pointed out).
    Click the Japan – Edo period.
    Also please take a look at this site:
    Thank you again for your interest. I hope you will have an accurate knowledge about this issue.

  5. comment number 5 by: toadface

    Peazza, Pacifist is right in that Japanese records show they were conizant of Dokdo Island. But none if these records even hint that Japan considered the islands part of Japan. In fact there are plenty of Japanese maps that show the Japanese considered dokdo Korean territory.
    These Japanese maps show Dokdo mapped as Korean land.

    This Japanese report on Chosun affirmed Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (dokdo) as Korean land.

  6. comment number 6 by: toadface

    These are four pages of Japanese maps both national and prefecture maps. Ulleungdo and Dokdo are not included on any maps of Japan.

  7. comment number 7 by: toadface

    Japan has absolutely no historical claim to Dokdo Island prior to the military annexation of the island in 1905 during the Russo~Japanese War. These pages detail Japan’s appropriation of Chinese/Korean territory and the East Sea during the war.

  8. comment number 8 by: toadface

    Opp, you fail to distinguish between a “legal precedent” and opinion the cut and paste classic of yours is simply one authors interpretation of the process involved with sovereignty during occupation.

    Look, nobody is saying Japan ceased to exist as a sovereign nation after WWII. However, Japan surendered America and the allies with the duty of defining her territorial boundaries. Japan having acquiesced to the allies empowered them to deciding what territories she could have or not. America was acting as Japan’s agent.

    Because of Korea’s initial political position after WWII the allies could also define Korea’s territorial limits. However, once Korea became an independent state she was no longer subject to the whims of Dean Rusk. Dokdo being unoccupied was effectively “terra nullius” or ownerless. Not only was Japan not exercising “effective control”, under the terms of surrender Japan was forbade to.

    The post WWII mess with Dokdo is America’s fault and a case of “too bad” for Japan.

    Whatever America said years ago, to this day she wisely maintains a nuetral stance.

  9. comment number 9 by: pacifist

    Don’t believe toadface, he is always deceiving people with distorted information:
    I will take a look at the 4 maps toadface introduced in his posting #55.
    1) The first map he showed was by Kinseki Mori and it only depicted Takeshima (ghost island, western “Argonaut island”) and Matsushima (Ulleungdo, or western “Dagelet island”, not Takeshima/Dokdo). It doesn’t say Japan admitted Dokdo to be Korean territory.
    2)The second map is toadface’s favorite. He insists that Matshushima and Takeshima were painted as the same colour as Korean mainland so that Japan admitted that these two islands belonged to Korea.
    But I think it is absurd to decide the territory by such a childish map made by a Ukiyoe printer.
    3) The third one is a copy of the above, which dosen’t mean anything.
    4) As for the fourth map in toadface’s website, the map itself was famous standard map of Japan and Takeshima in the map shows Ulleungdo today and Matsushima in the map means Takeshima/Dokdo (Liancourt rocks). This series of maps were made all through the Edo period and they are one of the proof that they knew Takeshima/Dokdo from the Edo period.
    But please notice toadface’s malicious intention: he uploaded another text “竹島松島朝鮮附属” just above the map, which was once discussed in the Occidentalism. This “Matsushima” in the text is different from the “Matsushima” in the map.
    (The former should be Jukdo, not Takeshima/Dokdo. Please read somewhere in Occidentalism about the discussion about the text.)

  10. comment number 10 by: pacifist

    As for the #56 posting by toadface, he only gathered various maps that didn’t depict Takeshima/Dokdo.
    It doesn’t mean Japan didn’t own the island. Not all of the tiny islands were depicted in the maps, there are thousands of islands in Japan. If his insistency is right, then Korea too will have to give up many tiny islands that weren’t depicted in the Korean maps, but it is ridiculous.
    Don’t be agitated by toadface. He is a professional agitator.
    As for his posting #57, as he insisted Japanese Navy put the wire on islands in Japan Sea, including Japanese islands and ownerless islands, to find the Baltic fleet approaching but as long as Takeshima/Dokdo had not ever been owned by Korea, it is not a unlawful deed.
    toadface has to prove that Korea knew and owned the island before 1905 but he failed. As long as there is no evidence that Korea owned it before 1905, toadface’s insisntency is nothing.

  11. comment number 11 by: opp

    Because of Korea’s initial political position after WWII the allies could also define Korea’s territorial limits. However, once Korea became an independent state she was no longer subject to the whims of Dean Rusk. Dokdo being unoccupied was effectively “terra nullius” or ownerless. Not only was Japan not exercising “effective control”, under the terms of surrender Japan was forbade to.

    When did Japan abandon Takeshima’s title? Can you distinguish the administrative power and title? Though Japan agreed to cease her administration, Japan never agree to abandon Takeshima’s title. South Korea only exercised the administrative power in the area where the administration of Japan had been ceased.
    As soon as Germany was defeated, Poland exercised the administrative power to the Oder Neisse line. Poland was able to make Oder and the Neisse line a border because the East Germany admitted the border by the treaty. It is not because of the occupation until the East Germany being made.

    The very considerable derogation of sovereignty involved in the assumption of powers of government by foreign states, without the consent of Germany, did not constitute a transfer of sovereignty.

    Why did Roh Moo Hyun tell it to learn Oder and the Neisse line? The reason is easy. It is because Japan doesn’t abandon Takeshima’s title. The East Germany admitted the Oder Neisse line in exchange for the release of the occupation. For Japan, there is no necessity for abandoning Takeshima looks like East Germany. Roh has admitted Japan don’t abandon Takeshima’s title.
    When you become inconvenient, you make a strange new rule without supporting of judicial precedent or the scholar of International Law. Do not cleate a groundless fantasy rule.

  12. comment number 12 by: opp

    Whatever America said years ago, to this day she wisely maintains a nuetral stance.

    It is natural. Does the United States have the jurisdiction of Japan now? The United States right concerning a Japanese territory is based on the treaty (Potsdam Declaration). And, this right was exercised by the SF treaty. The United States doesn’t have the right concerning title of Japan at all after the SF treaty. The standpoint of United States neutral confirms the SF treaty is a final decision. Her position is clear according to the rusk document. If the United States makes Japan abandon Takeshima, the SF treaty is revised according to a formal procedure. The agreement of Japan is necessary for the revision.
    Cannot you do a logical insistence based on the law?

  13. comment number 13 by: toadface

    Opp, just as the US doesn’t have jurisdiction over Japan now. The US didn’t have jurisdiction over Korea in 1951. Do you follow me?

    There are only a few facts we need here Opp. So you can rest your cut and paste buttons for a while because I’m not interested in reading reams of irrelevant crap from your legal pre-fabricated legal argument.

    1. Japan was obligated to cease exercising authority over Dokdo and the island was excluded from the definition of her territory.
    2. This defintion of Japan was to apply to all future directives unless otherwise specified.
    3. No further directives on Dokdo were issued. And the San Francisco Treaty was concluded as such.

    Conclusion: Japan is screwed. In effect by saying nothing America had made their final decision. At any rate Korea was signatory to the San Francisco Peace Treaty so it has no effect on them at all.

    The Rusk documents are not a formal request of the U.S. Government upon the Koreans Opp. That is the Japanese governments self-serving interpretation of America’s final (and wise) hands-off policy on the Dokdo issue. The final draft of the San Fransisco Peace Treaty still did not reflect any U.S. position on Dokdo, as the islands were not mentioned at all in the treaty.

    You see the Americans were playing the Japanese and the Koreans. Once they finished occupying Japan and decided they wanted to maintain a footprint on the Asian mainland (Korea) they dropped support for Japan’s claim.

    Opp, why don’t you go back to wikipedia and harass them some more?

  14. comment number 14 by: opp

    1. Japan was obligated to cease exercising authority over Dokdo and the island was excluded from the definition of her territory.
    2. This defintion of Japan was to apply to all future directives unless otherwise specified.
    3. No further directives on Dokdo were issued. And the San Francisco Treaty was concluded as such.

    HAHA. Your fantasy rule is already a lot. Why was GHQ able to be ordered to Japan? This is based on Potsdam Declaration that Japan accepted. You seem not to know there is a time limit in the occupation of Potsdam Declaration. When a peaceful government is approved to Japan, the occupation is released.

    Proclamation Defining Terms For Japanese Surrender(July 26, 1945)
    (7) Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan’s warmaking power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.
    (12)The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.

    GHQ has only the authority of the occupation based on Potsdam Declaration. This is based on the instrument of surrender on which Japan agreed. GHQ is only an organization to which the occupation was entrusted by Allied Powers.

    Instrument of Surrender(September 2, 1945)
    We hereby undertake for the Emperor, the Japanese Government and their successors to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith, and to issue whatever orders and take whatever action may be required by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by any other designated representative of the Allied Powers for the purpose of giving effect to that Declaration.

    And, because Japan had fulfilled Potsdam Declaration, the occupation was released.

    John Foster Dulles’s Speech at the San Francisco Peace Conference (September 5, 1951)
    True peace is possible because of what has been accomplished by 6 years of Allied occupation. That occupation was calm and purposeful. Japan’s war-making power was destroyed. The authority and influence of those who committed Japan to armed conquest was eliminated. Stern justice was meted out to the war criminals, while mercy was shown the innocent. There has come freedom of speech, of religion, of thought; and respect for fundamental human rights. There has been established, by the will of the people, a peacefully inclined and responsible government, which we are happy to welcome here.
    The Allied occupation goals set forth in the Potsdam Surrender Terms have been met, with the loyal cooperation of the Japanese people. It is now time to end that occupation, and make a peace which will restore Japan as a sovereign equal.

    And, all sovereignties of Japan limited based on Potsdam Declaration has been recovered.

    Treaty of Peace with Japan(September 8, 1951)
    Article 1
    (a) The state of war between Japan and each of the Allied Powers is terminated as from the date on which the present Treaty comes into force between Japan and the Allied Power concerned as provided for in Article 23.
    (b) The Allied Powers recognize the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters.

    And, Japan abandoned a Korean peninsula based on the recovering sovereignty. However, Takeshima is not included.

    Treaty of Peace with Japan(September 8, 1951)
    Article 2
    (a) Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title, and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.

    GHQ instruction cannot exceed the range of their rights. Does the right of GHQ exceed Allied Powers? Your insistence has a lot of contradiction because it is not based on the fact and the law.
    It is also important that it is not “renounced” but also “renounce”. This is evidence that Japan has not abandoned any title before the SF treaty too.

    The Rusk documents are not a formal request of the U.S. Government upon the Koreans Opp.

    You do not know International Law at all. Mr. rusk is a diplomat. It is the same position as Mr. Hill who is negotiating with North Korea now. As for the diplomat’s remark, the effect is generated in oral. Look at the document of the rusk well. What is the subject? He uses “the United States Government.” Cannot you do a logical insistence based on the law?

  15. comment number 15 by: toadface

    Nice try Opp. The Rusk document was not a formal request by the U.S. Goverment and thus not in any way or form representative of the final directive toward possession of Dokdo. Dokdo isn’t even mentioned on the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

    Japan cannot assume control over Dokdo. I’m sorry but it’s true. Boo hoo.

    Why don’t you read this article?


    Opp stop pretending to be Perry Mason!!

  16. comment number 16 by: opp

    There is Okinawa as a place where the administrative power of Japan was ceased by SCAPIN677 as same as Takeshima. When toadface’s dunny logic is applied, Okinawa seems still to be occupied by GHQ and the administrative power of Japan seems still to have been ceased. Is there cabbagehead that insists like this?
    Japan has recovered all sovereignties of Okinawa by Article 1 of the San Francisco agreement. As a result, the effect of SCAPIN lapsed. However, the United States exercised the administrative power of Okinawa until 1970. Is this an effect of SCAPIN? This answer is no. It is because a new contract is made by the SF treaty.

    Treaty of Peace with Japan(September 8, 1951)
    Article 3
    Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29�Knorth latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands), Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island. Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, Iegislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters.

    The SF treaty is a text very considered. This treaty not only adjusts to Potsdam Declaration but also passes over the outrage of occupation forces and Allied Powers.
    By the way, it is Prof. Myung-Ki Kim who is majoring in the misinterpretation that began to say that SCAPIN is still effective. Only such a foolish scholar seem to be in South Korea.

  17. comment number 17 by: ponta


    Dokdo isn’t even mentioned on the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

    It mentioned other islands which should be returned to Korea. but it didn’t mention Dokdo. That reinforces the fact that Dokdo was not considered the island that should be returned to Korea.

    Why don’t you read this article?


    Are you serious? Did you read it yourself?

    it can be held that the United States is the “conqueror” of Japan and her overseas territories. In other words, the United States has “acquired” these areas under the principle of conquest, and the disposition thereof must be conducted according to the laws of war.


    Dokdo is still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Military Government (USMG)

    Toadface, surely you must be joking.

  18. comment number 18 by: opp

    Dokdo was territory included in, and/or adjunct to, the areas “acquired” by the United States, and thus under the jurisdiction of US military authorities. As un-demarcated territory under the terms of the treaty, at the present time Dokdo is still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Military Government (USMG). Although Dokdo has no native population, there are Korean troops there now. Under the SFPT, these personnel would be considered a subordinate occupying power. This is “agency.” USMG is the principal. The Korean troops are the agent.

    What does USFG mean? Such a government doesn’t exist. Do not they know even the government approval of International Law? Is USMG is the principal? Is the government that doesn’t exist a principle? The South Korean fabricates the rule and the government that doesn’t exist when inconvenient. It is really foolish.

    Under the SFPT, these personnel would be considered a subordinate occupying power.
    Of course, responsibility for the implementation of such decisions would rest with the US Commander in Chief.

    Does US Commander in Chief direct states without agreement of states? Are the states subjected to one commander? It is a redoubtable conception.
    They seem to think that Okinawa is still under the occupation. This author seems not to know that GHQ is have only right of occupation.
    乙 委員会ハ軍事行動ノ遂行ニ関シ又ハ領土ノ調整ニ関シテハ勧告ヲ為スコトナカルベシ
    Even in a high-ranking organization of GHQ, they didn’t be given an adjustment authority of the territory by Allied Powers. And, their insistences are easily understood that the delusion from article 1 of the SF treaty.

  19. comment number 19 by: opp

    In other words, the United States has “acquired” these areas under the principle of conquest

    The conquest became unlawful since WW1. Does the author affirm the aggressive war? Is this author a scholar? When they know International Law, such a foolish thesis cannot be written.

  20. comment number 20 by: toadface

    Opp. !!

    Who are the Hell are you to bash others who make comments on international law?

    Are you a scholar? If so where did you attend law school? What are your credentials? Please tell us.

    If you are not a lawyer how can honestly criticize a person who has a legal degree and writes about the subject. It’s like someone who gives medical advice but didn’t even pass highschool biology.

    Admit it. You are not a lawyer Opp…

    Go to law school, get a real degree, I’ll meet you back here in a decade.

    Since you like to cut and paste so much Opp. Here is a “cut and paste” from wikipedia from when you kept harassing them.

    “As you admitted, there are many theories regarding international law and historical documents. Yours is just one of them and it is very close to what Japan wants to bring the situation or interpret this situation. That’s all and enough for this article. Those can be mentioned in a proper length balanced with what Korean side says. It is no more than that and you are not entitled to write more than that here. If you want to keep writng the same thing again and again, creat your own website and write whatever you want there, not here….”

    Not being a lawyer or a judge Opp the best you can do is just give us your beliefs. I’ve given mine and yours are no better.

  21. comment number 21 by: opp

    Is wikipedia a source next to a stupid article? LOL

  22. comment number 22 by: opp

    About title by conquest
    Usual International Law is as follows.

    The Right of Conquest
    Sharon Korman shows how the First World War – which led to the rise of self-determination and to calls for the prohibition of way – prompted the reconstruction of international law and the consequent abolition of the title by conquest.

    In addition, the Hague Regulations(1907) is a law of war. It is a rule to land where military affairs were occupied in times of war. It is unrelated to the acquisition of the territorial title. Is the author of this article foolish?

  23. comment number 23 by: toadface

    So other legal professors are stupid, others who post their legal opinions are wrong and wikipedia is foolish.

    And Opp I’m still waiting for your legal credentials…

    I think it is the U of C&P (University of Cut Paste)

  24. comment number 24 by: opp

    So other legal professors are stupid, others who post their legal opinions are wrong and wikipedia is foolish.

    The professor who assumes that Takeshima is a South Korea territory should tell a lie somewhere. A certain foolish person revived the title by conquest, and fabricated the government. A certain foolish person misinterpreted the book on the scholar of International Law. A certain foolish person was retroactive and insisted on a historical title. Fabrication comes to light at once because there is impossibility in the insistence.

  25. comment number 25 by: opp

    However, after the Napoleonic Wars, international law underwent a transformation, and “annexation” was no longer permitted.

    This is a lie too. Annexation is still effective though some scholars classify into the cession. This article might have only the lie.