Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Dokdo

[edit] Mediation open

Here we start the mediation. Firstly I want to know about the discussion topic. So please write your comments below with maximum of 120 words with valid arguments. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 06:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Wikimachine

The conflicts are primarily results of Opp2's extreme JPOV stance.

• Opp2 can't stand how "Japan disputes the S. Korean jurisdiction" & advocates "Japan and S. Korea disputes over the..." instead. Grammatically & in plain logics, S. Korea doesn't have to dispute its own claim when it has complete right over the island.
• Opp2 states that "despite Japanese protest" must be included in conjunction with the statement "controlled by S. Korea" (similarly worded) within the same sentence. "Japan protests/disputes" is already included in the introduction, but Opp2 insists on phrasing the words that way because "it leaves a more lasting impression" and it's international NPOV (never heard of). Opp2's suggestion makes the introduction sound really really awkward.
• International POV: Opp2 says that without directly acknowledging Japanese protest, its validity of protest becomes ignored (???). I personally have no idea on what he's talking about, but if he sees this article as a vehicle to contest S. Korea's sovereignty over the island, no. S. Korea owns the island, just like Japan owns Tsushima & there's nothing that can be done about it.
• References: Opp2 reverts my edit that include hours of work that resulted in genuine references. I'm not even sure if Opp2 ever looked at them, but he says that I never consulted with him over the POVness of the references... It seems that he's taking "revenge/comeback" for me rejecting his references with valid reasons. All he told me was "I'll talk to the mediator". (Wikimachine 22:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC))
• Terra nullius: Plenty of refs that I've provided at the Dokdo talk page say that the Japanese government took the island under terra nullius. Opp2's scholar is advocating a new position -as any scholar would do when writing a paper. (Wikimachine 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Comments from Opp2

Dokdo is [syc] currently administered by South Korea, ….

In International Law, not “administered” but “occupied” is appropriate. Because a Korean activity is invalid by Japanese protests. Please read this VAN’s thesis[1] (p.16-p23). UN also say “Sovereignty is unsettled”[2](See Liancourt Rocks). Despite this VAN’s thesis was presented from KPOV side, inconvenient part for Korea is excluded as OR. And, because “Dokdo” is Korean name, it is necessary to describe that clearly first for NPOV.

Japanese claims come from [syc], as well as a "terra nullius" incorporation in 1905.

This is not Japanese claim. A Korean thesis is a source of this description and "terra nullius" is generated.[3]

In addition, the edit that weakened the impression of "Dispute" was performed without the discussion[4].--Opp2 08:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"UN also say “Sovereignty is unsettled”[5](See Liancourt Rocks). " Please fix your link as the current one does not fit into this discussion.

[edit] Comments from Ginnre

Sorry I'm late but I want to leave my short comment. Basically I like the current opening paragraph as-is. It has been established to the current form after long discussion. However, Opp2 raised objections against using the term 'terra nullius' in the paragraph. It was meant that although some scholars used the term to describe the situation at that time, official Japanese position never used the term. If this claim is correct, I can accept to modify that part without using the term 'terra nullius'. Other than that, I don't see much need to modify the opening paragraph. Opp2's referring to international law and details are not appropriate in the opening paragraph. Those can be mentioned in a proper length balanced with what Korean side says later. Opening paragraph is to introduce an object and the status quo of the object in a concise way. No more than that should be included and that was what's been discussed and came to the concensus for the current one. Ginnre 06:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dokdo Introduction

Please write Dokdo Introduction below according to you with citing all the references and using proper grammer in proper format. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 07:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimachine's Suggested Introduction Fix

Dokdo is a group of islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) administered by South Korea and claimed by Japan. Other names of the island include Takeshima in Japanese, and Liancourt Rocks in English, after a French whaler who charted the islets in 1849.^[1] In English, the South Korean government refers to Dokdo as "Dokdo",^[2] and the Korean Central News Agency of North Korea as Tok Islet.^[3]

Japan disputes South Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo, based on historical records extending back to the seventeenth century,^[4] and the 1905 terra nullius incorporation.^[5] Japan designates the islets as a part of Okinoshima Town of the Oki District in Shimane Prefecture.^[6]

South Korea bases its claim on records that date back to the sixth century,^[7] including the 1900 Korean Empire ordinance that officially incorporated Dokdo into the modern-day Ulleung County of the Gyeongsangbuk-do. North Korea publicly supports the control of the island by "the Korean nation".^[3]

[edit] OPP2's PROPOSAL

Dokdo (Takeshima) is a group of islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) whose sovereignty remains unsettled. ^[8] The islets are claimed by both Japan and South Korea, but have been occupied by South Korea since 1954 despite repeated protests by Japan. ^{[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]} Takeshima is the Japanese name, officially given when Japan incorporated it into the Shimane Prefecture in 1905.^[18] And Dokdo is the Korean name, which the Koreans formally gave in 1906, after Japan notified them of its incorporation.^{[19] [20]} The islets had been also known as the Liancourt Rocks in English, since the French whaling ship charted the islets in 1849.

Japanese claims are based on seventeenth century records and a reconfirmation of their intent to incorporate it into the Shimane Prefecture, as they did in 1905. ^{[21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]}Japan designates the islets as a part of Okinoshima Town of the Oki District in Shimane Prefecture.^[27]

Korean claims are based on records that date back to the sixth century, including the 1900 Korean Empire ordinance that officially incorporated Dokdo into the modern-day Ulleung County of the Gyeongsangbuk-do.

Meaning of "critical date":In international law the point of time falling at the end of a period within which the material facts of dispute are said to have occurred is usually called the "critical date." It is also the date after which the actions of the parties to a dispute can no longer affect issue. It is exclusionary, and it is terminal. Hence is most frequently resorted to in territorial disputes to indicate the period within which a party should be able to show the consolidation of its title or its fulfillment of the requirement of the doctrine of occupation.[6] --Opp2 23:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ginner's Suggestion

Current paragraph as-is without the term 'terra nullius' or Wikimachine's. Ginnre 06:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ginnre. Opp2's introduction has parts that I do not like and seems to be leaning towards the pro-Japanese point of view. It's either w/o "terra-nullius" or Wikimachine's introduction. --DandanxD 12:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification needed and deadline to produce introduction

Wikimachine mentions in the first paragraph of the intoduction: In English, the South Korean government refers to Dokdo as "Dokdo" with citing a reference. The statement itself is confusing and the reference also does not make a clear-cut idea. Please either cite the proper reference or modify the line accordingly. In addition to that, if other parties want to propose other intoduction then they could make it within two more days. The introduction after 07:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC) would not be acceptable. Shyam ^(T/C) 17:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's confusing w/ common daily logic/etc. but really that's the best I could go in order to show how the two Korean government refer to the island officially. So, what you mean by proper reference is an official paper from the S. Korean government? The citation is from the S. Korean government's English website, Korea.net. (Wikimachine 23:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Proposed introduction draft

Here I am going to propose draft of the Dokdo introduction. I suppose, the most of the present introduction part is the NPOV that requires slight modification.

Dokdo (Takeshima in Japanese^[28]) is a group of islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea), where sovereignty is still unsettled.^[8] Dokdo is currently disputed group of islets between South Korea and Japan, which is currently administered by South Korea. The islets are also known as the Liancourt Rocks (in English) after the French whaling ship Liancourt which charted the islets in 1849.^[1]

Japan disputes South Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo, based on historical records extending back to the seventeenth century,^[4] and the 1905 terra nullius incorporation.^[5] Japan designates the islets as a part of Okinoshima Town of the Oki District in Shimane Prefecture.^[6]

South Korea bases its claim on records that date back to the sixth century,^[7] including the 1900 Korean Empire ordinance that officially incorporated Dokdo into the modern-day Ulleung County of the North Gyeongsang province. North Korea publicly supports the control of the island by "the Korean nation".^[3]

1. ^ ^{a b} Kim Tae-gyu (2006-09-06). Dokdo winning over Takeshima in cyberspace (English). Korea Times. Retrieved on 2007-01-21. “Le Liancourt, a French whaler, thought he first discovered the islets in 1849 and named them after himself.”
2. ^ "Cell phones give Korean ring to Dokdo", Korea.net, 2007-01-12. Retrieved on 2007-01-21. (in English)
3. ^ ^{a b c} Minju Joson Calls for Defending Tok Islet (English). KCNA (2006-4-23). Retrieved on 2007-01-21. “As long as there is the Korean nation which regards the patriotic soul more precious than life, the islet will remain forever a sacred territory of the Korean nation. The Japanese reactionaries are well advised to immediately give up their wild ambition to grab Tok Islet, which will give rise to catastrophic consequences.”
4. ^ ^{a b} First Japanese Record on Tokdo. Retrieved on 2007-01-21.
5. ^ ^{a b} Sean Fern (2005-04-20). Tokdo or Takeshima? The International Law of Territorial Acquisition in the Japan-Korea Island Dispute (English). Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs 83. Stanford University. Retrieved on 2007-01-21. “The Japanese claim to have incorporated Liancourt – land they considered to be terra nullius – into Shimane Prefecture on February 22, 1905.”
6. ^ ^{a b} About Takeshima. Shimane Prefectural Government. Retrieved on 2007-01-27.
7. ^ ^{a b} Kim Byong-kuk (2002-11-21). Japan's Preposterous Claims on Tok-do (English). Korea Times. Retrieved on 2007-01-21. “Historical verification goes back to the ``Samkuk Saki" (History of The Kingdoms: Koguryo, Paekche and Silla) authored by Kim Pu-sik which recorded that Silla Kingdom during the reign of King Chi-chung annexed in 512 A.D. the Usankuk (three peak islands of Ullung-do and Tok-do) in the East Sea.”
8. ^ ^{a b} United Nations. List of Territories (English). Retrieved on 2007-02-10. “Status of Liancourt Rock :Sovereignity Unsettled”
9. ^ CIA (2007-02-08). The world fact book (English). CIA. Retrieved on 2007-02-10. “South Korea and Japan claim Liancourt Rocks (Tok-do/Take-shima), occupied by South Korea since 1954”
10. ^ "Seoul and Tokyo hold island talks", BBC, 2005-04-20. Retrieved on 2007-02-10. (in English) “Japan's and South Korea's claims go back centuries, but islands occupied by S Korea since 1953”
11. ^ Anthony, Faiola. "Islands Come Between South Korea and Japan", TIME, 2005-05-16. Retrieved on 2007-02-10. (in English) “Occupied by South Korea in the 1950s, the islands are coveted largely for their fishing rights. The Japanese have called the occupation illegal.”
12. ^ "Liancourt Rocks". The Columbia Encyclopedia. (2001-05). Columbia University Press. “the Liancourt Rocks are claimed by Japan and South Korea, and have been occupied by South Korea since 1954.”
13. ^ "Key facts over disputed islands", TVNZ, 2005-05-16. Retrieved on 2007-02-10. (in English) “South Korea has built lodgings, lighthouses and a monitoring facility on the islets despite repeated protests by Japan.”
14. ^ GrovalSecurity. Liancourt Rocks / Takeshima / Dokdo / Tokto (English). GrovalSecurity. Retrieved on 2007-02-10. “During the rule of Syngman Rhee, South Korean navy vessels were dispatched to chase away Japanese intruders on the island. Since 1954, South Korea's Coast Guard has been stationed there as a symbol of the nation's ownership. Since July 1954 to the present, the Republic of Korea has stationed a number of security guards on Takeshima, the scale of which has continued to increase year by year, including lodgings, a lighthouse, a monitoring facility and antenna. In November 1997, despite repeated protests by Japan”
15. ^ Jon M. Van Dyke. Who Owns Tok-Do/Takeshima? (English) 16-23. Retrieved on 2007-02-10. “Japan's protests appear to have been sufficient to overcome a presumption of acquiescence, and thus if Korea's claim were based solely on its occupation of the islets since World War II, these protests could be seen as adequate to block a claim based on prescription. If Korea's claim is based on its earlier historical exercises of sovereignty over the islet, however, Japan's persistent protests would be less significant.Korea has been unreceptive to Japan's initiatives to submit the dispute to the ICJ, saying that there is no dispute to resolve. This position may be viewed later by a tribunal as inconsistent with the obligation of every state to resolve disputes peaceably, and Korea may be asked to explain whether the ICJ was in some way an inadequate or unfair forum.”
16. ^ Kim, Chan Kyu. 獨島問題와 國際裁判(Dokdo problem and International justice) (Korean) 159. Retrieved on 2007-02-11. “현재 한일간에 서로 주장이 다르나 국제판례나 국내 여러 국제 법학자 들의 견해로는 독도문제의 결정적 기일은 일본의 주장대로 일본이 처음 공식 항의를 제기한 1952년 2월 28일이 될 가능성이높은 것으로 되어 있다.(Judicial precedents and a lot of domestic(Korean) scholars of International Law say that the critical date will be set on February 28, 1952 as Japan insisted.)”
17. ^ "Japan send the verbal note every year", Chosunilbo, 2005-03-21. Retrieved on 2007-02-14. (in Japanese) “日本政府が毎年3月には独島（トクド）に対する領有権を主張する口上書（Verbal Note）を韓国政府宛てに送っている。口上書は「在大韓民国・日本国大使館は大韓民国外交部に対し、竹島（独島の日本式名称）が歴史的にも、法的にも日本固有の領土ということを明らかにする。大韓民国は竹島に対する不法な領有を中断することを要請する」という二つの文章からなる。(Japan sends the verbal note to the South Korea government every year. The note says that Takeshima is Japanese territory legally and historically and Japan requests South Korea to discontinue an unlawful occupation.)”
18. ^ Shimane Prefectual Government. Chronological Table of Takeshima. Press release. Retrieved on 2007-02-11. “January 28, 1905 Takeshima is officially named during a cabinet meeting, and is put under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands, Shimane Prefecture.”
19. ^ GrovalSecurity. Liancourt Rocks / Takeshima / Dokdo / Tokto (English). GrovalSecurity. Retrieved on 2007-02-10. “The name 'Dokdo' appears for the first time in the Report of Sim Heungtak, the governor of Ulleung-gun in 1906.”
20. ^ Lee, Sang-tae. "Dokdo Is Korean Territory", Korean Fundation. Retrieved on 2007-02-10. (in English) “As for Korean documents, the name Dokdo was first found in a report prepared by Ulleung county governor Sim Heung-taek in 1906.”
21. ^ Kawakami, Kenzo (1996-06). Takashima no Rekisi Chirigaku teki kenkyu(Geography and historical research on Takeshima) (in Japanese). Japan: Kokon Syoin, 79. ISBN 4-7722-1856-4. “万治三年または寛文元年の松島渡海というのは、大谷・村川両家が幕府の正式承認の下に、同島におもむくようになった年を意味しているようにも考えられる。(The year 1660 or 1661 is also cinsidered as the year when both House of Ohtani and Murakawa began to land the Matsushima Island(present Takeshima) by permission of the Shogunate.)” 
22. ^ The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (2004-03). The Issue of Takeshima. Press release. Retrieved on 2007-02-11. “The measures to incorporate Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture in 1905, through the Cabinet decision and notification by Shimane Prefecture reaffirmed the intention of the Japanese government to claim territorial rights as a modern nation over Takeshima. There were no indications that Japan did not hold territorial rights prior to that, nor were there any counter claims by any other country of territorial rights over Takeshima. In addition, the incorporation of Takeshima was reported in the newspapers and was not undertaken secretly, hence it can be seen to have been implemented validly.”
23. ^ Serita, Kentaro (2002-06). Nihon no Ryodo(Japanese Territory). Japan: Tyukou sousyo, 153. ISBN 354063293X. “日本政府はこの領土編入行為を無主地に対する先占行為とは認めておらず、この点に関する日本の主張は開国以前の日本には国際法の適用はないので、当時にあっては、実際に日本で日本の領土と考え、日本の領土として扱い、他国がそれを争わなければ、それで領有するのは十分であったと認められるというものである。(Japanese Government doesn't admit the incorporation as the title by occupation of terra nullius. Japan insist that if she treated Takeshima as a Japanese territory at that time and another country didn't dispute, it is enough to acquisition. Because International Law is not applied before the country is opened to the world.)” 
24. ^ Daijyudo, Kanae (1998-09). Ryodo kizoku no Kokusaihou(International law about territory) (in Japanese). Japan: Toshindo, 143. ISBN 978-4887133044. “日本政府による明治38年の領土編入措置と、それに続く国家機能の継続した発現は、十七世紀に、当時の国際法にもほぼ合致して有効に設定されたと思われる日本の権原を、現代的な要請に応じて十分に取替えるものであった。(The incorporation in 1905 and the effective control afterwards according to modern demand are enough to change the title which seems to be acquired effectively by Japan in the 17th century in conformity with the International Law of those days.)” 
25. ^ Bak, Baegun (2006-08-05). Nihonniyoru tosyosensen no syosennrei (in Japanese). Japanese Society of International Law, 38. “竹島/独島に対する領域権原を近代国際法に照らして確実なものにするために日本が先占のような追加措置を取ることは、近代国際法の観点からみると論理的に可能なことであり、意義のないことでもない。(It is logically possible to do additional act same as the case of title by occupation for Takeshima to clarify Japanese territorial title based on modern International Law. And, it is not meaningless.)” 
26. ^ Minagawa, Takeshi (1985-03). Kokusaiho kenkyu(Research of International Law) (in Japanese). Japan: Yuhikaku, 228. ISBN 4-641-04568-2. “日本の原始的タイトルは存続したものとみなされるべきで、それが、1905年実効的占有(effective possesion)という実体国際法の要求する権原に代替されたのである。(Japanese ancient title should be considered to be continuance. And, the ancient title was substituted to the title by effective possesion in 1905 that is demanded by International Law.)” 
27. ^ Shimane Prefectual Government. About Takeshima. Press release. Retrieved on 2007-02-11. “Takeshima is part of Okinoshima Town, Oki-gun, Shimane Prefecture”
28. ^ Shimane Prefectual Government. Chronological Table of Takeshima. Press release. Retrieved on 2007-02-11. “January 28, 1905 Takeshima is officially named during a cabinet meeting, and is put under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands, Shimane Prefecture.”

[edit] Acceptance of intro draft

Agree Please sign your agreements below using 4 tildes (~~~~), if you completely agree with the proposal.

Disagree Please mark your points on which you disagrre. But be brief and describe in maximum of three lines making specific points within three days. After 16:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC) any points about disagreement would not be considered. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 15:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support I suggest that minor grammar & style errors be fixed. The first two sentences sound repetitve, as they both mention "disputed". Also, avoiding passive tense & using active tense might be better. (Wikimachine 22:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

These two sentense do not seem to me repetitive as they illustrate seperate points. Please let ne know the correction about active-passive and grammatical errors. Shyam ^(T/C) 12:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree Please do not run away from the contradiction of your proposal. Let's accomplish the accountability. Is the sovereignty of South Korea set though sovereignty is unsettled why?--Opp2 12:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)