This article should not necessarily be considered as representing or reflecting the official position of the PRECOTH.Google Scholar

1. Samguk sagi gwon je 414 yeoljeon je 4 Yi Sa-bu [Yi Sa-bu's history of the three kingdoms, vol. 414, a series of biographies, no. 4]. Song, Byeong-gi, Dokdo Yeongyukwon Jaryoseon [A collection of materials on Dokdo] (Chuncheon: Hanrim University Press, 2004), pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

2. Ulleungdo is a Korean island located some 87.4 kilometers northwest of Dokdo.Google Scholar

3. Kim, Byeong-ryeol, Dokdo nya Takeshima nya [Dokdo or Takeshima?] (Seoul: Dada Media, 1997), p. 134.Google Scholar

4. According to his account, some 3,000 Korean residents in Ulleungdo coexisted uneasily with some 250 Japanese settlers, a majority of whom had come from the Japanese island of Oki and were there mainly for lumber and fish. “Despatch from J. N. Jordan to the Marquess of Salisbury, 24 July 1899,” British Documents on Foreign Affairs: Reports and Papers from the Foreign Office Confidential Print, part I, vol. 7 (1989–1994), pp. 73–75.Google Scholar

5. Lee, Su-Hoon, “Transitional Politics of Korea, 1987–1992: Activation of Civil Society,” Pacific Affairs 66, No. 3 Autumn 1993): 351.Google Scholar

6. Recently and interestingly, the relentless march of the Internet has caught up with the civic Korean Dokdo movement and has become its chief information medium. For example, the Party for Tokdo Protection, through its website, is seeking 10,000,000 signatures as part of its campaign calling for the government to designate October 23 as “Dokdo Day” (http://www.tokdo.co.kr/kor/index.htm).Google Scholar

7. For the aim and details of the law, see “A Special Law on the Development of Dok-do,” Legislation No. 151915, April 2, 1999; “A Special Law on the Development of Dok-do,” Legislation No. 160041, June 28, 2000.Google Scholar

8. “A Special Law for Conserving and Exploiting Dok-do,” Legislation No. 171196, December 24, 2004.Google Scholar

9. “[GNP] stages a fight for nullifying the new Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement,” Hankook ilbo (Seoul), January 21, 1999, p. 4.Google Scholar

10. A CCK statement was issued that read, “A series of absurd Japanese remarks on Dok-do are not tolerable. The Church of Korea and 12,000,000 Christians make our position clear to this extent.” The statement also called for greater Japanese repentance for the atrocities inflicted on Korean independence fighters and Christians during Japanese occupation. “A hymn sounded on our land Dok-do: The Christian Council of Korea holds on-the-spot special prayer meeting,” Kookmin ilbo, March 20, 1996, p. 13.Google Scholar

11. According to Korean sources, during the twelve-month period after March 1, 1919, 7,645 Koreans were killed and 45,562 were injured in the anti-nationalist suppression. Japanese sources reported far fewer casualties: 341 Koreans killed and 1,409 wounded. Chung, Henry, The Case of Korea (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1922), p. 346. For the foreigners' account of the Japanese atrocities practiced on Koreans, see Commission on Relations with the Orient of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, The Korean Situation: Authentic Accounts of Recent Events by Eye Witness (New York: Federal Council of the Churches of Christ, 1919), pp. 16–18.Google Scholar

12. “Japan, renounce your aggressive nature: Literary men, civic groups gathered to denounce falsification of historical facts,” Seoul sinmun, March 2, 1996, p. 23.Google Scholar

13. “The hundred who transferred family register to Dokdo holding inaugural meeting,” Dong-a ilbo, March 1, 2000, p. 31.Google Scholar

14. “Serial assemblies denunciating Japanese militarism,” Segye ilbo, August 16, 2002, p. 21.Google Scholar

15. “Embarrassing recall of maritime affairs minister from the ceremony for the completion of Dok-do wharf facilities,” Moonhwa ilbo, November 7, 1997, p. 2.Google Scholar

16. Kimura, Hiroshi, Japanese Russian Relations Under Brezhnev and Andropov (Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 2000), p. 68.Google Scholar

17. February 7 was selected to mark the same day Japan and Russia signed the Treaty of Commerce, Navigation, and Delimitation in 1855.Google Scholar

18. Stronach, Bruce, Beyond the Rising Sun: Nationalism in Contemporary Japan (London: Praeger, 1995), p. 150.Google Scholar

19. Nippon izokukai, http://www.nippon-izokuki.jp.Google Scholar

20. This figure is based on my interview with a staff member of the group in May 2005.Google Scholar

21. The MITI has been renamed Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI). Hereafter, METI is used to refer to both METI and MITI.Google Scholar

22. “Koizumi, a rumour of secret promise,” Donga.com, August 10, 2001.Google Scholar

23. Shimane Prefectural Assembly, 397th Ordinary Session, 1st Day (November 26, 2003).Google Scholar

24. Kaere shimato umi taikai sengen: Takeshima hoppōryōdo henkan yokyu undō shimane taikai [Return the island and the sea: Shimane prefecture convention of the campaign for demanding the restoration of Takeshima and the Northern Territories], paper presented at the conference held in Shimane prefecture on November 15, 2003, pp. 7–8, 11–16, 17–22.Google Scholar

25. Shimane Prefectural Assembly, 361st Ordinary Session, 1st Day (February 27, 1996).Google Scholar

26. Shimane Prefectural Assembly, 369th Ordinary Session, 3rd Day (December 5, 1997).Google Scholar

27. Shimane Prefectural Assembly, 398th Ordinary Session, 9th Day (March 15, 2004).Google Scholar

28. Members of the Prefectural Assembly also presented Takeshima no ryōdoken kakurizu ni kansuru ikensho [A memorial for solidifying territorial right over Takeshima]. See Shimane Prefectural Assembly, 398th Ordinary Session, 8th Day (March 4, 2004).Google Scholar

29. “200-nm EEZ revived confrontation over Takeshima,” Asahi shimbun, morning edition, February 9, 1996, p. 3.Google Scholar

30. “Cancellation of Korea-Japan summit meeting under consideration,” Hankook ilbo, February 11, 1996, p. 1.Google Scholar

31. “All diplomatic schedules under reconsideration, resolute stance,” Kyunghyang shinmun, February 11, 1996, p. 3.Google Scholar

32. The ruling DLP had been formed in January 1990 as a result of the merger between former president Roh's ruling Democratic Justice Party (DJP), the then opposition leader Kim Young Sam's Democratic Party, and another opposition leader Kim Jong Pil's Republican Party.Google Scholar

33. “Let's lay a cornerstone for the 21st century,” Hankook ilbo, January 1, 1996, p. 8.Google Scholar

34. “Dok-do sensation, weighing of merits and demerits,” Segye ilbo, February 12, 1996, p. 2.Google Scholar

35. “South-North relations, the current surrounding 11 April general election viewed from variables and points of contention,” Hankyure shinmun, March 2, 1996, p. 5.Google Scholar

36. “An absurd remark, Japanese annexation of Korea was legitimate,” Segye ilbo, October 11, 1995, p. 1.Google Scholar

37. Japan's Murayama cabinet had also incurred President Kim's displeasure when it bypassed Seoul in a tentative rapprochement with North Korea. In June 1995, Tokyo agreed with Pyongyang to provide 300,000 tons of rice, which would alleviate North Korea's food shortage. This was followed in October by a second agreement, to provide another 200,000 tons of rice. Seoul saw Tokyo's overture as having bypassed and essentially ignored its own inter-Korea relations policy. Kim, Hong Nack and Hammersmith, Jack L., “Japanese-North Korean Relations in the Post-Kim Il-sung Era,” Korea and World Affairs 24, No. 4 (Winter 2000): 598–599.Google Scholar

38. The ULD refuted such criticism as groundless political slander and attributed blame for the present diplomatic row with Japan to a government (and NKP) that had been caught off its guard and had engaged in no other strategy than playing a game of bluff. In fact, no diplomatic record on the normalization talks suggests that Kim Jong Pil proposed that Dokdo should be bombed, although he proposed third-party mediation in response to the insistence of his counterpart, Japanese foreign minister Ohira Masayoshi, on the submission of the issue to the ICJ. “Dokdo becomes an issue of general election,” Kyunghyang shinmun, March 16, 1996, p. 2.Google Scholar

39. “Touching YS on his sour spot,” Hanky ore shinmun, March 16, 1996, p. 6.Google Scholar

40. “A call on Mr. Kim Jong Pil and Lee Dong Won for explaining Dokdo problem,” Dong-a ilbo, March 1, 1996, p. 2.Google Scholar

41. Ibid.Google Scholar

42. “S. Korea raps LDP's claim over disputed islands,” Kyodo News International, October 1, 1996.Google Scholar

43. Prior to the lower house elections, Morita Minoru, a veteran political analyst, uttered a comment supporting this view: “The LDP in the past had a strong flavor for moderate policies but because it is weak now, it cannot reject the nationalist or right-wing group proposals within the party.” “New electoral system seen as main poll factor,” Kyodo News International, October 4, 1996.Google Scholar

44. Ozawa, Ichiro, Blue Print for a New Japan: The Rethinking of a Nation (Tokyo: Kodansha International, 1994), p. 94. Hook, Glenn D. and McCormack, Gavan, Japan's Contested Constitution: Document and Analysis (London: Routledge, 2001), p. 39.Google Scholar

45. “Commentary says Japanese leader's visit to war shrine shows ‘hawk’ nature,” BBC Morning, Asia Pacific-Economic Section, August 1, 1996.Google Scholar

46. Bureau for Budgetary Policy, National Assembly, 2000 Nyeondo gukjeong gamsa jaryeojip (IV)-tongil oegyo tongsang wiwonhoe [A collection of materials on parliamentary inspection for the year 2000 (IV), Committee on National Unification, Foreign Affairs, and International Trade], September 2000, p. 157.Google Scholar

47. Interview with Hwang Baek-hyeon, January 12, 2004.Google Scholar

48. “Fishermen come forth in defending Dok-do,” Seoul shinmun, December 29, 1999, p. 22.Google Scholar

49. A ri is a subdivision of a gun (county). Before this upgrade of administrative status, Dokdo was categorized as one of Ulleung county's twenty-four ri. Google Scholar

50. Bureau for Budgetary Policy, 2000 nyeondo gukjeong, p. 158.Google Scholar

51. “Japanese prime minister Mori ‘Dokdo is our land,’ KBS televised omitted remarks,” Dong-a ilbo, September 27, 2000, p. 2.Google Scholar

52. “‘Why does government remain silent?’: Civic groups protest against Japanese prime minister's absurd remark followed,” Chosun ilbo, September 28, 2000, p. 30.Google Scholar

53. “South Korean ministry brushes off Japanese premier's remark on disputed isle,” BBC Morning, Asia Pacific, September 26, 2000.Google Scholar

54. Although the ostensible reason for his recall was routine policy coordination, the measure was obviously designed to convey Seoul's displeasure.Google Scholar

55. “S. Korea continues to urge Japan to correct history textbooks,” Kyoto News International, April 10, 2002.Google Scholar

56. “Japan's distorted school history textbook ‘Dok-do is Japan's land’—Tokyo approves again,” Chosun ilbo, April 10, 2002, p. 1; “Japanese school history textbooks: ‘Dok-do is Japan's land’,” Kyunghyang shinmun, April 10, 2002, p. 1.Google Scholar

57. “Rage over government's response to Japan's history distortion,” Kookmin ilbo, April 15, 2002, p. 2.Google Scholar

58. McCurry, Justin, “Stamps stir dispute over islands,” Guardian, January 17, 2004.Google Scholar

59. “Koizumi declares Dok-do is Japan's land,” Dong-a ilbo, January 10, 2004, p. 1; “Koizumi's absurd remarks on Dok-do amounts to another invasion of Korea,” Chosun ilbo, January 11, 2004, p. 1.Google Scholar

60. “Right-wing group declares their plan to land on Takeshima,” Shikoku News, May 2, 2004, http://www.shikoku-np.co.jp/news/social/200405/20040502000114.htm.Google Scholar

61. “Five civic groups launched a movement for landing on Tsushima,” Chosun.com, May 30, 2004.Google Scholar

62. Interview with chair of the Party for the Protection of Tok-do, January 12, 2005.Google Scholar

63. Jones, Stephen B., Boundary-making: A Handbook for Statesmen, Treaty Editors, and Boundary Commissioners (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1945), preface.Google Scholar