• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Japan's Claim to Tok Islet Assailed

KCNA

    Pyongyang, January 29 (KCNA) -- The DPRK Lawyers' Society issued a white paper Wednesday disclosing the illegal nature of Japan's claim to Tok Islet and proving that the islet is part of the inviolable territory of Korea. The paper said:
    One of the major "legal grounds" the Japanese rulers have cited to back their assertion that the islet belongs to Japan is Shimane Prefectural Notice No. 40 published in 1905 whereby Tok Islet was put under the jurisdiction of Shimane Prefecture.
    The illegality of the notice lies in the fact that it diametrically runs counter to the principle of prior occupation stipulated in traditional international law.
    Korean historical books "The Chronicles of Three Kingdoms", "Geography in the True Records of Sejong," "Korean Geography" and "Korean Map" and others prove that Tok Islet belonged to Usan, a minor country that had existed in Korea, before 500 A.D. Even "Chronicle of Unknown Small Places", a book published in Japan in 1667, and books issued by the Japanese Foreign Ministry in 1896 admitted that Tok Islet belonged to Korea.
    However, the Japanese reactionaries put the islet under the jurisdiction of Shimane Prefecture close to it in 1905 and informed the then Korean feudal government of it in 1906, absurdly asserting that French-flagged whaling vessel "Liancourt" discovered it for the first time.
    The Shimane Prefectural Notice is illegal also because it was neither a state notice to the world on the legal occupation of a territory nor a legal action based on sovereignty.
    The memorandum notice allegedly representing the "state will" was not made public in an official newspaper of the government nor notified to other countries. It was only carried in a local newspaper of a prefecture, no more than a unit executing a state policy.
    It is an irrefutable fact that a prefecture can never represent the state called Japan as it is no more than a local autonomous unit. And it is a height of folly to claim that a prefectural notice was used in announcing the dominion over the islet externally in stead of a formal state memorandum proclaiming important state domestic and foreign policy resolutions at home and abroad.
    Another thing the Japanese reactionaries have cited as a "legal ground" to claim the dominium over the islet after the war is that there is no provision excluding Tok Islet from the Japanese territory in declarations and memorandums on post-war treatment of Japan issued by allies toward the end of World War II and soon after the war. This is a preposterous assertion profoundly confusing right and wrong.
    Typical of those international legal documents are "Cairo Declaration", "Potsdam Declaration" and other memorandums of the supreme command of allied forces.
    These documents clearly defined the boundary of the territory of Japan that suffered a defeat in World War II.
    All of them once again clarified to the world the legal position of Tok Islet that has been part of the inviolable territory of Korea from long ago.
    Those declarations and memorandums are international commitments with a legal binding force as they were recognized by the international community and accepted by Japan.
    Another legal ground cited by the Japanese reactionaries to support their territorial claim to Tok Islet after the war is that the islet was not mentioned in the "peace treaty with Japan" signed on September 8, 1951.
    The DPRK neither signed nor admitted it.
    Therefore, the treaty can never serve as legal standards in settling the post-war issues between the DPRK and Japan.
    The DPRK disclosed the illegality of the treaty and declared that it would not admit it through the statement of the Foreign Ministry issued on September 15, 1951.
    Such being a stark fact, Japan is claiming dominium over the Tok Islet, citing the article of the treaty as a ground. So the DPRK is compelled to clarify its stand on that article.
    Ullung Islet is mentioned along with Jeju Island and Komun Island in Paragraph A, Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the treaty dealing with the territorial boundary of Korea.
    It should be understood that Ullung Islet includes Tok islet, a small islet near it.
    The marking of Tok Islet as part of Japan's territory was deleted from the treaty thanks to the viewpoints of Britain and other participants that Tok Islet has historically belonged to Korea.
    As seen above, all the grounds cited by the Japanese reactionaries to negate Korea's control over Tok Islet and make it part of Japan's territory are brigandish and illogical ones both from the historical point of view and the international legal point of view. So they are no more than sophism to justify their territorial claim to Tok Islet.