Case: Dokdo Island Seize by Japan and South Korea

This is the good sample of legal topics on case law of the International Sea. I will try to address this issue as our next study materials, since its topic is very interesting to discuss. The dispute over the island had long since occurred, beginning in 1905 until today. The main factor why both countries are still fighting over Dokdo Island is once again due to the natural wealth, where Dokdo Island contains many natural gas and saltwater fish. Korean historians say for thousands of years Dokdo is their territory, Japan seized control of the islands in 1905 during the war with Russia.

The dispute has lasted until today, the widespread impact, among others South Korea prepared to break diplomatic relations with Japan, withdrawing their ambassadors from Japan and South Korea, and the most dangerous are educational books in Japan and South Korea who are both claim to Dokdo Island as their territory.

Back to the initial problem, namely the effort to provide a solution by referring to the 1982 Law of the Sea, UNCLOS III Convention, which produces the following points:

1. Inland waters;
2. Territorial Sea (0-12 miles);
3. Additional pathways (12-24 miles);
4. EEZ (24-200 miles)

To clarify this case, there attached map of South Korea and Japan, as well as the island of Dokdo. On the map can be seen that the distance the island of Dokdo with South Korea as well as the outer limit of Japan is very close, that’s why these countries remain dispute. It can be seen that the distance the island of Dokdo with South Korea’s outer boundary is 133.6 miles, while the outer boundary of Japan is 152.2 miles.

In accordance with the above Law of the Sea 1982, which limits the EEZ to 200 miles, the island of Dokdo is fulfilling the criteria for the EEZ of South Korea and Japan. Indeed, it is very difficult to determine who owned the island because of the distance. So, what’s the solution?

Here, I will emphasize the Law of the Sea in 1982. We should remember, that although it is the area of EEZ, but the status of the EEZ according to Law of the Sea 1982 is “High Seas”. So for the adjoining coastal state does not have an equal footing with territorial sovereignty, but the sovereign rights for the purposes of exploration, exploitation, conservation and management of natural resources of the EEZ.

In accordance with the above case of Dokdo Island, the island is actually an area of ??EEZ, so that the two countries, should not questioning an island that measures just 190 m2. With reference to the Law of the Sea 1982, the solution is:

1. As the EEZ area, wealth Dokdo Island can be enjoyed by Japan and South Korea;
2. There should be no claims of ownership of the island of Dokdo by the two countries, since in accordance with the 1982 Law of the Sea that the EEZ is the high seas;