Cover not available
Article published In:
The Roles of Communication on a Regional Conflict: Antipathy, Nationalism, and Conflicts among China, Japan, and South Korea
Edited by Eung-jun Min
[Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 27:2] 2017
► pp. 232–245

Nationalism, public opinion, and dispute resolution

The Dokdo/Takeshima dispute

| University of Tennessee
| Yonsei University, Korea
For several decades South Koreans have rallied around the Dokdo/Takeshima islets, small rocky outcroppings in the East Sea/Sea of Japan. There have been significant mobilization efforts by the Korean government, opposition parties, media, and civic groups that stir up a strong level of nationalism in South Korea. Why is public opinion about Dokdo, as the islets are named by Koreans, so fierce in South Korea despite the fact that South Korea has maintained effective control of the islets for over 50 years? How can public opinion and territorial nationalism affect dispute resolution? In this research project, we argue that domestic mobilization, stalwart public opinion, and strong territorial nationalism exist primarily because the islets symbolize other salient issues disputed with Japan and such issue linkage makes the territorial dispute difficult to resolve.
Keywords: nationalism, territorial dispute, rhetoric, mobilization, public opinion, Korea, Japan
Article outline
  • Public opinion and territorial nationalism
  • Government mobilization
  • Mobilization by civic groups
  • Territorial dispute and issue linkage
  • Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 20 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/japc.27.2.05wie
References (37)
References
Bong, Y. D. (2013). Built to last: the Dokdo territorial controversy. The baseline conditions in domestic politics and international security of Japan and South Korea. Memory Studies, 6 (2), 191–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cho, H. J., & Choi, A. (2016). Why do territorial disputes escalate? A domestic political explanation for the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute. Pacific Focus, 31 (2), 254–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Choi, S. J. (2005). The politics of the Dokdo issue. Journal of East Asian Studies, 5 (3), 465–494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Division of Dokdo Policy, Government of Gyeongsangbuk-do Province. (2013). Facts on Dokdo: Dreams of the East Sea. Retrieved from: [URL]
Dokdo Arirang. (2015). Retrieved from: [URL].
Dokdo Jirinet. (2016). Retrieved from: [URL]
Dokdo Museum Seoul. (2015). Retrieved from: [URL].
Dong-A Ilbo. (2010). Korean, Japanese netizens wage ‘cyber war,’ March 2, 2010.Google Scholar
Downs, E. S., & Saunders, P. C. (1996). Legitimacy and the limits of nationalism: China and the Diaoyu islands. International Security, 23 (3), 114–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emmers, R. (2010). Japan-Korea relations and the Tokdo/Takeshima dispute: the interplay of nationalism and natural resources. RSIS Working Paper No. 212. Singapore: Nanyang Technological University.Google Scholar
Genron NPO & East Asia Institute. (2016). Analysis report on comparative Data, the 4th Japan-South Korea joint public opinion. Retrieved from: [URL].
Hensel, P. R. (2001). Contentious issues and world politics: the management of territorial claims in the Americas, 1816–1992. International Studies Quarterly, 45(1), 81–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, P., Park, J., & Choi, S-W. (2006). Democracy and conflict management: territorial claims in the western hemisphere revisited. International Studies Quarterly, 50 (4), 803–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiji, K. (2012, August 11). Tokyo riled by Lee’s visit to disputed islets. The Japan Times.Google Scholar
Kang, D. (2010a). Status and leadership on the Korean peninsula. Orbis (Fall), 546–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010b). The security of the Korean peninsula. In S. Ganguly, A. Scobeel, & J. C. Liow (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Asian security studies (pp. 35–47). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kim, J. and Friedhoff, K. (2012). The Asan monthly opinion survey, April 2012, Seoul: Asan Institute for Policy Studies.Google Scholar
Kim, J. & Friedhoff, K. (2013). Korea-Japan relations: the Asan public opinion brief, November 4. Retrieved from: [URL].
Kim, J., Friedhoff, K., & Kang, C. (2011). The Asan institute for policy studies annual opinion survey. Seoul: Asan Institute for Policy Studies. Retrieved from: [URL].
Kim, J., Friedhoff, K., and Kang, C. (2012). The Asan monthly opinion survey, August 2012. Seoul: Asan Institute for Policy Studies.Google Scholar
Kimura, K. (2011). Why are the issues of ‘historical perceptions’ between Japan and South Korea persisting? Journal of International Cooperation Studies, 19 (1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Kimura, M., & Welch, D. (1998). Specifying ‘interests:’ Japan’s claim to the northern territories and its implications for international relations Theory. International Studies Quarterly, 42 (2), 213–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koo, M-G. (2006). Economic dependence and the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute between South Korea and Japan. Harvard Asia Quarterly, 4 (4), n.p.Google Scholar
Ku, M. (2015). The role of identity in the triggering and escalation of Korean-Japanese tensions. 2015 Yonsei-SNU Academic Conference, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea.
Lee, S. (2006, April 21). Row triggers outpouring of patriotism. Korea Herald.Google Scholar
Leeborn, D. W. (2002). Linkages. The American Journal of International Law 96 (1), 5–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. B. (2012, March 31). Dokdo Still Limits Tokyo and Seoul’s Strategic Rapprochement. East Asia Forum.Google Scholar
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. (2012). 10 Issues of Takeshima. Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Korea. (2012). Dokdo: Korea’s beautiful island. Seoul.Google Scholar
Moon, C., & Suh, S-W. (2008). Identity politics, nationalism, and the future of Northeast Asian order. In J. G. Ikenberry & C. Moon (Eds.), The United States and northeast Asia: debates, issues, and the new order (pp. 193–229). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Onishi, N. (2005, March 22). Dispute over islets frays ties between Tokyo and Seoul. The New York Times. Retrieved from: [URL].
Park, D. P., & Chubb, D. (2011, August 17). Why Dokdo matters to Korea. The Diplomat.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, J. M. (2007). Legal issues related to sovereignty over Dokdo and its maritime boundary. Ocean Development & International Law, 38 (1), 157–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiegand, K. E. (2005). Nationalist discourse and domestic incentives to prevent settlement of the territorial dispute between Guatemala and Belize. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 11 (3), 349–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Enduring territorial disputes: strategies of bargaining, coercive diplomacy, and settlement. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
(2015). The Korean-Japanese security relationship and the Dokdo islets dispute. The Pacific Review, 28 (3), 347–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yomiuri Shimbun, (2010, April 9–11). Japan-South Korea joint opinion poll survey. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Choi, Junghwan & Sangseop Lim
2024. Establishing a Marine Protected Area in the Waters Surrounding Dokdo: Necessity and Legality. Sustainability 16:2 ► pp. 611 ff. DOI logo
Choi, Seung-Whan
2023. When does liberal peace fail? Trade and nationalism. Review of International Political Economy 30:5 ► pp. 1907 ff. DOI logo
Zhou, Andi, Hein E. Goemans & Michael Weintraub
2023. Sources of Risk Acceptance in Territorial Disputes. SSRN Electronic Journal DOI logo
Wellisch, Simon & Lukáš Laš
2022. Media discourses of territorial disputes in Japan. Asian Geographer 39:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Mehrl, Marius & Ioannis Choulis
2021. Diversionary Politics and Territorial Disputes: Evidence from Turkish Airspace Incursions. Foreign Policy Analysis 17:3 DOI logo
Fang, Songying & Xiaojun Li
2020. Historical Ownership and Territorial Disputes. The Journal of Politics 82:1 ► pp. 345 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.