Japanese Basic Position on the Naming of the "Japan Sea"
1. Perspective of Japan
(1) The Republic of Korea misunderstands the history of "Japan Sea"
The Republic of Korea (South Korea) claims that the name "Japan Sea" has become general as a result of expansionism and colonialism of Japan on the Korean Peninsula during the 20th century. However, this claim by South Korea comes from its incorrect understanding to the history of "Japan Sea".
The name "Japan Sea" is said to have been first published in the "World Atlas," written by Matteo Ricci, in 1602. The name became frequently used on Western maps from the 17th century. In the late 18th century, the chronometer was invented. This is a clock that can indicate precise time on the sea, and thus is essential to an accurate measurement of longitudes. By using a chronometer, it became possible to map the correct location of islands and coastal lines of continents. Around the same time, three Western explorers, Jean La Perouse (France), William R. Broughton (Britain), Adam Johann von Krusenstern (Russia) had set out to survey areas nearby Japan, and they have revealed the detailed shape of the Japan Sea. Especially Krusenstern mentioned in his work "Reise um die Welt in den Jahren (1812)" (Note 1), that "People also call this sea area the Sea of Korea, but because only a small part of this sea touches the Korean coast, it is better to name it the Sea of Japan." His idea also matches the geographical naming concept, regarding this sea as a marginal sea surrounded by the islands of the Japanese Archipelago, forming an arch starting from Sakhalin and facing the coastline extending from the northeast of the Eurasian continent to the Korean Peninsula. Thus, as the geography surrounding the "Japan Sea" (and the landform of the Japanese Archipelago in particular) became clear through the surveys by Western cartographers, explorers and voyagers, the name "Japan Sea" had established itself as a single name internationally by the early 19th century. This is also clear from the changes in the names shown in maps by countries other than Japan or South Korea during 17th to 20th centuries.
Furthermore, when the name "Japan Sea" was establishing its position of a sole appellation in Europe, Japan was closing its door to foreign countries under the isolation policy of the Shogunate Government, which prohibited any exchange of culture, commerce, and so on, with foreign countries except China and the Netherlands in limited places. This policy lasted until 1854. This means that Japan could not give the international community any influence to establish the name "Japan Sea" as an international sole name for the water area.
As mentioned above, the claim by South Korea stating that the name "Japan Sea" is a "remnant of colonialism" in the early 20th century is completely groundless. We cannot accept to change the internationally established single name "Japan Sea," with its long history by such a claim based on incorrect recognition.
Note 1: "Reise um die Welt in den Jahren"
The original book (in three volumes) was published in St. Petersburg from 1810 to 1812, in German and Russian editions. The work had been translated into various languages such as Dutch, French, Swedish, Italian and English and distributed widely among Europe.
(2) Disorderly application of technical resolution brings confusion in worldwide names of oceans and seas.
South Korea claims that the name "Japan Sea" should be changed to the "East Sea," or at least should be written together with the name "East Sea" like the case of the English Channel/La Manche. As the basis for its claim, it gives the Resolution III- 20 in the United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names (UNCSGN) and the Technical Resolution A4.2.6 (Note 2) of International Hydrographic Organization (IHO).
However, this case is inherently different from the case of the English Channel/La Manche, a case in which there are long international historical backgrounds for using both names, and the resolutions wasn't applied to the latter case. The name "East Sea" was put forwards internationally by South Korea for the first time in 1990s and is a quite new name in the international community. Thus, the Resolution A4.2.6 should not be applied to the "Japan Sea," which has already established itself internationally as a single name. The IHO Directing Committee (IHO-DC) represents the same perception.
On the other hand, Korea insists to apply the IHO Technical Resolution A4.2.6 for this issue. The resolution states in its first part: "They should endeavor to reach agreement on fixing a single name for the feature concerned." The claim by South Korea is not only an erroneous application of the Technical Resolution, but also an abuse of this resolution by excerpt of only the limited part of its prescription.
Should such a claim by Korea be accepted, other self-interested claims of similar kinds must also be accepted. This would go against one of the objectives of the IHO, "the greatest possible uniformity in nautical charts and documents", and accordingly might become a harmful precedent that opens the door of the confusion for worldwide mariners on the names of oceans and seas. In terms of ensuring the navigational safety, the continuity in the names of oceans and seas is important.
Note 2: IHO Technical Resolution A4.2.6
It is recommended that where two or more countries share a given geological feature (such as, for example, a bay, strait, channel ore archipelago) under a different name form, they should endeavor to reach agreement on fixing a single name for the feature concerned. If they have different official languages and cannot agree on a common name form, it is recommended that the name form of each of the languages in question should be accepted for charts and publications unless technical reasons prevent this practice on small scale charts.
(3) It brings about confusion to change the name which has been used worldwide and has a long history, based on the claim of the single country
As mentioned in above (1), the name "Japan Sea" had established itself internationally as a single name by early 19th century. On the other hand, South Korea had never raised this issue to the United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names (UNCSGN) or IHO until the 1990s. Moreover, South Korea had been using the name "Japan Sea" in their official navigational charts. In other words, there is a historical fact that South Korea had accepted the name "Japan Sea" for nearly 50 years after it had moved itself out of the influence of Japan in the Second World War. Also, in the process of compiling the IHO Publication "Limits of Oceans and Seas" (S-23), as of 1986, South Korea agreed to inscribe the name "Japan Sea" alone. The name "East Sea" first appeared in the nautical charts of South Korea in 1995.
Furthermore, based on the research of 392 major maps used in 60 countries around the world, which had been implemented by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2000, there were only 11 (2.8%) maps that did not use the "Japan Sea" as a single name. Further, these 11 maps all inscribed the "Japan Sea" and the "East Sea" in parallel and there was no map using the "East Sea" alone. Another research was also conducted for 253 major textbooks and atlases used in 70 different countries in 2002, and showed a similar result, such as 97.2% (246) of them used the single name "Japan Sea." As for nautical charts, UK (since 1863), US (since 1854), Russia and France have been using the name "Japan Sea" solely for all the foreign charts published since the Hydrographic Offices of each country began publishing their nautical charts.
There is no reason to change such a name, which has a long history and is used worldwide, by a claim from a single country. Rather, if such a claim will be accepted, it may become a harmful precedent that will introduce worldwide confusion into the naming of the oceans and seas.
(4) Past agreement should be succeeded until interested countries obtain agreement.
International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), with its headquarters established in Monaco, prepares Guideline S-23, "Limits of Oceans and Seas," which serves as a guideline of the principle of names and limits of oceans and seas to nautical charts of IHO member states in order to keep navigational safety. This guideline was first published in 1928, and the currently valid edition is the third edition published in 1953. As for the name of the body of water in question, "Japan Sea" is solely used for all the editions from first through third. Because it has been already more than 50 years since the third edition has been published, the IHO Directing Committee (IHO-DC) was planning to publish the fourth edition by around March of 2003. Taking advantage of this opportunity, South Korea had strongly lobbied IHO-DC to adopt the name "East Sea" in the revision process. In order to avoid intervention on political matters, IHO-DC prepared the draft for the fourth edition of the guideline S-23 in August 2002 in which the pages of "Japan Sea" were blank, and held a vote to question the opinions of the IHO members. The Government of Japan objected to this draft, because the blank in the pages can be interpreted as a deletion of the name "Japan Sea". There were objections from other member states as well, and thus IHO-DC withdrew the said draft next month.
The purpose of the guideline S-23 is to ensure the navigational safety. Therefore, it should be avoided to create confusion by political reasons on such a guideline of an important principle. And considering the significance of the guideline, it should be also avoided to delay the publication of the fourth edition. Thus, on revising the guideline S-23,
the countries concerned must first discuss the problem if there is a different view to the name of the body of water that has been adopted as a single name. Furthermore, if the countries concerned can not reach an agreement to change the name because of short discussion, they should preserve status quo on the name that has been already agreed by all IHO members including the concerned countries.
2. Questionable Points in the Claim by South Korea
There are several questionable points, other than the misunderstanding for historical facts, in the claim of South Korea as follows:
(1) Considering historical backgrounds, the name "East Sea" is quite new.
South Korea gives the existence of "Sea of Korea" or "Mare Orientale (Orient Sea)" as a ground for their claims that the name "East Sea" has a long international history. However, although these two names given as the ground did exist in the past, the name "East Sea" cannot be found in old maps or charts. In fact, the name "East Sea" has a clearly different origin from the said other two names. South Korea has been calling the seas west, south and east of their countries "Sohae," "Namhae" and "Donghae/Tonghae" respectively. These names mean West Sea, South Sea and East Sea respectively. In other words, the name "East Sea" is merely an English translation of "Donghae/Tonghae." Moreover, it was at the end of 20th century when the name "East Sea" first appeared in the international community possibly for its political purpose. South Korea implies as if the names "Sea of Korea" or "Mare Orientale" equate with the name "East Sea," but this is groundless and deceptive treatment. And for your information, there was a name "Eastern Sea" found in many of the old western maps made in the 19th century. This was another name for the current "East China Sea".
(2) "East Sea" is inadequate as an international name.
Although South Korea claims that the name "East Sea" means the sea east of Eurasian continent, it is in reality a subjective name from the viewpoint of the Korean Peninsula, because the name "East Sea" is merely an English translation of "Donghae/Tonghae", as mentioned above. South Korea calls the neighboring seas east, south and west from the Korean Peninsula "East Sea," "South Sea" and "West Sea" respectively. It should be regarded as self-righteousness to insist such a name based on direction from its own country as an international name.
In addition, while South Korea refers to "Japan Sea" as "Donghae/Tonghae", which means "East Sea", China calls the "East China Sea" "Tonghai", which also means "East Sea" in China. These two names are just same when expressed in Chinese characters, which are common in the languages of China, Korea, and Japan. Thus, if these two names same in Chinese characters are used for neighboring waters, it must cause confusion among mariners, navigators and rescue teams who can read Chinese characters.
The name identical to "East Sea" is also used in the countries other than China. For example, "South China Sea" is called "Biendong" in Vietnam, which means "East Sea" in Vietnamese and thus "East Sea" is officially used as an English name for the water by the Government of Vietnam. A name that means "East Sea" is frequently used in Europe as well, such as the German name "Ostsee" and Swedish name "Ostersjon," both for "Baltic Sea" and mean "East Sea" in each language. Thus, "East Sea" can hardly be an international specific name for a certain limited area of water. Using such a name used for many different waters in the world as an international name must bring confusion among navigators worldwide.
(3) The "East Sea" has inconsistency in itself.
As mentioned above, South Korea refers to the water south of the Korean Peninsula as "Namhae", which means "South Sea". A part of this area of "South Sea" is included in the sea that is referred to as the "Japan Sea" in the current guideline S-23 (third edition, 1953).This means that the body of water that South Korea claims to call "East Sea" internationally includes a part of the water which South Korea itself calls "South Sea". This kind of inconsistency can also be a problem, because clear delimitation of oceans and seas are necessary to navigational safety.
Also, as we have already discussed, South Korea calls the seas west, south and east of it "Sohae," "Namhae" and "Donghae/Tonghae" (which will be "West Sea", "South Sea" and "East Sea" respectively if shown in English). However,South Korea only claims to change the Japan Sea to "East Sea," and does not claim to change the "Yellow Sea" to "West Sea" or "East China Sea" to "South Sea." This fact brings up the suspicion that South Korea intentionally sets only to make the "Japan Sea" its target.
(4) "Japan Sea" was adopted in the first edition of the guideline S-23 (1929) without the intention of Japan.
South Korea criticizes that Japan had submitted the name "Japan Sea" to International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) in 1929 without consulting South Korea. However, the name "Japan Sea" was adopted in the guideline S-23 on the basis of the fact that it had already established itself internationally as a single name by that time. Japan has never strongly claimed the usage of the name "Japan Sea" to the international community.
For your information, according to the report of the First Supplementary International Hydrographic Conference from April 9 to 20 in 1929, which is preserved by the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), the following remarks of Commander Miura, who participated in the conference as one of the representatives from Japan, was made during the discussion over guideline S-23 on the names and limits of oceans and seas:
"The Japanese Delegates had objected to the proposal submitted to the previous Conference of 1926, since in their opinion it was rather a political and diplomatic question and exceeded the scope of the Conference. Nevertheless, the Japanese Delegation was in favor of delimitation of the sea after due study of the problem in accordance with the guiding principles laid down by the Bureau."
If it had been true that Japan had intention to actively propagate the name "Japan Sea" worldwide, it wouldn't have had concern about the political and diplomatic problems regarding the names and limits of oceans and seas like this, needless to say that it would have never objected the proposal to prepare the guidelines, even temporarily.
Also, the fact should be noted that the name "East Sea" claimed by South Korea did not exist on any nautical chart in the world, which the IHO had referred to in preparation of the guideline before 1928.
3. Problems of the Attitude of South Korea
Why South Korea avoids the bilateral technical discussion with Japan?
The Japan-Korea Hydrographic Technical Meeting has been held annually since 1989 to exchange technical opinions regarding the nautical charts preparation, hydrographic surveys and oceanographic observations between the hydrographic offices of both countries. However, South Korea has never suggested including the issue of the name of "Japan Sea" on the agenda.
Japan Coast Guard as a hydrographic office in Japan planed to hold the Fourteenth Japan-Korea Hydrographic Technical Meeting on December 16 and 17, 2002 in Tokyo, with this issue included in the agenda. South Korea had at first accepted to hold the meeting, but on December 12th, which was just before the meeting was to be held, South Korea suddenly raised an objection against the inclusion of the issue on the agenda. The reason it gave was as follows: "The response of the Japanese side does not show the Korean side the willingness to come forward with alternative names to the 'Japan Sea' in a spirit of compromise. Therefore, a discussion on the issue will be of no value." The Japan side asked South Korea for reconsideration, but it didn't changed its mind, and the schedule of the meeting was obliged to be postponed.
Following persuasion by the President of IHO in April 2003 to the National Oceanographic Research Institute of South Korea to hold discussions with Japan, and an offer in writing from the Japan Coast Guard to hold the Japan-Korea Hydrographic Technical Meeting with regards to the issue of the naming of the gJapan Seah included in the agenda, the National Oceanographic Research Institute of South Korea subsequently agreed to hold such talks. Opinions on this issue were exchanged between both countries on the occasions of the fourteenth meeting held in January 2004 (in Tokyo) and the fifteenth meeting held in February 2005 (in South Korea). However, the exchange of opinions ended without agreement, with both countries asserting their own perspectives and once again confirming their difference of opinions.
Japan Coast Guard regards that the discussion to take place in the meeting held between the hydrographic offices of Japan and South Korea should be technical in its nature. It means that the aims of this meeting should be to 1) clarify the points of discussion, 2) exchange technical and scientific information, 3) verify the grounds and the authenticity of such information in scientific and technical terms to a greatest extent possible, 4) share the basic information on both sides, and 5) provide the common verified information to political discussions to avoid any apprehension. Thus, we believe that it is unnecessary to provide any alternative that anticipates the discussion before an environment for such political discussion is prepared. Japan Coast Guard will continue to convey such points to South Korea, and to patiently ask it to hold technical discussion over this issue.
4. Summary
We sometimes find the emotionally charged argument in South Korean newspapers, saying that it is intolerable for South Korea to accept the name "Japan Sea" for its neighboring seas. It may be true that many people in South Korea share such emotions. However, even if this was true, South Korea should not distort historical backgrounds, stretch the resolutions of international organizations, or refuse our proposal to hold bilateral technical discussions, while it makes its claims in multinational meetings. We sincerely hope that South Korea will take reasonable actions on this issue as a country holding a responsible position in the international community. We believe that this issue will be logically solved between the two countries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------