At roughly the same time each year, the same news appears and the same protests follow. Seeing the pattern repeat, it can feel like a formal procedure. But the story changes when you understand the weight that an act of protest carries in international law.
3-Line Summary
1. Japan’s defense white paper has claimed sovereignty over Dokdo for 22 consecutive years
2. Japan has proposed going to court three times since 1954
3. International adjudication can proceed only with both sides’ consent
The Document Released on August 4
On the 4th, the Japanese government published its 2026 defense white paper. According to reports by News1, Digital Times, and others, the document describes Dokdo as Japan’s inherent territory and states that the territorial issue remains unresolved. Wording to the same effect has continued for 22 consecutive years. It is the first white paper issued since the launch of the Sanae Takaichi administration.
The South Korean government responded the same day. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the minister at the Embassy of Japan in Korea, while the Ministry of National Defense summoned Japan’s defense attaché in Korea, respectively, to lodge protests and demand immediate correction and withdrawal.
That is the scene repeated every year. The question is whether there is a reason for this repetition.
What Happens If You Let Protests Pass
One concept used in international law when determining who owns a piece of land is effective control. It examines whether a country has exercised state authority over that land peacefully and continuously.
Whether police are stationed there, whether it has been incorporated into an administrative district, whether residents live there, and whether facilities are built and managed there are among the relevant factors. In Dokdo’s case, these elements have accumulated over a long period.
But there is one more consideration in assessing effective control: how the other country has treated that situation. International court cases show that the longer one side remains silent while the other exercises control, the more room there is for that silence to be interpreted as recognition.
This structure means that claims must be met with a response. If the same sentence appears for 22 years, the same protest follows for 22 years. What looks like a formality is, in fact, an act of creating a record. If it is not recorded, that gap may later be used as evidence.
I believe this is the most frequently misunderstood aspect of this issue. Protesting every time may appear to be an emotional response, but the logic is actually the opposite.
Why It Does Not Go to Court
This raises the question of why the matter is not settled once and for all through international adjudication.
The International Court of Justice cannot hear just any case. In principle, all parties must consent before proceedings can begin. One side cannot bring the other before the court simply by filing an application.
There is a system under which states declare in advance that they will accept the Court’s jurisdiction; Japan has accepted it, while South Korea has not. Therefore, unless the South Korean government consents, there is effectively no possibility that this matter will come before that court.
Japan has proposed three times since 1954 that the issue be brought before the International Court of Justice, and the South Korean government has refused each time.
The rationale for that refusal is laid out in materials released by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Dokdo is clearly South Korean territory both historically and under international law, so there is no reason to prove that right in court. In 1954, the government stated that Dokdo was among the first places victimized in the course of Japan’s invasion of Korea and that, for the Korean people, it was not a small island in the East Sea but a symbol of sovereignty.
Legally, there is another layer to this. Agreeing to adjudication means that there is something to dispute, and the moment it is acknowledged that there is something to dispute, the nature of the matter itself changes. That is why the South Korean government maintains the expression, “There is no dispute.”
Textbooks Are Another Channel
Separate from the white paper, there is another news story that repeats every spring: the results of Japan’s textbook screening process.
This is not a matter of individual publishers’ judgment. Japan sets the direction for textbook content through national standards called the Courses of Study. Relevant guidelines were included in the 2008 commentary on the junior high school Courses of Study, and in 2014, the screening standards were changed to require descriptions in line with the government’s unified view where one exists. The revised 2018 Courses of Study stipulated that Dokdo be explicitly described as Japan’s inherent territory.
When standards are fixed at the top, the results that emerge below are the same every year. Similar screening results year after year are not a coincidence, but a product of this structure.
The fact that the educational channel is managed separately is important. Diplomatic documents are exchanged between governments and then end there, but textbooks shape the baseline perceptions of the next generation. Their time horizon is much longer.
If You Want to Check Directly
The government’s official position and supporting materials are organized on the Dokdo website operated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (dokdo.mofa.go.kr). In a question-and-answer format, issues concerning international adjudication, historical grounds, and interpretations of related treaties are divided by topic, making it easy to read only the sections you need.
When reading related reports, two distinctions are useful to keep in mind. One is whether the statement comes from an official Japanese government document or from an individual politician. The other is whether the document belongs to the diplomatic sphere or the educational sphere. The responsible ministries and procedures differ.
Conclusion
The reason the same news appears every year is that both sides are building records. One side leaves the same sentence in documents, and the other leaves a protest each time. The repetition that appears tedious is, in fact, the most substantive part of this issue.
References
- News1, “Japan Claims for 22nd Straight Year in Defense White Paper That ‘Dokdo Is Japanese Land’… Government Strongly Protests, Demanding ‘Immediate Withdrawal’ (Comprehensive)” (2026.8.4) — https://www.news1.kr/diplomacy/defense-diplomacy/6248978
- MoneyToday, “Government Protests Defense White Paper Saying ‘Dokdo Is Japanese Land’… Summons Japanese Embassy Minister and Defense Attaché” (2026.8.4) — https://www.mt.co.kr/amp/politics/2026/08/04/2026080414422347315
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs Dokdo, “Questions and Answers on Dokdo” — https://dokdo.mofa.go.kr/m/kor/dokdo/faq14.jsp
- Kyunghyang Shinmun, “Japan Again Makes Baseless Claim in All Elementary School Textbooks That ‘Dokdo Is Japanese Land’” — https://www.khan.co.kr/article/202303281533001
- Weekly Kyunghyang, “Japanese High School Textbooks Continue to Claim ‘Dokdo = Japanese Land’” — https://weekly.khan.co.kr/article/202603241604011/