Acceso usuarios
Daniel Romera Mejías
Este artículo analiza las disputas territoriales en Asia Oriental a través del prisma de la geopolítica de la memoria, enfocándose en dos casos de estudio fundamentales: el conflicto por las islas Senkaku/Diaoyu entre Japón y China y Dokdo/Takeshima entre Japón y Corea del Sur. Se parte de la premisa de que estas disputas no pueden ser comprendidas únicamente desde una perspectiva jurídica o estratégica tradicional, ya que están profundamente arraigadas en narrativas históricas, traumas colectivos y la construcción de identidades nacionales contrapuestas. Desde un marco teórico reflectivista y de geopolítica crítica, se argumenta que el territorio en esta región funciona como un espacio simbólico donde se articulan memorias de la ocupación colonial y el imperialismo japonés. En el caso de las islas Senkaku/Diaoyu, el estudio describe cómo la reclamación china se integra en el relato del “Siglo de la Humillación” y la recuperación de la soberanía nacional, mientras que Japón defiende una legalidad basada en la incorporación de 1895. Respecto a Dokdo/Takeshima, el control surcoreano se presenta como un acto de justicia histórica frente a la subyugación colonial, convirtiendo al archipiélago en un símbolo de resistencia. La investigación sostiene la hipótesis de que la ausencia de mecanismos efectivos de justicia transicional en la región ha exacerbado el componente emocional de los conflictos, dificultando su resolución diplomática. A diferencia del modelo europeo de reconciliación franco-alemán, en Asia Oriental persiste un «círculo vicioso de la memoria» alimentado por el revisionismo histórico, la politización de los libros de texto y la falta de consenso sobre las atrocidades del pasado, como el sistema de “mujeres de consuelo”. Finalmente, el artículo concluye que la estabilidad regional depende de la capacidad de los Estados para trascender la instrumentalización nacionalista de la historia. Se propone que la implementación de estrategias de reconocimiento mutuo y reparación simbólica es esencial para desactivar la carga emocional de las disputas y transformar las fronteras simbólicas en espacios de cooperación.
This article examines the role of historical memory in shaping territorial disputes in East Asia, arguing that the persistence and intensity of conflicts such as Senkaku/Diaoyu and Dokdo/Takeshima cannot be adequately explained through legal or materialist approaches alone. Instead, it advances the concept of the geopolitics of memory as an analytical framework to understand how narratives of the past, collec-tive trauma and identity construction interact with territorial claims and foreign policy behaviour. From a reflectivist perspective rooted in critical geopolitics and Constructivist International Relations theory, the article contends that territory in East Asia functions not merely as a strategic or economic asset but as a symbolic and emotionally charged space through which states articulate sovereignty, historical justice and national identity.The East China Sea and the Sea of Japan have long been sites of rivalry among regional powers, where small and often uninhabited islands have acquired disproportionate political significance. While con-ventional analyses emphasize international law, security dilemmas or resource competition, this article argues that such explanations remain incomplete without accounting for the historical narratives and memory politics that underpin state behaviour. The central hypothesis guiding this study is that the ab-sence of effective mechanisms of transitional justice in East Asia has reinforced the emotional and sym-bolic dimensions of territorial disputes, thereby obstructing their diplomatic resolution, unlike in postwar Europe. As a result, historical memory continues to function as a securitizing force, mobilized by political elites to legitimize territorial claims, consolidate domestic support and define external others.The article situates its analysis within a reflectivist theoretical framework that conceives state interests and identities as socially constructed rather than given. Drawing on critical geopolitics, it conceptualizes the geopolitics of memory as the study of how historical narratives are mobilized to produce spatial rep-resentations, legitimize territorial claims and structure foreign policy practices. From this perspective, territory is not a neutral container of power but a site of meaning, where history, memory and identity converge. Collective memory, understood as a socially mediated and institutionally reinforced interpre-tation of the past, plays a central role in shaping how states perceive threats, define justice and justify political action.Methodologically, the study adopts a qualitative and interpretive comparative approach, focusing on two emblematic case studies: the Sino-Japanese dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands and the Japan–South Korea dispute over Dokdo/Takeshima. These cases were selected due to their strong historical symbolism, their resistance to legal resolution and their centrality in national identity narratives. The analysis draws on a wide range of primary and secondary sources, including historical documents, inter-national treaties, official statements, educational materials and scholarly literature. Through qualitative content analysis, the study identifies recurring discursive patterns related to sovereignty, memory and historical justice, while also examining the absence or failure of transitional justice mechanisms in each case.In the Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute, Japan and China advance competing historical narratives that reflect broader struggles over imperial legacy and postwar order. Japan maintains that the islands were incor-porated legally in 1895 under the principle of terra nullius and that it has exercised continuous sover-eignty since that time. China, by contrast, argues that the islands were historically part of its territory since at least the Ming dynasty and that their incorporation by Japan occurred within the context of imperial aggression during the First Sino-Japanese War. The ambiguity surrounding the post–Second World War settlement, particularly the omission of explicit reference to the islands in the San Francisco Peace Treaty and their subsequent administration by the United States, has further entrenched diver-gent interpretations.Beyond legal arguments, the dispute is deeply embedded in collective memory and identity politics. In China, the legacy of Japanese occupation and the broader narrative of the Century of Humiliation have been institutionalized through education, commemorations and official discourse. From the perspective of ontological security, these narratives help sustain a coherent sense of state identity by integrating contemporary disputes into a broader story of victimization, resistance and recovery of sovereignty. Japan, meanwhile, has largely decoupled the territorial dispute from its imperial past, emphasizing legal continuity while downplaying historical context. This selective memory, reinforced by revisionist ten-dencies within conservative political circles, has contributed to mutual distrust and diplomatic deadlock.The Dokdo/Takeshima dispute between Japan and South Korea exhibits similar dynamics but differs in important respects. Unlike Senkaku/Diaoyu, Dokdo is currently administered by South Korea, which regards the islands as an inseparable part of its national territory and as a symbol of liberation from Japanese colonial rule. South Korea’s claim is rooted in historical narratives that emphasize continuous sovereignty dating back to the Silla dynasty and the illegitimacy of Japan’s 1905 annexation, which is framed as an integral component of colonial subjugation. The recovery of Dokdo in the 1950s is thus portrayed as an act of historical justice and national restoration.In South Korea, the memory of Japanese colonial rule remains a central element of national identity, reinforced through education, public commemorations and popular culture. The emotional resonance of Dokdo renders the issue politically non-negotiable, as any compromise would be perceived domestically as a betrayal of historical suffering. Japan, by contrast, frames the dispute as a contemporary legal issue of territorial integrity, drawing on the San Francisco Treaty’s silence regarding Dokdo and promoting its claim through institutionalized practices such as the designation of a national Takeshima Day.A comparative dimension of the article contrasts these East Asian dynamics with the German model of postwar memory management. Germany’s approach to its violent past —characterized by explicit ac-knowledgment of guilt, legal accountability, educational reform, and reparations— facilitated reconcilia-tion with former adversaries and reduced the securitizing power of historical memory. While the German experience cannot be uncritically transplanted to East Asia, it highlights the importance of transitional justice mechanisms in transforming memory from a source of conflict into a foundation for cooperation. In contrast, Japan’s ambiguous and inconsistent engagement with its imperial past has undermined trust among its neighbours and reinforced the instrumentalization of memory in territorial disputes.The article identifies several strategies that, while falling short of full reconciliation, could contribute to the desecuritization of memory in East Asia. These include the establishment of joint historical commis-sions, cooperative resource management arrangements, limits on military escalation around disputed territories and forms of shared or functional administration that bypass formal sovereignty resolution. From a critical perspective, such measures can be understood as processes of mnemonic desecuritiza-tion, in which historical memory is gradually displaced from the realm of existential threat to that of manageable political disagreement.In conclusion, the article demonstrates that historical memory is not a peripheral factor but a central variable in the persistence of territorial disputes in East Asia. The cases of Senkaku/Diaoyu and Dokdo/Takeshima reveal how unresolved colonial legacies and the absence of transitional justice mechanisms have entrenched emotionally charged narratives that impede diplomatic solutions. It argues that any sustainable approach to conflict management in East Asia must engage not only with legal and strategic considerations but also with the politics of memory, recognition and historical responsibility. Ultimately, the way states remember their pasts plays a decisive role in shaping the possibilities for peace, cooper-ation, and stability in one of the world’s most strategically significant regions
