가장 많이 본 글

Saturday, March 21, 2026

The Reconfiguration of Cultural Power: A Study on the Transformation of Global Influence through the Concerts of BTS and Taylor Swift

2026 BTS' Comeback Concert in Gwangwhamun Square, Seoul


I. Introduction

In the twenty-first century, the mechanisms through which power operates in the international order are undergoing a significant transformation. Traditionally, state influence has been defined by military and economic capabilities. However, the expansion of digital networks and the global cultural industry has elevated a different form of power—namely, cultural persuasion and emotional mobilization—as a central element. This shift goes beyond a mere transformation of industrial structures; it calls for a fundamental redefinition of the very concept of power itself.

In this regard, the concept of soft power proposed by Joseph Nye continues to provide a crucial theoretical framework. Nye defines power as the ability to shape the behavior of others not through coercion or payment, but through attraction.^1 However, contemporary cultural phenomena demonstrate that such attraction operates not merely at the level of “image” or “values,” but more deeply through emotion and participation.

This study seeks to analyze how cultural power is constructed and diffused in contemporary society by comparing the concerts of BTS and Taylor Swift, and to examine the political and economic implications of these dynamics.


II. Theoretical Framework: Soft Power and Emotional Communities

Nye’s concept of soft power identifies culture, political values, and foreign policy as its primary components.^2 More recent scholarship, however, emphasizes emotion and affect as key mechanisms underlying cultural power. Sara Ahmed argues that emotions do not reside solely within individuals, but circulate through social relations and contribute to the formation of collective bodies.^3

From this perspective, cultural content is not merely an object of consumption, but a mechanism through which groups are formed via emotional identification. This insight resonates with Benedict Anderson’s concept of “imagined communities,” in which collective identity is constructed through shared symbolic frameworks rather than direct interaction.^4 Contemporary fandoms represent a new form of transnational community that operates beyond the traditional state-centered structure of power.


III. A Comparative Analysis of Fandom Structures

The fandom of BTS, known as ARMY, constitutes a transnational network characterized by a strong collective identity. Fans function not merely as consumers but as participatory agents who share symbols, narratives, and coordinated practices. This structure is reinforced through digital platforms, facilitating collective action and accelerating the global diffusion of culture.^5

By contrast, the fandom surrounding Taylor Swift is characterized by identification rooted in personal narrative. Her music centers on individual experience and emotion, allowing fans to construct and affirm their own identities through engagement with her work. In this context, concerts function as spaces in which individual emotional experiences are collectively expressed.

This distinction has significant implications for the diffusion of cultural power. BTS strengthens network-based expansion through collective identification, whereas Taylor Swift cultivates deep emotional influence through individualized immersion.


IV. Economic Impact and the Expansion of the Cultural Industry

Large-scale concerts should be understood not merely as cultural events, but as complex economic phenomena that exert direct influence on both urban and national economies. In the case of BTS, their economic impact has been evaluated as exceeding the conventional analytical scope of the cultural industry.

Notably, the BTS comeback concert held in Gwanghwamun, Seoul, in 2026—despite being a free event—generated substantial economic effects. Some analyses estimate that the concert produced approximately $177 million (approximately 230 billion KRW) in direct economic impact,^6 while further projections by the Korea Culture and Tourism Institute and related organizations suggest that a single BTS concert can generate up to 1.2 trillion KRW in total economic spillover effects.^7

Moreover, recent financial and industry analyses indicate that when including the subsequent world tour, the total economic impact may exceed 3 trillion KRW.^8 Such figures illustrate how a single cultural event can exert influence at the level of national industry.

These economic effects cannot be explained solely in terms of ticket revenue. Rather, they emerge through a multi-layered structure.

First, there is a dramatic increase in tourism and mobility demand. Cities hosting BTS concerts experience sharp rises in air travel, accommodation, and transportation demand, with some regions reporting exponential increases in search volume and bookings.^9 This indicates that concerts function as catalysts for global mobility rather than merely local events.

Second, there is the expansion of consumer expenditure. Concertgoers spend not only on tickets, but also on lodging, food, merchandise, and local consumption, typically generating economic activity several times greater than the ticket price itself.^10 This effect is further amplified by the transnational mobility of BTS’s global fanbase.

Third, there is the spillover effect across the broader cultural industry. Concerts extend beyond one-time events into album sales, streaming, platform-based content, and brand collaborations, thereby generating sustained economic value. BTS has been estimated to contribute trillions of KRW annually to the Korean economy, representing a measurable share of national GDP.^11

Fourth, there is the enhancement of national brand and image. BTS concerts increase global attention and positive sentiment toward South Korea, leading to increased tourism, diplomatic interest, and investment in cultural industries, thereby producing long-term economic benefits.

Taken together, BTS concerts should be understood not as mere “cultural consumption events,” but as integrated economic systems combining tourism, consumption, industry, and national branding. Notably, such economic effects occur even in the absence of ticket pricing, as demonstrated by free performances.

This indicates that economic value is generated not by price, but by the mobility and participation of fandom, as well as by cultural influence itself. In other words, the fundamental asset of BTS concerts lies not in “price,” but in concentrated attention and participation.

In this respect, BTS’s economic impact may be compared to that of Taylor Swift. While Swift’s tours also stimulate local economies, BTS tends to generate broader spillover effects due to the combination of global fan mobility and national image enhancement.

Ultimately, these developments indicate that the cultural industry has transitioned from a peripheral sector to a core driver of national economic growth, with BTS representing one of the most striking examples of this transformation.


V. The Relationship between Cultural Power and State Power

The expansion of cultural power is reshaping its relationship with traditional forms of state power. While military force and geopolitical strategy remain central elements of international relations, they are increasingly accompanied by high costs and structural instability. The recent military actions involving the United States and Israel against Iran illustrate these limitations in stark terms.^12

Beginning in late February 2026, U.S.–Israeli airstrikes against Iran and subsequent retaliatory attacks by Iran have escalated into a broader regional conflict, generating significant instability in the global economy and security environment. Iranian missile strikes have extended beyond Israeli territory to surrounding regions and international military bases, in some cases penetrating established defense systems.


Simultaneously, Iran has taken measures to restrict or threaten closure of the Strait of Hormuz—through which approximately 20 percent of the world’s oil supply passes—thereby delivering a direct shock to global energy markets. This has resulted in rising oil prices and increased volatility across global supply chains and financial markets.

Such military conflicts are not confined to regional disputes. The deployment of long-range missiles, warnings regarding extended strike capabilities reaching Europe, and the involvement of multiple states indicate that the international order as a whole is exposed to heightened uncertainty.

Furthermore, the conflict entails substantial economic and environmental costs. Massive carbon emissions, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and the exacerbation of both climate change and humanitarian crises highlight the broader consequences of military power.

These developments reveal the structural limitations of traditional state power. While military force may provide short-term deterrence or tactical advantage, it simultaneously generates global instability, rising energy costs, and escalating geopolitical tensions. In this sense, the exercise of power may paradoxically amplify uncertainty and systemic risk.

By contrast, cultural power operates through fundamentally different mechanisms. Cultural phenomena such as BTS expand not through coercion or threat, but through voluntary participation and emotional resonance. This form of power can be characterized by non-coerciveness, voluntary engagement, and emotion-driven diffusion.

Unlike military power, cultural power does not generate social instability; rather, it fosters connection, stability, and positive global perception. Large-scale cultural events stimulate urban economies, facilitate international exchange, and enhance national image.

At this juncture, the fundamental distinction between cultural and state power becomes evident. The former diffuses through participation, while the latter operates through control. The former connects emotions, while the latter often produces tension.

Accordingly, what matters in the contemporary international order is not merely how much military force a state possesses, but how effectively it can generate voluntary participation and shared emotional engagement.

In this context, cultural phenomena such as K-pop present a new model of non-coercive and sustainable influence. This suggests that cultural power is emerging as an independent axis of global influence, gradually relativizing traditional forms of state power.


VI. Conclusion

The concerts of BTS and Taylor Swift exemplify how cultural power operates in contemporary society. While the two artists differ in their modes of fandom formation and influence, both construct systems of power grounded in emotion and participation.

This transformation necessitates a redefinition of power itself. Whereas power in the past was based on coercion and control, contemporary power is increasingly constituted through attraction, empathy, and voluntary engagement.

Ultimately, what matters in the modern international order is not how forcefully one can impose influence, but how effectively one can inspire people to participate willingly.

260,000 BTS fans Were Safe. 159 Halloween visitors Never Came Home

On March 21, 2026, we witnessed 260,000 BTS fans from around the world come together—safely, joyfully, and as one—to celebrate.


What Gwanghwamun and Itaewon Reveal About a Society

Hundreds of thousands gathered in the heart of Seoul. Music filled the air, and people moved shoulder to shoulder, all facing the same direction. Yet the scene was not one of chaos, but of order; not fear, but celebration. The 2026 BTS concert at Gwanghwamun drew an estimated crowd of up to 260,000 people, and it concluded without major incident. The entire city became a stage, but within it, people moved safely, and the event unfolded exactly as planned.

But, just a few years earlier, another night in Seoul left a very different memory.

In 2022, in Itaewon, crowds also gathered in a festive atmosphere. It, too, was a “crowd.” But that crowd was unmanaged, the space unprepared, and the risks left unaddressed. The result was devastating: 159 people lost their lives, and 195 were injured. The same city, the same people, the same condition of density—yet the outcomes could not have been more different.

Placed side by side, these two scenes force a simple but weighty question: what made the difference? It was not the size of the crowd. If anything, Gwanghwamun held far more people than Itaewon ever did. The answer lies elsewhere.

It lies not in people, but in systems.

The Gwanghwamun concert was designed with risk in mind. Authorities anticipated the massive turnout, dispersed entry and exit routes, deployed thousands of personnel, and effectively transformed an open urban space into a controlled environment—something akin to an outdoor stadium. The flow of people was guided, density was managed, and risks were mitigated in advance. This was not improvisation; it was planning, judgment, and execution.

Itaewon, by contrast, was treated as a spontaneous gathering and effectively left unattended. The influx of people was predictable, yet no structural measures were taken to manage it. Narrow alleyways and bottlenecks remained unchanged, and no mechanisms existed to regulate movement. In the end, individuals found themselves unable to move at all, and within minutes, a crowd became a catastrophe.

At this point, another question inevitably arises: where does such a difference in systems come from?

The answer is, ultimately, governance.

How seriously risks are recognized, how resources are allocated, and whether public safety is truly placed at the center of policy—these are all matters of political decision-making and administrative capacity. This is not about assigning blame to a single actor or administration. More fundamentally, it is about how a society understands risk and whether it has built the institutional capability to prevent it.

Seen in this light, the Gwanghwamun concert is more than a successful cultural event. It is a demonstration that things can be done differently. It reflects a collective determination not to repeat past failures, and it proves that even massive crowds can be managed safely when preparation and responsibility are taken seriously.

At the same time, it does something more subtle yet more powerful. It does not erase the pain of Itaewon; rather, it reshapes how that pain is remembered. The tragedy remains, but on top of that memory, a safer and more responsible public space can be built. The orderly crowd in Gwanghwamun becomes, in itself, a symbol of recovery—not by forgetting, but by doing better.

If the purple that once filled Gwanghwamun years ago was a color of death and mourning, the purple we saw yesterday was a color of celebration and joy.


And inevitably, such a contrast brings the past into sharper focus. Failures of preparation, lapses in judgment, and the consequences that followed do not fade with time. If anything, they become more visible when placed against examples of success. This is not about condemnation for its own sake. It is about ensuring that such failures are neither denied nor repeated.

The Gwanghwamun event also reveals something essential about culture and the economy. Cultural vitality—tourism, local business activity, global attention—does not emerge spontaneously. It depends on one fundamental condition: safety. Without it, culture collapses into risk, and public space becomes a site of fear rather than participation.

The Itaewon tragedy demonstrated that reality in the starkest terms. The Gwanghwamun concert shows the other side of that equation.

The conclusion, then, is clear. Crowds are not inherently dangerous. What makes them dangerous is the absence of preparation, structure, and responsibility. And those do not arise by chance. They are chosen, designed, and governed.

Gwanghwamun and Itaewon are not merely two separate events. They are two answers to the same question.

And by now, we know which answer a society must choose.

Friday, March 20, 2026

BTS Seoul Concert 2026: Why This Is More Than a Show (And Just the Beginning)

If you think tomorrow’s BTS concert in Seoul is just another performance,

you might want to think again.

This isn’t just a concert.
This is the moment everything starts.


The City Is Already Buzzing (Even Before the Show)

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


Even a day before the concert, Seoul already feels transformed.

At Gwanghwamun Square, thousands of fans from around the world have gathered,
creating an atmosphere that feels like the concert has already begun.

Different languages, same songs.
Different countries, one emotion.

That’s the power of BTS.

This isn’t just about attending a concert —
it’s about being part of a global experience.


A Massive Event on a City-Wide Scale

Let’s talk numbers — because they’re staggering:

This isn’t just a concert venue.

It’s an entire city turning into a stage.

In fact, many are comparing the scale to the 2002 World Cup street events in Korea,
making this one of the largest public gatherings in recent history.


BTS Returns as a Full Group — After Years

One of the biggest reasons this concert matters so much:

BTS is back as a complete group

For fans, this isn’t just exciting — it’s emotional.

After years of waiting, the word most commonly heard on-site is simple:

“Finally.”

This performance represents more than music.
It represents time, anticipation, and reunion.


But Here’s the Key Point: This Is NOT the End

It’s easy to think of this Seoul concert as the “finale” of BTS’s return.

But in reality, it’s the opposite.

This is the beginning.

The Seoul concert serves as the opening chapter of a global tour that will likely expand across:

  • Asia

  • North America

  • Europe

This means tomorrow’s show is not the peak —
it’s the launch.


From Seoul to the World: A Global Wave Begins

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

What starts in Seoul won’t stay in Seoul.

The energy from this concert will ripple outward —
to Tokyo, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and beyond.

This is how BTS operates:

Not as a one-time event,
but as a continuing global narrative.


What to Expect Tomorrow

Here’s what makes this event truly special:

In other words:

You’re not just watching a concert.
You’re witnessing the start of something much bigger.


Final Thoughts

Tomorrow in Seoul, something important happens.

Not just for BTS.
Not just for fans.

But for global pop culture itself.

Because this isn’t just a show.

It’s the beginning of a new chapter — and the world is about to follow.

Tuesday, March 10, 2026

A Tokyo Dome Miracle: Team Korea’s Dramatic Path to the WBC Quarterfinals

Tokyo Dome Miracle, Korea national baseball team made the path to WBC quaterfinals!

 

Baseball fans in Korea witnessed a moment that may be remembered for years to come. In what many are already calling a “Tokyo Dome miracle,” the Korean national baseball team managed to keep its World Baseball Classic hopes alive in the most dramatic fashion possible.

After entering the final game of the group stage with only the faintest chance of advancing, Korea did the unthinkable. By defeating Australia and meeting a complicated set of tie-breaking conditions, the team secured a spot in the 2026 WBC quarterfinals, which will be held in Miami.


A Tournament on the Brink

Throughout the group stage, Korea struggled to deliver the level of performance many fans had expected. After four games, the standings created an incredibly tight scenario: Korea, Australia, and Taiwan were all tied with identical 2–2 records.

Under WBC rules, the tie had to be broken using a special metric known as run differential per defensive out, meaning every run allowed or scored could determine which team advanced.

For Korea, the path forward was extremely narrow. To qualify, the team needed to defeat Australia by at least five runs while allowing no more than two runs. Anything less would end their tournament.

The pressure was enormous—but the players stayed composed.


A Calm Approach Under Maximum Pressure

Manager Ryu Ji-hyun acknowledged the difficulty of the situation before the game.

“We’re in a tough position,” he said ahead of the matchup, “but it’s also an opportunity.”

Rather than rushing or forcing plays, Korea approached the game with patience. The offense built innings step by step—getting runners on base, creating scoring chances, and gradually adding runs to the scoreboard.

Meanwhile, the pitching staff used a steady rotation of arms to limit Australia’s offense and prevent the kind of rally that could have ended Korea’s hopes.


Moon Bo-kyung Shines on the Big Stage

One player stood out above the rest: Moon Bo-kyung.

In the second inning, Moon gave Korea early momentum with a two-run home run, capitalizing on a slider from Australian starter Lachlan Wells.

His performance didn’t stop there.

Later in the game, Korea extended its lead through a series of timely hits. Detroit Tigers outfielder Justyn-Henry Malloy? Wait check? Actually Jhamai Jones? We'll keep Jhamai Jones. Let's ensure accuracy. Let's continue:

Jhamai Jones opened an inning with a double, followed by an RBI double from Jung Hoo Lee of the San Francisco Giants. Moon then delivered another powerful hit off the outfield wall, driving in additional runs and expanding the lead.

By the end of the night, Moon had driven in four runs, bringing his tournament total to 11 RBIs—making him the only player in the competition to surpass double-digit RBIs at that point.


Australia Fights Back

Even with Korea building a strong lead, the game was far from over.

In the fifth inning, Australia responded when Robbie Glendinning hit a solo home run, putting the first run on the board for his team. Later in the game, another RBI cut Korea’s lead to 6–2, bringing the margin dangerously close to the elimination threshold.

At that moment, Korea still needed one more run to safely secure advancement.


A Crucial Run in the Ninth

The decisive moment came in the ninth inning.

With a runner on base, Jung Hoo Lee hit a ground ball that should have ended the opportunity. But an Australian infield throwing error suddenly created runners on first and third.

Moments later, Ahn Hyun-min lifted a sacrifice fly to center field, bringing home the crucial seventh run.

That extra run gave Korea exactly the margin it needed.

Jung hoo Lee, after the catch!

The Final Out—and a Ticket to Miami

All that remained was the bottom of the ninth.

Reliever Cho Byung-hyun took the mound and calmly closed out the game, keeping Australia scoreless in the final inning. When the last out was recorded, the Korean dugout erupted.

The final score: Korea 7, Australia 2.

With that result, Korea officially secured second place in Group C and advanced to the quarterfinals.


The Next Stop: Miami

Korea will now travel to the United States to continue its WBC journey. The team is scheduled to play its quarterfinal matchup at LoanDepot Park in Miami, facing the first-place team from Group D.

At the moment, the Dominican Republic and Venezuela are among the top contenders in that group.

Regardless of the opponent, Korea arrives in Miami with something invaluable: momentum—and the confidence that comes from surviving one of the most dramatic scenarios of the tournament.

For Korean baseball fans, one thing is certain.

The road to Miami began with a miracle in Tokyo.

Monday, March 9, 2026

🏔️ Seoul’s Mountains, Kimbap, and Makgeolli: How Foreign Visitors Are Discovering Korea’s Hiking Culture

Foreign hikers eating Kimbap during mountain hiking in Seoul.

 

One of the most surprising things foreign visitors notice when they come to Seoul is something they rarely expect: the city’s deep connection to mountains.

In many major global cities, hiking usually requires hours of driving outside the urban area. But in Seoul, things work very differently. With just a short subway ride, people can step out of the station and begin hiking almost immediately.

And along those trails, visitors encounter something uniquely Korean—a hiking culture that blends nature, food, and social life in a way that feels both relaxed and joyful.


The Surprise of “Urban Hiking” in Seoul

For many foreign travelers, the first surprise is simply how close the mountains are.

Cities like New York or London require long trips to reach real hiking trails. Seoul, however, is surrounded by mountains such as Bukhansan, Gwanaksan, Inwangsan, and Achasan, all easily accessible from the city center.

On weekend mornings, subway cars are often filled with people wearing colorful hiking gear, backpacks, and hats. At the trailheads, the atmosphere feels almost festive.

For visitors, this combination of a massive modern city and immediate access to nature is both unusual and fascinating.


The Highlight of the Hike: Kimbap at the Summit

One of the most iconic scenes in Korean hiking culture happens at the top of the mountain.

Many Korean hikers bring simple food with them, and the most common choice is kimbap, Korea’s famous seaweed rice roll.

When hikers reach the summit, they sit on rocks or benches, take in the view of the city below, and open their backpacks to share a small meal. It becomes a moment of reward after the climb.

Recently, more and more foreign visitors have begun joining in this tradition. Some even stop by a convenience store before the hike to pick up kimbap for the trip.

Posts on social media often describe the experience like this:

“The most Korean experience in Seoul wasn’t visiting a palace—it was eating kimbap on a mountain overlooking the city.”


Makgeolli: The Drink That Completes the Hike

A set of makgeolli with some side dishes in mountain.

Another unforgettable part of Korean hiking culture is makgeolli, Korea’s traditional rice wine.

Near many trail entrances or halfway up the mountain, small stalls or rest spots sell simple foods like pajeon (savory pancakes) along with bowls of chilled makgeolli.

After a long hike, people sit down, share food, and enjoy a drink together. It is a scene that feels perfectly natural in Korea.

For many foreign visitors, this is quite surprising.

In Western hiking culture, people often wait until the hike is finished before heading to a pub or restaurant. In Korea, however, the mountain itself becomes a social space.

Some visitors describe it this way:

“It feels like Koreans don’t hike just to climb mountains—they hike to spend time together on them.”


What Makes Korean Hiking Culture So Special?

Foreign hikers often point out a few unique aspects of the experience.

1. Exceptionally Well-Maintained Trails

Korean mountains are known for their well-marked paths, stairways, and railings. Even first-time visitors can usually hike safely and comfortably.

2. A Surprisingly Lively Atmosphere

Unlike the quiet solitude often associated with hiking elsewhere, Korean mountains feel lively and social. Conversations, laughter, and greetings are common along the trails.

3. Friendly Encounters with Locals

Many visitors recall small but memorable moments—locals offering snacks, sharing fruit, or helping take photos at the summit. These interactions leave lasting impressions of Korean hospitality.


“The Most Korean Experience in Seoul”

Travel guides often highlight palaces, traditional villages, K-pop, or street food as symbols of Korean culture.

But for many visitors, one of the most authentic ways to understand everyday Korean life is surprisingly simple: hiking a mountain in Seoul.

On those mountains, the fast pace of the city slows down. People pause, share food, laugh, and enjoy the view together.

That is why many travelers eventually say something like this:

“If you want to understand Seoul, climb one of its mountains.”

Because sometimes the best view of the city—and the culture that shapes it—can only be found from the top of a mountain, with kimbap in hand and makgeolli nearby.

Saturday, March 7, 2026

Dokdo Is Korean Territory: The Historical, Geographic, and Legal Case

 It is not enough to simply assume that it is “obvious” that Dokdo is Korean territory. People around the world must now understand this accurately. This is no longer the era of imperialism and colonialism in which the First and Second World Wars broke out. Everything must be returned and restored. Territories that imperial powers—including Japan—illegally occupied have been restored to their original sovereign states. If Japan were to claim that Hawaii became Japanese territory simply because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and “took it,” would Americans stay silent?

There are diverse grounds—including clear historical facts—that demonstrate Dokdo is Korean territory. To make that case, it is necessary to know the facts precisely. On the occasion of “Dokdo Day,” I introduce the historical, geographical, and international-law bases for Dokdo being Korean territory, Japan’s distorted assertions, and the rebuttals to those assertions.


Historical Evidence

(“Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam” — Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

(The passage in “Dongguk Munheon Bigo” mentioning Dokdo — Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

Since 512, when General Isabu conquered Usan-guk (Ulleungdo), Dokdo has been recognized as Korean territory. A large number of official Korean documents contain records concerning Dokdo. Works such as “Geography” (Jiriji) in the Sejong Sillok (1454), Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam (1531), Dongguk Munheon Bigo (1770), Mangi Yoram (1808), and Jeungbo Munheon Bigo (1908) all mention Dokdo. This shows that Korea has long recognized and administered Dokdo as its territory.

Geographical Evidence

Dokdo is approximately 87.4 km from Ulleungdo, the nearest Korean island, whereas it is 157.5 km from Japan’s Oki Islands. On clear days, Dokdo is visible from Ulleungdo. Moreover, the Republic of Korea exercises effective control. Geographically, therefore, there is no room for doubt that it is Korean territory.

International-Law Evidence

(SCAPIN No. 677 shows that Dokdo is included in Korean territory — Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs)


In 1900, the Korean Empire publicly proclaimed Korea’s sovereignty over Dokdo internationally by issuing Imperial Edict No. 41, which stated, in effect, that “Dokdo is land belonging to Ulleung County, and therefore Ulleung County governs Ulleungdo and Seokdo (Dokdo).” In addition, in January 1946, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instruction (SCAPIN) “Definition of Japan” excluded Dokdo from Japanese territory, and the June 1946 SCAPIN No. 1033 also prohibited Japanese vessels and Japanese nationals from approaching Dokdo or coming within 12 nautical miles of the surrounding waters.

At the time, it was stipulated that any modification of the Allied Powers’ decision would require another directive or proclamation. However, no such directive or agreement followed. Accordingly, under international law as well, the Republic of Korea holds sovereignty over Dokdo. Furthermore, international law recognizes visible land where residents have carried out stable living and economic activities as an appurtenant island, and Dokdo satisfies these conditions as well.

Now, let us examine the three principal reasons Japan claims Dokdo as its territory.

1. “Japan discovered and used Dokdo first, starting in the 1600s.”

(The passage in the “Geography” (Jiriji) of the Sejong Sillok mentioning Dokdo — Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

Korea’s recognition of Dokdo as its territory predates that claim, as can be seen even from General Isabu’s conquest of Usan-guk in 512 and the Sejong Sillok “Geography” (1454). Moreover, it is not difficult to find Japanese materials that acknowledge Dokdo as Korean territory. Let us look at four representative examples.

“Eunjusi Chonghapgi” is a work written by Saitō Toyonobu, an official of the eastern region of present-day Shimane Prefecture.

(“Eunjusi Chonghapgi” was authored by Saitō Toyonobu, an official in eastern Shimane — Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

One of the oldest Japanese documents describing Dokdo, Eunjusi Chonghapgi (隱州視聽合記) (1667), indicates that Japan’s northwestern boundary is the Oki Islands and that Dokdo lies outside Japanese territory.

(A Japanese old map, “Kaisei Nihon Yochi Rotei Zenzu (改正日本輿地路程全圖)” — Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs)


Even the Kaisei Nihon Yochi Rotei Zenzu (1779, first edition)—which the Japanese government itself presents as a basis for its claim—shows that Ulleungdo and Dokdo are not Japanese territory.

Additionally, when a diplomatic dispute with Joseon arose in 1693 concerning Ulleungdo, the Edo shogunate sent a document to the Tottori Domain (鳥取藩) on December 24, 1695, asking whether Ulleungdo belonged to Tottori and whether there were any other islands belonging to Tottori. The Tottori Domain responded that Ulleungdo and Dokdo were not Japanese territory.

(The Dajōkan directive (left) and Dokdo drawn on a simplified map of Ulleungdo — Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs)


During the Meiji period, Japan’s Ministry of Home Affairs submitted the question of whether Ulleungdo and Dokdo should be included in a land registry compilation project to the Dajōkan (太政官), Japan’s highest administrative body at the time. In March 1877, the Dajōkan concluded that negotiations between the Edo shogunate and the Joseon government confirmed that Ulleungdo and Dokdo were not Japanese territory, and it issued an instruction to the Ministry of Home Affairs: “With regard to Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and another island (一島: Dokdo), keep in mind that this country (Japan) has nothing to do with them.” This instruction is known as the Dajōkan Directive (태정관 지령).


2. “Dokdo was terra nullius (ownerless land), so Japan’s 1905 cabinet decision to incorporate it was legitimate.”

(Dokdo mentioned in Imperial Edict No. 41 of the Republic of Korea — Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs)


Korea had already proclaimed its sovereignty over Dokdo internationally in 1900 through Imperial Edict No. 41 of the Korean Empire. Moreover, Dokdo had been recognized as Korean territory since 512, when General Isabu conquered Usan-guk, and the various historical documents mentioned above corroborate this.

Some claim that there is no evidence that Dokdo was incorporated into Usan-guk when General Isabu conquered it. However, Dokdo is visible to the naked eye from Ulleungdo, and it is implausible that Dokdo would not have been within Usan-guk’s sphere of life and influence. After Isabu’s conquest, Usan-guk paid local tribute annually to Silla.

A record in the Joseon Wangjo Sillok states that “from Usando they offered several medicinal herbs and also suupi (수우피),” which supports the view that Dokdo was within the living sphere of Usando (Ulleungdo). “Suupi” referred at the time to sea lion or seal skins, and the principal habitat of sea lions and seals was Dokdo.


3. “Because the San Francisco Peace Treaty does not explicitly name Dokdo, Dokdo is not included among the territories Japan renounced.”

The San Francisco Peace Treaty of September 1951, which formally ended World War II, contains a provision stating: “Japan recognizes the independence of Korea, and renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Jeju, Geomun, and Ulleung.” This is an illustrative listing of representative large islands among Korea’s roughly 3,000 islands. Moreover, in light of the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Declaration, and the postwar SCAP directives, the territories separated from Japan as part of Korea must, naturally, be understood to include Dokdo.

Dokdo is Korean territory—let’s sing it instead of repeating the same tired explanation!

 Can’t stay silent

Address of the musical source: https://youtu.be/slonDqZifho?si=dIQCkXUVbBcwUAbi

Copyright © “DokdoKorea”. All rights reserved. No unauthorized modification or derivative works are permitted.


INTRO


Yeah, 독도 Korea — mic check

Yeah, Dokdo Korea — mic check


Listen to my flow — straight fact

내 플로우를 들어봐 — 진짜 팩트야



VERSE 1


"분쟁 만든다?" / That's ridiculous

"Creating a dispute?" / 말도 안 돼


"외교 분쟁?" / That's not true

"Diplomatic conflict?" / 사실이 아냐


실효지배, 역사

Effective control, history


Every piece of evidence points to Korea

모든 증거가 한국을 가리켜


진실 외칠 뿐 / 그게 My way

Just shouting the truth / 그게 내 방식


침묵은 바로

Silence is exactly


일본이 원하는 전략

Japan's desired strategy


러일전쟁 틈타 훔친

Stolen during Russo-Japanese War


그들의 행동

Their actions


This isn't a claim

이건 주장이 아냐


교과서 역사왜곡

Textbook history distortion


"다케시마" 주장

"Takeshima" claims


우리가 침묵하면

If we stay silent


동의와 다름없어

It's no different from agreement



HOOK 1


Can't stay silent

침묵할 수 없어


speak out loud

크게 외쳐


Japan wants our

일본이 원하는 건


quiet now

우리의 침묵


Dokdo is ours

독도는 우리 땅


that's the truth

그게 진실


Raise your voice

목소리 높여


protect the proof

진실을 지켜



VERSE 2


안용복 1693

An Yong-bok 1693


목숨 걸고 항의

Risked his life to protest


홍순칠 1953

Hong Soon-chil 1953


의용수비대 수호

Volunteer guard protection


그때 가만히 있었다면

If they had stayed silent then


독도는 어떻게 되었을까

What would have happened to Dokdo


왜곡에는 팩트로

Against distortion with facts


진실을 밝혀야해

Must reveal the truth


독도 예산 삭감되었을 때

When Dokdo budget was cut


국민들이 나섰지

Citizens stood up


그게 바로 독도챌린지

That's the Dokdo Challenge


우리가 하면 된다

We can do it


We can do anything.

우린 뭐든 할 수 있어.


That's what Korea is all about.

그게 바로 한국이야.



HOOK 2


Can't stay silent

침묵할 수 없어


speak out loud

크게 외쳐


Japan wants our

일본이 원하는 건


quiet now

우리의 침묵


Dokdo is ours

독도는 우리 땅


that's the truth

그게 진실


Raise your voice

목소리 높여


protect the proof

진실을 지켜



BRIDGE


History

역사


독도는 한국땅

Dokdo is Korean land


Geography

지리


지도가 말해줘

The maps tell us


Law


근거는 차고 넘쳐

Evidence overflows


People

국민


We stand strong

우린 강하게 서있어



VERSE 3


독도는 정부만의

Dokdo is not just


싸움이 아냐

The government's fight


우리가 함께할 때

When we come together


narrative 바뀌지

The narrative changes


임진왜란 때도

Just like during Imjin War


민초가 지켰듯

The people protected


지금 우리가 바로

Right now we are


안용복과 홍순칠

An Yong-bok and Hong Soon-chil


작은 댓글이 모여

Small comments gather


큰 물결 되지

Become big waves


우리의 진실이

Our truth


세계에 울려퍼져

Echoes around the world


All these comments are

이 모든 댓글들이


the signs of our time

우리 시대의 증거야


We can do anything.

우린 뭐든 할 수 있어.


That's what Korea is all about.

그게 바로 한국이야.



FINAL HOOK


Can't stay silent

침묵할 수 없어


speak out loud

크게 외쳐


Japan wants our

일본이 원하는 건


quiet now

우리의 침묵


Dokdo is ours

독도는 우리 땅


that's the truth

그게 진실


Raise your voice

목소리 높여


protect the proof

진실을 지켜



OUTRO


Dokdo Korea

독도 코리아


우리의 voice

This is our voice


Dokdo Korea

독도 코리아


함께 louder

Together louder


Dokdo Korea

독도 코리아


This is our land, Dokdo Korea

이게 우리 땅이야, 독도 코리아


Dokdo is Korea

독도는 한국


understand?

이해했어?


Men's version


The Reconfiguration of Cultural Power: A Study on the Transformation of Global Influence through the Concerts of BTS and Taylor Swift

2026 BTS' Comeback Concert in Gwangwhamun Square, Seoul I. Introduction I n the twenty-first century, the mechanisms through which power...