In the past, most studies on territorial disputes have been in the discipline of history and international law. In this paper, we expand the debate by adopting a utility‐theory approach to the issue of Dokdo/Takeshima. We introduce two different types of utility functions over the disputed islet, and show how moving from one to the other can alter the outcome of the dispute.
We conclude that: (i) utilizing historical and/or legal argument alone will not resolve the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute; (ii) the different mixture of two different types of utilities changes the outcome of the debate; and (iii) the current configuration of preferences/utilities among Koreans and Japanese over the issue of Dokdo/Takeshima will never allow mutually satisfactory negotiated solutions to the dispute. Overall our diagnosis and predictions are pessimistic.