It is widely believed that the future of the international security order will be shaped by the power politics of the newly conceptualized Indo-Pacific region. This linking of the Indian and Pacific Oceans means the linking of two geopolitical systems populated by diverse political and economic models and security challenges. In the case of the latter, East Asia is a region with high economic interdependence, complex history, and unresolved territorial disputes. In the early 2000s, historical tensions and nationalist rhetoric were high in China, Japan, and South Korea as questions of sovereignty and national identity emerged. It is in this context that Alexander Bukh's work These Islands Are Ours can be appreciated.

In contrast to the top-down approach of realist analyses of East Asian maritime disputes that situate the argument within the balance of power framework and focus on foreign policy interests, These Islands offers a bottom-up explanation of how territorial disputes are constructed through national identity in Northeast Asia. The book begins with the premise that “territorial disputes are socially constructed” and that “the meanings associated with these disputed territories and the narratives about them, emerged as a result of sociopolitical processes” (p. 4). Bukh focuses on the role of nonstate actors, whom he labels “national identity entrepreneurs” (individuals, civic groups, or any other entity that is not part of the state and has a capacity for agency), who create and actively promote a certain narrative (territorial disputes for example) that invokes the nation” (p. 10) at significant moments.

For students with an interest in exploring new methods in East Asian area studies, These Islands is an example of interpretive research that cites a rich tapestry of sources, such as pamphlets, prefectural and government reports, petitions, newspapers, educational material, postcards, advertisements, and stamps. Bukh uses process tracing to study how these disputes have been represented and produced. The book is divided into four chapters and offers a comprehensive comparative analysis of how domestic actors in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have framed territorial disputes.

The first two chapters deal with Japan and the social construction of the Russia-occupied (former Soviet) Northern Territories and Takeshima Islands administered by the South Korean government. The third chapter focuses on the “Protect Dokdo Movement” in South Korea, and the fourth chapter analyzes the Protect Diaoyutai (Baodiao) movement in Taiwan.

In examining the social construction of the Northern Territories and Takeshima Islands dispute in Japan, Bukh provides an enriching account of the disputed islands by tracing their economic and political history from the pre-1945 period. The disputed territory is treated as a subregional unit (e.g., relations between the Japanese fishing town Nemuro in Hokkaido and the disputed Kurile islands are examined, as well as the Oki Islands in Shimane Prefecture and their relations with the Takeshima Islands) in which the impact of the Pacific War and the American Occupation on local conditions and peoples’ welfare is studied. The primary focus is the relations between the municipal and prefectural units of government and the central government. These Islands sheds light on the sense of deprivation faced by these local fishing towns, which led to the rise of grassroots movements.

Rather than exploring the material value of the disputed territories, Bukh focuses on their symbolic value. Each chapter of the book traces the lineage of movements and its interactions with respective national level policies. It provides background on local leaders (e.g., Nemuro City mayor Ando Ishisuke), the nature of their political affiliation (communist or conservative), and whether they were motivated by local political gains, bureaucratic interests, or fiscal motivations, to frame the disputed territories in the collective memory and national discourse.

The book makes a valuable contribution to East Asian international relations by developing the concept of “national identity entrepreneurs.” These actors invoke concepts of national identity (in relation to a territorial dispute in this case) as a tool to criticize the government and mobilize support “when the state is perceived as failing the nation” (p. 197). The central government can either decide to co-opt these demands or reject them, depending on their national interests. These Islands reveals that the behavior of national identity entrepreneurs has implications for diplomacy and conflict management, since they can also disrupt the status quo policies of the government that seeks to reassure the other party in the dispute of its mutual interest in peaceful resolution. However, in an attempt to reconcile with these domestic actors, the government's response can be interpreted as contradictory to its intentions, “leading to mixed signals which could lead to escalation in tensions” (p. 172). This could indeed be an alternative explanation to the intractable nature of the maritime disputes in East Asia.