Historical Perceptions brings together thirteen Korean and Japanese scholars who address the key issues that impede efforts to move beyond the past and advance their relations. The volume aims, in the words of editor Dae-Song Hyun, to “improve bilateral relations between Korea and Japan with a forward-looking attitude,” and to offer guidance for “conflict resolution and international cooperation” (p. 33). It further seeks to inform non-Japanese or Korean readers on these issues by providing for them an “introductory book in English on Korea-Japan relations” (p. 11).

The authors' coverage of their topics is, as suggested by the subtitle, fundamental: to introduce readers to the “origins and points” of the areas of controversy. For example, the chapters on Dokto/Takeshima—there are four of them—review premodern exchanges between Japan and Korea over the islands' ownership, the Meiji regime's decision to incorporate the territory, and postwar negotiations and claims made by South Korea and Japan. Wada's chapter, which considers this controversy alongside Japan's other territorial disputes such as that with Russia over the Northern Territories and with China over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, proposes that Japan's recognition of Korean sovereignty over the islands would serve as a “goodwill gesture of [apology]” for its colonial past (pp. 190–191). He introduces others suggestions that include the two states seeking third party arbitration or negotiating the islands' joint control. Authors on this topic might also have considered in greater depth the fundamental questions of why Japan and Korea consider these islands (rocks to some) to be of such importance, and the consequences either side might face should they revoke their claim of ownership.

Other issues receive similar treatment, with the authors skillfully introducing the basic issues of controversy but stopping short of providing in depth discussion on points made. Takahashi's chapter on Yasukuni Shrine offers a reasonable discussion on the controversy behind Japan's prime minister official visits to this “symbol of Japanese militarism” (p. 200). Youn's chapter on the “comfort women” introduces issues ranging from the procedures used to assemble the women and Japanese government's responsibility for their pitiful plight. Both consider in their arguments claims often made by Japanese neo-conservatives: the “victor's justice” element of Class A war criminal trials, and the belief that comfort stations were simply houses of prostitution. However, the authors' rebuttals, while acceptable to the choir, would probably convince few among the undecided, much less Japan's neo-conservatives. Existing English-language research offers much more comprehensive treatment on these topics.

The chapters on the Treaty of Basic Relations that Korea and Japan signed in 1965 do offer welcome coverage on a topic that has yet to be adequately covered in the English-language, but has received generous attention in the Japanese- and Korean-language, literature. One important focus of these discussions is the ambiguous phrase “already null and void” (p. 264) found in Article 2, in reference to the status of the treaties that Japan and Korea signed early in the twentieth century. Korean scholars criticize this phrase's inclusion in the 1965 treaty as it suggests that these earlier treaties were once legitimate, that they were “conducted through due proceedings” and on “equal terms and by free will” (p. 264) Many Japanese claim the treaties to have been legally finalized, and they remained valid until the establishment of the Republic of Korea in August 1948. Kim Chang-rok writes that when Japan and South Korea signed the 1965 treaty they agreed to “offer contradictory interpretations through this ambiguous term ‘already’”; this treaty thus represented “an agreement on nonagreement” (p. 264). He concludes that the differences over treaty interpretation, and by extension those over the legality of Japan's occupation of Korea, renders the Japanese-Korean relationship “abnormal.” This severely impedes positive advancement toward an East Asian community.

The contributors to Historical Perspectives are to be commended for organizing discussions on these rather difficult issues. To my knowledge this is the first volume in English to assemble Korean and Japanese voices on these issues. Their task was facilitated by both Japanese and Korean authors being in general agreement over the responsibility that Japan must bear to resolve these issues. Disturbing, however, is the generally elementary level of the discussions. This, coupled with the dearth of English-language publication citations, suggests the contributors' unfamiliarity with many important efforts already available on these topics. Additionally, better inter-chapter coordination would have eliminated much of the tedious overlap, particularly that found in the chapters on Dokto/Takeshima. That said, those new to Korea-Japan relations, and particularly the contested issues that separate the two states, will welcome the introduction of these issues through Japanese and Korean voices that Historical Perspectives' provides. The detailed timeline included as the appendix that highlights the main events of this relationship (pp. 390–445) is a thoughtful and useful addition to the volume.