Reaching an agreement on a common name for a sea adjacent to several countries is obviously a difficult and sensitive task, since the name of the sea reflects the culture, history, and identity of the people living nearby.  This is well proven by concurrent use of different names in the editions of “Limits of Oceans and Seas: S-23” published so far.  There are two cases of concurrent name usage in its first edition: four cases in the 2nd edition, and five cases in the 3rd edition.  Even in the unpublished final draft circulated in 2002, three cases of concurrent name usage were included.  Examples of concurrent naming in the 1st edition of S-23: Greenland Sea (Norwegian Sea), The Archipelago(Aegean Sea) / Examples of concurrent naming in the 2nd edition: Greenland Sea (Norwegian Sea), Laptev Sea(Nordenskjöld Sea), Andaman Sea(Burma Sea), The Archipelago(Aegean Sea) / Examples of concurrent naming in the 3rd edition: Laptev Sea or Nordenskjöld Sea, Gulf of Iran or Persian Gulf, Balearic Sea or Iberian Sea, Andaman Sea or Burma Sea, Aegean Sea(The Archipelago) / Examples of concurrent naming in the 4th edition(unpublished final draft): English Channel(La Manche), Dover Strait(Pas de Calais), Bay of Biscay(Golfe de Gascogne).  These cases show how the international community has endeavored to respect indigenous names used by local people with different languages and cultures.
  The coastline of the sea located on the eastern side of the Korean Peninsula is shared by four countries: South Korea, North Korea, Japan, and Russia.  Within the sea area are found the territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zones(EEZ) of each country.  It is therefore not appropriate to name this area after one particular country when several countries share sovereignty and jurisdiction. Furthermore, it is incumbent upon the international community to give due consideration to the names if the countries concerned refer to the sea differently.
  Relevant international organizations recommend that names be used concurrently when countries concerned cannot agree on a single name for a shared geographical feature. Major examples include, IHO Technical Resolution A.4.2.6 and the United Nations Resolution on the Standardization of Geographical Names Ⅲ/20.
  In accordance with the IHO Resolution and United Nations Resolution on the Standardization of Geographical Names, Korea suggests that it is most appropriate to use both “East Sea” and “Sea of Japan” concurrently until an agreement on a common name is reached.  Since 2002, Korea has held five bilateral meetings with Japan in order to pursue constructive dialogue and reach an agreement on a common name.  However, Japan has only responded with indifference to these overtures and continues to insist that nothing other than the single use of “Sea of Japan” is acceptable.