Unlike the Artic, the Antarctica is a 5th largest continent and no indigenous people on ice. Therefore the sovereignty issue has been controversial and inevitable among some states. In general, people might recognize that there is no sovereignty in Antarctica but it is actually frozen by the treaty. The main purpose of the Antarctica Treaty was both promoting international scientific cooperation and securing the scientific purpose only. Yet the significant factor is that the Article 4 imposed the concept of frozen territorial sovereignty on Antarctica. My question is what are the reasons to give 7 claimant states to insist their sovereignty in Antarctica? What if the discovery variable supported the sovereignty, how about Japanese historical expedition and their claims? First, the existence of Japanese territorial sovereignty is important. The 'Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at San Francisco, 1951' exactly illustrated the renunciation of Japanese territory. And the Article II section (e) clearly mentioned that the Japan's renunciation of all claims related to Antarctica. Next, the historical record of first Japanese Antarctica journey is important. The first Japanese Antarctica expedition was led by Lieutenant Shirase Nobu and it was privately supported. There are several books and documents to verify his journey to Antarctica but only few of them illustrated the Japan Antarctica territory. I will critically review the book 'Open Antarctica'(Kim, 2015) and an article 'One Man's Dream Japan's Antarctic History'(Wouters, 1999) to question about Japanese Antarctica territory comparing with reasons of 7 claimant states and international law