쓰카모토 다카시의 「샌프란시스코 평화조약에서 나타난 다케시마에 대한 취급」에 대한 비판적 연구 - 2007년 日本 竹島硏究會 最終報告書에 대한 비판 (A Critical Study on the “The San Francisco Treaty(1951) and the Relevance of the Sovereignty of Dokdo” by Stukamoto Dakashi - 2007 Final Report of the Research on the Takeshima Issues by The Japanese )

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 영남대학교 인문과학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 인문연구 / 55호 / 115 ~ 150페이지
· 저자명 : 정갑용

초록

본 논문은 위 보고서에서 쓰카모토 다카시(塚本 孝)가 쓴 「샌프란시스코 평화조약에서 나타난 독도에 대한 취급(サン · フランシスユ平和條約における竹島の取り扱い)」을 분석한 것으로, 그 주장의 요점은 1951년에 미국과 체결한 샌프란시스코 조약에서 독도를 한국에 명확하게 반환한다고 규정하고 있지 않으므로 당연히 독도는 일본의 영토에 귀속된다는 종래의 주장을 되풀이 하고 있다.
필자의 견해로는 1951년 샌프란시스코 조약에서 독도문제를 명확하게 규정하지 않고 있는 것은 오히려 독도가 일본에 귀속되지 않는다는 것을 반증하는 것이며, 더 나아가 독도영유권의 귀속은 독도의 영유권과 관련된 역사자료, 고지도, 공문서, 법령, 국제문서 등을 종합적으로 파악하여 판단해야 할 것이다.
독도문제가 국제정세의 변화에 따라 국제재판소에서 해결될 가능성을 염두에 두고, 독도문제가 국제재판소에서 다루어지는 경우에 대한 시나리오를 상정하여 일본의 ‘선점’ 주장에 대한 대응법리 계발, Critical Date에 대한 재검토, 신한일어업협정과 독도문제에 대한 극복논리 및 현실적 대안 등에 대한 철저한 연구가 필요하다. 또한, “국제재판소에 가서도 우리가 이길 수 있도록” 우리의 주장을 객관적으로 확인할 수 있고 일본 주장의 허구성 및 불법성을 밝힐 수 있는 사료, 자료를 확보하고 이를 기초로 한 대응논리를 계발하는 것이 시급히 필요하다고 본다.
무엇보다도, 독도문제는 제2차 세계대전을 일으킨 장본인인 일본에 대한 전쟁책임을 철저히 추급하지 않는데서 기인한다고 보며, 독도문제의 해결은 앞으로 우리나라와 중국 및 관련 국가들이 연대하여 일본국의 전쟁책임, 일본왕의 전쟁책임, 강제징집, 집단학살 및 일본군 위안부 피해자(종군위안부)에 대한 책임을 추급하는 것에서 그 해결방안이 모색되어야 하리라고 본다.

영어초록

This paper studied critically on the “The San Francisco Treaty(1951) and the Relevance of the Sovereignty of Dokdo”(サン · フランシスユ平和條約における竹島の取り扱) by Stukamoto Dakashi(塚本 孝)」 in the 「Final Report of the Research on the the Takeshima Issues(竹島問題に關する調査硏究 最終報告書)」 by The Japanese Takeshima Research Forum(日本 竹島問題硏究會) which relevant to the Dokdo matter. And this paper examined the text and discussed the relevance of the sovereignty of Dokdo.
Korea's claim to Dokdo goes back many centuries and is based on contacts during many previous eras. On the other hand, Japan asserts that Dokdo was terra nullius in 1905 and that Japan acted in accordance with international law in claiming Dokdo into Japanese territory at that time.
During the final years of the war, including the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, which were designed to address the lands acquired by Japan during its aggressive territorial expansion. The Cairo Declaration is clear that territories were acquired through “violence and greed” by Japan would be freed. The Potsdam Proclamation provided the conditions under which the Allied Powers and article 8 of it outlined the main territory that would remain under Japanese sovereignty. Japan accepted the provisions of the Potsdam Proclamation when it signed the “Instrument of Surrender” on September 2, 1945. Korea view Japan's incorporation of Dokdo in 1905 as being the result of “violence and greed,” since Japan was engaged in a major imperialistic expansion during that period.
Following the surrender, the Allied Powers issued a series of Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instructions(SCAPINs), two of which concerned Dokdo. SCAPIN No. 677(1946) issued January 29, 1946, defined the territory over which Liancourt Rocks(Dokdo) was one of the islands that was removed from Japanese control. Korean had contended that this Instruction excluding Dokdo from the definition of Japanese territory. SCAPIN No. 1033 (1946) issued this Instruction on June 22, 1946, establishing ‘the MacArthur Line' to delineate authorized areas for Japanese fishing and whaling. The Instruction placed Dokdo outside the authorized area, thus denying Japan not only administrative control of the islets but also the ability to exploit the resources adjacent to them.
San Francisco Treaty(1951), signed on September 8, 1951, in Article 2(a), “Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet” but, Dokdo was not mentioned in the Treaty Analysis of the drafting history of the San Francisco Treaty(1951) reveals that the Allied Power changed its mind several times as to whether Dokdo should be viewed as Japanese or Korean territory and was silent on the status of Dokdo. The San Francisco Treaty(1951) did not mention Dokdo in Article 2 (a), its territorial provision.
As a conclusion, Korea's position that it is properly exercising sovereignty over Dokdo is thus confirmed by the close examination of the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. Korea also contends that the San Francisco Treaty (1951) should be interpreted in light of the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation which stated that Japan would be required to give up all territories acquired through “violence and greed.” More important would be the actions that have taken Korea's exercises of control over Dokdo and Japan's acquiescence that can be found in its acceptance of the 1965 Normalization Treaty. Korea regained the sovereignty over Dokdo through the events, declarations, decrees, agreements during and after World War II.

참고자료

· 없음