*석* 스토어

*석*

개인

팔로워0 팔로우

소개

등록된 소개글이 없습니다.

전문분야 등록된 전문분야가 없습니다.

판매자 정보

학교정보

입력된 정보가 없습니다.

직장정보

입력된 정보가 없습니다.

자격증

입력된 정보가 없습니다.

판매지수

판매중 자료수

1개
전체 판매량

8개
최근 3개월 판매량

0개
자료후기 점수

평균A
자료문의 응답률

-

전체자료 1개

[시사] 독도분쟁보고서(영문) 평가A좋아요

9503049김 석 현Dok Islet or TakeshimaRecently, Korea’s territorial right to Dok Islet is at issue again. This is because there is a lot of public opinion which indicate the mistake of the Korean government in the fisheries agreement with Japan. They are insisting on a revision of the Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement on January 1999. The fisheries agreement between Korea and Japan had first concluded in 1965, which were mainly about the jointly controlled fishing zone in the East Sea. The major defect of the agreement of two years ago is that Dok Islet was located in the jointly controlled fishing zone, which means that Korea does not have an exclusive territorial right to Dok Islet (“Pros”). This dispute about Dok Islet became serious when Japan asserted its territorial right to Dok Islet in 1952. Japan asserted that it did not gave up the territorial right to Dok Islet according to the Treaty of Peace with Japan which was concluded in San Francisco between the Allied Powers and Japan in 1that have the meaning of land which is not meaning of a continent but on the sea floor : island, islet, rocks, reefs, cays, banks, and shoals (Kim, B. 69). According to the admiralty law of the UN, the definition of the island is : “a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by waters, which is above water at high tide”. It also prescribes that every island, ever those too small for effective occupation, can have territorial sea and a contiguous zone, whereas ‘rocks’ which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own cannot generate EEZ as well as the artificial islands (Schoenbaum 29). According to this, Dok Islet is not an island by the admiralty law, which can be called ‘rocks’ as the French whale ship Liancourt named Dok Islet the “Liancourt Rocks” when she discovered it in 1849. All the foreign names of Dok Islet defined it as ‘rocks’ : Bussole Rocks, the French name, Manalai and Olivutsa Rocks which is the Russian name and Hornet Rocks, the English name (Na 94).m there (47). Japan insisted that this policy of King Tae-jong meant abandoning Dok Islet as well as Ul-reung Island and that it was reasonable to try to occupy not only the empty Dok Islet but also Ul-reung Island in the seventeenth century. This is as silly as to say that the ownership of real estate can also be transferred naturally to those who moves in that estate while the owner leaves it for a long time. Moreover, during this policy from 1416 to 1882, the Korean government did not neglect the islands completely, but delegated the representatives to make a round of inspection over Ul-reung Island and Dok Islet once a year or every two years (Kim, B. 119).Since there exist disadvantages in the historical facts of Dok Islet, Japan began to find a way in point of the international law of the modern ages. In order to acquire a territory by means of prior occupation, one has to satisfy three necessary conditions : if the land have the owner or is abandoned; if an official announcement. 677, ‘Memorandom for Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan’ which had an clear statement of the restoration of Dok Islet from Japan to Korea was not the final decision of the territories of Japan (Kim, B. 207). The assertions of Japan is also baseless because the islands which were refered to in the Treaty of Peace with Japan meant not the outside of Korean territory but the big symbolic islands of Korea. In addition, refer to the fifth Article of the SCAPIN No. 677, there is a phrase “the definition of Japan contained in this directive shall also apply to all future directives, memoranda and orders from this Headquarters unless otherwise specified therin”. Professor Shin said that this phrase means that any revision of this definition of Japan is possible only by the issuance of another specific directive. Otherwise, the definition of Japan is final (176).In spite of this evidence both of the historical view and international law, Japan has of Japan (Appendix 1.). There are another examples of marking Dok Islets as the Japanese territory such as the CD-ROM product of the Microsoft in 1997 (“Korea’s”) and the map which was published by the world famous newpaper publishing company, the Times (Appendix 2.). These are the duties for the Korean government to correct and to observe in order not to print of the Korean territory to Dok Islet incorrertly which can be used as a wrong historical evidence by Japan in the future.The distribute between the Korea and the Japan is much complicated issue because it has not only the historical problems but also the international legal problems. Moreover, the Dok Islet cannot be defined as an island in point of the admiralty law of UN. All of the situations which surround and having an influence on the Dok Islet seem to be linked one another in point of the international law apart from the historical problems because all the situations have lots of things to do with an economic profit and >

사회과학| 2001.12.20| 11페이지| 1,000원| 조회(769)

독도, 어업협정, 영문, 영토분쟁, 한일분쟁

미리보기

닫기