지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The sea territorial disputes in the world have been intensified in the 20th century as each nation has tried to secure its territorial sovereignty over the sea through long-term maritime strategies. Indeed East Asia has succeeded in narrowing down the differences on the various land border issues in the historial course of colonialization and de-colonization but still could not manage to overcome maritime territory disagreement. Thus it remains an ambiguous problem waiting for violent outburst in a certain situation. In these days the Past Affair(Kuage-Sa) also fuels it to develop ever complicate and volatile.
The Docdo dispute between Japan and Korea as well as the Diao-yu Dao(Senkaku) incident between China and Japan reveals that territorial issues on sea are very crucial for all three nations of East Asia. This article sheds light on the Japanese contradictory attitudes towards the Docdo against Korea and Diao-yu Dao against China. As far as the Diao-yu Dao is concerned. Japan prefers to emphasizes effective control over it by pre-occupation rather than underlines historical justification and international laws. On the contrary, China above all likes to claim historical jurisdiction over the Diao-yu Dao islands. Meanwhile, when the Diao-yu Dao issue comes front of it, China tends to choose defending its interests by using effective sovereignty over these islands by pre-occupation. As such maritime territorial affairs have at least three-dimensions: historical rights, international laws and actual power exercise. Revealing contradictory attitudes of China and Japan toward each disputed areas and simplifying their argumental line over it, on logical and scientific grounds could territorial right of Korea be established.
Although the South China Sea dispute involves six nation-states but armed conflicts have arisen mainly between China and Vietnam. Afterward there is a high possibility of Philippines joining in this military confronts. Rather fortunately at the same time the nations involved indicates a willingness to seek a peaceful settlement. When China and Vietnam rashly came to lean on military capabilities to settle territorial disputes on the South China Sea, ASEAN presented a joint development in these islands for the peaceful exploitation. Recently nations concerned have invited to a negotiation table as many countries as possible including America, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and even some European countries in order to materialize multi-national development of natural resources. On the other hand China has tried to enhance cooperation with ASEAN partly as a means to check the power of U.S.A. Through a concession to India and Vietnam on the territorial issues, China seems to have gained some credibility which would permit some influence over.
It can be said that China could not recover the territorial integrity in the traditional sense or monopolize its exploitation through the settlement of these disputes. More or less the territorial disputes of these days center on the interests of development of maritime resources rather than acquiring the territory itself. This fact would allow the nations concerned to seek for a peaceful alternative. The direction of maritime disputes between China and its neighboring counties will not only depend on the sea strategy of China but also the latters' will and capability to press China opting for 'understanding and compromise' instead of assuming 'hegemonic' attitude.
The Docdo dispute between Japan and Korea as well as the Diao-yu Dao(Senkaku) incident between China and Japan reveals that territorial issues on sea are very crucial for all three nations of East Asia. This article sheds light on the Japanese contradictory attitudes towards the Docdo against Korea and Diao-yu Dao against China. As far as the Diao-yu Dao is concerned. Japan prefers to emphasizes effective control over it by pre-occupation rather than underlines historical justification and international laws. On the contrary, China above all likes to claim historical jurisdiction over the Diao-yu Dao islands. Meanwhile, when the Diao-yu Dao issue comes front of it, China tends to choose defending its interests by using effective sovereignty over these islands by pre-occupation. As such maritime territorial affairs have at least three-dimensions: historical rights, international laws and actual power exercise. Revealing contradictory attitudes of China and Japan toward each disputed areas and simplifying their argumental line over it, on logical and scientific grounds could territorial right of Korea be established.
Although the South China Sea dispute involves six nation-states but armed conflicts have arisen mainly between China and Vietnam. Afterward there is a high possibility of Philippines joining in this military confronts. Rather fortunately at the same time the nations involved indicates a willingness to seek a peaceful settlement. When China and Vietnam rashly came to lean on military capabilities to settle territorial disputes on the South China Sea, ASEAN presented a joint development in these islands for the peaceful exploitation. Recently nations concerned have invited to a negotiation table as many countries as possible including America, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and even some European countries in order to materialize multi-national development of natural resources. On the other hand China has tried to enhance cooperation with ASEAN partly as a means to check the power of U.S.A. Through a concession to India and Vietnam on the territorial issues, China seems to have gained some credibility which would permit some influence over.
It can be said that China could not recover the territorial integrity in the traditional sense or monopolize its exploitation through the settlement of these disputes. More or less the territorial disputes of these days center on the interests of development of maritime resources rather than acquiring the territory itself. This fact would allow the nations concerned to seek for a peaceful alternative. The direction of maritime disputes between China and its neighboring counties will not only depend on the sea strategy of China but also the latters' will and capability to press China opting for 'understanding and compromise' instead of assuming 'hegemonic' attitude.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 중국의 해양인식과 해양정책의 변화
Ⅲ. 조어도 영유권 분쟁의 역사적 연원과 중국의 입장
Ⅳ. 남사군도 분쟁의 역사적 연원과 중국의 입장
Ⅴ. 맺음말
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (33)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
China’s Position on the Territorial Sea Regime in Terms of the South China Sea Disputes: Straight Baselines and Innocent Passage of Warships around Disputed Islands
The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis
2018 .01
-
Territorial Issue on the East China Sea A Japanese Position
JOURNAL OF EAST ASIA AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
2010 .01
-
중국 ‘해강(海疆)’을 둘러싼 분쟁
동북아시아문화학회 국제학술대회 발표자료집
2018 .10
-
일본의 중국과 러시아에 대한 해양영토분쟁의 사례연구
국제정치연구
2017 .12
-
China's Territorial Policies the Maritime Dimension
한국국제정치학회 학술대회 발표논문집
2008 .08
-
중국 영해제도의 국제법상 합법성 검토
수산경영론집
1993 .01
-
Territorial Disputes and International Relations : What solutions can IR theories provide to territorial disputes in East Asia?
한국국제정치학회 학술대회 발표논문집
2008 .08
-
남중국해 영토⋅해양분쟁의 현황과 법적 과제 - 중국의 ‘일대일로’와의 관련성을 고려하며 -
외법논집
2019 .01
-
Steps Forward for China to Resolve its Disputes in the South China Sea
Global Asia
2013 .06
-
동아시아 갈등관계와 불일치외교
한국사회과학연구
2013 .07
-
China and the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea
The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis
2010 .01
-
Territorial Issues on the East China Sea A Chinese Position
JOURNAL OF EAST ASIA AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
2010 .01
-
Vietnam’s South China Sea Disputes with China: The Economic Determinants
The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis
2014 .01
-
한ㆍ중 간도영유권문제의 고찰
군사
2005 .08
-
Conditions for Peaceful Resolution in Territorial Disputes of Northeast Asia
국제정치논총
2009 .12
-
중국의 군사적 부상과 역내 해양안보 - 남사군도, 대만해협, 센카쿠/댜오위다오 및 한반도 -
대만연구
2019 .06
-
한일회담에서의 독도 영유권 문제 - 한국 외교문서의 분석과 그 현대적 의미 -
국가전략
2009 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-910-015194367