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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술대회자료
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2007.6
- 수록면
- 93 - 100 (8page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
There have been serious debates between Russia and Japan on the questions of sovereignty of the Kuril Islands. After the Shimoda Treaty in 1855, which was the first treaty between Russia and Japan on the delimitation of national boundary, the sovereignty of the Kuril Islands had been changed according to the national power of each country. A series of treaties after 1855 seemed to be legitimate conclusions at given times, but those treaties had also some contents which could be manipulated by Russia and Japan for its own benefit. For this reason, it would be very difficult to suggest reasonable solutions to the questions of sovereignty of Kuril Islands just dependent on the modern treaties after 1855. Considering this aspect, this paper attempts to put the questions of sovereignty of the Kuril Islands in the larger context by examining the concrete situation of the islands from the 17th century.
During the 17th and 18th century, the residents of the Kuril Islands did not know the concept of national boundary and did not confine themselves to the subjects to the particular ruler. They traded freely with Russians and Japanese when they needed. The Kuril Islands at that time were open spaces where the powerful influences of a certain country could not be felt. Nevertheless, it is unpractical to argue that the Kuril Islands should be returned to original inhabitants of the region or to the joint sovereignty of Russia and Japan. From the middle of the 19th century, the Kuril Islands were considered as parts of national territory of either Russia or Japan. But if we pay attention to the historical experiences of the Kuril Islands in the 17th and 18th century, we can possibly deduce reasonable solution to the question of so-called "Northern Territories" from the Japanese perspective.
Seen from the larger context, these Northern Territories have sufficient reasons to be handed over to Japan. The argument is not acceptable from the view points of national interests of Russia. But if Russia can maintain stable positions on the other Kuril Islands which are not originally its national territory, such a proposal would bring the national benefit to Russia as well. In the long run, it would enhance the future relationship between Russia and Japan which would playa significant part in the international politics of Northeast Asia.
During the 17th and 18th century, the residents of the Kuril Islands did not know the concept of national boundary and did not confine themselves to the subjects to the particular ruler. They traded freely with Russians and Japanese when they needed. The Kuril Islands at that time were open spaces where the powerful influences of a certain country could not be felt. Nevertheless, it is unpractical to argue that the Kuril Islands should be returned to original inhabitants of the region or to the joint sovereignty of Russia and Japan. From the middle of the 19th century, the Kuril Islands were considered as parts of national territory of either Russia or Japan. But if we pay attention to the historical experiences of the Kuril Islands in the 17th and 18th century, we can possibly deduce reasonable solution to the question of so-called "Northern Territories" from the Japanese perspective.
Seen from the larger context, these Northern Territories have sufficient reasons to be handed over to Japan. The argument is not acceptable from the view points of national interests of Russia. But if Russia can maintain stable positions on the other Kuril Islands which are not originally its national territory, such a proposal would bring the national benefit to Russia as well. In the long run, it would enhance the future relationship between Russia and Japan which would playa significant part in the international politics of Northeast Asia.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가는 말
Ⅱ. 쿠릴 열도로의 최초 진출자 문제
Ⅲ. 쿠릴 열도에 대한 실질적 통제권의 문제
Ⅳ. 근대적 조약에서 나타난 쿠릴 열도의 영유권 문제
Ⅴ. 끝맺는 말
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
러일 북방영토분쟁에 대한 전후 일본의 정책지향과 전망 : 주요 선언·성명·협정을 중심으로
사회과학연구논총
2012 .12
-
Maritime Territorial Disputes between Russia and Japan on ‘Southern Kurils’ in the Cold War Contexts
동북아시아문화학회 국제학술대회 발표자료집
2018 .07
-
러시아는 왜 ‘1956년 모델’을 원하는가? : 남쿠릴열도 영토논쟁에 대한 러시아의 입장
국제학논총
2012 .10
-
일본의 중국과 러시아에 대한 해양영토분쟁의 사례연구
국제정치연구
2017 .12
-
러시아 쿠릴열도에 관한 러·일 분쟁사 연구 : 러·일이 체결한 영토조약을 중심으로
군사
2011 .09
-
An Analysis of the Main Difficulties for Russian Transfer Ownership of the Kuril Islands to Japan in the post Soviet Period
한국정치학회보
2005 .12
-
중ㆍ일간 조어도의 영유권 분쟁에 대한 고찰
해사법연구
2007 .01
-
러·일간 쿠릴열도 분쟁과 미국의 입장
한국 시베리아연구
2014 .01
-
탈소비에트 시기의 러시아와 일본의 영토분쟁 : 옐친시대를 중심으로
평화연구
2004 .04
-
쿠릴 4도 분쟁 영속화 요인 고찰
한국정치학회보
2002 .07
-
남쿠릴 문제에 대한 다자간 전략적 판단
국방정책연구
2017 .01
-
동북아 영토분쟁과 일본의 선택: 독도, 센카쿠, 쿠릴열도에 대한 일본의 다층화 전략
현대정치연구
2019 .08
-
Maritime Territorial Disputes in Northeast Asia : Historical, Political Cultural and Strategic Comprehension
동북아 문화연구
2014 .09
-
러시아와 일본의 쿠릴섬 문제 : 샌프란시스코평화조약을 중심으로
군사
2010 .03
-
한ㆍ소 수교 이후 북ㆍ러 관계 : 회고와 전망
아시아문화
2001 .08
-
Is Japan the ‘Galapagos Islands’ of Social Media?
Global Asia
2014 .06
-
The Role of Russia in Korea at the End of 19th Century
아세아연구
1991 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0