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
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2001.12
- 수록면
- 121 - 141 (21page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The question of territorial title to the small rocks, Liancourt Rocks, (or islands) called Dokdo in Korean and Takeshima in Japanese is a legal question which includes very complicated problems of historical facts. The arguments on the legal basis of the territorial title to the rocks raised both by the government officials and by the scholars of the two title-claiming countries are in their large part relying on the historical facts with regard to the rocks. These historical facts include the geographical cognizance of the rocks, the evidence of the will to possess them by both Korean and Japanese governments and the management or use of them as a navigational visiting point or fishery base.
These facts are proved or evidenced by many historical documents and maps. To find out them, to interpret their meaning and to evaluate them are the works which lawyers are not familiar with. Therefore, it is inevitable that lawyers and governments officials should rely on the experts of the historical facts when they invoke this kind of facts in the precess of raising their legal arguments.
In Japan, the earliest, most comprehensive and most influential book concerning this kind of historical facts is the “Takeshima no Rekishi Chirigakuteki Kenkyu (Historical and Geographical Study on Liancourt Rocks)” written by Kawakami Kenjo. As a matter of fact, regarding the historical facts about the rocks, the most well known legal article written by representative Japanese international lawyer is entirely relying on this book. The review of the diplomatic notes and letters sent by Japanese government to its Korean counterpart with regard to the territorial title to the rocks shows that Japanese logic of claiming the title to the rocks is totally in concordance with the book. These are the reasons why it is important to critically review the content of the book in order to correctly estimate the persuasiveness of the arguments raised by Japanese government and scholars.
According to the author's review of the content, it may be concluded that the book is losing balance in interpreting and estimating many historical documents and maps. In many aspects, its interpretations of the historical documents are very subjective and arbitrary one. For example, he points out some errors concerning the names of Dagelet island and Liancourt Rocks contained in the Chinese maps. However, what is important in the sense of geographical knowledge is the cognizance of the two different islands as a different ones. Regarding this fact, he just says that the designation of the Chinese map to the two different islands is “arbitrary” one made by the map’s author. He never presents the reason why it is “arbitrary”. He also omits to review or observe many Korean maps which can be the evidences of historical geographical knowledge of the rocks by Koreans. This kind of impartial and subjective attitude concerning the treatment of the historical facts can be seen in many parts of the book. Some of the examples of this attitude are the interpretation of “Inshu shicho gakki” written by Saito, records concerning the activities of Ahn Yong-Bok and many historical descriptions of the rocks in the middle of the East Sea (Sea of Japan). He even assumes that the inhabitants of the Dagelet island had never climbed above the altitude of 120m or those who may have climbed above the altitude could never see the rocks owing to the thick forests.
Kawakami’s description and analysis of the measure taken by Japanese government to incorporate the rocks to the Japanese territory also seems to be losing balance and deflected one. What is decisively important seems to be the analysis of the process of the petition to the Japanese government made by Nakai Yozaburo to include the rocks to the Japanese territory and put them to lease for 10 years. Though Kawakami’s book introduces this episode and concerned document, he never goes into deep analysis of the background and the process of the petition, which may show the Japanese government's recognition of the rocks as a Korean territory.
In conclusion, the book by Kawakami gives the impression that it only focuses that aspect of the historical materials which may be made use of in proving Japanese historical title to the rocks and ignores other aspects of them intentionally or incidentally.
These facts are proved or evidenced by many historical documents and maps. To find out them, to interpret their meaning and to evaluate them are the works which lawyers are not familiar with. Therefore, it is inevitable that lawyers and governments officials should rely on the experts of the historical facts when they invoke this kind of facts in the precess of raising their legal arguments.
In Japan, the earliest, most comprehensive and most influential book concerning this kind of historical facts is the “Takeshima no Rekishi Chirigakuteki Kenkyu (Historical and Geographical Study on Liancourt Rocks)” written by Kawakami Kenjo. As a matter of fact, regarding the historical facts about the rocks, the most well known legal article written by representative Japanese international lawyer is entirely relying on this book. The review of the diplomatic notes and letters sent by Japanese government to its Korean counterpart with regard to the territorial title to the rocks shows that Japanese logic of claiming the title to the rocks is totally in concordance with the book. These are the reasons why it is important to critically review the content of the book in order to correctly estimate the persuasiveness of the arguments raised by Japanese government and scholars.
According to the author's review of the content, it may be concluded that the book is losing balance in interpreting and estimating many historical documents and maps. In many aspects, its interpretations of the historical documents are very subjective and arbitrary one. For example, he points out some errors concerning the names of Dagelet island and Liancourt Rocks contained in the Chinese maps. However, what is important in the sense of geographical knowledge is the cognizance of the two different islands as a different ones. Regarding this fact, he just says that the designation of the Chinese map to the two different islands is “arbitrary” one made by the map’s author. He never presents the reason why it is “arbitrary”. He also omits to review or observe many Korean maps which can be the evidences of historical geographical knowledge of the rocks by Koreans. This kind of impartial and subjective attitude concerning the treatment of the historical facts can be seen in many parts of the book. Some of the examples of this attitude are the interpretation of “Inshu shicho gakki” written by Saito, records concerning the activities of Ahn Yong-Bok and many historical descriptions of the rocks in the middle of the East Sea (Sea of Japan). He even assumes that the inhabitants of the Dagelet island had never climbed above the altitude of 120m or those who may have climbed above the altitude could never see the rocks owing to the thick forests.
Kawakami’s description and analysis of the measure taken by Japanese government to incorporate the rocks to the Japanese territory also seems to be losing balance and deflected one. What is decisively important seems to be the analysis of the process of the petition to the Japanese government made by Nakai Yozaburo to include the rocks to the Japanese territory and put them to lease for 10 years. Though Kawakami’s book introduces this episode and concerned document, he never goes into deep analysis of the background and the process of the petition, which may show the Japanese government's recognition of the rocks as a Korean territory.
In conclusion, the book by Kawakami gives the impression that it only focuses that aspect of the historical materials which may be made use of in proving Japanese historical title to the rocks and ignores other aspects of them intentionally or incidentally.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 『竹島の歷史地理的硏究』의 내용
Ⅲ. 『竹島の歷史地理的硏究』의 문제점
Ⅳ. 맺는 말
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
독도 관련 미국 정책의 국제적 분석
외법논집
2008 .01
-
국립공원 월악산 지역의 지형관광자원에 대한 연구
관광식음료경영연구
2002 .01
-
동일 기반암 지역에서 산지와 곡지 암석의 풍화 특성 비교
한국지형학회지
2016 .01
-
Between a Rock and a Rocket Man : South Korea’s Anxiety
Global Asia
2017 .12
-
韓-日 學生運動의 展開와 特徵에 관한 比較硏究
국제정치논총
1992 .10
-
獨島의 法的地位
국제법학회논총
1956 .03
-
미일행정협정과 ‘죽도’영유권과의 무관성 논증 : 일본의회속기록을 중심으로
동북아 문화연구
2012 .03
-
Between a Rock and a Hard Place : The Future of the East Asian Maritime Order
EAI 이슈브리핑
2010 .12
-
A Study on the Korean Writing in Japanese - From an Educational Point of View of Japanese -
동북아시아문화학회 국제학술대회 발표자료집
2019 .07
-
일본 역사지리정보시스템(HGIS)의 연구현황과 활용에 관한 연구 : 일본 근세 시대 지역공간 복원방법을 사례로
대한지리학회지
2017 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-360-019483727