독도영유권을 둘러싼 한일 양국의 핵심쟁점 검토 KCI

Title
독도영유권을 둘러싼 한일 양국의 핵심쟁점 검토
Alternative Title
Some legal issues on Dokdo between Korea and Japan
Author(s)
박성욱
KIOST Author(s)
Park, Seong Wook(박성욱)
Publication Year
2010-03
Abstract
한일간에 독도를 둘러싼 문제가 1952년 한국의 평화선 선언 이후 정치적, 외교적으로 민감하게 다루어져 오고 있다. 평화선 선언이후 일본은 외교적으로 공식적인 항의를 하였으며 한일양국은 그 후 4번에 걸쳐 왕복외교문서를 교환하였다.
독도문제에 대한 한일 양국의 주장을 보면 역사적 권원문제와 실효적 지배 문제로 대별된다. 독도에 대한 한국측 자료는 삼국사기(1145년), 세종실록지리지(1454년) 신증동국여지승람(1531년), 동국문헌비고(1770), 만기요람(1808)이 있으며, 일본측은 1870년에 태정관이 독도는 일본과 관련이 없다고 공식적으로 결론을 내렸다. 시마네현 고시 제40호는 일본이 주장하고 있는 가장 강력한 자료이나 동 문서에 회람이라는 주인이 찍혀있는데 이에 대한 추가적인 연구가 필요하다. 그리고 대한제국 칙령 제41호에서 석도가 독도가 된 연유에 대한 추가적인 연구가 필요하다. 또한 일본 국내법에서 독도를 관할범위에서 제한하는 것이 일본의 공식적인 영토포기로 보기는 어려울 것 같다. 그러나 포츠담 선언 이후 일본의 법령을 분석해 보면 제국주의적 영토 침탈 야욕이 그대로 드러나 있는 것으로 보인다.
독도 문제를 해결하기 위해 가장 중요한 것은 독도자료에 대한 정확한 사실 확인이 필요할 것으로 보여진다. 정확한 사실을 통한 이성적 대응은 독도를 둘러싼 한일양국의 격앙된 국민감정을 진정시킬 수 있고 양국간 동반자적 관계를 공고하게 할 수 있을 것이다.

The problem regarding the possession of Dokdo continuously comes up as a major longstanding issue between Korea and Japan, which has been politically and diplomatically sensitive matter. On January 1, 1952, Korea declared "the Peace Line," and on January 28, Japan officially protested. Since 1952, Korea and Japan each exchanged verbal statement four times regarding Dokdo.
Opinions of both nations classify the current issue with historical entitlement and effective possession over Dokdo. Some of historical materials acknowledging Dokdo of Korea are Samguksagi(1145), Sejong Sillok Jiriji(1454), Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam (1531)', 'Dongguk Munheon Bigo (1770), Mangiyoram(1808), etc., On the other hand, Some Japanese documents recognizing the Korean possession of Dokdo are as followed. In 1870, Dajokan(the Imperial Japanese Council of State) issued a formal conclusion that Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) were part of Korean territory and not related with Japan.
There are some hard core issues for both nations' opinions for effective possession which may be different from the fact. One is on the Shimane Prefecture's bulletin No. 40 which is strongly insisted by Japan as an historical document in supporting Japan's claim. Korean scholars were told that the bulletin was an announcement by prefecture government and analyzed accordingly. However, it was found out that this bulletin was only a 'circular notice' within prefecture government, an implicit circular among prefecture level, and not an opinion of national level dealing with assuming outside territory as a part of national territory. Therefore, one cannot accept this bulletin as a national position or national proclamation.
And, the most important national representative material for Korea is the Chignyeong No. 41 in 1900. This Chignyeong No. 41 describes an island named Seokdo which Korea claims is Dokdo whereas Japan disagrees. More research should be conducted to find evidence which clearly indicate that Seokdo is Dokdo. When Seokdo is clearly identified as Dokdo, the Shimane Prefecture's bulletin No. 40 will become null and void.
The KMI said that two Japanese Ordinance excluded the islets from Japan's maritime territory when it rearranged property acquired during its colonization of nearby countries. But these two document could not have entitlement for renouncement of the territory.
All the reports stated above is one that we have to review the accuracy of information then react to the necessary actions based on all facts. Only the rational approach through accurate facts is the way to promote desirable relationship between Korean and Japan to resolve the heightened emotional tensions and work toward beneficial partnership of the future.
ISSN
1598-1053
URI
https://sciwatch.kiost.ac.kr/handle/2020.kiost/1830
Bibliographic Citation
해사법연구, v.22, no.1, pp.221 - 246, 2010
Publisher
한국해사법학회
Keywords
Dokdo; territorial Sovereignty; historical entitlement; effective possession; Shimane Prefecture' s bulletin No.40; Chignyeng No.41; Potseam Proclamation; Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instructions(SCAPINs); Dokdo; territorial Sovereignty; historical entitlement; effective possession; Shimane Prefecture' s bulletin No.40; Chignyeng No.41; Potseam Proclamation; Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instructions(SCAPINs); 독도; 영유권; 역사적 권원; 실효적 지배; 시마네현고시 제40호; 광무칙령 제41호; 포츠담명령; 연합군사령관지령
Type
Article
Language
Korean
Publisher
한국해사법학회
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

qrcode

Items in ScienceWatch@KIOST are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse