At a recent exhibition of their "Dae Dongyeo Jido," the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee translated 大東輿地圖 as "Territorial Map of the Great East," which I think is the wrong translation.
Monday, November 30, 2009
How should 大東輿地圖 be translated in English?
"Dae Dongyeo Jido" (大東輿地圖) is the name of Kim Jeong-ho's famous 1861 map of Korea. It is sometimes translated into English as "Map of the Great Eastern State," but I think it should actually be translated as "Big Map of the Eastern Territory" since the Chinese character 大 seems to be referring to the size of the map rather than the size or greatness of the country. The assembled "Dae Dongyeo Jido" is 6.6 meters high and 4 meters wide.
At a recent exhibition of their "Dae Dongyeo Jido," the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee translated 大東輿地圖 as "Territorial Map of the Great East," which I think is the wrong translation.
At a recent exhibition of their "Dae Dongyeo Jido," the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee translated 大東輿地圖 as "Territorial Map of the Great East," which I think is the wrong translation.
1861 - "Dae Dongyeo Jido" (大東輿地圖) with Unique "Index Map"
On November 20, the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee put on display a copy of Kim Jeong-ho's (金正浩) famous 1861 "Dae Dongyeo Jido" (大東輿地圖) map, one of only 28 complete sets known still to exist. However, the copy at the University of Wisconsin has something that none of the other copies have: an index map (總目全幅).
Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo / Takeshima) does not appear on the Dae Dongyeo Jido (大東輿地圖), or on any Korean map from the Joseon Dynasty, but the index map shown below makes it even clearer that Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo / Takeshima) were not considered a part of Korean territory.
It seems strange that the University of Wisconsin map is the only remaining copy of the "Dae Dongyeo Jido" (大東輿地圖) that has an index map. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that it was brought out of Korea in the late 1800s?
LINK to Korean Article on the map
Columbia Univ. Professor: "Kim Jeong-ho had absolutely no concept of Dokdo"
Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo / Takeshima) does not appear on the Dae Dongyeo Jido (大東輿地圖), or on any Korean map from the Joseon Dynasty, but the index map shown below makes it even clearer that Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo / Takeshima) were not considered a part of Korean territory.
It seems strange that the University of Wisconsin map is the only remaining copy of the "Dae Dongyeo Jido" (大東輿地圖) that has an index map. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that it was brought out of Korea in the late 1800s?
LINK to Korean Article on the map
Columbia Univ. Professor: "Kim Jeong-ho had absolutely no concept of Dokdo"
Saturday, November 28, 2009
1882 Aug 5 - Japanese newspaper 自由新聞
According to THIS KOREAN WEB PAGE, the August 5, 1882 edition of the Japanese newspaper "自由新聞" (Freedom Newspaper) had an article in which the following was said:
The cession of territory would create everlasting bitterness, so it would be a fundamentally bad method. However, taking over Joseon's Matsushima (松島) would be a good thing.
The Korean writer claims that the "Matsushima" (松島) in the article was referring to "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks), but, of course, if such a thing was written, it would be much more likely it was referring to Ulleungdo.
Does anyone have any links to the newspaper or know anything about the article mentioned?
The following is supposed to be a photo of the relevant page of the newspaper, which is apparently on display at the National Museum of Korea.
Latter 1800s: "Dae Dongyeo Jido" (大東輿地圖) - Ulleungdo (鬱陵島)
The following map of Ulleungdo (鬱陵島) is from a Korean atlas entitled "Dongyeo" (東輿), which literally means "Eastern Land." The map is believed to have been made in the latter half of the 1800s and is similar to other maps of Ulleungdo made during the 1800s, except that the small neighboring island off the east shore of Ulleungdo was left unnamed on this map. On other similar maps, the small island was labeled "Usan" (于山) or "Usando" (于山島).
Instead of being labeled "Dongyeo" (東輿), the full, assembled map was labeled "Dae Dongyeo Jido (大東輿地圖), which suggests that the Chinese character 大 (big) was used to refer to the size of the map, not to the size or greatness of the country. In other words, "Dae Dongyeo Jido" (大東輿地圖) did not mean "Map of the Great Eastern Land," but "Big Map of the Eastern Territory." The name "Eastern Land" (東輿) was a name for Korea. The atlas is stored in the National Museum of Korea.
Instead of being labeled "Dongyeo" (東輿), the full, assembled map was labeled "Dae Dongyeo Jido (大東輿地圖), which suggests that the Chinese character 大 (big) was used to refer to the size of the map, not to the size or greatness of the country. In other words, "Dae Dongyeo Jido" (大東輿地圖) did not mean "Map of the Great Eastern Land," but "Big Map of the Eastern Territory." The name "Eastern Land" (東輿) was a name for Korea. The atlas is stored in the National Museum of Korea.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Nat'l Library of Korea "Map Materials Room" Opens
On November 25, a ribbon-cutting ceremony was held for the new "Map Materials Room" of the National Library of Korea. The 522 sq. meter Map Materials Room is stocked with 9,507 map-related books and 3,277 maps. Also, digital images of the antique maps stored in the National Library of Korea, including the "Cheonggu-do," can be easily accessed with easy-to-use touch screen search technology. The antique map databases of twenty-three other institutions can also be searched by way of the library's Web site.
LINK
LINK
Columbia Univ. Professor: "Kim Jeong-ho had absolutely no concept of Dokdo"
At the November 20 "Korea Day Conference" at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, King Sejong Professor Emeritus of Korean Studies at Columbia University, Gari Ledyard, supposedly told a Korean attendee that the famous 19th century Korean mapmaker Kim Jeong-ho (金正浩 ) "had absolutely no concept of Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks).
According to THIS KOREAN LANGUAGE POST, the writer says that after Professor Ledyard's hour-long presentation on Kim Jeong-ho's 1861 "Daedong Yeojido" map, he approached the professor and asked why he had not mentioned anything about Dokdo (獨島) and Gando (間島) in his presentation. He says that Professor Ledyard responded by saying, "Kim Jeong-ho had absolutely no concept of Dokdo and Gando." The writer says he was shocked to hear that America's top expert on the "Daedong Yeojido" did not know that Kim Jeong-ho had drawn "Dokdo" on his 1834 "Jeonggu-do" map of Ulleungdo even though the professor had talked about the "Jeonggu-do" map in his presentation. He says he then showed Professor Ledyard a copy of Kim Jeong-ho's 1834 Ulleungdo map to prove that Kim had known of Dokdo, but that after looking at the map, the professor told him, "Dokdo is not written there." He says that Professor Ledyard then walked away.
The Korean attendee obviously thought that the island labeled as "Usan" (于山) on Kim Jeong-ho's 1834 map of Ulleungdo was proof that Kim had known of "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks) and was "shocked" to hear that Professor Ledyard disagreed. I guess the attendee would also be shocked to know that the head of Korea's Dokdo Museum also said that the island labeled as "Usan" on Kim's 1834 map was Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, not Dokdo. Here is what the head of Korea's Dokdo Museum said about the island labeled as "Usan" on Kim's 1834 map in a March 19, 2007 article:
Dokdo Museum Director Lee Seung-jin said, “After confirming the three old maps, it is obvious to anyone that they showed Jukdo, not Dokdo; and even in our country’s academic circles, it is judged to be Jukdo.
By the way, the "Daedong Yeojido" map at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee has a unique index map that provides more evidence that Kim Jeong-ho did not consider Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) to be a part of Korea.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Old Maps at the National Library of Korea
The book on the left was published by the National Library of Korea in June 2009 and is entitled "Bibliography of Dokdo Related Material Housed at the National Library of Korea -- Old Documents Volume"I have not yet seen the book, but what interests me about the cover is the map on it and the fact that "Old Document Volume" is written on it, which suggests that an "Old Map Volume" may follow.
The library has made many of its old maps available online HERE, but they still have other maps they have not put online, for some reason. Therefore, I would be interesting in seeing the "Old Map Volume" of the book to the left. I wonder when that will come out.
U. of Wisconsin Library Removes "Dok Do" from Map Description
The American Geographical Society Library at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee has corrected the description on its Web site of the 19th-century Korean atlas "Yeojido" (輿地圖). The library had labeled the atlas' map of Gangwon Province as showing "Kangwon Do, Ullung Do, & Dok Do," but now it simply labels it "Kangwon Do, Ullung Do."
The Gangwon Province map in the "Yeojido" atlas shows Ulleungdo with a neighboring island labeled "Usando" (于山島). I had suggested in a post HERE that the library correct their description of the map since Japanese and Korean historians differ on the location of Usando on old Korean maps. Korean historians claim Usando was the old Korean name for Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) while Japanese historians claim it was the old Korean name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo.
By removing "Dok Do" from the description, the library appears to be taking a neutral stance on the territorial dispute, which I think is fair for both Korea and Japan, especially since the name "Dok Do" did not appear on the map.
I thank the American Geographic Society Library at the University of Wisincon - Milwaukee for taking quick action on the issue.
The Gangwon Province map in the "Yeojido" atlas shows Ulleungdo with a neighboring island labeled "Usando" (于山島). I had suggested in a post HERE that the library correct their description of the map since Japanese and Korean historians differ on the location of Usando on old Korean maps. Korean historians claim Usando was the old Korean name for Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) while Japanese historians claim it was the old Korean name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo.
By removing "Dok Do" from the description, the library appears to be taking a neutral stance on the territorial dispute, which I think is fair for both Korea and Japan, especially since the name "Dok Do" did not appear on the map.
I thank the American Geographic Society Library at the University of Wisincon - Milwaukee for taking quick action on the issue.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Important Mistranslation of 1694 Ulleungdo Inspection Report
I have found a very likely, important mistranslation of a passage in the "Ulleungdo Sajeok" (蔚陵島事蹟), which was a report of Jang Han-sang's 1694 inspection of Ulleungdo. I am not surprised that Koreans have mistranslated it, but I am surprised that I and others had not noticed the mistranslation before. I think my new translation is a very important piece of evidence supporting the Japanese claim to Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks) and would like others to reexamine the passages I present below.
In 1694, the Korean government sent Jang Han-sang (張漢相) to inspect Ulleungdo. In his inspection report, he wrote the following:
The island that Jang Han-sang described as being far off to the southeast of Ulleungdo, about 300 ri away (120 kilometers), was almost certainly Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima), which are about 90 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo. Inspector Jang described the rocks as being about one third the size of Ulleungdo, which tells us he did not travel to the rocks because Liancourt Rocks are actually only about 1/390th the size of Ulleungdo. Later, in the conclusion of his report, Inspection Jang seems to refer to the island as being Japanese territory. Here is the quote:
Also, in a 1714 Korean report, an island visible to the east of Ulleungdo was described as being on the Japanese border, which suggests, again, that they believed the island to be Japanese:
In 1694, the Korean government sent Jang Han-sang (張漢相) to inspect Ulleungdo. In his inspection report, he wrote the following:
The small island five ri (two kilometers) to east of Ulleungdo, which was described as having haejang bamboo (海長竹) growing thickly on one side, was almost certainly Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島) because Jukdo is two kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore and is Ulleungdo's largest neighboring island. The island was labeled as "Usando" (于山島) on Bak Jang-sang's 1711 inspection map of Ulleungdo.About five ri to the east is one small island. It is not very big or very high, and it has a grove of haejang bamboo (海長竹) growing thickly on one side. On a day the rain clouds cleared and the fog settled, we went into the mountains and climbed the central peak. Two tall mountains to the north and south were facing us. This was the so-called Sambong (三峯 - "Three Peaks"). The winding shape of Daegwanryeon (大關嶺 - mountain range on the east coast of the Korean peninsula) was visible to the west. Looking toward the east, there was one island far off to the southeast. The size was only about one-third of Ulleungdo. It was only about 300 ri [120 kilometers] away.
東方五里許 有一小島 不甚高大 海長竹叢生於一面 霽雨?捲之日 入山登中峯 則南北兩峯 岌崇相面 此所謂三峯也 西望大關嶺逶迤之狀 東望海中有一島 杳在辰方 而其大滿蔚島三分之一 不過三百餘里.
The island that Jang Han-sang described as being far off to the southeast of Ulleungdo, about 300 ri away (120 kilometers), was almost certainly Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima), which are about 90 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo. Inspector Jang described the rocks as being about one third the size of Ulleungdo, which tells us he did not travel to the rocks because Liancourt Rocks are actually only about 1/390th the size of Ulleungdo. Later, in the conclusion of his report, Inspection Jang seems to refer to the island as being Japanese territory. Here is the quote:
The above quote is my corrected translation of the mistranslation I was referring to above. It was in the conclusion of Inspector Jang's 1694 report. The "distant, hazy, inconspicuous island" was almost certainly referring back to the distant island referred to earlier in the report as being about 300 ri (120 kilometers) to the southeast of Ulleungdo. The fact that he reported seeing the island while looking at Japanese territory suggests that he believed the island to be Japanese.登島山峰審望彼國之域則杳茫無眼杓之島其遠近未知幾許
If one climbs a mountain peak on the island (登島山峰) and looks carefully (審望) at that country's (Japan's) territory (彼國之域), there is a distant, hazy (則杳茫), inconspicuous island (無眼杓之島). Its distance (其遠近) is unknown (未知幾許).
Also, in a 1714 Korean report, an island visible to the east of Ulleungdo was described as being on the Japanese border, which suggests, again, that they believed the island to be Japanese:
I listened carefully to the people in the ports (浦人) who said, "Pyeonghae (平海) and Uljin (蔚珍) are closest to Ulleungdo, and there are no obstructions along the sea route. Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island that is on the border of Japan." In 1708 and 1712, strange-looking ships drifted to the borders of Goseong (高城) and Ganseong (杆城), so we know that Japanese ships frequently come and go. The government, however, says that the vast sea is a barrier, so there is no need to worry, but how can we be sure that a future war will not break out in the Yeongdong region instead of the Yeongnam region? We cannot allow even a little delay in taking measures to be thoroughly prepared.
In accordance with the request, the Myodang (廟堂) requested that Gangwondo be reprimanded to cracked down on its military officials.
辛酉江原道御使趙錫命 論嶺東海防疎虞狀略曰 詳聞浦人言 平海蔚珍 距鬱陵島最近 船路無少礙 鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境. 戊子壬辰 異攘帆穡 漂到高杆境 倭船往來之頻數 可知. 朝家雖以嶺海之限隔 謂無可憂 而安知異日生釁之必由嶺南 而不由嶺東乎. 綢繆之策 不容少緩. 廟堂請依其言 飭江原道 團束軍保.
Congnamul's Satellite Photo of Ulleungdo
Congnamul has a good satellite photo of Ulleungdo, including its neighboring island Jukdo, but the site charges for its higher resolution photos. The view below is the highest resolution the free version allows.
By the way, Daum Map allows close-up views of Ulleungdo, but, for some strange reason, it does not show Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo on its satellite photos.
Click on the photo to see a larger version.
By the way, Daum Map allows close-up views of Ulleungdo, but, for some strange reason, it does not show Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo on its satellite photos.
Click on the photo to see a larger version.
Friday, November 13, 2009
"Daedong Yeojido" at Univ. of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
On November 20, 2009, the Daedong Yeojido (大東輿地圖), along with other archival Korean maps and photographs, will be on display at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee as part of a "Korea Day Conference." The 1861 Korean map was purchased by the university in 1895 from the father of American diplomat George C. Foulk (1856 ~ 1893), who traveled around Korea in 1884 taking photographs and keeping a detailed journal. To learn more about the Korea Day Conference at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee and the 1861 Korean map, click HERE, HERE, and HERE.
According to THIS KOREAN ARTICLE, the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, the University of California - Berkeley, and Harvard University are the only universities in the United States that have complete copies of the Daedong Yeojido. The article says there are twenty-five complete copies of the map in Korea.
To see the first two horizontal sections of the huge map, click HERE.
According to THIS KOREAN ARTICLE, the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, the University of California - Berkeley, and Harvard University are the only universities in the United States that have complete copies of the Daedong Yeojido. The article says there are twenty-five complete copies of the map in Korea.
To see the first two horizontal sections of the huge map, click HERE.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Univ. of Wisconsin at Milwaukee Duped by "Dokdo" Advocates
The above map is part of an old Korean map in an atlas entitled "Yeojido" (輿地圖), which is part of the Korean Map Collection at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. The map, which is believed to have been made between 1800 and 1887, shows the Korean island of "Ul-lungto" (菀陵島) and a neighboring island labeled "U San do" (于山島). The description of the map, however, lists the islands as "Ullung Do" and "Dok do," even though Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) does not appear on the map. Notice that the description of the map was "created" on October 7, 2009.
Usando (于山島 - 우산도) was the old Korean name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도), which is Ulleungdo's largest neighboring island and only about two kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore. Koreans, however, claim that Usando was the old Korean name for Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo / Takeshima), but have no maps or documents to back up the claim. Liancourt Rocks is essentially two rock islets, not one, about ninety kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo. Korea's old maps and documents show that Usando was Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, not Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo / Takeshima).
It is extremely disappointing to see that the people at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee have allowed "Dokdo" advocates to misrepresent the Korean map on the University's Web site. I hope the university quickly corrects the error and is more diligent in the future in guarding against the antics of Korea's "Dokdo" advocates.
Monday, November 09, 2009
The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”, Part 4
Below is the second part of the translation of The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao
" Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)” - Part 4"
(3) Department of the Navy's recognition of "Takeshima and Matsushima"
Mr. Park wrote, " It is noteworthy that Liancourt Rocks was described only to 'Joseon waterway magazine（朝鮮水路誌）', and had not been described to 'Japanese waterway magazine "（ｐ45） He assumed it as a evidence that "Hydrography Department considered Liancourt Rocks, that is, Takeshima = Dokdo outside a Japanese territory." (p46)
However, this is groundless claim since his interpretation of the description of 'Joseon waterway magazine' was strained. The article "Situation" in 1894 edition of the book clearly described that territory of Korea is, " From 124º 30'E longitude to 130º 35'E". Naturally, Liancourt Rocks which situate in 131°55" E is not included in Korean territory.Besides, the article "Japan Sea", in which Liancourt Rocks are listed, also list "Ulleungdo(another name Matsushima)" and "Waywoda Rock(ワイオダ岩)" as well. According to 'Joseon waterway magazine', "The Waywoda Rock, above water, was originally reported by the Russian corvette Veovoda, in 1859, as situated in lat. 42°16' N., long. 137°18' E." and "The Sea Chart of Hokkaido and Northeastern Islands(北洲及北東諸島)"(1893), which was drawn based on Admiralty Chart No．２４０５(1895), placed it between Hokkaido and Amur Coastal State(黒龍沿岸州).
"Waywoda Rock" was simply listed as the dangerous rocks(暗岩危礁)" in the Sea of Japan, and Liancourt Rocks was listed by the same reason. It can't be any kind of "evidence" that the author considered it as Joseon territory only because it was included in "Joseon waterway magazine".
On the other hand, Liancourt Rocks was discovered by French whaling ship Le Liancourt in 1849 and Takeshima, Matsushima and Liancourt Rocks are drawn in "Complete Map of Pacific Ocean" of French naval forces in 1851. Takeshima(Argonaut) disappeared from around Admiralty Chart No．2347 `JAPAN- NIPON, KIUSIU & SIHOK AND PART OF KOREA` (1876), and it described Matsushima(Uleungdo) and Liancourt Rocks. It was one year before Dajokan instructed "Takeshima and other island" and 4 years before Meiji government confirmed that Matsushima was Ulleungdo as well.
Therefore, Liancourt Rocks was actually "Terra nullius" that did not belong to the country at the time. It cannot be an invasion even if Meiji government had named it as Takeshima and incorporated into Shimane Prefecture as "Terra nullius" in 1905. Because there are nohistorical grounds that make Liancourt Rocks a Korean
territory in South Korea, and "Dongguk Munheon Bigo（東国文献備考）"(1770)'s annotation, which SK had been relayed on as grounds of an argument, is already proved as the falsification of posterity.Recently, Korean started to claim that Dokdo(=Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks) as their "inherent territory", and Mr. Park even wrote that "it is needless to say that this is contradictory to "Takeshima as inherent territory" by Japanese government (p49). However, the only country which is qualified to claim it as "inherent part of the territory" is Japan. The term "Inherent Territory(固有の領土)" indicate the territory which have never been ruled by any other country either like northern territories. As for Takeshima, which had been "Terra nullius" in 1905, Japan was ruling effect from at least 1905 to prewar day. Japanese government has a right to claim Takeshima as "Terra nullius, but South Korea, who invaded Japanese territory in 1954, is apparently disqualified to do claim Dokdo as her "inherent territory" at all.
---------------------------------------------
In conclusion, it is clear that Mr. Park's claim that "theMeiji government consistently held to the policy of making Takeshima and Matsushima outside the territory in Japan until incorporation in 1905" (p36) and they made Korean territory as Japanese territory justifying it as it was "Terra nullius" in the middle of Russo-Japanese War is baseless claim. His article "The Meiji Government's Recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" (Studies of the cultures in Northeast Asia, no.28, 2008, pp.33-49.) was only a political advertisement that fabricated the falsified history, which confused the Takeshima issue as the history issue, too.
“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第２２回 朴炳渉氏の「明治政府の竹島＝独島認識」（「北東アジア文化研究」第２８号）を駁す 下條正男”
Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.
The 22th column “ Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)””, Part 1The 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”
The 17th column “The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet Office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 in 1951(昭和26年).”
The 16th column ""Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds."
The 15th column " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory"
The 12th column “Northeast Asian Hisory Foundation and Dokdo Reseacrch Center's Misunderstanding”
The 10th column " A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory”
The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”
The 8th column “The Historical Facts" The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"The 6th column “"Records on Observations in Oki Province (Onshu-shicho-goki : 隠州視聴合記)" and the "Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads(Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu : 日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)."
The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"
The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."
Reference :
1656 - "Yojiji (輿地志)" by Ryu Hyung-won (柳馨遠) didn't say "Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima."
1667 - Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)
1877 - Argument about "another island": details of the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior (太政官指令)
1893 - "The Sea Chart of Hokkaido and Northeastern Islands(北洲及北東諸島)" plots Waywoda Rock far outside of Korean territory
1853-1922 - Kimotsuki Kaneyuki (肝付兼行)
Sunday, November 08, 2009
1905 March (隱岐新報): Japan "officially" incorporates "Takashima"
Korea's online edition of the Chosun Ilbo has posted a November 7, 2009 article entitled, "1905 Edition of 'Oki Sinbo' ---Evidence of 'not original territory,'" which says that a researcher at the Korea Maritime Institute's Dokdo Research Center has found evidence in a March 1905 Japanese publication that the Japanese claim that "Dokdo" was "originally" Japanese territory is "a lie."
The researcher, whose name is Yu Mi-rin, supposedly said that the following sentence from a March 1905 article, entitled "Oki Boundary Expanded," in the Oki Sinbo (隱岐新報) is the evidence that Japanese are lying:
It is a happy event that two small islands and several islets, which our islanders have traveled to since ancient times, have been officially named Takeshima (竹島) and made a part of Oki territory.
우리 도민이 예로부터 도항하던 두 개의 섬과 많은 작은 섬들이 공식적으로 다케시마(竹島·독도를 일본에서 일컫는 말)라는 이름으로 오키 영토가 된 건 기쁜 일.
Here is the original Japanese with an English translation (courtesy of Kaneganese):
Contrary to what the Korean researcher claims, the above editorial seems to support Japanese claims that Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks) was Japanese territory even before their 1905 incorporation. The rocks seem to have been considered unadministered Japanese territory long before 1905. The incorporation of the rocks in 1905 under Oki administration simply made it offical.隱岐國境土の膨張
隱岐の西北八十五浬を距る海洋に存在する島嶼を竹島と命名し隱岐の新領土として隱岐島司の管轄に屬せしめられぬ、吾人豈太白を浮べて祝せざるを得んや、抑も竹島の地たる姉妹二つの島嶼、數多の小島嶼以て點々包圍せられ、其面積の如き未だ詳にせずと雖も、棲居敢て凌ぎ得ざるにあらずといふ、而して陸産としては殆んど利するものなきも、海産に於ては海獣其他漁利鮮なからずと聞く、由來我島民中夙に仝島に航して獲たる所のもの少なからず、事實上隱岐の領土に屬し居りしは既に久し、然るに公然之を認められざりしは遺憾の感ありしに、今や公認の令に接するを得たる上は我島民たるもの大に期する所なかるべからず、然れども仝島固と狭小なり、産物の濫採は永久の利を得る所以にあらざれば一時の利を競ふて無限の利を顧みざるが如きことなきを要す、當局者たる者亦大に此點に留意する所なかるべからず、兎に角隠岐の地籍に新領の上るは何れの町村の所属となるにせよ、確かに隱岐の一大幸福たり、吾人は快感禁じ難く玆に一言を陳じて隱岐境土の膨張を祝す、（弱魚）
"Oki News" - March 15, 1905 (16th vol.)
Editorial
"Expansion of Oki District Territory"
Islets located eight-five nautical miles to the northwest of Oki, which have been named Takeshima, have been made new Oki territory and put under the jurisdiction of the governor. I must toast it.
To begin with, the two sister islets which make up Takeshima are surrounded by several smaller islets. Though the exact area size is unclear, it is said it is big enough for a shelter. There are almost no profitable land products, but there are marine products. It is said that there is great profit in marine mammals and various kinds of fish.
Originally, a significant number of Oki islanders have long sailed to the islets, thus it has been de-facto territory of Oki from long ago. Considering that fact, it was lamentable that it was not recognized officially as Oki's territory before now. On receiving the notice of official authorization, our islanders cannot help having great expectations. However, the islets are narrow from the start, so we should not compete for a short-term profit while ignoring the long-term since excessive harvesting of the products there could hurt continuing profits. Those autorities in charge should take note of this concern.
Anyway, it is a great blessing that new territory has joined the Oki cadastre, no matter which town or village the islets belong. I cannot help feeling pleased and will congratulate the expansion of Oki's territory by making remarks on this situation. (Weak Fish)
Countries, including the United States, have incorporated and unincorporated territory. Before 1905, Takeshima was essentially considered unincorporated Japanese territory, as is evidenced by a 1878 letter in which Watanabe Kouki (渡辺洪基), who was the Director of the Bureau of Documents in Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said "Hornet Rocks" (Matsushima/Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks) was Japanese territory:
The above 1878 document is evidence that the Japanese considered Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) to be Japanese territory before 1905, even though the rocks were not administered by any particular prefecture. That changed in 1905, when the Japanese government decided, officially, to incorporate Liancourt Rocks into Oki county after receiving a 1904 petition from Japanese businessman Nakai Yozaburo (中井養三郞), who argued that the rocks would be better managed and protected if they were incorporated.Therefore, if the “Matsushima” being talked about here is Takeshima (Ulleungdo), then it belongs to them. If the Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it must belong to Japan....
Many records say that “Argonaut,” which is the Western name for Takeshima (Ulleungdo), does not exist, and that “Dagelet,” which refers to Matsushima, is actually Takeshima (Ulleungdo). So what we call "Matsushima” (Liancourt Rocks) is called “Hornet Rocks” by Westerners. Foreign maps show Hornet Rocks to be Japanese territory, but there is still no agreement among countries concerning the other two islands.
Mr. Nakai sent his petition to incorporate Liancourt Rocks to the Japanese government because he had been told that the rocks were a part of Japanese territory. That fact is evidence that the Japanese at the time distinguished between incorporated and unincorporated territory. The Japanese believed Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory, but by putting them under the administration of a Japanese prefecture, it became "official."
Friday, November 06, 2009
Man Arrested for Planning to Torch Japanese Embassy
According to THIS KOREAN ARTICLE, on November 5th, Korean police requested an arrest warrant for a 38-year-old Korean man named Jang, who had been detained the night before, for planning to set fire to the Japanese Embassy in Seoul to protest Japanese "distortion of history and the Dokdo dispute." The man was also accused of planning to take embassy employees hostage.
However, before Mr. Jang was able to carry out his plans, he was arrested by police, who had learned of his plans and traced his whereabouts through his cell phone.
In a statement to police, Mr. Jang reportedly said, "It is vexing and regrettable that I was caught before I was able to carry out the criminal act, but I will keep trying and will not give up until the Japanese attitude changes."
It seems that Mr. Jang had planned to set fire to the embassy, take a hostage, and then hold a press conference to protest Japanese history books and Japanese claims on Dokdo.
According to THIS ENGLISH ARTICLE, when Mr. Jang was apprehended, he was carrying a knife, a lighter, and a copy of a handwritten press statement. The article also says investigators are checking to see if Mr. Jang has any history of psychiatric illness.
However, before Mr. Jang was able to carry out his plans, he was arrested by police, who had learned of his plans and traced his whereabouts through his cell phone.
In a statement to police, Mr. Jang reportedly said, "It is vexing and regrettable that I was caught before I was able to carry out the criminal act, but I will keep trying and will not give up until the Japanese attitude changes."
It seems that Mr. Jang had planned to set fire to the embassy, take a hostage, and then hold a press conference to protest Japanese history books and Japanese claims on Dokdo.
According to THIS ENGLISH ARTICLE, when Mr. Jang was apprehended, he was carrying a knife, a lighter, and a copy of a handwritten press statement. The article also says investigators are checking to see if Mr. Jang has any history of psychiatric illness.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是）”, Part 3
Below is the second part of the translation of The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao
" Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)” - Part 3"
(2) "Dajokan Instruction for "Takeshima and the other island""
However, there are room for the misjudgement. As Mr. Park himself wrote that " in those days, the number of civilians who gradually called Ulleungdo as Matsushima began to increase under the influence of the wrong western maps." (p44), the geographical recognition of Takeshima and Matsushima was intricate.
In 1877, Shimane Prefecture submitted "Consultation for the Compilation of Land Registration of Takeshima and the other island" in order to ask if they should include to the west of the San-in region since it locates to the northwest of Oki Country, which is within the jurisdiction. In response, Dajokan instructed "Takeshima and the other island has no relation to Japan."It is possible to catch a glimpse of confusion even in Dajoruiten(太政類典), compilation of selected documents of Daojkan, which includes Dajokan instruction in concern. "A Sketch Map of Isotakeshima(磯竹島略図)" which Shimane prefecture submitted, described traditional Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo). On the other hand, the document compiled by Shimane prefecture, Ulleungdo is likely to be misconstrued as Matsushima. For example, the documents continues the story about Takeshima(Ulleungdo), which was the name in Edo era, immediately after Matsushima was described.
The beginning of the confusion was for the Argonaut island, that became the island of the phantom later, and the Dagelet island to be drawn in Siebold's "Complete Map of Japan" in 1840, and to have added the island name of Takeshima and Matsushima, respectively. Later, Takeshima (Argonaut island) was described as "Unconfirmed", shown in the short dashed line in the chart etc. , and Ulleungdo, which had been called "Isotakeshima" or "Takeshima" from the early modern age, started to be labelled as "Matsushima". "The influence of the wrong western maps", which Mr. Park says, was the maps at that time which labelled Ulleungdo as "Matsushima" and Phantom island Argonaut as "Takeshima". It was obviously different from Takeshima and Matsushima that had been recorded in a chart etc. at that time were completely different from Shimane Prefecture's geographic understanding that made "Takeshima" of today "Matsushima".
The error in the chart etc. was corrected according to the measurement of the Amagi warship in 1880. The report by Amagi concluded that Matsushima was Joseon's Ulleungdo, and it was adopted in the book "Takeshima Hanzu Shozokuko(竹島版図所属考)" by Kitazawa Masanari(北澤正誠), a official of MOFA who investigated the issue by the order of Ministry of Foreign Affairs when the deforestation by Japanese on Ulleungdo became problem. Kitazawa lastly concluded that "Matsushima" is Joseon's Ulleungdo.Then, the Meiji era government sends a secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs Higaki Naoe to Ullungdo to evict Japanese on the island. Kitazawa wrote that " it is necessary to know from old times Matsushima=Ulleungdo, not Liancourt Rocks, was outside of our territory from old times. (「古来我版図外の地たるや知るべし」)". Mr. Park disregarded this and concluded that "A related organization such as Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Army, Naval forces and Dajokan thought this island to be a Korean territory" based solely on Dajokan instruction in 1877.
Because of these confusing description of the documents, I simply wrote " it is not clear if Takeshima of today is indicated or not", avoiding concluding, in my book "Takeshima, which country owns it. Japan or South Korea?" and also wrote that "it is possible that this indicate today's Takeshima" in Shimane Prefecture's brochure "Hasshin Takeshima(発信竹島)". However, when there is more spaces to go into details, such as journal "Shokun(諸君)", presenting the basis before and after, I summarized that "both "Takeshima and the other island" indicated today's Ulleungdo." It is sophistry of him to criticize that "It is too exceptional for changing own view so often" (p38)
“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第２２回 朴炳渉氏の「明治政府の竹島＝独島認識」（「北東アジア文化研究」第２８号）を駁す 下條正男”
Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.
The 22nd column “ Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)””, Part 1
The 21st column “" Refutation against "Analysys of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”
The 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”
The 17th column “The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet Office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 in 1951(昭和26年).”
The 16th column ""Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds."
The 15th column " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory"
The 12th column “Northeast Asian Hisory Foundation and Dokdo Reseacrch Center's Misunderstanding”
The 10th column " A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory”
The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”
The 8th column “The Historical Facts" The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"
The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."
Reference :
1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876 (Part 1/2) (島根県 渡航禁止のいきさつ)
1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876 (Part 2/2) (島根県 (竹島の)由来の概略)
1880 - Japanese Warship "Amagi" (軍艦天城) Surveys Ulleungdo and finds "Takeshima" is Jukdo.
Friday, October 23, 2009
2009 - Oct. 25 - 日韓の和解と友好を考えるマラソントーク (Marathon talk "For Reconciliation and Friendship of Japan-South Korea - )
2009 - Oct. 25 - 日韓の和解と友好を考えるマラソントーク (Marathon talk "For Reconciliation and Friendship of Japan-South Korea - Sovereignty of Japan that keeps being violated-")
UPDATE
ご報告です。
当日参加してきましたので簡単ですがご報告いたします。
前半は学生中心でしたが、後半に自民党衆議院議員新藤義孝氏、島根県議上代義郎氏、県土竹島を守る会の方々が登壇され、大変興味深いものとなりました。新藤先生は竹島の歴史について正確な知識をお持ちのようで、韓国の主張、特に于山島が現竹島であるなどという説が、如何に歴史的事実に反する妄言であるかをお話していました。韓国側、日本の外務省にも働きかけを行っているようですから、私も一国民として応援していこうと思いました。上代先生と守る会の方々のお話からは、島根県が国内からの様々な逆風に耐えて筋を通し竹島の日を制定したそのご苦労、そしてなかなか国が動かない、国民レベルの運動に広がらないといった焦りが窺えました。
実は今回学生以外にも、明らかに右翼と分かる方々も沢山登壇されました。下條先生が2月の竹島の日記念式典で野次を飛ばした右翼団体の方々に「こんなところで騒ぐくらいならもっときちんとした場所で主張してみよ」と発言の機会を与えた、と聞き及んでいます。正直私としては大いに違和感を感じるものでしたが、普段街宣車に耳を塞いできた自分にとっては、ある意味で勉強になったことも多々ありました。
竹島は我が国固有の領土であることは、3年以上この問題の歴史的背景を独自に学んできた私としては、ゆるぎなき事実であるとの認識です。領土・領空・領海を守ることは、国民として当然のことで、それはなんら隣国に対して脅威をもたらすものではありません。しかし竹島は韓国に不法占拠されている状態が続いており、韓国政府に対して各方面から強く要求し続ける必要があります。その思いを前提として今回の経験をまとめるならば、島根の関係者の方々、右翼も含めた真に国の行く末を案じる方々が孤立しないよう、そして特に先鋭化しないで良い方向に向かっていくよう、自分なりの方法で側面支援していこう、との思いを新たにする良い機会になった、と言うことです。
歴史的資料の発掘、韓国側重要書類の入手、「竹島問題に関する国際法論文選」出版プロジェクト2009、ブログでの研究成果の出版、韓国人の若者との対話の機会を設ける、ネットで活動している竹島研究家の方々や学生たちとの研究ネットワーク作り、竹島みやげの開発、等等沢山アイデアがありますが、こうした考えを一つ一つ実現して行きたいと思っていますので、是非皆様のご協力をお願いしたいと存じます。
(追記、ここまで)
１０月２５日、韓国の「独島の日」にあわせて拓殖大学下條教授と有志の方々が以下のイベントを開催します。学生さんたちが中心に、島根県議なども参加されるようですので、ご興味のある方は是非ご参加下さい。
Marathon talk "For Reconciliation and Friendship of Japan-South Korea - Sovereignty of Japan that keeps being violated-" to be held in Takushoku University on Sat Oct. 25 at 13:00
日韓の和解と友好を考えるマラソントーク ― 侵され続ける日本の主権 ―
●日時
１０月２５日（日）１３：００～１６：００（１２：３０～受付開始）
●場所
拓殖大学文京キャンパスＳ館４階４０１教室（東京メトロ丸の内線「茗荷谷」下車）
●登壇予定者
拓殖大学、早稲田大学、慶応大学学生及び大学院生。島根県議ほか。
●会場整理費
一般 ５００円
学生 無料
●主催
拓殖大学下條研究室
●後援
特定非営利活動法人日本領土領海戦略会議
UPDATE
ご報告です。
当日参加してきましたので簡単ですがご報告いたします。
前半は学生中心でしたが、後半に自民党衆議院議員新藤義孝氏、島根県議上代義郎氏、県土竹島を守る会の方々が登壇され、大変興味深いものとなりました。新藤先生は竹島の歴史について正確な知識をお持ちのようで、韓国の主張、特に于山島が現竹島であるなどという説が、如何に歴史的事実に反する妄言であるかをお話していました。韓国側、日本の外務省にも働きかけを行っているようですから、私も一国民として応援していこうと思いました。上代先生と守る会の方々のお話からは、島根県が国内からの様々な逆風に耐えて筋を通し竹島の日を制定したそのご苦労、そしてなかなか国が動かない、国民レベルの運動に広がらないといった焦りが窺えました。
実は今回学生以外にも、明らかに右翼と分かる方々も沢山登壇されました。下條先生が2月の竹島の日記念式典で野次を飛ばした右翼団体の方々に「こんなところで騒ぐくらいならもっときちんとした場所で主張してみよ」と発言の機会を与えた、と聞き及んでいます。正直私としては大いに違和感を感じるものでしたが、普段街宣車に耳を塞いできた自分にとっては、ある意味で勉強になったことも多々ありました。
竹島は我が国固有の領土であることは、3年以上この問題の歴史的背景を独自に学んできた私としては、ゆるぎなき事実であるとの認識です。領土・領空・領海を守ることは、国民として当然のことで、それはなんら隣国に対して脅威をもたらすものではありません。しかし竹島は韓国に不法占拠されている状態が続いており、韓国政府に対して各方面から強く要求し続ける必要があります。その思いを前提として今回の経験をまとめるならば、島根の関係者の方々、右翼も含めた真に国の行く末を案じる方々が孤立しないよう、そして特に先鋭化しないで良い方向に向かっていくよう、自分なりの方法で側面支援していこう、との思いを新たにする良い機会になった、と言うことです。
歴史的資料の発掘、韓国側重要書類の入手、「竹島問題に関する国際法論文選」出版プロジェクト2009、ブログでの研究成果の出版、韓国人の若者との対話の機会を設ける、ネットで活動している竹島研究家の方々や学生たちとの研究ネットワーク作り、竹島みやげの開発、等等沢山アイデアがありますが、こうした考えを一つ一つ実現して行きたいと思っていますので、是非皆様のご協力をお願いしたいと存じます。
(追記、ここまで)
１０月２５日、韓国の「独島の日」にあわせて拓殖大学下條教授と有志の方々が以下のイベントを開催します。学生さんたちが中心に、島根県議なども参加されるようですので、ご興味のある方は是非ご参加下さい。
Marathon talk "For Reconciliation and Friendship of Japan-South Korea - Sovereignty of Japan that keeps being violated-" to be held in Takushoku University on Sat Oct. 25 at 13:00
日韓の和解と友好を考えるマラソントーク ― 侵され続ける日本の主権 ―
●日時
１０月２５日（日）１３：００～１６：００（１２：３０～受付開始）
●場所
拓殖大学文京キャンパスＳ館４階４０１教室（東京メトロ丸の内線「茗荷谷」下車）
●登壇予定者
拓殖大学、早稲田大学、慶応大学学生及び大学院生。島根県議ほか。
●会場整理費
一般 ５００円
学生 無料
●主催
拓殖大学下條研究室
●後援
特定非営利活動法人日本領土領海戦略会議
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”, Part 2
Below is the second part of the translation of The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao
" Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr.Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)” - Part 2"(1) Takeshima and Matsushima in the Government Compilation Geography Books
Mr. Park enumerated the article "Oki(隠岐)" of 'Nihon Chishi Teiyo, vol.50 (Japanese topography summary : 日本地誌提要)", which is compiled by the government, as grounds to which the Meiji era government made Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks) "Outside the territory in Japan." In the article of "Islands" of the same book, following "Shimazushima(島津島)" and "Matsushima(松島)", "the adjacent islands/dependencies of Oki" are enumerated as follows.Ohmori island(大森島). It belongs to Tsuto village of Ochi Town. Twenty-cho north of Matsushima. The circumference is 25-cho and 57-ken. From east to west, it is 7-cho. South to north, 7-cho. ○ The dependency of "This Country(Honshu : 本州)". Chibu town, 45. Ama town, 16. Suki town, 75. Ochi Town, 43. 179 in total. Those are called Oki's small islands, in general. ○ And there are 2 islands, Matsushima and Takeshima, to north-west. According to the local, people sail to Matsushima from Fukuura harbour. About 69-ri 35-cho in sea route. To Takeshima. About 100-ri and 4-cho. To Joseon. About 136-ri 30 cho in sea route.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
「大森島。穏地郡津戸村に属す。松島の北弐拾町。周回弐拾五町五拾七間。東西七町。南北五町。○本州の属島。知夫郡四拾五。海士郡壱拾六。周吉郡七拾五。穏地郡四拾三。合計壱百七拾九。之を総称して隠岐の小島と云。○又西北に方りて松島竹島の二島あり。土俗相伝えて云ふ。穏地郡福浦港より松島に至る。海路凡六拾九里参拾五町。竹島に至る。海路凡百里四町余。朝鮮に至る海路凡百三十六里参拾町」Mr. Park derived the following conclusions from the description of this 'Japanese topography summary'.
It is important that this geography book, compiled by government, described Takeshima and Matsushima separately from the belonging island in the Mainland(本州). If two islands are not dependency of mainland, naturally, they are neither the dependency of Kyushu nor Hokkaido, thus it is understood that both islands were treated as outside of Japanese territory. (p34)Mr. Park literally interpreted "belonging island in the Honshu(本州)" of the text here as the "Mainland (of Japan)", not "This Country(=Oki)", and interpreted Takeshima and was Matsushima of the following sentence, "○ And there are 2 islands, Matsushima and Takeshima、 to north-west." , are not dependency of Honshu(mainland).
However, "Belonging island in the Honshu" said by "Oki" of 'Nihon Chishi Teiyo' means "Belonging island in Oki Country(=Hon-shu : this country) ". That is apparent since in the article of Oki's "Situation" and "Government", all the word "州" are used for Oki itself, not a mainland of Japan(本州 : Honshu).Besides, this book enumerates Shimazushima(島津島)", "Matsushima(松島)" and "Ohmori shima(大森島)" followed by the sentence "The dependency of "This Country(=Oki)" because the author meant that "Oki" has 179 tiny islets along with Shimazushima or Ohmorishima and there are two more islands "Takeshima and Matsushima" to the north-west. Thus, there is no trace, as Mr. Park claims, that "Takeshima and Matsushima were separately from the adjacent island in the Honshu(本州). " It is twisting an argument for him to insist that "If two islands are not dependency of mainland, naturally, they are neither the dependency of Kyushu nor Hokkaido, thus it is understood that both islands were treated as outside of Japanese territory."
In addition, in the article of "Oki" of this book, it say "From Takeshima(Ulleungdo) of the two islands to Joseon, it is about 136-ris and 30 cho by the sea." That is the concrete evidence the author of the book considered Takeshima(Ulleungdo) as Japanese territory, or he wouldn't have written the distance from Takeshima to Joseon.
Mr. Park ignored this fact and concluded that both islands were treated as the outside of Japanese territory based on this article of "Oki" of this book. He even cited Tanaka Akamaro(田中阿歌麻呂)'s "Old record of Takeshima of Oki Country"(Journal of Geography, Vol. 17, No. 8, 1905), and claimed that "Tanaka, the geographer of Meiji period, also considered as it was (outside of Japanese territory)"."In the first year of the Meiji era(1968), the geography division of central government( 正院地誌課) denied Japan's sovereignty of "that(Takeshima=Dokdo, noted by Mr. Park)" and it led the maps published afterward showed the existence of "that" . Miyamoto Sanpei(宮本三平)'s "The map of Japanese Empire", published by the Ministry of Education, depicted it but didn't color it putting outside of the territory of the empire." (p34)
However, notably, Mr. Park used trick into the quote here. He inserted the note "that(Takeshima=Dokdo, noted by Mr. Park)" in Tanaka's article and claimed that Tanaka also considered Takeshima=Dokdo as outside of Japanese territory.
But, it totally disobeys the intention of Tanaka Akamaro. Because Tanaka soon corrected that "Takeshima of Oki" in the former article was not today's Takeshima ,as Mr. Park noted, in the very opening of "Additional remark" in the end of a book, in which he worte the article titled "The geography knowledge of Takeshima of Oki Country"(Journal of Geography, Vol. 18, No. 6, 1906) next year.
According to the article mentioned above, the article "Old record of Takeshima of Oki Country" in the no.200, 201 and 202 of the journal was not about Takeshima, but Ulleungdo. (p419)
------------------------------------------------------------
「以上の記事によれば本誌第二百号二百一号及び二百二号に掲げたる「隠岐国竹島に関する旧記」の記事は全く竹島の記事に非ずして欝陵島の記事なるが如し」（419頁）As it is clear, Tanaka voluntarily corrected his own mistake of having confused Takeshima with Ulleungdo next year, and corrected in the additional remark. For all the fact, Mr. Park intentionally inserted the deceiving note "that(Takeshima=Dokdo, noted by Mr. Park)". Mr. Park, who twisted the "Oki" 'Nihon Chishi Teiyo' even dishonestly altered the article of Tanaka Akamaro so that he can use it as a logical base for him to claim that Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(today's Takeshima) was made outside of Japanese territory.
Mr. Park has preoccupying opinion that "The Meiji government consistently held fast to the policy of making Takeshima and Matsushima outside the territory of Japan until the "the incorporation of Ryanko-to(Takeshima=Dokdo)" in 1905", and this biased preconception made him arbitrarily interpret and even fabricates the factious history.
However, there were certain recognition that Takeshima and Matsushima were Japanese territory in the Meiji era. It stems from "Records on Observations in Oki Province (Onshu-shicho-goki : 隠州視聴合記)", which wrote Takeshima and Matsushima are the northwest limit of Japan (note 1), and Ohtsuki Shuhei(大槻修平)'s 'Saikoku Nihon Chishi Yoryaku (Revised Summary of Japanese Topography)' (1875) also follows it.(note 2) Mr. Park's claim, "it is not too much to say that all the governmental organization which has strong relation to Takeshima and Matsushima considered Dokdo to be Joseon territory(p46)", is totally groundless, since it turns out that Matsushima of the "Takeshima and the other island" in the 1877's Dajokan instruction was actually Ulleungdo, not today's Takeshia and this order, "Takeshima and the other island has nothing to do with our country.", didn't include today's Takeshima.(note 1) Refer to colum no. 6 & 7
(note 2) In "Oki" articles of Otsuki Shuhei(大 槻修平)'s "Revised Japanese topography summary' (vol. 5) , it is recorded as follows. "To begin with, this country is the westernmost and is solitary island in Sea of Japan, and to the northwest sea, it exists both Matsushima Takeshima. It is said that both of them are close to Joseon area, but there are no inhabitants nor government for belonging and people from each area made it as a hunting grounds where they often came to hunt sealions.
“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第２２回 朴炳渉氏の「明治政府の竹島＝独島認識」（「北東アジア文化研究」第２８号）を駁す 下條正男”
Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.
The 22nd column “ Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)””, Part 1
The 21st column “" Refutation against "Analysys of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”"
The 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”
The 17th column “The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet Office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 in 1951(昭和26年).”
The 16th column ""Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds."
The 15th column " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Ingerent Part of (Korean) Territory"
The 12th column “Northeast Asian Hisory Foundation and Dokdo Reseacrch Center's Misunderstanding”
The 10th column " A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory”
The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”
The 8th column “The Historical Facts"The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"
The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"
The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."
Reference :
1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876 (Part 1/2) (島根県 渡航禁止のいきさつ)
1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876 (Part 2/2) (島根県 (竹島の)由来の概略)
1877 - Argument about "another island": details of the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior (太政官指令)
1880 - Japanese Warship "Amagi" (軍艦天城) Surveys Ulleungdo and finds "Takeshima" is Jukdo.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
中央日報「独島を守ろう」と作った教科書に誤り１５カ所
中央日報：
http://japanese.joins.com/article/article.php?aid=121457&servcode=400§code=400
独島（トクト、日本名・竹島）をめぐり、昨年日本の外務省が「竹島は日本の領土」だという内容のハングル広報資料を出すと、韓国の中央政府・地方政府は先を争って独島守護対策をまとめた。しかし国務総理室や文化財庁などが１１日にハンナラ党の李性憲（イ・ソンホン）、韓善教（ハン・ソンギョ）議員に提出した国政監査資料によると、各機関の対策に一貫性がないことが明らかになった。
外交通商部は４月に慶尚北道（キョンサンブクド）教育庁に「小学校の独島教科書の内容に誤りがある」として検討するよう要請した。２月に発行された独島教科書のうち、▽１８８２年に倭寇が鬱陵島（ウルルンド）で略奪をする部分▽独島という名前が１９０６年に初めて使われたという部分などが歴史的事実と異なると外交通商部は指摘した。１８８２年には略奪したのではなく伐木をしたもので、独島の名前が初めて使われたのは１９０４年というものだ。また太宗（テジョン）実録の「于山島」（ウサンド）に言及した部分については、「日本側の批判を受けた部分だ」として削除を要請した。
このように外交通商部が修正または削除を勧めた部分は１５カ所に上る。外交通商部側は「教科書を３月に入手し内容を検討した。今後教科書を改訂したり類似した教科書政策を進める場合、総理室や外交通商部と協議してほしい」と要請した。「独島守護」の次元から作られた教科書が充分な関係官庁の協議を経ずに製作されていたのだ。
特に総理室は３月に各官庁に宛てた公文で「独島関連広報が機関別に個別・分散的に進められることで、広報引用資料が一致せず、広報論理の統一性が欠如した」と指摘したことが明らかになった。
韓善教議員は「独島問題が起きると各種の対策を浴びせながらしっかりと推進もできない問題が繰り返されている。各政府機関が事前調整なく拙速に事業を進めればむしろ逆効果になる」と主張した。
http://japanese.joins.com/article/article.php?aid=121457&servcode=400§code=400
独島（トクト、日本名・竹島）をめぐり、昨年日本の外務省が「竹島は日本の領土」だという内容のハングル広報資料を出すと、韓国の中央政府・地方政府は先を争って独島守護対策をまとめた。しかし国務総理室や文化財庁などが１１日にハンナラ党の李性憲（イ・ソンホン）、韓善教（ハン・ソンギョ）議員に提出した国政監査資料によると、各機関の対策に一貫性がないことが明らかになった。
外交通商部は４月に慶尚北道（キョンサンブクド）教育庁に「小学校の独島教科書の内容に誤りがある」として検討するよう要請した。２月に発行された独島教科書のうち、▽１８８２年に倭寇が鬱陵島（ウルルンド）で略奪をする部分▽独島という名前が１９０６年に初めて使われたという部分などが歴史的事実と異なると外交通商部は指摘した。１８８２年には略奪したのではなく伐木をしたもので、独島の名前が初めて使われたのは１９０４年というものだ。また太宗（テジョン）実録の「于山島」（ウサンド）に言及した部分については、「日本側の批判を受けた部分だ」として削除を要請した。
このように外交通商部が修正または削除を勧めた部分は１５カ所に上る。外交通商部側は「教科書を３月に入手し内容を検討した。今後教科書を改訂したり類似した教科書政策を進める場合、総理室や外交通商部と協議してほしい」と要請した。「独島守護」の次元から作られた教科書が充分な関係官庁の協議を経ずに製作されていたのだ。
特に総理室は３月に各官庁に宛てた公文で「独島関連広報が機関別に個別・分散的に進められることで、広報引用資料が一致せず、広報論理の統一性が欠如した」と指摘したことが明らかになった。
韓善教議員は「独島問題が起きると各種の対策を浴びせながらしっかりと推進もできない問題が繰り返されている。各政府機関が事前調整なく拙速に事業を進めればむしろ逆効果になる」と主張した。
Friday, October 02, 2009
The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”, Part 1
Below is a first part of the translation of The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao
" Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)” - Part 1Last time, I clarified the fact that Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)'s article " Refutation against "Analysys of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" (Dokdo Research, No. 4) was just an groundless false description. In the article, he failed to prove his claim that "there was neither "Fabrication" nor Falsification" of the historiography that Masao Shimojo claimed " to be true.
His false claim lead me taking up his another article "The Meiji Government's Recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" (Studies of the cultures in Northeast Asia, no.28, 2008, pp.33-49.) for discussion this time. Although he claims that "Meiji government recognized Takeshima and Matsushima as outside of territory", he again avoids and refrains from the historical facts which are definitely disadvantageous for him.
According to him, "the Meiji government consistently held to the policy of making Takeshima and Matsushima outside the territory in Japan until incorporation in 1905" (p36), but "the territory incorporation was decided in the Cabinet Council "since it was a pressing need under the difficult situation" in the middle of Russo-Japanese War, defining Takeshima=Dokdo as "Terra nullius." (p49)"
In his article, he wrote, "Shimojo Masao's opinion, which is extremely uncommon, on the definition of "Takeshima and another island" has been
changing every year. (p37)", while he tried to stress how much his claim is genuine. He denounced my opinion that "he changed his own opinion(p37)", "he changed his own opinion again (p38)" or "uncommon opinion(p38)".Then, what is the "the opinion on the definition of "Takeshima and another island"" Mr. Park mentions? It is, in October of 1876, Shimane Prefecture 's inquiry about the inclusion of Takeshima and another island in the Sea of Japan" submitted to Minister of Interior And Dajokan, the highest governmental organ of Japan, responded that "Takeshima and another island, it is understood that our country has nothing to do with them" next year.
This fact collapses Mr. Park's claim that "the related organs, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Army, Navy and Dajokan considered the island as Joseon territory(p48), thus Japanese inclusion of Takeshima into Shimane was invasion." Maybe, Mr. Park niggled over my opinion so that he may able to conceal this fact. In the last summary, he concluded as follows." Afterwards, Japan that developed as an imperialism nation decided the territory incorporation of Takeshima = Dokdo by a Cabinet Council in the middle of Russo-Japanese War from the judgment with "the incorporation was urgent particularly under the present situation." Japan’s claim was based on terra nullius (meaning unclaimed land). It is needless to say that this is contradictory to "Takeshima as Inherent territory" theory on which present Japanese Government insists. (p49)"However, it was not true. I am going to point out the problems in his article "The Meiji Government's Recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" (Studies of the cultures in Northeast Asia, no.28, 2008, pp.33-49.) now.
(to be continued to the part 2, 3, and 4)
“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第２２回 朴炳渉氏の「明治政府の竹島＝独島認識」（「北東アジア文化研究」第２８号）を駁す 下條正男”
Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.
The 21st column “" Refutation against "Analysys of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”"
The 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”
The 17th column “The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet Office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 in 1951(昭和26年).”
The 16th column ""Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds."
The 15th column " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Ingerent Part of (Korean) Territory"
The 12th column “Northeast Asian Hisory Foundation and Dokdo Reseacrch Center's Misunderstanding”
The 10th column " A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory”
The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”
The 8th column “The Historical Facts" The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"
The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."
Reference :
1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876 (Part 1/2) (島根県 渡航禁止のいきさつ)
1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876 (Part 2/2) (島根県 (竹島の)由来の概略)
1877 - Argument about "another island": details of the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior (太政官指令)1880 - Japanese Warship "Amagi" (軍艦天城) Surveys Ulleungdo and finds "Takeshima" is Jukdo.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
1822 - Jido - Gwandongdo (地圖 - 關東圖)
The following map was made in 1822 and is from an atlas entitled Jido (地圖). It is stored in National Library of Korea. The Gwandongdo (關東圖) map shows Usando (于山島) just off the northeast shore of Ulleungdo. Usando was the old name for Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島), which is just two kilometers off the northern half of Ulleungdo's east shore.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
1965 - June 22 - Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea
On June 22, 1965, Japan and South Korea mutually signed the basic Treaty to restore the diplomatic relations. South Korea, claiming as the only existing government on whole Joseon peninsula including North Korea, agreed to demand no compensations, either at the government or individual level, after receiving $800 million in grants and soft loans from Japan as compensation for its 1910–45 Japanese rule in the treaty. Most importantly, the treaty says "Recalling the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951" in the preface. In other words, Korean government has obligation to follow the San Francisco Treaty, in which Allied Powers clearly concluded that Takeshima/Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks was excluded the sovereignty which Japan should renounce, even though Korean were declined to join the SF treaty because they were not the "Allies".
Treaty of Peace with Japan (Signed at San Francisco, 8 September 1951)
CHAPTER II
TERRITORY
Article 2
(a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.
Japan and the Republic of Korea,
Considering the historical background of relationship between their
peoples and their mutual desire for good neighborliness and for the
normalization of their relations on the basis of the principle of
mutual respect for sovereignty;
Recognizing the importance of their close cooperation in conformity
with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations to the
promotion of their mutual welfare and common interests and to the
maintenance of international peace and security; and
Recalling the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Peace with Japan
signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951 and the
Resolution 195 (III) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on
December 12, 1948;
Have resolved to conclude the present Treaty on Basic Relations and have accordingly appointed as their Plenipotentiaries,
Treaty of Peace with Japan (Signed at San Francisco, 8 September 1951)
CHAPTER II
TERRITORY
Article 2
(a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.
History of San Francisco Peace Treaty
1946 - SCAPIN 677 - #1
1946 - SCAPIN 1033 - #2
1947 - SCAPIN 1778 - #3
1949 - Willam J. Sebald's telegram - #4
1949 - A letter from W. Walton Butterworth - #5
1949 - December 29th; 6th Amendment of the Treaty Draft - #6
1950 - July - Commentary on Draft Treaty by the Department of State - #6-b
1950 - August - U.S. Draft of the Peace Treaty - #6-c
1950 - October 26th - USA Answers to Questions Submitted by the Australian Government - #7
1951 - April - May: Joint UK and USA Draft - extra(1)
1951 - June 1 - New Zealand's view - extra(2)
1951 - July 9th - Coversation of Yu Chan Yang with John F. Dulles - #8
1951 - July 19th - The 2nd Conversation between Yu Chan Yang and John F. Dulles - #9
1951 - August - Another letter from You Chan Yang - #10
1951 - August 3rd - Memorandum - #11(On re-ceiving Boggs's memo. I asked the Korean desk to find out whether anyone in the Korean Embassy officer had told him they believed Dokdo was near Ullengdo, or Takeshima Rock, and suspected that Parangdo was too.)
1951 - August - Rusk's Letter - #12
1951 - September 9th - San Francisco Peace Treaty - #13
Korea's Illegal Land Grab from Japan
1952- January: Syngman Rhee Line
After the Installation of Syngman Rhee Line - American documents
1952 - November - Confidential Security Information of USA - #1 ("It appears that the Department has taken the position that these rocks belong to Japan and has so informed the Korean Ambassador in Washington." )
1952 - December - Confidential Security Information of USA - #2( "I much appreciate your letter of November 14 in regard to the status of the Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks). The information you gave us had never been previously available to the Embassy. We had never heard of Deen Rusk’s letter to the Korean Ambassador in which the Department took a definite stand on this question.")
1953 July: Confidential Security Information of USA - #3( The United States Government's understanding of the territorial status of this island was stated in assistant Secretary dated August 10,1951.")
1953 - November - Secret Security Information of USA - #4 ("The Liancourt Rocks case appears to have aspects in common with that of Shikotan Island" "Remind the ROK of our previous statement of view (the Rusk letter)")
Sunday, September 13, 2009
「竹島問題に関する国際法論文選」出版プロジェクト2009
日本固有の領土である竹島に関する問題は、戦後の混乱期に韓国の帝国主義的領土拡張政策によって軍事的占領された（1954年）ことに端を発し、現在も韓国による不法占拠が60年以上続いています。一義的には領土問題の存在をさえ認めない韓国側の一方的な非友好的態度が非難されるべきですが、同時に事なかれ主義によって積極的に解決しようとしなかた日本政府(密約の存在説もありますが)、そしてそれを許してしまった我々日本国民自身の現在進行形の問題でもあります。さらに、韓国側による積極的なロビー活動により、一次資料の正確な解釈を誤った我田引水的解釈だらけの韓国人研究者の論文に加え、日本側では梶村秀樹氏、堀和生氏等、彼らの主張に沿った偏向論文のみが英文に翻訳され、日本人の研究として世界にばら撒かれているのが現状です。結果としてそのような論文しか目にすることの出来ない世界の研究者は、誤った結論の質の低い論文を執筆せざるを得ない結果となり、領土問題を超えて、東アジア、ひいては世界の学問の信頼を揺るがす大変憂慮すべき事態に陥っています。しかし、韓国側のレベルの低い議論に対し、「相手にするだけ時間の無駄」という無反応の態度を取りることは、「日本は反論するだけの根拠を持たない」という誤ったメッセージを全世界に向けて発していることに他なりません。1905年以前の韓国の竹島に対する実効支配の事実が何一つ無いこと・1906年に日本の領土編入を知った後も抗議（出来る状態であったのに）さえ行わなかったことが既に明らかになっており、日本固有の領土であることが明確である以上、内外に向けて事実を的確に伝える努力を続けることは、この問題に多少なりとも関わった者の責務であると考えます。韓国側のお粗末な論文を払拭するためにも、学術的批判に耐えうる優れた日本の論文を世界に向けて発信する事が求められているのです。
そこで、日本側の研究論文のうち、いくつか選んで翻訳・出版して世界の研究機関等に配布するよう、関係各所に働きかけていくことを考えています。3-5ほどの論文を選ぶとすれば、どれがよろしいでしょうか？さらに研究者や国際法に関係する論文などで推薦がございましたら、随時こちらのコメントセクションに情報をお寄せくださいますよう、お願い申し上げます。
そこで、日本側の研究論文のうち、いくつか選んで翻訳・出版して世界の研究機関等に配布するよう、関係各所に働きかけていくことを考えています。3-5ほどの論文を選ぶとすれば、どれがよろしいでしょうか？さらに研究者や国際法に関係する論文などで推薦がございましたら、随時こちらのコメントセクションに情報をお寄せくださいますよう、お願い申し上げます。
- 秋月望「日韓領土問題再考」竹島独島『明治学院論叢』国際岳研究 １６号 １９９７．３月東壽太郎「国際紛争と地図一」 神奈川法学 第一巻第二号 昭和４０年
- 東壽太郎「国際紛争と地図二」 神奈川法学 第二巻第一号 昭和４１年
- 植田捷雄「竹島の帰属をめぐる日韓紛争」『一橋論叢』54巻1(1965.7)pp19-34
- 芹田健太郎「竹島問題」『島の領有と経済水域の境界確定』有信堂 1989 pp.225-239
- 芹田健太郎「日本領土の変遷」日本の国際法事例研究(3)『領土』(1999)所収
- 芹田健太郎『日本の領土』中公叢書 2002
- 芹田健太郎「竹島を消すことが唯一の解決策だ」 中央公論２００６年１１月号
- 太寿堂鼎「竹島紛争」『国際法外交雑誌』第六四巻四・五合併号、1966、105-136
- 太寿堂鼎「領土問題 北方領土・竹島・尖閣諸島の帰属」『ジュリスト』６４７、１９７７．９．１
- 高野雄一『日本の領土』（1962年、東京大学出版会）69頁,p.266
- 塚本孝「日本の領域確定における近代国際法の適用事例 - 先占法理と竹島の領土編入を中心に」『東アジア近代史』3号(2000.3)pp.84-92
- 塚本孝「サンフランシスコ条約と竹島」『レファレンス』389(1983.6)pp.51-63
- 塚本孝「平和条約と竹島（再論）」『レファレンス』518(1994.3)pp.31-56
- 塚本孝「竹島領有権をめぐる日韓両国政府の見解」『レファレンス』617(2002.6)pp.49-70
- 朴培根「日本による島嶼先占の諸先例 - 竹島/独島に対する領域権原を中心として」『国際法外交雑誌』105巻2号(2006.8) pp.32-47
- 濱田太郎「竹島（独島）紛争の再検討 一」 法学研究論集 明治大学大学院法学研究科 ６号 １９９７．２月
- 濱田太郎「竹島（独島）紛争の再検討 二」 法学研究論集 明治大学大学院法学研究科 ７号 １９９７．９月
- 濱田太郎「竹島（独島）紛争の再検討 三」 法学研究論集 明治大学大学院法学研究科 ８号 １９９８．２月
- 広瀬善男「国際法からみた日韓併合と竹島の領有権」『明治学院大学法学研究』８１号 ２００７年１月皆川洸「竹島紛争と国際判例」（『国際法学の諸問題 - 前原光男教授還暦記念』1963、慶応通信所収）
- 皆川洸「竹島紛争とその解決手続」『法律時報』１９６５年９月号
- 横川新「竹島」日本の国際法事例研究(3)『領土』(1999)所収
- 「『竹島』と国際裁判例の動向」 鬼頭誠 ／ 「インタビュー 小田滋前国際司法裁判所判事に『竹島』問題を聞く」 『読売クオータリー』2008 秋号 通巻第7号 読売新聞東京本社調査研究部 （島根県サイトにあり）
Saturday, September 12, 2009
What happened to our "hit counter"?
On both my Blogger sites, Korean Language Notes and here, the "hit counters" have suddenly started over at somewhere around 12,000 hits. It happened a couple of days ago on my Korean Language Notes site, so I assume it happened at around the same time on this site. Before the change, my Korean Language Notes site had close to 50,000 hits, and this site had more than 1.1 million.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Is the Dokdo-Takeshima debate still alive in Japan?
I heard my name mentioned in the video below and am curious to know the background and what is being said. Could someone please give me a brief summary? It may be an old video, but I just found it mentioned in a September 2, 2009 post on Occidentalism.
I apologize for not participating in the debate much this year. I have tried to stay away from the Dokdo-Takeshima dispute mainly because of job-related concerns, but also because I have been busy with other things. Another reason is that I had lost a lot of motivation because Korea has been relatively quiet on "Dokdo" lately, which I think is a good thing. It seems like Japan and Korea have been trying to improve relations, so it did not seem like the right atmosphere to talk about the Dokdo-Takeshima dispute.
Anyway, my school has recently told me they will not be renewing my contract next year, so I feel more comfortable about getting back into the debate. However, I wonder if anyone is still interested? It seems like the debate has died down in both Korea and Japan, for whatever reason. Are Japanese still interested in the debate?
I apologize for not participating in the debate much this year. I have tried to stay away from the Dokdo-Takeshima dispute mainly because of job-related concerns, but also because I have been busy with other things. Another reason is that I had lost a lot of motivation because Korea has been relatively quiet on "Dokdo" lately, which I think is a good thing. It seems like Japan and Korea have been trying to improve relations, so it did not seem like the right atmosphere to talk about the Dokdo-Takeshima dispute.
Anyway, my school has recently told me they will not be renewing my contract next year, so I feel more comfortable about getting back into the debate. However, I wonder if anyone is still interested? It seems like the debate has died down in both Korea and Japan, for whatever reason. Are Japanese still interested in the debate?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
