竹島問題の歴史

29.12.08

2008 - Dec. 28 - S. Korea protests Japan's territorial claim to Dokdo

SEOUL, Dec. 28 (Yonhap) -- South Korea on Sunday strongly protested Japan's stepped-up move to claim Dokdo, the easternmost South Korean islets in the body of water between the two countries.

A day earlier, Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper reported that the Japanese Foreign Ministry has published a 14-page booklet detailing its claim to the islets in seven more languages -- Arabic, Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish -- in addition to English, Korean and Japanese. (Yonhap News)
----------------------------------------
Seoul protests Tokyo’s Dokdo claims--December 30, 2008

Seoul on Sunday repeated its years-long routine of filing yet another complaint to Tokyo against Japan’s claims to the Korea-controlled islets of Dokdo.
(---------)
According to the newspaper, the ministry has distributed more than 23,500 such brochures in Japanese, Korean and English at home and abroad.

But since early December, it started making the booklets in a total of 10 languages, adding Chinese, French, Arabic, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish, and distributing several thousand to Japanese foreign embassies. The Japanese Foreign Ministry also updated its official Web site so to include its territorial claims.

“We again made a strong demand that the materials be removed,” Korea’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement. (Joong Ang Daily)(cache)
Korean government officially admitted that Takeshima/Dokdo is disputed island, again .

Here is the pamphlet "10 Issues of Takeshima" in 10 languages. Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs do their job stealthly, somehow. Nobody had noticed until Yomiuri Shimbun reported. Then Korean media always advertise the news worldwide.

English [PDF] / Japanese [PDF] / Korean [PDF] / Arabic [PDF] / Chinese [PDF] / French [PDF] / German [PDF] / Portuguese [PDF] / Russian [PDF] / Spanish [PDF]

8 comments:

  1. Korean government always demands to Japan not to claim about Takeshima/Dokto,because they can not deny Japan's claim.

    That is the Korean way to win the dispute.


    한국 정부는 일본 정부의 주장을 부정할 수 없기 때문에, 항상 일본에 대해서 주장 그 자체를 하지 말아고 요구한다.

    논쟁에 이기기 위한 가장 효율적인 전략이다.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is a good news because Korea admitted that there is a dispute between Korea and Japan.

    If there is a dispute, why don't the two countries discuss about the matter? If the discussion dosen't resolve the dispute, the two must go to international society. This may be a good chance to bring Korea to ICJ.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (ICJ)
    On 21 December 1979 Malaysia published a map entitled “Territorial Waters and Continental Shelf Boundaries of Malaysia” (published by the Director of National Mapping, Malaysia) (hereinafter “the 1979 map”), which showed the outer limits and co-ordinates of the territorial sea and continental shelf claimed by Malaysia. The map depicted the island of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh as lying within Malaysia’s territorial waters. By a diplomatic Note dated 14 February 1980 Singapore rejected Malaysia’s “claim” to Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh and requested that the 1979 map be corrected.
    (snip)
    In the view of the Court, it was on 14 February 1980, the time of Singapore’s protest in response to Malaysia’s publication of the 1979 map, that the dispute as to sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh crystallized.
    (snip)
    The Court concludes, especially by reference to the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors à titre de souverain, taken together with the conduct of Malaysia and its predecessors including their failure to respond to the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors, that by 1980 sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh had passed to Singapore.


    Singapore was occupying the Pedra Branca island. However, Singapore protested against the map of Malaysia. ICJ was judged that the dispute was crystallized by this protest and the occupation by Singapore after this protest to be invalid. Though South Korea is insisting that there is no dispute, this protest against Japan has proven the dispute. And, it has been proven that the present occupation by South Korea becomes invalid.

    ところで、このpdfに「海洋開発と国際法」というアメリカの専門誌のヴァンダイク論文にふれているんだけど、これの専門誌の英名って何だろうか。読んでみたい。

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Ocean Development and International Law"のことでしょうか?この論文(Legal Issues Related to Sovereignty over Dokdoand Its Maritime Boundary)、以前はダウンロードできたんですが、何故かWeb上でヒットしませんね。

    ReplyDelete
  5. 国会図書館にもないようですね。誰かダウンロードしたのをもってないかな。ヴァンダイクは日本の抗議が弱いとして現在の韓国の占有を認めようとしているようですね。恐らくその論文では「日本の抗議」のことしか触れていないと思います。
    そんな彼にとってPedra Brancaの判例は想定外だったと思いますよ。占有している側の抗議でアウトとなってしまいましたから、韓国側の抗議でも紛争とみなされちゃいます。

    ReplyDelete
  6. oppさん

    ”ヴァンダイクは日本の抗議が弱いとして現在の韓国の占有を認めようとしているようですね。”

    "Japan’s Protests after the 1965 Treaty.(p190)" の "Summary of This Section. "(p192)で、"Japan’s protests would probably be sufficient to overcome a presumption of acquiescence if Korea’s claim were based solely on its occupation of the islets since World War II under a theory of acquisitive prescription. But, because Korea’s claim is based on activities that span many centuries, along with substantial evidence of Japanese acquiescence during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and because Japan’s claim stems from its expansionist period when it was in the process of wrongfully taking over Korea and on the weak proposition that the islets were terra nullius in
    1905, this case appears to require additional Japanese efforts above and beyond its written protests.
    Japan’s situation is also weakened by its failure to bring this matter to closure at the time it entered into the 1965 Treaty to normalize relations with Korea. The fact that the Dokdo issue was never listed as an official agenda item for discussion during the protracted negotiations that produced this Treaty could be seen as a waiver by Japan of its claim, leading to the conclusion that Japan is estopped from continuing to raise the matter."と結論付けているので、必ずしもそうとは言っていないようです。ただ、条件として韓国の歴史的権原と1965年の日韓基本条約で竹島のことが言及されなかったことを持って日本の立場が弱い、と結論付けており、これはどちらも誤認に基づいていることが(韓国人以外には)明らかなので、逆にいえばそれらを立証しない限り日本の抗議は有効である、ということになると思います。以前もどこかで書いたのですが、この論文は英文を拝借できることと、すべての基本に韓国の歴史的権原を前提にして書かれているので、逆手にとって反論するには将来大変有効な論文です。

    以前教えていただいたアドレスにあとで送ります。この論文、韓国が資金を出してco-authorにも韓国人がいるので、Van Dyke 氏自身はおそらく殆ど歴史的経緯を自分では殆ど把握していないんだと思います。

    ReplyDelete
  7. Funny is the point 1 reason why there is a japanese claim "Japan has long recognized the existance of Takeshima" LOLMAO I`ve never heard such a silly argument.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I mean honestly and seriously, in western standards. When you recognize the existance of something, it does not mean in any ways that it should belong to you.

    ReplyDelete