I.Documents concerned with “Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories”
1) U.S. Draft dated November 2, 1949(original source is here)
The Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs of US Dos assumed that Japan cedes a part of her territory to China and Soviet directly.
Article 4
1. Japan hereby cedes to China in full sovereignty the island of Taiwan (Fomasa) and ……….
Article 5
1. Japan hereby cedes to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in full sovereignty the portion of the island of Sakhalin (Karafuto) …….
Article 6
1. Japan hereby renounces in favor of Korea all rights and titles to the Korean mainland territory……..
2) Sebald’s proposal about the method of the disposition, November 19, 1949(original source is here)
Sebald recommended a subsidiary document which define disposition than the direct cession by the treaty.Article 4 through 12. We suggest that in the treaty Article 4 through 12 of the November 2 draft be omitted, and that in a document subsidiary to the treaty among the signatories other than Japan the disposition of the treaties formerly under Japanese jurisdiction be agreed upon. The necessity of direct cession would thereby be removed from the treaty proper and Japan would not rest under the necessity of being a party to it.
3) Boggs's proposal about the territorial clauses on Dec 8 , 1949 (original source is here)
Boggs drafted territorial clauses according to the Sebald's suggestion and sent to the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs.Article 4Japan hereby [cedes and] renounces all territory <, all territorial claims ???????> and all mandate, and concession rights, titles and claims outside the territorial area described in Article 3, and accepts the disposition of these territories that has been made or that may be made by the parties concerned, or by the United Nations in accordance with the trusteeship provisions of Articles 77, 79, and 85 of the Charter of the United Nations.
4) Territorial Clauses & Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories, Dec 15, 1949(original source is here)
The Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs modified the Boggs's territorial clauses and drafted the "Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories". The draft of the agreement was incomplete with many mistakes. "Territorial Clauses" and "Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories" contradicts in the point of Takeshima. The Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs sent those documents to the Legal Adviser of Dos on Dec 15, 1949. Territorial Clauses of Peace TreatyArticle4
1. Japan hereby renounces on behalf of itself and its nationals all territorial and mandate rights, titles and claims outside the territorial area described in Article 3.
2. The Allied and Associated Powers retain their rights in respect to disposition of the territories referred to in the preceding paragraph which were under Japanese sovereignty, pending conclusion of an agreement or agreements among them providing for disposition of such territories.
Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories
Article3
The Allied and Associated Powers agree that there shall be transferred in full sovereignty to the Republic of Korea all rights and titles to the Korean Mainland territory and all offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart (Saishu To), the Nan how group (San To, or Komun Do) which forms port Hamilton (Tonaikai), Dagelet Island (Utsuryo To, or Matsu Shima), Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima),....
5) The Legal Adviser responded to the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs on Dec 19, 1949(original source is here)
The Legal Adviser was negative for making a two ducument plan. This is last record about the draft of the agreement. Dos did not correct even mistakes of the draft.Since territorial dispositions are generally matters of considerable importance to the various nations concerned, most nations would doubtless desire that the disposing document be of the same dignity, namely, a treaty. Hence, two documents would need to be ratified. Where the intended recipient is agreed upon, and no important matters call for outside action, it would be a matter of some difficulty to explain to other nations the necessity for the departure from practice, unless a substantial reason appeared. It is our understanding that the reason advanced for separate documents in the case of cession of Japanese territory is that the absence of “cession to” clauses in the Treaty of Peace will be of psychological benefit to Japan.
6) U.S. Draft dated December 29, 1949(original source is here)
The Bureau of EA gave up two documents plan and rolled back to the direct cession plan.Article 5
2. Japan hereby cedes to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in full sovereignty the portion of the Kurile islands.
Article 6
1. Japan hereby renounces in favor of Korea all rights and titles to the Korean mainland territory……..
7) S.F. treaty on September 8, 1951
Finally, Allies gave up direct cession and Japan simply renounced her territory by the treaty. (a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.
(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.
(c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of September 5, 1905.
However Allies did not determine the disposition of the renounced territory. Then the disposition became indefinite.
PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW, Ian Brownlie
Sovereignty may also be indeterminate so far as the process of secession may not be seen to be complete at any precise point in time. [...] For example, in a peace treaty Japan renounced all right to Fomasa. However, Fomasa has not been the subject of any act of disposition; it has not been transferred to any state.
II. Analysys of “Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories”
１）FACT
- This draft of the agreement is the primitive draft which has many mistakes and blanks. US Dos swiftly abandoned this draft after receiving the Legal adviser's suggestion.
- This draft of the agreement is internal document of the US Dos. Allies didn't know this draft of the agreement, because US Dos didn't distribute to Allies. Allies neither signed or ratify at this document, too.
- This draft of the agreement is contradictory to the San Francisco treaty about Takeshima. The Allies don't have authority to dispose a territory without an agreement of Japan. Because Japan didn't renounce Takeshima at the SF treaty, Allies don't have the power of disposition about Takeshima.
2）The difference from the Rusk note
- Rusk note was made based on the treaty draft dated June 14. The sentence of the Article2 of this draft is same as the S.F. treaty. Then Rusk note is adjusted with S.F. treaty. But this draft of the agreement contradicts the S.F. treaty
- While Rusk note was a formal bilateral diplomatic document issued by drafter of the Treaty and sent to ROK government, this draft in concern was just an internal primitive document which has no trace of distribution to any other countries outside.
Which is more important between the San Francisco treaty with signatures by Allies and Japan, and this draft of the agreement without signatures? Of course, priority is given to the S.F. treaty. Supplementary means of interpretation of the treaty can't use in order to deny the treaty.
3) Korean interpretation
Dokdo Research and Preservation Association & Dokdo Institute"Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories" is internal primitive draft. Because Japan and Allies didn't agree, this draft of the agreement is legally invalid. Moreover the their interpretation about SF treaty violates the "Principle of Completeness of Boundary Treaties" of the international law.
"Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories"(1950) drafted in preparation for the San Francisco Treaty in 1951 stated Dokdo as a"Korean territory' in substantive enactment. Therefor although Dokdo was not mentioned in San Francisco Peace Treaty, Dokdo was recognized as a Korean territory in "Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories" and "SCAPIN No. 677".
Advisory Opinion of the Permanent Court on the Interpretation of Article 3, Paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Lausanne (1925)
It is . . . natural that any article designed to fix a frontier should, if possible, be so interpreted that the result of the application of its provisions in their entirety should be the establishment of a precise, complete and definitive frontier.
Special thanks to Matsu and Kaneganese
Thank you, OPP.
ReplyDeleteVery Good Job!
I hope Prof. Seok woo Lee would answer about the identification of the dating “Dec.19 1949” for this document, if he could.
Prof. Yong ha Shin who is a Korean nationalistic scholar said that 48 counties agreed to this document.
ReplyDeleteI hope Prof. Shin show the evidence looks like signature, if he can.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteopp,
ReplyDeleteIt seems you try to degrade the Allied Powers’ agreement respecting the disposition of former Japanese territories by putting Rusk Note against it. I feel the pro-Takeshima Japanese people including you feel the document “Allied Powers’ agreement respecting the disposition of former Japanese territories” is a challenge to credibility of Rusk Note. (I hope my feeling is right.)
You skipped very important fact about Rusk Note, intentionally or not. Rusk Note was a U.S. document confidentially sent only to Korea. Neither Japan nor the other member of the Allied Powers than U.S. knew the existence of the Rusk Note. In other words, Rusk Note was never reflected in the final draft of SF Peace Treaty. Thus, it’s already proved Rusk Note has zero credibility as evidence that SF Treaty gave Dokdo to Japan.
I link "Rusk Note was a confidential document between Korea and American." for the readers here.
opp,
There are many statements which aren’t clear to understand in your post.
You wrote :
Which is more important between the San Francisco treaty with signatures by Allies and Japan, and this draft of the agreement without signatures? Of course, priority is given to the S.F. treaty. Supplementary means of interpretation of the treaty can't use in order to deny the treaty.
What does "the San Francisco treaty with signatures by Allies and Japan” specifically? And what does "Supplementary means of interpretation of the treaty" specifically indicate?
You also wrote:
Rusk note was a formal bilateral diplomatic document issued by drafter of the Treaty.
What does "drafter of the Treaty" indicate?
Hey fucking dokdo is korea
ReplyDeleteCorrection :
ReplyDeleteWhat does "the San Francisco treaty with signatures by Allies and Japan” specifically?
--> What does "the San Francisco treaty with signatures by Allies and Japan” specifically indicate?
Sllow: I link "Rusk Note was a confidential document between Korea and American." for the readers here.
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1nsqHPo250luaK6j3sYva2qS6eH5_wQBWbPNQJrqViGY/edit
Oh. It's very poor paper.
Sloww:1. Even the US Embassy in Korea and Japan didn't know the Rusk note.
So? International law request the recognition by the Embassy? Please show the evidence of this strange logic. Of course, US embassies understood the importance of the Rusk note because they ware pro of diplomacy.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Possible_Methods_of_Resolving_Liancourt_Rocks_Dispute_between_Japan_and_ROK2
We had never heard of Deen Rusk’s letter to the Korean Ambassador in which the Department took a definite stand on this question. We of course knew of the ROK Government’s desire to have Article 2(a) of the Peace Treaty amended to include Dokdo and Parangdo and convoyed that request in a telegram to the Department at that time, along with other ROK suggestions for amendments to the draft treaty. We were subsequently made aware of the fact that Article 2(a) was not to be amended but had no inkling that that decision constituted a rejection of the Korean claim. Well, now we know and we are very glad to have the information as we have been operating on the basis of wrong assumption for a long time.
I am sending with a transmitting despatch, a copy of the note that we have just sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which includes as a final paragraph the wording suggested in the Department’s telegram no.365 of November 27 and which refers to Dean Rusk’s note to Ambassador Yang of August 10, 195
It seems that priority is given to a Korean desire over an interpretation of the pro of diplomacy and the party concerned.
Sloww:2.Rusk Note was not delivered Japan.
The meaning of the same document changed by a recipient in Korea. It's very funny logic.
Sloww: 3. Rusk Note was never made public.
International law doesn't say that supplementary means for the interruption of the treaty should be public.
"Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories Part" was never made public. Neither Japan nor South Korea knows this document. Even the Department of State neglected this document. But Korean evaluate this document same as a treaty.
http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/Dokdo/English.pdf
Koreans' double standard is interesting.
Sloww: I feel the pro-Takeshima Japanese people including you feel the document “Allied Powers’ agreement respecting the disposition of former Japanese territories” is a challenge to credibility of Rusk Note. (I hope my feeling is right.)
ReplyDelete? Since Korean was evaluating this document very much, I investigated the fact.
http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/Dokdo/English.pdf
It turned out that it was Korean overestimation. Sorry, I have told the fact which Korean don't want to know.
Sloww: Rusk Note was a U.S. document confidentially sent only to Korea. Neither Japan nor the other member of the Allied Powers than U.S. knew the existence of the Rusk Note.
So? Do you understand the subject? The subject is the meaning of the SF treaty. Do you think that the meaning of Rusk note and SF treaty had changed, if US Dos had delivered the Rusk note to Japan or Allies too? It seems that Korea know the new meaning of the treaty which is against drafter's intention.
The drafter of the treaty(Dos) denied Korean request about Takeshima and didn't change the sentence of the treaty.
Territorial clause at Draft on Jul 3, 1951 and SF treaty (same sentence)
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.
The request of Korea which adds Takeshima at this sentence proves the Korean recognition too. Korea recognized that Takeshima is out of the renounced territory of this sentence. Furthermore, she knew that Takeshima was left to Japan clearly by the Rusk note. Then she concealed the Rusk note and fabricated U.S. diplomatic documents.
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2011/08/1955-introduction-to-dokdo-issue-rok.html
Sloww: What does "the San Francisco treaty with signatures by Allies and Japan” specifically? And what does "Supplementary means of interpretation of the treaty" specifically indicate?
The renounced territory by Japan at the treaty didn't contain Takeshima.
What does "drafter of the Treaty" indicate?
US Dos.
Opp, it seems you don’t understand the point of the post "Rusk Note was a confidential document between Korea and American." It’s not related to your specialty, the so-called international law at all. Read it again. The fact "Even the US Embassy in Korea and Japan didn't know the Rusk note." is the proof Rusk Note was a confidential document even US Embassy in Korea and Japan didn't know, thus it has nothing to do with the final draft of SF Peace Treaty.
ReplyDeleteSloww:2.Rusk Note was not delivered Japan.
The meaning of the same document changed by a recipient in Korea. It's very funny logic.
--> Clarify your point.
Sloww: 3. Rusk Note was never made public.
International law doesn't say that supplementary means for the interruption of the treaty should be public.
--> Rusk Note was not supplementary means for the interruption of the treaty.
I think the title “Rusk Note was never made public.” confused you so much. I changed the title into “American position appeared in Rusk Note was never made public. Therefore, please don’t insist ”International law doesn't say that supplementary means for the interruption of the treaty (=Rusk Note in your mind) should be public.“ again.
opp, I took a look at the site you linked. There’s no any part related to “Korean evaluate this document same as a treaty.” Korea thinks the document “Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories” is very important in understanding that the Allied Powers recognized Korean ownership of Dokdo during the negotiation of SF Treaty. Don’t interpret the article as you want.
(Continued)
ReplyDeleteSorry, I have told the fact which Korean don't want to know.
--> You don’t need to say sorry. You didn’t tell the fact Koreans don’t want to know at all. What you told was just your own interpretation based on your wish.
So? Do you understand the subject?
The subject is the meaning of the SF treaty.
---> You mean the subject of your post? The subject of your post is the meaning of the Sf Treaty? Nonsense. Where is the meaning of the SF Treaty in your post?
The drafter of the treaty(Dos) denied Korean request about Takeshima and didn't change the sentence of the treaty.
--> The drafter of the treaty denied Korean request about Takeshima was America, right? It means American view about Takeshima was nothing to do with final draft of SF Treaty. America was one of the signatories of SF Treaty.
The request of Korea which adds Takeshima at this sentence proves the Korean recognition too. Korea recognized that Takeshima is out of the renounced territory of this sentence.
--> Requesting to add Dokdo to the sentence of Article 2 means Korea recognized that Takeshima is out of the renounced territory? You are wrong. Korea had never recognized it. Besides, remember Korea was not a signatory of SF Peace Treaty. (Of course, SF Treaty didn't recognize Dokdo as Japanese land.)
Furthermore, she knew that Takeshima was left to Japan clearly by the Rusk note. Then she concealed the Rusk note and fabricated U.S. diplomatic documents.
--> Korea government had no reason to conceal the Rusk Note. Korea government
had no reason to reveal it at the same time. Why did it have to in 1955? Now, it’s different. Korean government openly introduces Rusk Note to the world because it’s very important document refuting Japanese claim that SF Treaty gave Dokdo to Japan.
I ask you what "the San Francisco treaty with signatures by Allies and Japan” and "Supplementary means of interpretation of the treaty" indicates in your comment and you just wrote “The renounced territory by Japan at the treaty didn't contain Takeshima.” It’s a weird answer. Please give me more concrete answer if you can.
I asked you what "drafter of the Treaty" indicates in your comment “ Rusk note was a formal bilateral diplomatic document issued by drafter of the Treaty.” and you answered it was US Dos. Does Dos mean Department of State? If so, You admit Rusk Note was the document of US which was one of the Allied Powers. Which is more imporatant, a U.S. document or the Allied Powers document?
Sloww:Opp, it seems you don’t understand the point of the post "Rusk Note was a confidential document between Korea and American."
ReplyDeleteYes. My comment is based on international law. But your poor paper based on your own rule. Then I and international law can't understand your selfish rule.
Sloww:Clarify your point.
The intention of drafters don't change by recipient.
Sloww:Rusk Note was not supplementary means for the interruption of the treaty
Sloww:I changed the title into “American position appeared in Rusk Note was never made public.
So? "Supplementary means must make public" is your own rule. Even 金明基 who is a nationalistic Korean scholar of the international law accepts that Rusk note is supplementary means. Firs of all, you must prove that international law demand public documents for the supplementary means. I promise that you can't prove. It is your own rule.
Sloww: I took a look at the site you linked. There’s no any part related to “Korean evaluate this document same as a treaty.”
Can't you read follows?
A Story of Dokdo Island, A Korean Territory:"Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories"(1950) drafted in preparation for the San Francisco Treaty in 1951 stated Dokdo as a"Korean territory' in substantive enactment. Therefor although Dokdo was not mentioned in San Francisco Peace Treaty, Dokdo was recognized as a Korean territory in "Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories" and "SCAPIN No. 677".
International law admits the substantive enactment(=territorial title) in a treaty or peaceful effective control for the no-terra nullius territory. "Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories" is not an effective control. You should study international law, if you want to discuss with me. I am not your teacher of the international law.
Sloww: just your own interpretation based on your wish.
Sorry, Article 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is not demanding the public materials. If you don't think so, show the terms of the article which demand the public materials.
Sloww: You mean the subject of your post? The subject of your post is the meaning of the Sf Treaty? Nonsense. Where is the meaning of the SF Treaty in your post?
Do you think that there is the transfer method of sovereignty for the no terra nullius other than a treaty? Or do you think that there are treaties other than SF treaty? All claim about Takeshima's sovereignty after WW2 are related to SF treaty, because SF treaty is the only treaty in which Japan renounced her territory.
Sloww: The drafter of the treaty denied Korean request about Takeshima was America, right? It means American view about Takeshima was nothing to do with final draft of SF Treaty. America was one of the signatories of SF Treaty.
Are you sure? You can't distinguish between the drafter and the signer. USA made the treaty as the dafter, then the meaning of the treaty fixed by the USA(drafter). The meaning of the SF treaty prove by the Rusk note(=drafter's specific and clearly answer). After the drafting, USA signed the treaty. The treaty bounds USA(signer) by the signature and ratification. Of course, SF treaty bounds other Allies who signed the treaty too. I corect your nonsense comment.
Correction: The drafter of the treaty denied Korean request about Takeshima was America, right? It means the drafter(America) view about Takeshima proves the meaning of SF Treaty. Because America was one of the signatories of SF Treaty, SF Treaty also bound America.
Sloww: Requesting to add Dokdo to the sentence of Article 2 means Korea recognized that Takeshima is out of the renounced territory? You are wrong. Korea had never recognized it. Besides, remember Korea was not a signatory of SF Peace Treaty. (Of course, SF Treaty didn't recognize Dokdo as Japanese land.)
ReplyDeleteWho talked about the signature?
Eastern Greenland Case
The geographical meaning of the word "Greenland", i.e. the name which is habitually used in the maps to denominate the whole island, must be regarded as the ordinary meaning of the word.
Korean request proved that the ordinary geographical meaning of the word "Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet" at the Article2 of SF treaty doesn't contain Takeshima. Scapin 677 which distinguished between Ulleungdo and Takeshima prove the the ordinary geographical meaning, too.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 31
1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.
Then it can prove that Japan did not renounce Takeshima without Rusk Note.
Sloww: Korea government had no reason to conceal the Rusk Note.
Then, why did Korea omit the sentence about the Rusk Note of the US diplomatic documents
as "etc." Why did Korea use the document as that USA supports Korean claim?
American Embassy’s Note Verbale No.187:The Embassy has taken note of the statement contained in the Ministry's Note that "Dokdo Island(Liancourt Rocks)...is a part of the territory of the Republic of Korea". The United States Government's understanding of the territorial status of this islands was stated in Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk's note to the Korean Ambassador in Washington dated August 10, 1951.
Do you think these sentences support Korean claim about Takeshima?
Sloww: Please give me more concrete answer if you can
See above and study the international law.
Sloww: You admit Rusk Note was the document of US which was one of the Allied Powers. Which is more imporatant, a U.S. document or the Allied Powers document?
Your question is inaccurate, then I correct it.
Correction:You admit Rusk Note was the document of US which was the drafter of SF treaty. Which is more important, a U.S. official diplomatic document which suits SF treaty or the disposed document in Dos which used the word "Allied Powers" and contradicted SF treaty?
Of course, the official diplomatic document by the drafter is more important for the interpretation of the treaty.
Boggs's memorandum dated Dec 19,1952
ReplyDeleteBy one 1949 draft treaty with Japan, the Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima) were to have been renounced to Korea; by another draft at about the same time they were to be named as being retained by Japan. A Japanese Foreign Office publication, entitled "Minor Islands Adjacent to Japan Proper" Part IV, June 1947, includes "Liancourt Rocks(Takeshima)" and says:
It should be noted that while there is a Korean name for Dagelet, None exists for the Liancourt Rocks and they are not shown in the maps made in Korea.
If it is decided to give them to Korea, it would be necessary only to add "and Liancourt Rocks" the end of Art. 2, par. (a).
His neutral position prove the ordinary geographical meaning of the word "Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet" at the Article2 of SF treaty very well.
opp,
ReplyDeleteYou have an illusion that international law is a hope for justifying Japan’s false claim on Dokdo. Dokdo issue is not the matter of international law.
First of all, you must prove that international law demand public documents for the supplementary means. I promise that you can't prove. It is your own rule.
--> Did I say “Supplementary means must make public”? No. I didn’t. I didn’t even say Rusk Note is Supplementary means. I don’t care what 金明基 said. The reason Rusk Note can’t be supplementary means for interpretation of Treaty is it was not open to the signatories of the treaty. Is it clear to you now? I don’t need to waste time in proving international law demand public documents for the supplementary means which I have no interest in.
Can't you read follows?
-----> opp, read the link again. It’s said Dokdo was recognized as a Korean territory in "Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories" and "SCAPIN No. 677". There’s no any statement like “Korean evaluate this document same as a treaty.” as you insist. Don’t jump to the conclusion as you want to mislead the readers.
"Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories" is not an effective control. You should study international law, if you want to discuss with me. I am not your teacher of the international law.
--> Who said "Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories" is an effective control? I didn’t. I hate to talk to you, but I do because most of your stances are wrong. I already told you I have no interest in your absurd lecture on the so-called international law which is totally off the subject.
Sloww: Korea government had no reason to conceal the Rusk Note.
Then, why did Korea omit the sentence about the Rusk Note of the US diplomatic documentsas "etc."
--> It was Korean government that decided to put a certain sentence or not. Why do you complain the Korean government's decision not to mention the worthless U.S. document? Rusk Note is maybe a treasure to Japan, but it was and is a useless piece of paper to Korea.
(Continued)
ReplyDeleteDo you think these sentences support Korean claim about Takeshima?
--> Read the sentences you wrote. There’s no point.
Sloww: Please give me more concrete answer if you can
See above and study the international law.
--> I know you can’t give an understandable concret answer.
Correction:You admit Rusk Note was the document of US which was the drafter of SF treaty. Which is more important, a U.S. official diplomatic document which suits SF treaty or the disposed document in Dos which used the word "Allied Powers" and contradicted SF treaty?
--> opp, Rusk Note doesn’t suit SF treaty. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles stated in a telegram to the American Embassy in Tokyo on Dec. 9, 1953 stated “US view re Takeshima simply that of one of many signatories to treaty." Therefore, it’s very shame of you to insist Rusk Note suits SF treaty.
And ”Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories“ was not disposed. How could the disposed document be found in the files of drafts of SF Treaty? Read the document and remember the sentence ”The Allied and Associated Powers agree that there shall be transferred in full sovereignty to the Republic of Korea all rights and titles to the Korean Mainland territory and .......... Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima)“ It’s shame of you to insist as if it was not the Allied Powers’ document. Besides, This document didn’t contradict SF treaty. It was just not reflected in the final draft of SF Treaty.
opp wrote
ReplyDeleteThis draft of the agreement is internal document of the US Dos. Allies didn't know this draft of the agreement, because US Dos didn't distribute to Allies.
What is the evidence?
Opp,
ReplyDeleteThis is my last comment in talking with you about your post here.
The reason "Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories" is significant to Korea is that it shows the Allied Powers once recognized the ownership of Dokdo during SF Treaty negotiations. It’s same Rusk Note is significant to Japan is it shows U.S. once supported Japanese claim on Dokdo.
Both of them may be useful in interpreting how the ownership of Dokdo was viewd by the Allies and America during the Treaty negotiations, but useless in interpreting the conclusion of the final draft of SF Treaty. Comparing those two documents and trying to draw a conclusion which is more important itself is unwise.
I know how you value Rusk Note, but you shouldn’t distort the facts relying on your own interpretation. The worst thing is such as "Rusk Note suits SF treaty." How can the U.S. document confidentially sent only to Korea and never be open to the signatories of the treaty suit the treaty?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteApplied condition for the supplementary means
ReplyDeleteSloww:The reason Rusk Note can’t be supplementary means for interpretation of Treaty is it was not open to the signatories of the treaty.
[FACT]
1. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties doesn’t say that supplementary means should open to signatories. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties doesn’t give any applied condition for supplementary means.
2. International Law Commission said that the country which was signed later and did not participate in a drafting cannot refuse the preparation work. (from Princeples of public international law).
3. Prof. Kim who is a Korean nationalistic scholar of the international law admitted that Rusk note is supplementary means according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
4. Prof. Hosaka said that Rusk note is invalid because it was not opened. But he didn’t show the evidence based on the international law about the applied condition. Prof. Hosaka’s specialty is not international law but engineering.
[Conclusion]
Sloww and Prof. Hosaka didn’t show the reliable evidence based on the international law looks like the scholar of international laws or ICJ's judicial precedent. Then there claim can conclude as follows.
"The supplementary means should open to signatories, because I want to think so."
Korean interpretation about the draft of the agreement
Sloww: There’s no any statement like “Korean evaluate this document same as a
treaty.” as you insist.
Sloww:Who said "Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories" is an effective control?
[FACT]
1. Dokdo Research and Preservation Association said that "Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories"(1950) drafted in preparation for the San Francisco Treaty, stated Dokdo as ‘Korean territory' in substantive enactment, although Dokdo was not mentioned in San Francisco Treaty, you can say that Dokdo was recognized as a Korean territory.
2. International law consists of customary law and treaty law. Treaty law generates binding force by agreement to a document. Though a treaty has various names looks like “treaty, “agreement” and “protocol”, all of them are “treaty” at the international law.
3. Typical derivative territorial title (= legal basis of the sovereignty) at the international law is “cession(treaty law)” and “effective control with tacit permission or recognition(customary law)”.
4. Dokdo Research and Preservation Association said that this agreement is a document agreed by 48 countries and “have reached agreement” at the early version. (Early Japanese version is here)
[Discussion]
If the draft of the agreement have the effect as a substantive enactment, it may be based on treaty law. Because it was a document for the agreement. But Sloww denied the effect as a treaty. Then I gave him a hint. I suggested that only the effect as common law (=effective control) remained. But he didn’t aware at all.
[Conclusion]
Sloww doesn’t have the knowledge of international law required for the discussion about the territory. However, he is also a victim. Dokdo Research and Preservation Association deleted the wording “have reached agreement” from the early version, but they didn‘t change the conclusion which was based on the treaty law. For this reason, the present their pamphlet is ambiguous and contradictory.
Sloww:It was Korean government that decided to put a certain sentence or not.
ReplyDeleteIt is called concealment. If it is the document made by Korea, she can decide what he writes. But this is the document made by USA. Korea can’t conceal.
The Korean scholar was also deceived by the South Korean government. Prof. Kim(金明基) said that Rusk note is invalid, because USA approved Korean sovereignty after SF treaty. He showed this maneuvered document by Korea government as the evidence of the USA’s approval. The evidence which denied the Rusk note changes the document which confirmed the Rusk note. It is a very funny situation.
Sloww:This is my last comment in talking with you about your post here.
Bye-bye. If you want to discuss about the territory, study the international law.
Opp:This draft of the agreement is internal document of the US Dos. Allies didn't know this draft of the agreement, because US Dos didn't distribute to Allies.
ReplyDeleteSloww:What is the evidence?
This his answer proves his ignorant about the international law and common sense.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Article 11
Means of expressing consent to be bound by a treaty
The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by signature, exchange of instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or by any other means if so agreed.
The Legal Adviser responded to the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs on Dec 19, 1949
Since territorial dispositions are generally matters of considerable importance to the various nations concerned, most nations would doubtless desire that the disposing document be of the same dignity, namely, a treaty. Hence, two documents would need to be ratified.
The agreement was proved by the signature or ratification. He run away from the burden of proof because there is no evidence of the agreement about this draft of the agreement. And he tried the shift of the burden of proof.
I added the "Principle of Completeness of Boundary Treaties" to this my article.
ReplyDeleteAdvisory Opinion of the Permanent Court on the Interpretation of Article 3, Paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Lausanne (1925)
It is . . . natural that any article designed to fix a frontier should, if possible, be so interpreted that the result of the application of its provisions in their entirety should be the establishment of a precise, complete and definitive frontier."
Korean interpretation about the SF treaty violate this principle.
opp,
ReplyDeleteI decided to stop talking to you not to bother you any more, but now I realize it was a wrong decision. I’m sure nobody is serious about you, but I think you need to be taught. I don’t think you can be easily changed no matter what I do, but I can’t ignore you because I’m sorry about the ignorant Japanese who are likely to be misled by you. I think you are a shame even to the pro-Takeshima Japanese.
I’ll tell why your logic is deadly wrong later when I have time. (Anyway, it’s hard to deal with you because the level of your logic is terribly low and you are stubbornly unyielding about your nonsense logic.)
See you later!
I’ll tell why your logic is deadly wrong later when I have time.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to prove your own logic. You must show the reliable source which support your logic. I already have gave you many chances for showing the reliable source. But you can't.
Anyway, it’s hard to deal with you because the level of your logic is terribly low and you are stubbornly unyielding about your nonsense logic.
My logic is supported by the reliable source looks like a judicial precedent and a text of the international law and I always show the source.
On the other hand, your logic is not supported by the reliable source and you never show the source.
This is all.
논리로 무장한 독도 다큐 'The Island'
ReplyDelete論理で武装した独島ドキュメンタリー 「 The Island」
ニュース韓国 2013-06-22
http://www.newshankuk.com/news/content.asp?fs=1&ss=4&news_idx=201306222238061341
在米同胞であるイ・ヒョク監督が独島に関心を持って独島の真実を映像で語らなければならないと決心したのには理由がある。アメリカに住むうちに「竹島は日本領土」という日本の歪曲された主張を「真実」として受け入れる外国人たちを見たからだ。
イ監督は、韓国語の独島ドキュメンタリーは多いのに比べて英語でのドキュメンタリーがないという点に着目して、初めての英語版独島ドキュメンタリー「The Island」(仮題)を企画した。 封切りは来年の光復節に合わせる計画だ。一方的に「独島は韓国の領土」であることを主張するのでなく、日本の執拗な主張に反論するために論理で武装したドキュメンタリーを作って真実を知らせるのが目的だ。
そのために、イ監督は独島の領有権を主張する日本の右翼政治家や右翼団体の関係者たちに会って主張と論理を聞き、韓国とアメリカ、日本の独島専門家たちにインタビューして、日本政府と右翼政治家たちの論理の中で何が歪曲されているのか、事実と専門家たちの説明を通じて把握する。また、世宗大学独島総合研究所所長である保坂祐二教授を通じて、今まで公開されていない歴史的資料も公開する予定だ。
「感情的に叫んで解決する問題ではない。 外国人たちは証拠と根拠を持って論理的に説得するのを好む。 独島に関する事前知識のない外国人たちは、国家レベルで確かな情報を公知する日本の論理に同調しやすいのが現実だ。むしろ、人によっては、韓国が独島を実效支配している部分に疑問を持ったりする。もし独島に対して全然知らない人がインターネットを通じて情報を調べてみればどちらを信頼するだろうか。」
イ監督は、「すべての結果は、映画を見る観客たちの判断に委ねることにしたい。しかし、観客たちは独島がどの国のものなのか容易に知ることができるだろう。」と述べた。
독립기념관 '독도의 역사이야기' 책자 발간
ReplyDelete独立記念館 「独島の歴史の話」パンフレット発刊
聯合ニュース 2013/06/27
http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/local/2013/06/27/0807000000AKR20130627050800063.HTML?template=6601
(天安＝聯合ニュース)チョン・テジン記者＝独立記念館は、日本の引き続く独島領有権主張に対応して、我が国民に独島の歴史と真実に対する正しい知識を提供するためにパンフレット『独島の歴史の話』を発刊すると27日明らかにした。
来る30日に発刊する独島パンフレットは、独島がどういう理由で韓国の地であり、日本の主張はなぜ虚構なのか、ということについての質問に答える内容で作られる。
主な内容は、独立記念館がこれまでの研究を基盤に、我が歴史書・古地図に現れた独島が韓国の地である理由と、日本の主な歴史書物・古地図に現れた独島が日本の地でない理由、第二次世界大戦後の連合軍最高司令部など国際文書に出てきた独島が韓国領土であることを証明する資料などだ。
『独島の歴史の話』は全10万部を発刊する計画で、1次発刊される6万部は小・中・高など学校、大学図書館、主な官公庁などに無料配布して多くの国民が簡単に接することができるようにする予定だ。
キム・ヌンジン独立記念館長は、「今回発刊した『独島の歴史の話』を通じて我が国民が独島が韓国の土地である歴史的証拠を調べ、独島に対する主権意識を持つのに役立つことを希望する。」と語った。
暑中お見舞い申し上げます。みなさんお元気ですか。
ReplyDelete「1940年代米国極東空軍、独島は韓国領」…国立中央図書館
ReplyDelete"1940년대 미국 극동공군, 독도는 한국령"…국립중앙도서관
http://www.newsis.com/ar_detail/view.html?ar_id=NISX20130819_0012296787&cID=10201&pID=10200
등록 일시 [2013-08-19 15:52:24] 登録日時[2013-08-19 15:52:24]
ニューシス
【서울=뉴시스】이재훈 기자 =
국립중앙도서관(관장 임원선)이 미국 국립문서기록관리청(National Archives and Records Administration) 소장자료 중 극동군 사령부 연합군 최고사령부 및 UN군 사령부 문서군의 주한미군(USAFIK) 부관참모실에서 1945~1949년 생산된 '무선 메시지'(Radio Messages)를 수집했다고 19일 밝혔다.
【ソウル=ニューシス】イ・ジェフン記者=
国立中央図書館（館長 イム・ウォンソン）が、米国国立文書記録管理庁(National Archives and Records Administration)所蔵資料中、極東軍司令部 連合軍最高司令部および国連軍司令部文書群の駐韓米軍(USAFIK)副官参謀室で、1945～1949年に生産された「無線メッセージ(Radio Messages)」を収集したと19日明らかにした。
무선 메시지는 크게 발신 메시지(outgoing message)와 기타 무선 공문(miscellaneous radio dispatches)으로 구분됐다.
無線メッセージは、大きく発信メッセージ(outgoing message)と、その他無線公文書(miscellaneous radio dispatches)に区分される。
발신 메시지들은 정보참모부(G2)의 특기사항(highlights), 미 제24군단의 작전 요약(operation summary), 주한미군 사령관 겸 미군정청 사령관을 지낸 존 하지 장군의 미 국무부 발신 문서 등을 포함했다.
発信メッセージは、情報参謀部(G2)の特記事項(highlights)、米第24軍団の作戦要約(operation summary)、駐韓米軍司令官 兼 米軍政庁司令官であったジョン・ハジ（ホッジ？）将軍の米国務部発信文書などを含んでいる。
특기사항에는 주한미군이 고용한 정보원의 첩보 보고와 한국 철도 노조 활동, 개별 정치인들의 동향과 정파 활동 등 한국 정세 분석을 비롯해 독도 문제와 북한 정세 분석 등이 실렸다.
特記事項には、駐韓米軍が雇用した情報部員の諜報報告と、韓国鉄道労組の活動、個別政治家たちの動向と政派活動などの韓国情勢分析をはじめとして、独島問題と北朝鮮情勢分析などがのせられている。
특히, 독도 문제를 다루고 있는 정보참모부의 어느 보고서는 미 극동공군의 폭격 훈련 지역에 포함돼 있던 독도를 훈련 대상 지역에서 제외할 것을 요청하면서 '리앙 크루(Liancourt Rocks•독도)는 한국령(Korean territory)으로 간주되는(considered) 지역'이라는 표현을 쓰고 있음을 살펴볼 수 있다.
特に、独島問題を扱っている情報参謀部のある報告書は、米極東空軍の爆撃訓練地域に含まれていた独島を、訓練対象地域から除くことを要請し、「リアンクル (Liancourt Rocks・独島)は、韓国領(Korean territory)と見なされる(considered)地域」という表現を使っていることを見ることができる。
발신 메시지를 비롯한 기타 무선 공문에는 1948년 대한민국 정부 수립 이후 한국 정치 상황을 기록한 문서들도 다수 포함됐다.
発信メッセージをはじめとするその他無線公文書には、1948年、大韓民国政府樹立以後の韓国の政治状況を記録した文書も多数含まれている。
국립중앙도서관 관계자는 "당시 한국관련 연구에 중요한 자료로 활용될 수 있을 것"이라고 기대했다.
国立中央図書館関係者は「当時の韓国関連研究に、重要な資料として活用することができるだろう」と期待した。
국립문서기록관리청에서 수집한 한국관련 기록자료는 국립중앙도서관 홈페이지(http://www.nl.go.kr)와 국립중앙도서관 전자도서관(디브러리 http://www.dibrary.net)에서 확인할 수 있다.
国立文書記録管理庁で収集した韓国関連記録担当者料は、国立中央図書館ホームページ(http://www.nl.go.kr)と、国立中央図書館 電子図書館(ティブラリhttp://www.dibrary.net)で確認することができる。
realpaper7@newsis.com
realpaper7＠newsis.com
韓国日報 The KoreaTimes
ReplyDeleteアメリカ政府文書 「独島は韓国領」
미 정부 문서 “독도는 한국령”
１９４０年代「リアンクル岩礁」記録報告書発見
1940년대‘리앙쿠르 암초’ 기록 보고서 발견
입력일자: 2013-08-20 （화)
入力日 ２０１３－８－２０（火）
http://www.koreatimes.com/article/810614
1940년대에 미국 정부가 독도를 한국령으로 인식했음을 보여주는 미군 공식문서가 발견됐다.
1940年代に米国政府が独島を韓国領と認識したことを示す米軍公式文書が発見された。
국립중앙도서관은 19일 미 극동군사령부 연합군 정보참모부(G-2)가 1948년 8월 ‘리앙쿠르 암초(Liancourt Rocks)는 한국령으로 간주되는 지역’이라고 기록한 보고서를 찾았다고 밝혔다.
国立中央図書館は、19日、米極東軍司令部連合軍情報参謀部(G-2)が1948年8月「リアンクル岩礁(Liancourt Rocks)は韓国領と見なされる地域」と記録した報告書を発見したと明らかにした。
리앙쿠르 암초는 독도를 한국(독도)과 일본(다케시마)의 지명을 따르지 않는 제3의 명칭으로 서구 국가들이 사용해 온 것이다.
リアンクル岩礁は、独島を韓国(独島)と日本(竹島)の地名の従わない第3の名称であり、西欧国家が使ってきたものだ。
국립중앙도서관은 미국 국립문서 기록관리청 소장 자료 중 미 극동군사령부 연합군 최고사령부 및 유엔군 사령부 문서군의 주한미군(USAFIK) 부관 참모실에서 1945~1949년에 생산된 ‘무선 메시지’를 수집해 분석하는 과정에서 이같은 내용을 찾았다고 밝혔다.
国立中央図書館は、米国国立文書記録管理庁所蔵資料中、米極東軍司令部連合軍最高司令部および国連軍司令部文書群の駐韓米軍(USAFIK)副官参謀室で、1945～1949年に生産された「無線メッセージ」を収集して分析する過程で、このような内容を発見したと明らかにした。
이 중에서도 독도문제를 다룬 정보참모부(G-2)의 한 보고서에서는 미 극동공군의 폭격훈련 지역에 포함된 독도를 훈련대상 지역에서 제외해 달라고 요청하면서 ‘Liancourt Rocks(독도)는 한국령(Korean territory)으로 간주되는(considered)’ 지역이라는 표현을 쓰고 있음을 살펴볼 수 있다고 도서관 측은 밝혔다.
この中でも、独島問題を扱った情報参謀部(G-2)のある報告書では、米極東空軍の爆撃訓練地域に含まれた独島を訓練対象地域から除いてほしいと要請し、「Liancourt Rocks(独島)は韓国領(Korean territory)と見なされる(considered)」地域という表現を使っていることを見ることができると図書館側は明らかにした。
이들 자료 중 정보참모부(G-2)에서 작성된 특기사항에는 주한 미군이 고용한 정보원의 첩보보고와 한국철도 노조활동, 대한민국 정부 수립에 앞서 김구, 김규식, 김일성, 김두봉이 가진 ‘4김 회담’ 등 남북 개별 정치인들의 동향과 정파활동 등 한국 내 정세 분석을 비롯해 독도문제와 북한 정세 분석 등이 포함돼 있다.
これらの資料中、情報参謀部(G-2)で作成された特記事項には、駐韓米軍が雇用した情報部員の諜報報告と韓国鉄道労組活動、大韓民国政府樹立に先立ちキム・グ、キム・ギュシク、キム・イルソン、キム・ドゥボンが持った「4キム会談」等、南北の個別政治家たちの動向と、政派活動など、韓国内情勢分析をはじめとして、独島問題と北朝鮮情勢分析などが含まれている。
載っているテキストが、よく読めません。どなたか助けてください。
ReplyDelete１８４８年６月、独島での米軍の爆撃訓練で韓国人漁夫が死んだ事件の後処理関連だと思います。
CONFIDENTIAL
////1184 030710/Z p///////
３ August 1948
To CSKCFE?
Reference is made to your ////// Xray six two six five six
answered by ///// Mike George //// ceorer(?) two two two this da/h PD
in view of the current situation cma it// do not feel that data requested
is particularly p//////// to makimo to drop Liancourt Rocks from
list of bombing areas PD Liancourt Rocks is considered ad Korean territory ana
is able /// days it is expected that United States will initialy progressive
and orderly t////// of government to the Koreans PD para the /////// of
fish//// at Liancourt Rocks on right June ha never been satisfactorily
///////// to the Koreans and is still able live and //////// sore subject
Propaganda that strikes //// responsive cord in all Korean regardless of
Ideology PD //// the closest Korean friends and associates //// shown con_
Siderable hostility of this subject PD simoe ho detailed public explanation
Or clear cut acceptance of responsibility for the bombing has ever ////
//////to the Koreans by //// //// this co///// ////absorbed the respon_
sibility and took over the /////task of settling the claims arise//from
the accident PD pasa we /// / that if at any time bombing is //////
on Liancourt Rocks by United States planes /// it will stir up //// gigantic
/////// //// of ////// ////// ///eated and accusations against United
States armed forces here when we cannot afford it PD // American in this
co///ed nor Korean in the ///Government can ///// to the use of this /// for
bombing PD para item ueo//// request that //// be directed to /////
PDと見えるのは何でしょうか
皆さんお元気そうで何よりです。
ReplyDeleteかなり鮮明な画像がありました。
http://www.nl.go.kr/upload/cheditor/hQAofsoZ.jpg
訂正起こしです。
ReplyDeleteCONFIDENTIAL
ZGCG 1184 030710/Z PRIORITY
３ August 1948
To CINCFE
Reference is made to your Charlie Xray six two six five six
answered by Zebra Mike George Able George Roger two two two this date PD
in view of the current situation cma item do not feel that data requested
is particularly pertinent to making decision to drop Liancourt Rocks from
list of bombing areas PD Liancourt Rocks is considered as Korean territory and
in able few days it is expected that the United States will initiate progressive
and orderly turnover of government to the Koreans PD para the bombing of
fishermen at Liancourt Rocks on eight June has never been satisfactorily
explained to the Koreans and is still able live and extremely sore subject
Propaganda that strikes able responsive cord in all Koreans regardless of
Ideology PD even the closest Korean friends and associates have shown con_
siderable hostility on this subject PD since no detailed public explanation
or clear cut acceptance of responsibility for the bombing has ever been
offered to the Koreans by FEAF CMA this command tacitly absorbed the respon_
sibility and took over the onerous task of settling the claims arising from
the accident PD para we may be sure that if at any time bombing is resumed
on Liancourt Rocks by United States planes CMA it will stir up able gigantic
hornets nest of revewed resentment cma hatred and accusations against United
States armed forces here when we cannot afford it PD no American in this
commaned nor Korean in the new government can agree to the use of this area for
bombing PD para item urgently request that FEAF be directed to eliminate
Liancourt rocks from its list of potential ranges
CG USAFIK
小嶋日向守さん
ReplyDeleteありがとうございます。
さすがです。
PDはピリオド、CMAはコンマでしょうか。
PARA はパラグラフ、すなわち行変えだと思います。
ABLE というのも何かの記号のようにも思います。
エドガア・アラン・ポオの「黄金虫The Gold-Bug」みたいですね。
最初のほうの数字は時刻か何かでしょうか？
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
「ピリオド」と「コンマ」と「パラグラフ」を書き換えてみます。
CONFIDENTIAL
ZGCG 1184 030710/Z PRIORITY
3 August 1948
To CINCFE
Reference is made to your Charlie Xray six two six five six
answered by Zebra Mike George (Able) George Roger two two two this date.
以下本文？
In view of the current situation, item do not feel that data requested is particularly pertinent to making decision to drop Liancourt Rocks from list of bombing areas.
Liancourt Rocks is considered as Korean territory and in (able) few days it is expected that the United States will initiate progressive and orderly turnover of Government to the Koreans.
The bombing of fishermen at Liancourt Rocks on eight June has never been satisfactorily explained to the Koreans and is still (able) live and extremely sore subject propaganda that strikes (able) responsive cord in all Koreans regardless of Ideology.
Even the closest Korean friends and Associates have shown considerable hostility on this subject.
Since no detailed public explanation or clear cut acceptance of responsibility for the bombing has ever been offered to the Koreans by FEAF, this command tacitly absorbed the responsibility and took over the onerous task of settling the claims arising from the accident.
We may be sure that if at any time bombing is resumed on Liancourt Rocks by United States planes, it will stir up able gigantic hornets nest of revewed resentment, hatred and accusations against United States Armed Forces here when we cannot afford it.
No American in this command nor Korean in the new Government can agree to the use of this area for bombing.
Item urgently request that FEAF be directed to eliminate Liancourt Rocks from its list of potential ranges.
CG USAFIK
サインは誰のでしょうか？
誰から誰に出されたもの？
FEAFはFar East Air Forceでしょう。
新聞記事に、駐韓米軍(USAFIK)副官参謀室とあるので、CGは「副官参謀室」？
あて先のCINCFEは何？
そもそも、これをもって「1940年代の米国極東空軍が、『独島は韓国領』と見ていた」と言える文書なんでしょうか？
この８月３日付けの無線通信で
ReplyDeletethe United States will initiate progressive and orderly turnover of Government to the Koreans.
とか
Korean in the new Government
とか言っているのは、１９４８年８月１５日に成立することになる李承晩政権のことでしょうか？
とすると、
Liancourt Rocks is considered as Korean territory
というのは、
こうした韓国人が、Liancourt RocksはKorean territoryだと考えている、ということで、
アメリカ政府やアメリカ軍の立場の表明でもないようにも思います。
matsuさん、小嶋日向守さん、おつかれさまです。読めないなあと思っていたところ、お二人の御努力で明確になって何よりです。
ReplyDelete「CINCFE」は、米極東軍司令官（Commander in Chief, Far East: CINCFE）のことらしいですね。
竹島で大勢の韓国人が米軍の爆撃演習の犠牲になったばかりの状況ですから、現場にいる米軍関係者の実感として竹島は韓国の領土なのだと思ったとしても不思議はないかも知れません。
ReplyDeleteしかし、それは、その後に控えている正式な領土画定（講和条約の締結）とはもちろん関係のないことですね。
Chaamieyさん
ReplyDeleteお久しぶりです。
「米国太平洋陸軍は1947年1月に再編され極東軍（Far East Command, FECOM）となり、以後、マッカーサーは極東軍司令官（Commander in Chief, Far East Command, CINCFEC）として、極東海軍と極東空軍も統轄するようになりました。」
http://www.archives.pref.okinawa.jp/collection/2011/06/post-57.html
（マッカーサー記念館所蔵沖縄関係資料の公開）
この文書には、上のCINCFECの最後のCがないですが、文中にCommandという言葉も見えます。
Commander in Chiefというのは、「司令官」という人間（組織ではなく）と考えると、
これは、東京にいた「極東軍司令官」たる「マッカーサー宛て」の文書ということでしょうか。
それから、
Liancourt Rocks is considered as Korean territory
この受身形の文章の隠れた主語は、李承晩などの「韓国人」、by Koreans ではないかと私は思います。
彼らはそう思い込んでいるので、爆撃訓練区域からとりあえず外したほうが新政府の韓国人の反発を避けられる、という提言なのではないでしょうか？
ピリオド、コンマ、段落はなるほどそうだったのかと思いますが、エイブルは分からないですねえ。
ReplyDelete末尾の「CG USAFIK」の「CG」はCommander General の略ではないですか。
つまり、この電信は駐韓米軍司令官から東京の極東軍司令官(マッカーサーでしょうね)に当てたものです。新聞記事の紹介ぶりからもそう読めます。
「Liancourt Rocks is considered as Korean territory」の解釈についてはmatsuさんのおっしゃるような意味かも知れませんが、主体が書かれていないから断定はできそうにないですね。主体が書いてない以上は、書いた者がそういうふうに感じていると読むのが無難かと思います。しかし、いずれにしても、大きな問題ではありません。
それに、この電信は秘密裡に送付されたものなので、ひょっとしたら「無効」なのかも知れません（笑）。
これは電信による記録でしょうから、Zebra able Charlie X-Ray は
ReplyDelete米空軍のものというよりは1940年に第二次世界大戦の連合軍が制定したAllied Codeというものかと思います。
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/yokohama/cwl/phonetics2.html
いろいろなフォネティックコード
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/yokohama/cwl/phonetics.html
変換してみました。
ReplyDeleteつまり主語がItemからIになります。
To CINCFE
Reference is made to your CX62656
answered by ZMGAGR222 this date.
In view of the current situation, I do not feel that data requested is particularly pertinent to making decision to drop Liancourt Rocks from list of bombing areas.
Liancourt Rocks is considered as Korean territory and in a few days it is expected that the United States will initiate progressive and orderly turn over of Government to the Koreans.
The bombing of fishermen at Liancourt Rocks on eight June has never been satisfactorily explained to the Koreans and is still a live and extremely sore subject propaganda that strikes a responsive cord in all Koreans regardless of Ideology.
Even the closest Korean friends and Associates have shown considerable hostility on this subject.
Since no detailed public explanation or clear cut acceptance of responsibility for the bombing has ever been offered to the Koreans by FEAF, this command tacitly absorbed the responsibility and took over the onerous task of settling the claims arising from the accident.
We may be sure that if at any time bombing is resumed on Liancourt Rocks by United States planes, it will stir up a gigantic hornets nest of revewed resentment, hatred and accusations against United States Armed Forces here when we cannot afford it.
No American in this command nor Korean in the new Government can agree to the use of this area for bombing.
Item urgently request that FEAF be directed to eliminate Liancourt Rocks from its list of potential ranges.
CG USAFIK
renewed の読み間違いとと Itemの変換し損ねというミスがありました。
ReplyDeleteWe may be sure that if at any time bombing is resumed on Liancourt Rocks by United States planes, it will stir up a gigantic hornets nest of renewed resentment, hatred and accusations against United States Armed Forces here when we cannot afford it.
No American in this command nor Korean in the new Government can agree to the use of this area for bombing.
I urgently request that FEAF be directed to eliminate Liancourt Rocks from its list of potential ranges.
小嶋さん
ReplyDeleteなるほど、Allied Code というものなのですね。
able という単語で考えると意味がわからなかったのが、a の代わりと見れば納得がいきます。
素晴らしいです。
ところで
explained to the Koreans
と
Propaganda
の間に１行抜けているみたいです。
to all of them CMA fanned and aggravated by strong and continuing communist
The bombing of fishermen at Liancourt Rocks on eight June has never been satisfactorily explained to the Koreans and is still a live and extremely sore subject to all of them, fanned and aggravated by strong and continuing communist propaganda that strikes a responsive cord in all Koreans regardless of Ideology.
Chaamieyさん
ReplyDelete＞この電信は秘密裡に送付されたものなので、ひょっとしたら「無効」なのかも知れません（笑）。
むふふ、ラスク書翰ですね。
ご指摘の点ですが、確かに、平和条約の１９４７年３月草案からはじまって、この１９４８年８月３日時点では、まだ１９４９年の「シーボルド意見書」以前ですから、条約草案では竹島は韓国側に付けていたわけで、そういう意識は、アメリカ内にもあったのかもしれません。
ただ、国務省の草案が、軍のほうにも漏れていたのか、というのはわからないと思います。
それにしても、小嶋さんのおかげで、ずいぶんきれいに読み解いていくことが出来ました。
ReplyDeleteありがとうございます。
さて、私も訂正です。
最初の新聞記事の最後のパラ、
국립문서기록관리청에서 수집한 한국관련 기록자료는 국립중앙도서관 홈페이지(http://www.nl.go.kr)와 국립중앙도서관 전자도서관(디브러리 http://www.dibrary.net)에서 확인할 수 있다.
国立文書記録管理庁で収集した韓国関連記録担当者料は、国立中央図書館ホームページ(http://www.nl.go.kr)と、国立中央図書館 電子図書館(ティブラリhttp://www.dibrary.net)で確認することができる。
→「国立文書記録管理庁から収集した韓国関連記録資料は」
小嶋さんも、この電子図書館のデータベースから、この画像をとったんでしょうか？
そもそも、竹島を極東空軍の射爆場として指定したSCAPIN-1778（1947年09月16日）は、日本政府にのみ通知されており、
ReplyDeleteこの無線文書にある
Liancourt Rocks is considered as Korean territory
というのは、やはり、このときの韓国（南朝鮮）側の一方的な考え方であり、米国政府の正式見解とは違うと思います。
「現地、南朝鮮の雰囲気は、いまこのようですよ」という報告・提案の文書と考えるべきでしょう。
以下 参考・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
1947年09月16日 - SCAPIN 1778
竹島を米軍射爆に指定。通知は日本側にのみなされた。第一次
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2007/06/blog-post_23.html?showComment=1377242060253#c4982864326875282451
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/scapin-1778.gif
宛名は日本政府
原史料
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/SCAPIN1778
GENERAL HEADQUARTERS
SUPREME COMMANDER FOR THE ALLIED POWERS
APO 500
16 September 1947
AG 684(16 Sept 47)GC-TNG
(SCAPIN 1778)
MEMORANDUM FOR : JAPANESE GOVERNMENT
THROUGH: Central Liaison Office, Tokyo
SUBJECT : Liancourt Rocks Bombing Range
Page 1
1. The islands of Liancourt Rocks (or Takes Shima), located 37° 15’ north, 131° 50’ east, are designated as a bombing range.
2. The inhabitants of Oki-Retto (Oki-Gunto) and the inhabitants of all the ports on the west coast of Honshu north to the 38th parallel, north latitude will be notified prior to each actual use of this range. This information will be disseminated through Military Government units to local Japanese civil authorities.
FOR THE SUPREME COMMANDER :
R.M. LEVY,
Colonel, AGD,
Adjutant, General.
Rescinded by
SCAPIN2160,
6 July 51
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
（参考２）
SCAPIN-1778 を引用した米国務省の見解
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCAPIN#SCAPIN-1778_.E3.82.92.E5.BC.95.E7.94.A8.E3.81.97.E3.81.9F.E7.B1.B3.E5.9B.BD.E5.8B.99.E7.9C.81.E3.81.AE.E8.A6.8B.E8.A7.A3
竹島を極東空軍の射爆場として指定したSCAPIN-1778を引用した米国務省の見解。サンフランシスコ条約後の1952年11月14日に、SCAPIN-677を根拠とした韓国の主張について、米国務省は駐韓米国大使に以下の書簡を送付している。[8][9]
原文
The Korean claim, based on SCAPIN 677 of January 29, 1946, which suspended Japanese administration of various island areas, including Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), did not preclude Japan from exercising sovereignty over this area permanently. A later SCAPIN, No. 1778 of September 16, 1947 designated the islets as a bombing range for the Far East Air Force and further provided that use of the range would be made only after notification through Japanese civil authorities to the inhabitants of the Oki Islands and certain ports on Western Honsu.
翻訳
韓国は、竹島（リアンクール岩）を含む様々な島嶼地域に対する日本の施政を停止した1946年1月29日のSCAPIN-677に基づいた権利の主張をしていますが、日本をこの地域における永続的な主権の行使から排除したものではありません。後続のSCAPINである1947年9月16日付け第1778号は、同島を極東空軍の射爆場として指定しさらに当該射爆場の使用は、日本の文民当局を通じて隠岐及び本州西部の住民に通告した後にはじめて行われると規定しました。
補足：これは事実問題として、竹島の所有権が日本側にあるからこそ、極東空軍が日本文民当局を通じて通告するとしたのである（所有権が韓国側にあるならば、日本に通告する必要は生じない）
注８ 竹島問題に関する調査研究最終報告書 サン・フランシスコ平和条約における竹島の取り扱い[4]
http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04_01/index.data/09.pdf
注９
Letter from Office of Northeast Asian Affairs To E. Allan Lightner American Embassy, Pusan Korea[5]
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Confidential_Security_Information_about_Liancourt_Rocks
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
それにしても、この差出人は何者なんですかね？
ReplyDeleteサインの名前、読めますか？ M.U.KOZOLA? CWO USA ASST ADJ GEN
http://www.nl.go.kr/upload/cheditor/hQAofsoZ.jpg
CWO は
Chief warrant officer 上級准尉 上級兵曹長
尉官級の人物でしょうか。
ASST ADJ GENは
Assistant Adjutant General 「高級副官補」ですかね
adjutant http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/adjutant 副官
an adjutant general 高級副官
CG USAFIKですが
二つ目の新聞記事に、주한미군(USAFIK) 부관 참모실 とあり、「駐韓米軍(USAFIK)副官参謀室」と訳しましたが、「副官」という翻訳はあっているのか、やや自信がありません。
最初の記事は、정보참모부의 어느 보고서 情報参謀部のある報告書
とあり、また정보참모부(G2) 情報参謀部(G2)とあります。
当時の米軍の組織、どなたかわかりませんでしょうか？
USAFIK US Army Forces in Koreaを検索していたら
以下の資料がありました。関連文書だと思います。まだ読みこなせていませんが。
http://dokdo-research.com/page14.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteお示し頂いた
ReplyDeletehttp://dokdo-research.com/page14.html
にある、画像を判読してみました。
http://dokdo-research.com/br4.jpg
Following report received from USAMGIK agent at Pohang Dong relative to bombing
and strafing incident at Liancourt rocks CLN survivors who are residents of
Pohang Dong have returned to their homes PD Eight people were severely wounded
cma thirty one slightly wounded cma and seventeen unharmed PD sixteen people
were killed or missing CMA of which two bodies have been recovered PD Thirty
three fishing vessels involved PD Counter intelligence corps cma clains officer
cma and medical officer have proceeded to area of bombing PD No reports from
these to date PD
Following report received from USAMGIK agent at Pohang Dong relative to bombing and strafing incident at Liancourt rocks : survivors who are residents of Pohang Dong have returned to their homes.
Eight people were severely wounded, thirty one slightly wounded, and seventeen unharmed.
Sixteen people were killed or missing, of which two bodies have been recovered.
Thirty three fishing vessels involved.
Counter intelligence corps, claims officer, and medical officer have proceeded to area of bombing. No reports from these to date.
strafe
（飛行機から）…を機銃掃射する；…を猛爆撃する
小嶋さん
ReplyDeleteいつもながら、起こしの早さは神業です。
ありがとうございます。
このPohang Dong は、東海岸の浦項（ポハン）でしょうか。
This radio communique is an update on the aftermath of the June 8, 1948 bombing of Dokdo. The information in this radio message came from a USAMGIK (United States Military Government in Korea) agent in Pohang, where some of the fishermen involved in the incident lived. This information was reported to CINCFE (Commander-in-Chief, Far East) and FEAF (Far East Air Force).
この６月８日の爆撃事件当時の動きについては、鄭秉峻がまとめています。
ReplyDelete今回の記事の無線通信文の意味合いを考え、また、Liancourt Rocks is considered as Korean territory の意味するところは何かを考えるうえで、わかりやすい解説だと思います。
解放後韓国の独島に対する認識と政策（1945－51）
鄭秉峻（チョン・ビョンジュン、梨花女子大学）
http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima01/kenkyukaijoukyou.data/3-12.pdf
１８ｐ～２３ｐ
（２）1948年独島爆撃事件と韓国人の独島認識の高揚
最初の電信文を平文にしたものと、私なりの和訳です。
ReplyDeleteTo CINCFE
Reference is made to your CX62656
answered by ZMGAGR222 this date.
In view of the current situation, I do not feel that data requested is particularly pertinent to making decision to drop Liancourt rocks from list of bombing areas.
Liancourt rocks is considered as Korean territory and in a few days it is expected that the United States will initiate progressive and orderly turnover of Government to the Koreans.
The bombing of fishermen at Liancourt rocks on 8 June has never been satisfactorily explained to the Koreans and is still a live and extremely sore subject to all of them, fanned and aggravated by strong and continuing communist propaganda that strikes a responsive cord in all Koreans regardless of ideology.
Even the closest Korean friends and associates have shown considerable hostility on this subject.
Since no detailed public explanation or clear cut acceptance of responsibility for the bombing has ever been offered to the Koreans by FEAF, this command tacitly absorbed the responsibility and took over the onerous task of settling the claims arising from the accident.
We may be sure that if at any time bombing is resumed on Liancourt rocks by United States planes, it will stir up a gigantic hornets nest of renewed resentment, hatred and accusations against United States Armed Forces here when we cannot afford it.
No American in this command nor Korean in the new Government can agree to the use of this area for bombing.
I urgently request that FEAF be directed to eliminate Liancourt rocks from its list of potential ranges.
CG USAFIK
(和訳)
現状を考慮すると、私は、要求されたデータが爆撃演習場の一覧表からリアンクール岩を削除する決定を下すことに特に関係があるとは思いません。
リアンクール岩は韓国の領域とみなされて、数日後にはアメリカ合衆国が、韓国への漸進的かつ秩序ある政権交代を開始することが予想されます。
6月8日のリアンクール岩における漁民への爆撃については、十分に韓国人に説明されないままであり、まだ彼ら全員にとって現今の極めて痛切な主題です。そして、すべての韓国人の敏感な心髄を打つことになる、強力かつ継続的な共産主義者の宣伝によって、イデオロギーに関係なく煽り立てられ悪化します。
最も親しい韓国の友人および仲間でさえ、この主題に関してかなりの敵意を示しています。
詳細な公的説明あるいは爆撃に対する責任の明確な承認が、今までのところはFEAFによって韓国人に提供されていないために、当司令部は、暗黙のうちに責任を吸収し、事故から生じる賠償請求を決済する面倒な仕事を引き継ぎました。
もしアメリカの飛行機による爆撃がリアンクール岩の上で再開される場合はいつであっても、それは、我々がその不利を受けずに行える立場にない限り、当地で米軍に対する新たな憤慨、憎悪、非難という巨大なスズメバチの巣を掻き立ててしまうと我々は確信してもよいでしょう。
当司令部のアメリカ人も、新政府の韓国人も、爆撃のためにこの地域を使用することに同意することができません。
私は、FEAFが潜在的範囲の一覧表からリアンクール岩を除去するように指示されるよう要求します。
strike a chord 琴線を打つ (本文ではcordだが、cord=chordの場合もあるので、神経を逆撫でするという感じ)
むしろ日本人の逆鱗に触れるんですけどねぇ。
結局、この電信文の韓国側の領域という表現は、韓国側の考え方の報告であって、米軍がその考えに同意したことを明示するものとは言えません。
小嶋日向守さま
ReplyDelete電信文の翻訳、ありがとうございました。
出かけていたため、レスが遅くなり、失礼しました。
この電信文の内容を見ると、
「6月8日のリアンクール岩における漁民への爆撃については、十分に韓国人に説明されないまま」
であるために、
「最も親しい韓国の友人および仲間でさえ、この主題に関してかなりの敵意示して」
いる一方で
「詳細な公的説明あるいは爆撃に対する責任の明確な承認が、今までのところはFEAFによって韓国人に提供されていない」
ということが述べられています。
ここで、「詳細な公的説明あるいは爆撃に対する責任の明確な承認が、今までのところはFEAFによって韓国人に提供されていない」という部分は、非常に大事だと思います。
歴史的な事実関係を見ると、
竹島が爆撃訓練区域に指定されたことは、1947年09月16日 に SCAPIN 1778をもって
米軍占領下の日本政府には確かに通知されました。
しかし、米軍政下の南朝鮮側には、そうした通知がなされた、という文献はないと思います。
ということは、韓国（という国はまだありませんが）側には、それを知らせる必要はない、という判断をアメリカ側がしていたことを示しているのではないかと思われます。
このため、竹島が爆撃訓練区域になっているとは知らなかった韓国の漁民が竹島に出漁し、米軍によって殺されてしまったわけです。
果たして、ここでいう「爆撃に対する責任の明確な承認」を、アメリカはする義務があるのかどうか。
この電信文の報告者は、韓国に親しい「友人」があり、こうした韓国人によって、「リアンクール岩は韓国の領域とみなされて」いるため、竹島を米軍の爆撃訓練区域から除外することを求める、という意見を表明しているのだと思います。
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete同感です。
ReplyDelete線路内に立ち入ったり、貨車の上に乗って感電した子供の親が居直って、モンスターペアレントになった状態のように感じます。彼らは、そもそも、そこにいるべきではなかったというのが正しいのです。
それなのに、今はなぜ、日本人が竹島に行けなくなっているのか。全く理解できません。
この電信文の前後には、米軍がリアンクール岩を日本領土であると考えているデータが載っている電信文があったのではないかと思います。
９月１日付の記事ですが、この地図集、どこかに公開されていますか？
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newscj.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=201634
東海・独島表記の古地図 90点収録した本発刊
国土地理情報部院『私たちの海と領土』図録出す
2013.09.01 15:14:12
동해•독도 표기 고지도 90점 수록한 책 발간
국토지리정보원 ‘우리 바다와 영토’ 도록 펴내
2013.09.01 15:14:12
[천지일보=박선혜 기자]
동해•독도 표기한 일본•서양 고지도 90점이 책 한 권에 담겼다.
[天地日報=パク・ソンヘ記者]
東海・独島を表記した日本・西洋の古地図90点が、本一冊に収められた。
국토교통부 국토지리정보원(원장 임주빈)이 도록 ‘우리 바다와 영토’를 발간, 정부부처•주요기관•일반에 무상으로 배포한다.
国土交通部 国土地理情報部（院長イム・ジュビン）が、図録『私たちの海と領土』を発刊、政府部署・主要機関・一般に無償で配布する。
책에는 한국의 동쪽 바다를 ‘한국해(조선해)’로 표기하고, 독도와 울릉도를 우리 영토로 표기한 일본•서양 고(古)지도 90여 점이 수록됐다.
本には、韓国東側の海を「韓国海（朝鮮海）」と表記し、独島と鬱陵島を私たちの領土と表記した日本・西洋の古地図90点余りが収録された。
국토지리정보원은 2007년부터 국내•외에서 수집한 고지도 원본 120여 점 중에서 동해와 독도를 우리 바다와 영토로 표기하고 있는 일본(25개)•서양(62개) 고지도를 선별해 지난 15일 도록을 발간했다.
国土地理情報部院は、2007年から国内・外で収集した古地図の原本120点余り中から、東海と独島を私たちの海と領土と表記している、日本（25個）・西洋（62個）の古地図を選別し、去る15日、図録を発刊した。
그동안 관련 기관•박물관 등에서 서양 고지도에 표현된 동해를 주제로 도록이 발간되기도 했지만, 국가기관에서 일본고지도를 포함한 외국 고지도를 통해 동해•독도 도록을 발간한 경우는 이번이 처음이다.
これまで、関連機関・博物館などで、西洋の古地図に表現された東海を主題に図録が発刊されたりもしたが、国家機関で日本の古地図を含んだ外国の古地図を通じて、東海・独島の図録を発刊したケースは今回が初めてだ。
특히 이번 도록에는 일본•서양 고지도에 대한 전문연구자의 세부 설명과 역사적인 제작 개요에 대한 논문이 수록돼 동해와 독도가 외국 고지도에 어떻게 표현됐는지를 명확히 확인할 수 있다.
特に今回の図録には、日本・西洋古地図に対する専門研究者の細部説明と、歴史的な製作概要についての論文が収録され、東海と独島が外国古地図にどのように表現されたかを明確に確認することができる。
주로 19세기에 제작된 일본 고지도의 경우 이상태 교수(국제대학원 대학교 석좌교수)가 지도를 분석했고, 17~19세기 제작된 서양 고지도의 경우 서정철 교수(한국외대 명예교수)가 분석해 설명과 개요를 도록에 포함했다.
主に19世紀に製作された日本古地図については、イ・サンテ教授(国際大学院大学校客員教授)が地図を分析し、17～19世紀に製作された西洋古地図については、ソ・ジョンチョル教授(韓国外大名誉教授)が分析して、説明と概要を図録に含ませた。
국토지리정보원은 “사실 그동안 고지도 도록은 관련 기관이나 일부 박물관에서 발간해왔지만, 서양고지도라는 분야의 한계가 있었다. 또 유료로 구매해야 볼 수 있으며, 그 내용을 전산매체로 공개하지 않아 수요자들이 이용하기에는 불편한 점이 있었다”며 “이번에는 도록에 대한 모든 정보를 누구나 손쉽게 활용하고 이를 통해 새로운 가치를 창조할 수 있도록 무상으로 일반에 공개한다”고 밝혔다.
国土地理情報部院は「事実、これまで古地図の図録は、関連機関や一部の博物館で発刊してきたが、西洋古地図という分野の限界があった。また、有料で購入してはじめて見ることができ、またその内容を電算媒体で公開しておらず、需要者が利用するには不便な点があった」として「今回は図録についてのすべての情報を誰でも容易に活用して、これを通じて新しい価値を創造することができるように無償で一般に公開する」と述べた。
한편 국토지리정보원은 동해•독도 등 우리 영토와 관련된 국내•외 고지도를 지속해서 확보해 도록을 증보 발간하고, 영문으로 번역 발간해 해외 수요자들도 이용할 수 있도록 서비스할 계획이다.
一方、国土地理情報部院は、東海・独島など私たちの領土と関連した国内・外の古地図を持続して確保して図録を増補発刊して、さらに英文で翻訳発刊して海外の需要者も利用することができるようにサービスする計画だ。
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
１２０点余りを収集して、そのうち８７点にしか、こうした記述がないことを自ら認めています。
そして「東海」ではなく「朝鮮海」ですね。
はたして「韓国海」と書かれている地図はあるんでしょうか？
さらにイ・サンテ教授は、「于山」という地名を発見すると、すべて、機械的に（＝何の吟味も論証もなく）、「（独島）」と断定する方ですが、「独島」という地名も、地図原本には現われないと思います。
西洋古地図を分析した、ソ・ジョンチョル教授(韓国外大名誉教授)という人については、私はよく知りませんが、どなたかご存知でしょうか？
どこかに公開されていたら教えてください。
国土交通部국토교통부の「国土地理情報院」국토지리정보원 のサイトにはいると
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ngii.go.kr
独島地理ネット
http://dokdo.ngii.go.kr/dokdo/main/main.do?rbsIdx=1
というのがあって、
ここに
西洋古地図 ３５点
http://dokdo.ngii.go.kr/dokdo/board/list.do?rbsIdx=52
日本古地図 １４点
http://dokdo.ngii.go.kr/dokdo/board/list.do?rbsIdx=53
が紹介されていました。
日本（25個）・西洋（62個）という記事より少ないので、‘우리 바다와 영토’『私たちの海と領土』という、別のページがあるのではないかと思います。
上のコメントで「国土地理情報部院」「国土地理情報部」というのは「国土地理情報院」の間違いです。「정보원情報院」の自動翻訳が「情報部員」（「情報員」の日本語訳）となっていたのを、何か変だな、と思いながら「員」だけ「院」に直していました。失礼しました。
上記「天地日報」の記事は９月１日付けですが、発表は８月２６日か２７日だったようです。
ReplyDeletehttps://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dii5ImeWVjzKokM5dh-q8ChpAz_XM&q=%EC%9A%B0%EB%A6%AC+%EB%B0%94%EB%8B%A4%EC%99%80+%EC%98%81%ED%86%A0%E2%80%99&lr=Korean&hl=ko
６件の記事があります。
「独島問題」に関しては、記者の独自取材というものはありえないようで、みな「同じ記事」の垂れ流しです。
http://www.ejanews.co.kr/sub_read.html?uid=74348§ion=sc3§ion2=&mc=
http://www.newswire.co.kr/newsRead.php?no=711039&ected=
http://www.fnnews.com/view?ra=Sent1201m_View&corp=fnnews&arcid=13082713422086&cDateYear=2013&cDateMonth=08&cDateDay=27
http://www.asiae.co.kr/news/view.htm?sec=sisa2&idxno=2013082708485495227
http://www.hidomin.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=214724
http://www.edaily.co.kr/news/NewsRead.edy?newsid=01859766602911584&SCD=JG31&DCD=A00703
報道発表資料をあつめたサイトの記事を翻訳しておきます。「天地日報」と基本的に同じですが、やや詳しいです。
동해•독도 표기한 일본•서양 古지도 90점 한 권에
(세종=뉴스와이어) 2013년 08월 27일 -- 한국의 동쪽 바다를 ‘한국해(조선해)’로 표기하고, 독도와 울릉도를 우리 영토로 표기한 일본•서양 古지도 90여 점을 한권에 담은 ‘우리 바다와 영토’ 도록(圖錄)이 발간되었다.
국토교통부 국토지리정보원(원장 임주빈)은 2007년부터 국내•외에서 수집한 고지도 원본 120여점 중에서, 동해와 독도를 우리 바다와 영토로 표기하고 있는 일본(25)•서양(62) 고지도를 선별하여 8월 15일 도록을 발간하였고, 9월부터 정부부처•주요기관 • 일반에 무상으로 배포한다.
그동안 관련 기관•박물관 등에서 서양 고지도에 표현된 동해를 주제로 도록이 발간되기도 하였지만, 국가기관에서 일본고지도를 포함한 외국 고지도를 통해 동해•독도 도록을 발간한 경우는 처음이다.
특히 일본•서양 고지도에 대한 전문연구자의 세부 설명과 역사적인 제작 개요에 대한 논문을 수록하여 동해와 독도가 외국 고지도에 어떻게 표현되었는지를 명확히 확인할 수 있는 도록이다.
주로 19세기에 제작된 일본 고지도의 경우 이상태 교수(국제대학원 대학교 석좌교수)가 지도를 분석하였고, 17~19세기 제작된 서양 고지도의 경우 서정철 교수(한국외대 명예교수)가 분석하여 설명과 개요를 도록에 수록하였다.
국토지리정보원은 이번 발간한 ‘우리 바다와 영토’ 도록을 정부부처•관계기관•박물관•대학교 등에 배포하며, 고해상도 PDF 파일을 홈페이지(http://www.ngii.go.kr)에 올려 일반인들이 다운받아 이용할 수 있도록 서비스 한다.
사실 그동안 古지도 도록은 관련 기관이나 일부 박물관에서 발간하기는 하였지만 서양고지도라는 분야의 한계가 있었고, 더욱이 유료로 구매해야 볼 수 있었다. 또한 그 내용을 전산매체로 공개하지 않아 수요자들이 이용하기에는 불편한 점이 있었다. 하지만 국토지리정보원은 정부 3.0 취지에 맞춰 이러한 장벽을 깨고 도록에 대한 모든 정보를 누구나 손쉽게 활용하고 이를 통해 새로운 가치를 창조할 수 있도록 무상으로 일반에 공개한다.
향후 책임운영기관인 국토지리정보원은 동해•독도 등 우리영토와 관련된 국내•외 고지도를 지속적으로 확보하여 도록을 증보 발간할 계획이며, 영문으로 번역 발간하여 해외 수요자들도 이용할 수 있도록 서비스할 계획이다.
출처: 국토교통부
홈페이지: http://www.mltm.go.kr
국토교통부 소개
국토종합계획의 수립과 조정, 국토 및 수자원의 보전과 이용 및 개발, 도시 도로 및 주택의 건설, 해안 하천 및 간척, 육운 철도 및 항공에 관한 사무를 맡는 정부 부처이다. 세종시에 본부를 두고 있다. 2013년부터 연세대 경제학부 교수 출신인 서승환 장관이 장관이 국토교통부를 이끌고 있으며, 1차관이 국토,건설을 2차관이 교통,물류를 나누어 맡고 있다.
• 언론 연락처
• 국토교통부
국토지리정보원
한상호 학예연구사
031-210-2786
東海・独島表記した日本・西洋古い地図90点一冊に
(世宗（セジョン）=ニュースワイヤー) 2013年08月27日—
韓国の東側の海を‘韓国海(朝鮮海)’と表記して、独島と鬱陵島を私たちの領土と表記した日本・西洋の古地図90点余りを一冊に集めた‘私たちの海と領土’図録が発刊された。
国土交通部国土地理情報院(院長イム・ジュビン)は2007年から国内・外で収集した古地図原本120点余りの中から、東海と独島を私たちの海と領土と表記している日本(25)・西洋(62)の古地図を選別して8月15日図録を発刊し、9月から政府部署・主要機関・一般に無償で配布する。
これまで、関連機関・博物館などで西洋古地図に表現された東海を主題に図録が発刊されたりもしたが、国家機関で日本古地図を含んだ外国古地図を通じて東海・独島図録を発刊したケースは初めてだ。
特に日本・西洋古地図に対する専門研究者の細部説明と歴史的な製作概要に対する論文を収録し、東海と独島が外国古地図にどのように表現されたかを明確に確認できる図録だ。
主に19世紀に製作された日本古地図の場合、イ・サンテ教授(国際大学院大学校客員教授)が地図を分析し、17～19世紀に製作された西洋古地図の場合、ソ・ジョンチョル教授(韓国外大名誉教授)が分析して説明と概要を図録に収録した。
国土地理情報院は今回の発刊した‘私たちの海と領土’図録を政府部署・関係機関・博物館・大学校などに配布して、高解像度PDFファイルをホームページ(http://www.ngii.go.kr)に上げて一般の人たちがダウンロードして利用することができるようにサービスする。
事実、これまで古地図の図録は関連機関や一部博物館で発刊することはあったが、西洋古地図という分野の限界があったし、さらに有料で購入してこそ見ることができた。 また、その内容を電算媒体で公開しておらず、需要者が利用するには不便な点があった。 だが、国土地理情報院は、政府3.0趣旨に合わせて、このような障壁を破って図録に対するすべての情報を誰でも容易に活用してこれを通じて新しい価値を創造することができるように無償で一般に公開する。
今後、責任運営機関である国土地理情報院は東海・独島など私たちの領土と関連した国内・外の古地図を持続的に確保して図録を増補発刊する計画であり、英文で翻訳発刊して海外需要者も利用することができるようにサービスする計画だ。
出処:国土交通部
注 정부 3.0 취지 「政府3.0趣旨」？
정부3.0은 정부의 투명성 제고와 국민과 소통 강화를 통해, 복잡다단한 이해가 얽힌 사회•경제적 문제를 해소하고 정부 정책의 수용성을 높이는 것을 목적으로 한다. 최근 정부 각 부처는 정부3.0을 실현하기 위한 정책들을 잇달아 발표하고 있다.
政府3.0は、政府の透明性向上と国民との疎通強化を通じて、複雑多端な理解が錯綜する社会・経済的問題を解消して政府政策の受容性を高めるのを目的とする。最近政府各部署は政府3.0を実現するための政策を相次いで発表している。
http://www.k-today.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=14
このサイトを見ると、「西洋古地図」にある「独島」と称するものついては、すべて Tchiang-chan-tao「千山島」で、これは「東覧図」の「于山島」のなれの果てですから、鬱陵島の「影」である「于山島」のことで、「独島」であることが証明されたわけでは全くありません。勝手な「思い込み」だと思います。
ReplyDeletehttp://dokdo.ngii.go.kr/dokdo/board/list.do?rbsIdx=52
「日本古地図」の最初に
http://dokdo.ngii.go.kr/dokdo/board/list.do?rbsIdx=53
조선전도(朝鮮全圖) があります。
http://dokdo.ngii.go.kr/dokdo/board/popupImage.do?rbsIdx=53&idx=14
1850년대, 작자미상(일본), 80 x 104cm
조선 전체를 그린 조선전도로 팔도(八道)를 채색으로 구분하였다. 동해를 비롯한 바다의 이름은 없으나 울릉도(죽도; 竹島)?독도(송도; 松島)가 표기되어 있다. 부산?인천?원산과 시모노세키(馬關)?나가사키(長崎)?천진(天津)?상해(上海) 등지의 항로와 거리가 표기되어 있다.
1850年代、作者未詳(日本),80 x 104cm
朝鮮全体を描いた朝鮮全図で八道を彩色で区分した。東海をはじめとする海の名前はないが、鬱陵島(チュクト;竹島) 独島(ソンド;松島)が表記されている。釜山 仁川 元山と下関(馬関) 長崎 天津 上海などの地の航路と距離が表記されている。
とありますが、この松島は「独島」であるのか？
それよりも「１８５０年代」という年代は正しいのでしょうか？
「元山」は、１８５０年代には、まだ「ラザレフ」で、存在しないと思いますが。
「仁川」開港は１８８３年（明治１６年）ですよね。
http://www.kampoo.com/travel/gg/incheon/incheon_open_port.htm
明らかに戦艦「天城」による松島＝鬱陵島確認以降の地図で、この松島は鬱陵島です。
国土地理情報院には、地理学の専門家がいないのでしょうか？