I The principle of the interpretation of a geographical term
1) The geographical term must be interpreted as the natural geographical meaning
Eastern Greenland CASE (P.C.I.J. 1933)
The natural meaning of the term is its geographical meaning as shown in the maps. If it is argued on behalf of Norway that these treaties use the term "Greenland" in some special sense, it is for her to establish it, and it is not decisive in this respect that the northern part of Greenland was still unknown. She has not succeeded in showing that in these treaties the word "Greenland" means only the colonized area.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969
Article 31. General rule of interpretation
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.
2) The renunciation area by Japan on the peace treaty
"Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet."This is the text about the renunciation area by Japan on the peace treaty on September 8, 1951(SF treaty) and the draft of the treaty on July 3, 1951. (After June,1951, this text was not revised)
A. The natural geographical meaning by USA geographer (original source)
Prof. Boggs recognized that the text doesn’t contain Liancourt Rocks.
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).
B. The natural geographical meaning by Korea (Korean first interpretation)
Korean government required addition of "Dokdo(Liancourt Rocks)" in the text to USA on July 19, 1951.(original source)
My Government requests that the word "renounces" in Paragraph a, Article Number 2, should be replaced by "confirms that it renounced on August 9,1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the island Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo."Korea recognized that Dagelet (Ulleungdo) and Dokdo(Liancourt Rocks) as another island and the text doesn’t contain Liancourt Rocks.
C. The strained geographical meaning by Korea (Korean Second interpretation)
After the SF treaty was issued, Korea government changed her interpretation about the text. She sent a verbal note to Japan on 10 February 1954 and said follows.
Dokdo(Liancourt Rocks) was approved as a Korean territory as an islet belonging to the Ulleungdo(Dagelet) by Chapter 1 Article 2 (a) of the treaty.This second interpretation is contradictory to her first interpretation. Because USA denied Korean first interpretation and request (see rusk note, No184 document), Korea had to change her interpretation for keeping her political greed. USA didn’t open these diplomatic negotiations with Korea till 1969. Then Korea could tell a lie and keep her second strained interpretation. But now, USA had opened the diplomatic negotiations and the Korean deceit had became clear.
II Unity theory of the international law
The Korean second interpretation is based on the unity theory. To be sure, the international law may accept the attached island as same legally unit of maim island.
PALMAS CASE, Hague, 1928
As regards groups of islands, it is possible that a group may under certain circumstances be regarded as in law a unit, and that the fate of the principal part may involve the rest.
1) Application of unity theory in precedents
LAND, ISLAND AND MARITIME FRONTIER DISPUTE , ICJ, 1992
The Mohabbakah Islands are four rocky islets which amount to little more than navigational hazards. They are Sayal Islet, which is no more than 6 nautical miles from the nearest point on the Eritrean mainland coast, Harbi Islet and Flat Islet; all three of these are within twelve nautical miles of the mainland coast. Finally, there is High Islet, which is less than one nautical mile outside the twelve-mile limit from the mainland coast, and about five nautical miles from the nearest Haycock island, namely South West Haycock.
2) Application to Liancourt RocksThe distance from Dagelet (Ulleungdo) to Liancourt Rocks is about 50 nautical mile. Then it will not apply the unity theory to Liancourt Rocks.
LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN , ICJ, 2002
The Court, however, considers that this cannot apply to Ligitan and Sipadan, which are situated more than 40 nautical miles away from the three islands in question.<supplement>
Dokdo(独島) is Korean name of the Liancourt Rocks. The meaning of Dokdo is isolated island. Korean name is contradictory to Korean unity theory.
1) The natural meaning of the Chapter 1 Article 2 (a) of the SF treatyThe Chapter 1 Article 2 (a) which defined the renounced area by Japan doesn't contain the Liancourt Rocks. This is also proved by the first Korean interpretation.
2) Korean deceptive interpretationThe drafter of the treaty (USA) have notified the truth meaning of the Chapter 1 Article 2 (a) of the SF treaty. But Korea have disregarded the truth meaning and fabricated the second interpretation intentionally for her political greed. This Korean fraudulent practice breaks ”estoppel” and "good faith" for the interruption.
3) Unity theoryLiancourt Rocks is not an attached island of the Dagelet (Ulleungdo).
After USA have opened the Rusk note at 1969, Korea government never comment about the Rusk note and her first natural interpretation. Now she is going to forget even her 2nd interpretation(unity theory).
Korean newest brochureIf the status of the Liancourt Rocks was uncertain at the treaty, why did he demand to add the Liancourt Rocks to the renounced territory? Why didn't she demand to add 3,000 islands? Did she lost official notes from the drafter(see rusk note, No184 document)? Her evasion is denied by her past activities. Moreover this third interpretation violates the "Principle of Completeness of Boundary Treaties"
Among Korea’s some 3,000 islands, the said article refers to only Jejudo (Quelpart), Geomundo (Port Hamilton), and Ulleungdo (Dagelet) as examples. Therefore, the mere fact that Dokdo is not directly mentioned in the said article does not suggest that Dokdo is not included among those territories of Korea separated from Japan.
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.