articles on dokdo
TRANSCRIPT
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 1/116
Special Edition
Dokdo Research Journal
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 2/116
Published by
Dr. Hak-So Kim
President, Korea Maritime Institute
1652 Sangamdong Mapogu Seoul, 121-270, Korea
Telephone: +82 2 2105 4970 / Facsimile: +82 2 2105 4989
Website: www.kmi.re.kr
All rights reserved. © 2010 Korea Maritime Institute. All materials contained in this journal are
protected by the copyright of the Korea Maritime Institute and may not be translated, reproduced,
distributed, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any other means, whether
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission
in writing from the publisher.
The publisher, the institute and the editor cannot be held responsible for errors or any
consequences arising from the use of information contained in this journal.
Printed and bound by Aujin & Seoul Advertisement.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 3/116
The Dokdo Research Journal is a comprehensive journal of
studies on Dokdo and other relevant issues. It is published annually in
English by the Korea Maritime Institute. The journal covers selected
articles of its Korean version, which has been quarterly published since
2008. This is a part of KMI’s efforts to reach out to the world and to
spread Korea’s stance on the ocean policies, including the issues
surrounding Dokdo.
KMI hopes the Dokdo Research Journal helps overseas readers to
understand properly on the issues of the sovereignty over Dokdo from
historical and international law viewpoint.
<remarks>
1. In the articles, a family name comes before a given name.
2. Footnotes in the articles were omitted.
KOREA MARITIME INSTITUTE
Dokdo Research Journal
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 4/116
“Dokdo” consists of a group of islets located on the easternmost
tip of Korean territory. It is often called “Liancourt Rocks” in the
international society. Dokdo comprises 2 main islets and 89 rocks as a
result of volcanic activity millions of years ago, Even though it is rocky,
a variety of plants grow on beautiful Dokdo, which also serves as an
important habitats for numerous birds including seagulls.
The picturesque islets of Dokdo have long been recognized as the
Korean territory that belongs to Korea. Currently, Korea has been preserving
and utilizing the islands in a very sustainable manner. Although the Japanese
government has claimed its territorial rights with a groundless evidence to
Dokdo from time to time, Korea has firm evidences of its sovereignty over
Dokdo from the perspective of history and international law.
With a view to contribute and solidify Korea’s territorial rights
of Dokdo, the Korea Maritime Institute established the Dokdo and
Marine Territory Research Center in February 2006. The Center has been
doing research and engaging in public relations activities to facilitate the
country in strengthening its territorial rights to Dokdo and using the
island in a peaceful and sustainable manner. As part of such efforts, the
Center began to publish the Dokdo Research Journal in Korean. On
September 1, 2010, the Center was reorganized into the International
Marine Affairs & Territory Research Department for the purpose of
performing the function of leading Korea’s international maritime
policies including the research on Dokdo.
Welcome Message toDokdo Research Journal
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 5/116
Special Edition
Dokdo Research Journal deals with the territorial claim issues
of Dokdo between Korea and Japan from the standpoint of history and
international law. Moreover, it analyzes politically and sociologically of
Dokdo’s implications in Korea and Japan’s bilateral relations. The
content of the journal is not limited to historical and international legal
issues involving Dokdo. The journal handles far more diverse themes, i.e.
territorial claims over islands, delimitation of maritime boundaries,
expansion of the limits of the continental shelf, development of marine
resources, climate change and maritime environment, piracy, and other
issues pertaining to international law. Most of all, Dokdo Research
Journal provides vivid up-to-the-minute information on Korea’s
utilization of Dokdo, which enables its readers to realize that Dokdo
constitutes a precious part of the Korean territory epitomizing the heart
and soul of the Korean people.
This English version of Dokdo Research Journal is based on its
Korean version that has been published quarterly since 2008. Among the
articles carried in the Korean issues of Dokdo Research Journal, articles
will be selected and published in English once a year in order to expand
publicity abroad regarding Korean position on Dokdo and maritime
policies. It is anticipated that Dokdo Research Journal would promote a
more accurate understanding of the territorial issues surrounding Dokdo
and contribute to Korea’s formulation of international maritime policies.
Dr. Hak-So KimPresident, Korea Maritime Institute
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 6/116
INSIDE & OUTSIDE
Know the ocean, protect the ocean, and use the ocean Sung-Wook Nam
OPINION
The DPJ regime and territorial issue between Korea and Japan Dae-Song Hyun
Dokdo and green growthHak-Bong Chang
DOKDO GALLERY 1
Breeding black-tailed gull Hee-Cheon Park
SPECIAL ISSUE 1 Japan's forced annexation of Korea in 1910 and Dokdo issue
The origin of Dokdo issue: having another look at the San Francisco Peace Treaty Ki-Jeong Nam
For the desirable resolution of the Dokdo issue Heon-Ik Kwon
SPECIAL ISSUE 2 Criticism on the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ claims to Dokdo
Criticism on the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ claims to Dokdo:
from the perspective of history Young-Ran Hur
Criticism on the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ claims to Dokdo:
from the perspective of international law Seok-Woo Lee
Maps published by Japanese government that mark Dokdo outside of
Japanese territory Byung-Sup Park
010.
016.
025.
030.
032.
037.
050.
054.
057.
Contents
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 7/116
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
SPECIAL ISSUE 3 Controversy over Okinotorishima
Does it deserve the status of island? Pae-Keun Park
A new maritime dispute? Japan’s Okinotorishima policy and its implication Tetsuo Kotani
Legal nature and problems of the UN Commission on the Limits of
the Continental Shelf Jya Wi
POLICY REPORT
Studies on Dokdo problem by Japanese international law scholars Pae-Keun Park
Natural resources development and environmental issues of the Arctic Ki-Sun Kim
DOKDO GALLERY 2Flock of black wood pigeon Hee-Cheon Park
GLOBAL OCEAN FOCUS
Bangladesh brings sea boundary dispute to ITLOS Soo-Jeong Choi
Climate change: new challenge to the law of the sea regime Ja-Young Kim
Marine biodiversity: trend and challenges of the international community Min-Su Kim
China’s Law on Island Protection to strengthen maritime jurisdiction Piao Wen-Jin
PRECISE UNDERSTANDING OF
HISTORICAL MATERIALS ON DOKDO
“Usando and Ulleungdo are different individual islands” Mi-Rim Yoo
078.
081.
094.
096.
101.
106.
112.
116.
060.
065.
069.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 8/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 10Know the ocean, protect the ocean,
and use the ocean
Sung-Wook NamPresident, the Institute forNational Security Strategy
Know the ocean, protect the ocean,
and use the ocean
INSIDE & OUTSIDE
A single-page historical map found at the Edo Museum
I visited the Edo-Tokyo Museum in Ryogoku during my visit to
Tokyo, Japan last fall. It was very surprising when I discovered a map
indicating the sea routes during the Edo period at the museum which
captured the life of the Edo period from 1603~1867. The map of Edo
contained hundreds of channels between the north of Hokkaido and the
south of Okinawa. The map showed that it took at least a month for a cargo
loaded with fish, salt and natural resources to travel from the north through
Tokyo to Osaka and/or Kyushu. In a word, it can be assumed that trade was
mainly accomplished by maritime transportation than on inland. Open
mind about the sea always exceeded the sea horizon and led to interests
about the New World. For the islanders, western ships with smoke fuming
approaching from the Indian Ocean or the Pacific Ocean were the start of a
realization that there exists a new world on the other end of the earth. The
Ocean has been the path to a new world. It stimulated a new challenge.
Hence, visiting the new world and importing cultures from the new world
has commenced.
The Peninsula taboos the ocean
Japan’s embracement of Western learning started when a
Portuguese merchant ship stopped over at Tanegashima in 1543. The term
“Western learning” was used in many ways depending on the change of
period and as the subject of interchange: Nanbangak(南蠻學, Southern
babarians Learning)→Rangaku(蘭學, Dutch Learning)→ Yogaku(洋學,
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 9/116
11Special Edition
Western Learning)→Saigaku(西學, Western Learning), etc., for instance. First
of all, Nammanhak has been used from the year 1543 to the beginning of
the Tokugawa period when Western culture was learnt and adopted while
interchanging with the Portuguese and Spanish merchants. Rangaku was
used from the year 1623 until mid-1850s when it was adopted with the
concentration on the medical science of the Netherlands. Yogaku(Western
Learning) was the general term used for the adoption of Western cultures
from the year 1858 and onwards when the policy of seclusion was
abandoned and the doors to Western powers were opened. The scholars
prescribe the 260 year history of the Tokugawa era, where Rangaku(Dutch
Learning) was adopted as the “seclusionism” period. But, even during this
secluded period, Japan energetically exchanged culture. It imported the
Western cultures through the Dutch temple in Nagasaki and accepted a
grand scale of the Joseon diplomatic corps from Korea. However, seclusion
and controlled policies were carried out restrictively. Thus, at the Dongdo-
seogi-ron(東道西器論 , Eastern Ways and Western Machines) level, the field
of natural science of Rangaku was adopted intensely over the human
studies of the West. We need to pay attention to the fact that, in the early
1700, Japanese adoption of the Western cultures was already excessive and
by the early 1800, people who studied the Dutch language and Dutch
medical science numbered well over 1,000. In modern times, Japan’s
adoption of Western learning is limited to the natural science field. But the
fact that the intellectuals comprehended the new political and social
systems and ideas of rationalism through Western books that had been
officially and/or unofficially passed down is rather impressive and
noteworthy.
The second largest item for the Japanese government in the 17th
Century to purchase from the abroad was books on international law
imported from the Netherlands, the then most advanced nation at that time.
Learning of international practices and legal knowledge was a thorough
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 10/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
INSIDE & OUTSIDE12
Know the ocean, protect the ocean,
and use the ocean
provision for the imminent future. In the 18th Century, Japan devoted to
adopting the advanced cultures of Spain, Britain and Germany in the 19th
Century. Its open attitude became the groundwork for the drastic open-
door policy Japan pushed forward when Commodore Perry of the United
States requested for the doors to be opened.
For Korea, the sea was a remoted area where fishermen could catch
during the day and come back to their places by night. In some parts of
Jeolla region, the use of the sea was limited only to transport goods to
Hanyang due to lack of foresight from its leadership. Japan as an insular
nation regarded the sea as a path, while Korea, as a peninsula, designated
the sea as a remoted area. Both Korea and Japan’s formation of the views of
the world were based on how a nation viewed the sea, as the path to the
outside world or simply as a means of survival, which led to a huge
difference. Once in the past, the Korean peninsula sufficiently flaunted its
status as a maritime nation in the North-East Asia. Chang Bo-Go(one of
Shilla’s-Korea’s ancient Kingdom-powerful families), swept the pirates and
led the Korea-China-Japan’s triple transit trading with his strong naval
forces. However, when Chang Bo-Go was assassinated by a political
opponent and Cheonghaejin (the military camp created by Chang Bo-Go)
was dismantled, Korea lost its chance to develop as East-Asia’s most
powerful maritime nation. Afterwards, Goryeo and Joseon neglected the
use of seas following the continental-oriented toadyism the Chinese
continents widely spreaded out. Eventually when Joseon dynasty ended, a
fatal difference between Korea and Japan in the modern history was
realized.
Roman fleets are the foundation of the Roman Empire’s formation
“We frequently hear a lot about the effects of roads on its culture
when understanding Roman culture. But we have almost ignored the
effects of Roman fleets that brought about miracles. The Roman Empire
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 11/116
13Special Edition
hugely relied on its fleets as much as it relied on its roads.” This is the
remark by the historian J. H. Rose, who analyzed the role of the Mediterranean
in the ancient times. Rome was in full flourish when it actively expanded its
interchanges to the Mediterranean and it shrinked when the interchanges
were limited within the Italian Peninsula. “The mines of Brazil caused the
ruins of Portugal, as those of Mexico and Peru had been of Spain. All
manufacturers fell into insane contempt; before long, the English supplied
the Portuguese not only with clothes but all merchandises and commodities
as well. In 50 years, 500 million dollars worth of gold were extracted from
Brazil; only 25 million dollars worth of gold were left in Portugal.” This is
the evaluation made by Alfred Thayer Mahan who analyzed the effects of
maritime power in 1889. Under the Louis XIV’s reign, the Britain became
the world’s largest mercantile nation and had the most maritime power. The
British navy won the crucial victory against the French and the Spanish
invincible fleets in the Battle of Trafalgar on October 21, 1805. 27 ships of
the British Royal Navy attacked 33 ships of the French and Spanish’s
invincible fleets at Trafalgar in the South-West of Spain. At this battle, the
French and Spanish’s combined fleets lost 22 ships but not any of the
British ship sank: With the victory of this battle, Britain became the world’s
greatest power. Also, this victory led to a new period of industrialization.
Know the ocean, protect the ocean, use the ocean
These days, the nations know the value of the ocean. Following the
historical facts around the world that show the domination of national
maritime power, the ocean has become a “desperate scene” where all
nation’s power clashes against one another. The North-East Asian
countries’ competition in national maritime power is getting fierce. Former
Chinese Ambassador to Korea, Ning Fukui said “1mm in a map with a scale
of 1/50,000 is 50m in reality. And, I will be on alert and hang onto it with
the determination to die to defend this 1mm” when he became Director-
General of the newly established Department of Boundary and Ocean
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 12/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
INSIDE & OUTSIDE14
Know the ocean, protect the ocean,
and use the ocean
Affairs of China in last May. Huang Ju, China’s Vice Premier said on July
11, 2006, “It is important to look at the Sea as a blue territory.” Paul
Kennedy mentioned in The Rise and Fall of Great Powers that the fall of
China happened in 1433 when it abandoned maritime policies by banning
overseas expedition. Eventually, the Ming Dynasty adopted a policy of
seclusion and all the overseas expeditions were suspended. Ultimately,
China foolishly closed its eyes; hence, foreign attacks which came 400
years later were not recognized in advance.
Japanese maritime policy slogan “Know the Ocean, Protect the
Ocean, and Use the Ocean” was presented in 2002. The “Thinking about
National Policy” series of the Japanese Yomiuri newspaper (2005)
emphasized that “A nation surrounded by seas does not necessarily mean it
is a maritime nation. To become a true maritime nation, a complete
national structure is needed to pursue solid maritime policies and maritime
administrations. Thereupon, the Japanese government has taken actions to
establish maritime policies such as legislating a basic maritime law to
establish the Department of Maritime Policy. Under the auspices of such
policies represent the fierce competition of maritime powers among the
North-East Asian countries that regard the ocean as a territory.
Korea should drive integrated maritime policies
As the Northeast Asia’s political and economical situations rapidly
change, Korea's maritime policies are required to be more specific and
systematic. First, a solid policy for the national maritime security is needed.
Maritime security of a nation is an activity that protects people’s lives and
assets within its marine territory. It covers safeguarding border lines, safety
in navigation, protection of activities in the ocean development as its core
work. North Korean Navy’s recent bombardment around the NLL, for
instance, was a serious threat to our national maritime security. Therefore,
South Korea must strongly respond to it. Policies for the prevention of
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 13/116
15Special Edition
maritime terror, pirates, drug trafficking, pollution, and protection of
marine resourse development are essential. Second, preemptive moves are
important to possess the advantageous uplands in the competition of
securing marine resources. Globally, coastal States filed their claims to
extend continental shelves. Korea's actions by complying with the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea also is an urgent task. Third,
sovereignty dispute over the islands is at global stake. 31 regions are under
disputes across the world and 10 regions in Asia. Fourth, a comprehensive
national support for international experts who work for roles in
international organizations such as United Nations, the International
Maritime Organization (IMO), International Hydrographic Organization
(IHO), Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) is needed.
Lastly, Korea needs to enhance its nationwide interest in the ocean which
will play as an engine for the future growth. The government must take a
lead in driving policies which firmly inspires the people to be aware of the
ocean as its territory. 100 years ago, the sea was unfortunately the “fence”
between the world and the Korean peninsula. As Daehan Empire fell into
the pit of a colony as it could not cope with the waves of new civilization,
ignoring the importance of the ocean brings self-destruction to a nation
situated on a peninsula. Korean people who come to realize the sea as a
blue territory and it could be the start of a new challenge. All sorts of new
ideas such as Free Trade Agreements with neighboring countries, building
of second Antarctic base, sustainable use of Dokdo, constructing a tunnel
connecting Busan and Fukuoka, etc. can be realized by seeing the ocean as
a blue territory.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 14/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
OPINION16
➊ The DPJ regime and territorial issue
between Korea and Japan
The DPJ regime and territorial issue
between Korea and Japan
Dae-Song HyunResearch Professor,Kookmin University
In the 45th election for the Japanese House of Representatives
(lower house of the Japanese Diet) held on August 30, 2009, the
Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) led by Yukio Hatoyama captured 308 of
480 seats, winning a landslide victory by the largest margin in the post-
war history of Japan. The DPJ put an end to half a decade of power of
the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan (LDP) and succeeded in attaining a
power transition. In 1993, the LDP fell from power temporarily.
However, it is the first time in Japanese history that an opposition party
achieved a full-scale power transition, replacing a ruling party by
garnering a majority of seats independently. Such full-fledged power
transition was an unprecedented dramatic event since the first general
election in 1890.
On September 9, 2009, the DPJ, the Social Democratic Party of
Japan (SDP), and the People’s New Party (PNP) agreed to form a
coalit ion government. In an extraordinary Diet session held on
September 16, 2009, Hatoyama, leader of the DPJ, was elected the 93rd
prime minister, which marked the official launch of the Hatoyama
coalition cabinet.
However, a series of unfavorable events including the scandal
surrounding political funds of Prime Minister Hatoyama and Secretary-
General Ichiro Ozawa in the early days of the new cabinet and friction
with the U.S. over relocation of the Marine Corps Air Station Futenma at
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 15/116
17Special Edition
Okinawa dramatically lowered the approval ratings for the cabinet and
DPJ at the same time. Amidst a controversy over the relocation of the
Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, the SDP seceded from the coalition
government, which ultimately prompted Prime Minister Hatoyama to
surrender his reign on the government himself. In the upcoming election
of the House of Councilors (upper house of the Japanese Diet) slated for
July, 121 parliamentarians amounting to half of the statutory number of
its membership will be elected. Prime Minister Hatoyama had no
alternative but to relinquish power because a prevailing view was that as
long as he remained in power, a crushing defeat for the DPJ would be
inevitable, which would mean an end to both the Hatoyama cabinet and
the DPJ. Only about nine months after the transfer of political power, the
DPJ faced circumstances where it was forced to replace its leader. On
June 4, Naoto Kan was elected as the new leader of the DPJ in a plenary
meeting of DPJ members of both chambers of the Diet. In the afternoon
of the same day, he was designated as the 94th prime minister of Japan
in a plenary session of both chambers of the Diet. A new cabinet was
inaugurated on June 8.
It may be premature to indicate the merits and demerits of the
DPJ at this juncture where it came to power less than a year ago.
However, I would like to examine the relations between Korea and Japan
over the issue of Dokdo since the turnover of political power in Japan
and cautiously discuss the prospects for bilateral relations.
When the DPJ successfully succeeded the power, many domestic
and overseas experts on Japanese affairs forecasted that such transfer of
power would bring revolutionary change in the country’s national
system and governing structure and substantially improve its relations
with Korea. This was because the DPJ, which came to power as a large
ruling party by absolute stable majority, has a strong reformist leaning
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 16/116
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 17/116
19Special Edition
Firstly, I would like to touch upon the reform of the Japanese
policy-making system espoused by the DPJ. Among its election pledges,
the DPJ made it clear that its national governance will be led by politics,
not bureaucracy. At the heart of such initiative is the establishment of
the National Strategy Bureau under the direct authority of the prime
minister to determine major policies including budgeting and foreign
policies. According to the initiative, the National Strategy Bureau
comprises about 30 working-level staff encompassing both competent
government officials and civilians including approximately 10 DPJ
ranking members, civilian experts and bureaucrats respectively. In
addition, 100 parliamentarians are assigned to the top posts of the 17
administrative agencies responsible for synchronization between the
party and the government.
Establishment of the National Strategy Bureau was determined
by a cabinet decision on February 5, 2010. The ‘bill on partial
amendment to the Cabinet Law, etc. for the establishment of politics-led
decision-making process,’ submitted to the Diet on the same date,
suggested the creation of the National Strategy Bureau in the Cabinet
Secretariat on April 1, 2010 by means of an amendment to the Cabinet
Law. However, the proposed amendment to the Cabinet Law still lingered
in the process of deliberation by the lower house as of June. In a
situation where the central control of politics-led decision-making, a
core pledge of the DPJ government has yet to be established, the
National Strategy Office is in operation merely as a temporary organ
prior to the official launch of the National Strategy Bureau. Even if the
National Strategy Bureau is put into full-scale operations, a drastic
increase in civilians and politicians appointed to administrative posts as
originally suggested means the process will face a greater risk of
populism as policies are prone to be swayed by public sentiment.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 18/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
OPINION20
➊ The DPJ regime and territorial issue
between Korea and Japan
Secondly, there are issues deserving attention in connection with
decentralization, a major platform of the DPJ government, from the
perspective of the Dokdo issue. Under a centralized system since the
Meiji Restoration, empowerment of local governments is intertwined
with the reorganization of bureaucracy. This suggests a bumpy road
ahead. Decentralization, focused on local governments, will create
serious repercussions. In Japan, there has been a tug of war between the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs that attempts to control the Dokdo issue in a
comprehensive context of the relations between Korea and Japan and
Shimane Prefecture that intends to underline the issue as a pending issue
in bilateral relations. Under the DPJ regime, it is evident that Shimane
Prefecture will raise its voice further, compared to the time under the
LDP administration. Since Shimane Prefecture wishes to elevate the
Dokdo issue to a level on a par with the Northern Territories in terms of
attention and policies by the Japanese government, the prefecture will
certainly submit more petitions to the incumbent cabinet than it did in
the LDP era as the cabinet takes great interest in the resolution of the
Northern Territories issue.
Former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama had repeatedly stated
that he himself would resolve the issue of having the Northern Territories
returned, following the intention of his late grandfather, Ichiro
Hatoyama. In a plenary session of the House of Representatives on June
11, 2009, a proposed ‘Amendment to the Special Measure Laws to
Promote Resolution of the Issue of the Northern Territories, etc.’ was
passed unanimously. The proposal was finally passed in a plenary
session of the House of Councilors on July 3, 2009. The purpose of ‘the
Special Measures Law to Promote Resolution of the Issue of the Northern
Territories, etc.’ established in 1982 was set forth as follows in Article 1 of
the Law: “The purpose of this Law is to develop public opinion on the
issue of the Northern Territories and other issues related thereto
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 19/116
21Special Edition
(omitted), promote resolution of the issue of the Northern Territories and
other issues related thereto (omitted), and contribute to the development
of amicable relations between Japan and the Russian Federation on a
genuinely stable foundation by accomplishing the early return of the
Northern Territories and concluding a peace treaty with the Russian
Federation under, and on the basis of, the current situation where the
issue of the Northern Territories still remains unsettled (omitted).” In the
July 2009 amendment, “the issue of the Northern Territories still remains
unsettled” was changed to “the issue of the Northern Territories still
remains unsettled although the Northern Territories belong to our
country,” and “and pursue projects including exchange” was added after
the praise, “develop public opinion on the issue of the Northern
Territories and other issues related thereto.”
This proposal for amendment constitutes legislation introduced
by a member of the Diet as it was submitted by Seiji Maehara who
chaired the House of Representatives Special Committee on Okinawa
and Northern Issues before the DPJ came to power and appointed to the
Hatoyama cabinet as Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and
Tourism and Minister of State for Okinawa and Northern Territories
Affairs. A bipartisan parliamentarian group called the Parliamentarian
Union for Return of the Northern Territories and Promoting Exchange
Program with the Four Islands, on which former Prime Minister Yukio
Hatoyama himself served as the acting chairman, played a pivotal role in
formation of the bill.
Under these circumstances, the initial targets of petitioning by
Shimane Prefecture are lawmakers from Shimane Prefecture and Tottori
Prefecture. To take a brief look at these parliamentarians: in Shimane
Prefecture and Tottori Prefecture, two lawmakers are elected in single-
seat constituencies, respectively, and one lawmaker is elected by
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 20/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
OPINION22
➊ The DPJ regime and territorial issue
between Korea and Japan
proportional representation in the Chugoku Area respectively (11
persons from five prefectures, i.e. Yamaguchi, Shimane, Tottori,
Hiroshima and Okayam a). Three membe rs of the House of
Representatives, respectively, from Shimane Prefecture and Tottori
Prefecture represent the regions in national governance. In Shimane No.
1 Constituency, Hiroyuki Hosoda, a seven-term lawmaker serving as
acting Secretary-General of the LDP was elected. Wataru Takeshita, a
four-term LDP lawmaker and Shigeru Ishiba, an eight-term lawmaker
who served as chairman of the LDP Policy Research Council were,
respectively, elected in Shimane No. 2 Constituency and Tottori No. 1
Constituency. In Tottori No. 2 Constituency, Ryosei Akazawa of the LDP
(born in 1960) succeeded in getting re-elected. The LDP lawmakers kept
their seats in the two areas despite the nationwide emergence of the DPJ.
When it comes to DPJ lawmakers, Hisaaki Komuro (born in 1960) was
able to win a seat in a proportionally represented constituency although
he was defeated by Hiroyuki Hosoda in Shimane No. 1 Constituency. In
Tottori No. 2 Constituency, Shunji Yuhara (born in 1962) defeated by
Ryosei Akazawa was also elected by proportional representation. As
indicated by the fact that both Komuro and Yuhara were elected to
prefecture assemblies four consecutive times, they have focused heavily
on local issues. Thus, there existed no notable endeavors by them
concerning the Dokdo issue, compared to LDP lawmakers. Hisaoki
Kamei, a former PNP lawmaker by proportional representation who
proactively represented the interests of Shimane Prefecture along with
Hosoda regarding the Dokdo issue, lost the last election.
Lastly, the DPJ government’s diplomatic and security policies are
characterized by the fact that the party (i) places equal focus on the U.S.
and Asia, breaking away from concentration on relations with the U.S.
during the LDP era; (ii) puts an emphasis on multilateral consultation
gradually; and (iii) has an orientation toward formation of an East Asian
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 21/116
23Special Edition
community as a national goal. This situation may have both favorable
and unfavorable consequences on the Dokdo issue. Former Prime
Minister Hatoyama said, “Issues impeding regional integration such as
military buildup and territorial disputes can only be resolved through
pursuit of regional integration” and “It is made evident by the EU
experience that regional integration tones down territorial issues” in
“My Philosophy” that he published immediately before the general
election in August 2009. The “DPJ’s Policy Platform for Government:
Manifesto 2010” unveiled by the party under the new Naoto Kan
leadership ahead of the House of Councilors election states that the party
“will pursue creation of an East Asian community and converge its
efforts on building confidence with Asian countries including China and
Korea.” At the moment, it cannot be determined when speci fic
negotiations for regional integration will be undertaken. Under the DPJ
regime, however, territorial issues in East Asia are destined to emerge in
whatever form sometime in the future.
Although the U.S.-Japan security system constitutes the basic
axis of Japanese diplomacy, the DPJ government, unlike its LDP
predecessors, intends to pursue closer economic cooperation and forge a
regional security guarantee scheme with Korea and China. Emergence of
territorial issues will only harm the DPJ’s management of the political
scene. For instance, the new manual on government textbook guidelines
for high school-level geography and history issued on December 25,
2009 exposed the posture of the DPJ government. The manual on
middle-school level textbooks published in July 2008 under the LDP
government states that it should be “mentioned that our nation (Japan)
and Korea have different claims over Takeshima.” This escalated into a
serious diplomatic issue as it caused a severe backlash from the Korean
government, which summoned the Japanese ambassador in Korea. Said
new manual merely uses such expressions as “on the basis of learning at
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 22/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
OPINION24
➊ The DPJ regime and territorial issue
between Korea and Japan
middle schools” and “deepen understanding of interests over territorial
issues,” not making any direct reference to “Takeshima.” Tatsuo
Kawabata, Japan’s Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and
Technology replied with a “no” when asked whether such expressions
came out of consideration for Korean sensibilities. However, this
situation certainly shows the DPJ government’s posture that it would
like to avoid any unnecessary diplomatic friction by stirring public
sentiments in the two countries with a territorial issue that cannot be
resolved in a short time.
This year marks the centennial of Japan’s forced annexation of
Korea. Given that Japan will fully implement the new manual on
government textbook guidelines for elementary, middle and high
schools in an annual sequence beginning from the next year, the
possibility cannot be ruled out that an unexpected diplomatic issue may
ignite between Korea and Japan depending on circumstances.
Fortunately, such a development face only a very slim chance,
considering the stance taken by the DPJ so far that it will not opt for a
hard-line confrontation with Korea or cause unnecessary diplomatic
friction with Korea by intentionally intensifying the issue. However, the
DPJ, as the ruling party, failed to produce any tangible outcome in
domestic governance or diplomacy for almost a year for the Japanese
people who supported historic power transition in half a century. Amidst
doubts about its ability to run the nation, the DPJ has no alternative but
to dedicate itself to making achievements by primarily concentrating on
domestic issues.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 23/116
25Special Edition OPINION
➋ Dokdo and green growth
Hak-Bong ChangDirector, International MarineAffairs & Territory ResearchDepartment, KMI
Dokdo and green growth
Korea’s greatest topic of conversation right now is of “Green
Growth”. Since the president indicated Green Growth as the “New
National Development Paradigm” at the National Liberation Day
celebration speech in 2008, all government departments and the whole
society as well are shifting to green growth. It could be said that, not just
Korea but the whole world including western countries are concerned
with green growth. President of the European Commissions, Jose
Barrosso, calls this current Green revolution as the Third Industrial
Revolution. He said at the Energy Conference in October 2007 that “I
believe we are now standing on the brink of a Third Industrial
Revolution. Like the previous industrial revolutions, this will be driven
by technology and new forms of energy. It will also transform our
societies in ways we cannot yet imagine.” Barrosso’s remark signifies
that it is now inevitable for the human race to enter a new form of an
industrial society.
Evolving into a new society means that we have hit a limit with
the existing system of the society. Today, key threat to the human race
would be the climate changes. Even 20 years ago most people did not
sense the threat of climate changes. I as a representative of Korea,
attended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change held at Perth,
Australia in 1990. There were prognostications and warnings that the
global warming would result in the melting of ices of North Pole and
Green lands, thereby, the sea level will rise, unusual temperatures will
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 24/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
OPINION26
➋ Dokdo and green growth
continue, and the ecosystem will change as well as some island nations
of the pacific are likely to disappear. I assume the attendees thought that
there would be major changes but most did not seem to take it seriously.
Only the researchers considered it as an extreme opinion. But now, 20
years later, the world has actually felt the threat of global warming and
“Low Carbon Green Growth” for reducing this threat is becoming a
world-wide topic of conversation.
In a green society, notions about development and growth so far
will totally change. We have been placed in a situation where with the
existing model of growth, we cannot expect a sustainable development
which could continuously support earth. A creation of a “Green Growth
Industry” suitable for the green society will be needed. Last month, a
symposium titled “Green Growth through the Ocean” was held in Seoul,
At this symposium, the ocean was prescribed as the source of green
growth no less than any other fields. Maritime industries associated with
the ocean have a big inter-industry effect because they include various
fields. The ocean can be sensitive to environmental factors but it
possesses the capacity to self-cleanse, thus, it is a huge systematic
resource which can solve the environmental problems. Further there is
an increase in demand for clean ocean environment and ocean scenery.
Since it is easy to apply new technology to the ocean, the ocean has high
chance of new industry excavation. Therefore, it has been sympathized
that the ocean is capable of playing a leading role in developing new
green industries. What especially draws my attention is that there has
been a spotlight of hope of the green growth from the ocean, that not
only islands situated by the coasts can contribute to green growth but
those situated at the advance guard of the marine territory such as Dokdo
can as well. The specific role of Dokdo as a basis of green growth was not
mentioned at the symposium. However, by taking opportunity on this
paper, I think a new contemplation of Dokdo in the context of green
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 25/116
27Special Edition
growth will be possible.
Dokdo’s value in the view of green growth is diverse and
enormous. Firstly, Dokdo (including Ulleungdo) is a treasury of marine
biological resources. Large amounts of fishery resources such as abalone,
turbo, trepang, octopus, etc. are caught near sea area of Dokdo.
Secondly, it has a huge ecological value and is wealthy of species
diversity. The ecological value and species diversity becomes an
indicator expressing the potential power of green growth. Korean
Government has already initiated programs to make sustainable use of
Dokdo and its outskirt sea areas. For example, rational management and
utilization plans for ecological and maritime fishery resources around
Dokdo and its outskirt sea areas through the 「Special Act on the
Ecosystem Conservation of Small Islands such as Dokdo」 and 「Laws on
Sustainable Use of Dokdo」 and so forth. Moreover, a scientific survey
showed that there is a grand scale of methane hydrate buried near sea
areas of Dokdo. Hydrate, when being burnt hardly discharges toxic gas
and it only discharges half of carbon dioxide compared to fossil energy.
Thus it does not belong to the polluted resources category like
petroleum. In addition, Ullungdo sea areas are endowed with the deep
ocean waters, which are already being developed. By looking at the
specific characters of deep ocean water, there should be enough
possibility of deep ocean water in the seas surrounding Dokdo. Also, the
scenery of Dokdo itself is a source of tourism. Together with the curiosity
towards Dokdo, over one hundred thousand tourists visit Dokdo every
year. If transportation is improved, the number of visitors will increase
by far. On top of that, Dokdo is playing the role of advance guard of
marine territory. Dokdo is our territory situated on the outskirts of
easternmost of Korean peninsula and it secures our marine territory at
the vanguard location.
Linking Dokdo with green growth is a new point of view. We are
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 26/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
OPINION28
➋ Dokdo and green growth
setting our eyes on Dokdo which has a tremendous value as a basis of
green growth. In this regard, this paper proposes some suggestions about
preserving and utilizing Dokdo properly.
Firstly, the preservation of ecosystem and environment of Dokdo
when utilizing and preserving Dokdo is most important than any other
things. In this aspect, Laws on Sustainable Use of Dokdo will serve as an
important legal basis, as sustainable use will be playing the role of
locomotive of the green growth paradigm. Dokdo should maintain its
present enormous marine territorial value and its value shall carry a
greater explosive power in the upcoming green society.
Second, the cultivation of experts in relation to marine territories
including Dokdo is important. Experts are required in many areas such
as study on the Dokdo’s history, culture, historical maps and old
literatures, geographical and ecological research and more. We will need
to excavate historical materials and manage them systematically. On the
other side, we will need to protect our sovereignty over Dokdo in the
international society based on international law and especially on the
law of the sea. The problem is foreseen that younger students
researching Dokdo have recently decreased dramatically. It worries me
that the lines of manpower who can professionally research Dokdo and
the marine territories may die out. The government should set up a
policy measures to overcome this problem. The investment and attention
from the universities and government is required to secure professional
research manpower who can make a good competition.
Lastly, if one considers marine territory as national strength and
a basis of green growth, it will be necessary to widen the notion of
marine terri tory to not just around the sea surrounding Korean
peninsular but to the whole ocean. Three sides of our country is of sea
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 27/116
29Special Edition
and the territorial water in reach of our jurisdiction and the size of the
continental shelf is 4.5 times the size of our land territory. Nevertheless,
it is rather confined compared to the world’s large ocean and other
coastal nations in possession of vast seas. Hence, it is basic to preserve
and utilize the marine territory around us and it is now considered as the
time to extend out to the ocean. The sea provides opportunity to all
nations. Whether keeping the opportunity alive or not will depend on
each nation’s will and efforts. Korea possesses the maritime power which
enters world’s top ten and we are setting off the challenge to take-off to
world’s top five. Based on this capability, we will need a foothold to
advance into the ocean. Still, 30% of the world’s seas is left without
owners which remains as high sea. Moreover, the exclusive economic
zone of other coastal nation could serve a foothold for us. South and
North Poles also comes under this. We can secure the resources of the
ocean through joint-development of resources, join-research, and so
forth with our technology and expertise in the background. Hence, we
need to turn our eyes towards securing more marine activity space in the
world oceans.
The green grow th paradigm has bee n arising as the
countermeasure which can help us solve the crisis of environment,
energy and economical development in general that the world is faced
with. In the society and industry at large, we are searching for the new
growth engine for green growth. In the green growth society, the
utilization of the ocean is the “countermeasure in changing crisis to
opportunity.” Especially in the case of Korea with restricted national
land resources, how well we utilize the sea will exert great effect on the
success of green growth’s actualization.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 28/116
DOKDO GALLERY 1
English name : Black-tailed gull
Scientific name : Larus crassirostris
Size : 47cm (120cm with stretched wings)
Black-tailed gulls are one of East Asia's most representative gull species that inhabit islands off the east,west and south coasts of Korea. They rest on the seashore, island rocks, sandy fields, dikes, ships and
buildings in flocks. They are nicknamed sea cats as they make a sound reminiscent of cats. They have a
strong homing instinct.
Their breeding season lasts from late April to mid-June, but the prime breeding season is around mid-
May. Female black-tailed gulls ordinarily lay eggs every other day and each litter consists of 2 to 4 squabs.
Eggs hatch after about 24 to 25 days of incubation. Nando in Geunheung-myeon, Taean-gun,
Chungcheongnam-do, Hongdo in Hansan-myeon, Tongyeong-si, Gyeongsangnam-do, and Dokdo in
Ulleung-gun, Gyeongsangbuk-do are known as their major habitats in Korea.
(Photos provided by Hee-Cheon Park, Kyungbuk National University)
© Hee-Cheon Park
Breeding black-tailed gull
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 29/116
Special Edition
Special Issue
SPECIAL ISSUE 1 Japan's forced annexation of Korea in 1910 and
doKdo issue
SPECIAL ISSUE 2criticism on the Japanese ministry of foreign
affairs' claims to doKdo
SPECIAL ISSUE 3controversy over oKinotorishima
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 30/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 32
Ki-Jeong NamProfessor,Institute for Japanese Studies,Seoul National University
As the origin of the Dokdo issue, it is often indicated that its dominium
was not settled during the course of Normalization Talks between Korea and
Japan. However, a recent research shows that it was not that Park Cheong-Hee
government who settled the negotiations with Japan ‘could not’ conclude the
Dokdo dominium but rather they ‘did not’ conclude it. In other words, Park
Cheong-Hee government secured the dominant position on the Dokdo issue
by blocking Japan’s attempt at changing the present situation of Dokdo’s
effective dominance under the basic policy of ‘Dokdo issue is not a theme of
Normalization Talks. It must be solved taking time after the normalization of
diplomatic relations'. Considering that the 1965 system of Korea-Japan
relationship was created as a subsystem of San Francisco Peace Treaty system,
it is possible to evaluate that this was the minimal outcome the government
could take in the midst of the limited San Francisco Peace Treaty where Dokdo
issue was omitted. If so, as pointed out by many researches, the work of
finding the origin of the Dokdo issue takes us back to the San Francisco Peace
Treaty. Most of the researches related to this, however, do not differ much in
their results that, as the Peace Treaty with Japan was concluded, which was
generous to Japan under the Cold War, ‘Atonement of Japanese Colonial rule’
was overlooked. This can be said as the World System ie. Cold War
Reductionist explanation. Yet, how obvious will this be? The documents which
were made when Japan was preparing for the peace treaty shows that it was a
successful result of Japan’s strategy aside from the U.S.’ ‘generous
consolidation’ to Japan. The reason why we should pay attention to the
strategy of the Japanese government on their way to San Francisco is here.
The origin of Dokdo issue:
having another look at the
San Francisco Peace Treaty
Japan's forced annexation of
Korea in 1910 and Dokdo issue
SPECIAL ISSUE 1
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 31/116
33Special Edition
On October 22, 1945, the Department of Treaty of Japanese Foreign
Ministry concluded as follows regarding the process and the timing of the
peace treaty’s conclusion. First, there is a possibility that the Japanese side
will intervene in process of drafting the treaty in a method of ‘conveyance of
a written statement.’ Second, territorial issue is not an urgent matter. Third,
compensation issue is a matter which the Japanese side should actively
convey their opinion, thus, they must try harder for that. Based on this
recognition, the Japanese Foreign Ministry’s research attained during the
period from the end of 1945 until the beginning of 1946 enabled them to
predict the policies of the Allied Powers and, in this regard, opinions on what
ways to propose the Japanese side’s hope was gathered. Among the
documents prepared by the Foreign Ministry’s department of Political affairs
in relation to territorial clauses, Ryukyu(Okinawa), Ogasawara, Kazan-
Retto(Volcano Islands), South Karahuto(South Sakhalin), Chishima-
Retto(Kuril Islands), etc. were mentioned but there were no mention of Dokdo.
At this point, according to the executive power’s separation measure of the
SCAP, Dokdo belonged to the U.S.’s military government, and it was more
than enough for the Japanese government to predict the possibility that
Dokdo will be excluded from Japan when Korea becomes independent. As
ascertained from this document, even though the Japanese government was
expecting ‘Jejudo to be dealt with Korea’ ‘under the Cairo Declaration
regarding Korea, as it is stated that they will gain independence,’ the fact that
they did not particularly mention the Dokdo issue can be interpreted as that at
that point, the Japanese government did not have the thought to bring up the
Dokdo issue.
In the meantime, on November 21, 1945, a ‘Peace Treaty Issue
Research Board of Japanese Foreign Ministry’ (herewith “Research Board”)
was organized under the Department of Treaty, and more detailed activities
were launched. The operations of the Research Board mainly concentrated on
the compensation issue. They were trying to get in touch with the U.S. and
U.K. who were planning for compensation with a ‘punitive’ character, to
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 32/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 34
point out the problems and revise their plan. Japan’s prior maneuvering
commenced between the end of 1946 and the beginning of 1947 to derive a
‘generous’ peace treaty. With Japan bringing up the problems, sympathizing
atmosphere was being formed among George A. Acheson (allied council for
Japan’s U.S. representative) and William Macmahon Ball (allied council for
Japan’s Commonwealth of Nations’ representative), and more public figures
from the Allied Nations. One thinks that this sort of formation of an
atmosphere became the opportunity for Japan to actively express their
opinion about the Dokdo issue which they were primarily going to ‘give up.’
Let’s examine the development of the Dokdo issue with this sort of
preparation and operation of Japan set up in the background. There is
SCAPIN 677 and 1033 which interprets Dokdo as Korea’s possession. SCAPIN
677 (January 29, 1946) and SCAPIN 1033 (June 22, 1946) excludes Jejudo,
Ulleungdo and Dokdo from the boundaries of Japan’s administrative district
and fisheries districts. However, they were with a proviso that they are not the
final handling about the territories. In the appendix of U.S.’s State-War-Navy
Coordination Committee’s document SWNCC-59/1 (June 24, 1946), they
were contents which could be interpreted that Jejudo, Geomundo, Ulleungdo,
Dokdo will be returned to Korea which will be independent. In the State
Department’s draft of the Peace Treaty with Japan in March 1947, Chapter 1
‘Territorial Clauses’ Article 1 did not include Dokdo as the territory which are
to be returned to Japan but rather, it was included as part of Joseon which
Japan should abandon with its right and title. In August 1947 and January
1948, the drafts included Dokdo as part of Joseon. Further, there was a slight
modification of place names of Joseon in the drafts of October and November
of 1948 but in basic, contents of the prior drafts were maintained in regards
to territorial clauses.
Political advisor for SCAP, Sebald’s written statement concerning the
draft of November 1949 played a crucial role in imposing changes. He
suggested that Dokdo was specified as Japan’s territory. As a basis, ‘historical
Japan's forced annexation of
Korea in 1910 and Dokdo issue
SPECIAL ISSUE 1
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 33/116
35Special Edition
justification and strategic necessity’ was presented. For the historical
justification argument, the interpretation of an effect of a report by Japanese
Foreign Ministry’s declassified document on “the Islands of Pacific Ocean and
the Sea of Japan)” published in June 1947 is dominant. For the strategic
necessity, U.S.’s military necessity may have presented considering the Cold
War situation. From then, the Dokdo’s possession issue clearly progressed
unfavorably towards Korea.
Chapter 2 ‘territorial clauses’ Article 3 in the draft of December 29,
1949 included Dokdo as an island that Japan should possess and Dokdo was
deleted from the territory of Korea which Japan must abandon. In this draft,
Korea was included in the list of signatory powers written in the full text.
Considering that Korea was not included in the list of signatory countries
when the draft of December 2 was written, it could be that the participation of
Korea as a signatory country was once considered by armed forces in
exchange of surrendering Dokdo. In the draft of August 1950, the list of
signatory powers was deleted as a whole, and for the territorial clauses,
general policies were confirmed without any specific examples. Since then, in
the draft of the U.S. the reference to Dokdo disappeared. Conclusively, in the
joint draft of the U.S. and the U.K. in May 1951, Jejudo, Geomundo and
Ulleungdo were specified as within the boundary of Korea which Japan
should give up, but Dokdo was not specified. Eventually, this sort of principle
was ascertained in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Korea requested for Dokdo
and Parangdo to be returned to Korea by submitting a written statement
concerning the joint draft of the U.S. and the U.K. of June 1951. However, the
contents denying Korea’s possession of Dokdo together with Parangdo was
ascertained in the protocol Dean Rusk (Assistant Undersecretary of State)
conveyed to the Korean Ambassador to the U.S.
Here again, let’s pay attention to the Japanese Foreign Ministry’s
contact with the U.S. With the Japanese Foreign Ministry as the core, series of
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 34/116
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 35/116
37Special Edition
For the desirable resolution of
the Dokdo issue
Heon-ik KwonProfessor, London School ofEconomics and Politics
A short while ago, a teacher’s college in Korea’ s North
Gyeongsang province organized a talk by a former teacher of a North
Korean secondary school who is now settled in the South Korean region.
A large number of local teachers and school education officials joined
the talk. During the meeting that lasted well over the scheduled time, the
speaker received many questions from the audience, mainly about
current socio-economic conditions in North Korea and the country’s
school system. The question that was most memorable to her, however,
was not about North Korea. “What do people in North Korea think about
our Dokdo issue?” someone asked. Following this question, there was
also an enquiry about “Baekdusan problem,” a disputed area between
China and the Koreas.
The former teacher replied: “Just as people in South Korea,
people in North Korea also believe that Dokdo is our land. They find it
unjust that Japan should lay a claim on it. About Baekdusan, the North
Korean leadership today may find it somewhat difficult to say much
about it because the issue involves China. However, ordinary North
Koreans believe it unjust that just because China has some power, they
think they can make such claims to our country.” Then she looked
around the room and was delighted to notice that many of her audience,
nearly all of them, looked pleased to hear her remark, nodding in
approval. Later she reminisced that the meeting at the teachers’ college
had left great impression on her. She told me that the experience taught
her that no division existed between North and South Korea on Dokdo. It
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 36/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 38 Japan's forced annexation of
Korea in 1910 and Dokdo issue
SPECIAL ISSUE 1
made her realize that “Koreans are united in one heart and in one spirit
about Dokdo.”
The controversy between Korea and Japan concerning the status
of Dokdo or Takeshima - two different references for the cluster of rocky
islets in Korea’s East Sea - has been explosive in recent years. The rocks
are now among the principal sites of historical disputes between the two
countries, playing a major role in aggravating their diplomatic relations
within the broader international community of East Asia and damaging
the social and cultural relations between civil society in South Korea and
that in Japan. Korea calls the place Dokdo (Rocky Islands) and claims
that these small rocky and uninhabited islets have historically been
Korea’s territory and indisputably so; Japan calls them Takeshima
(Bamboo Islands) and insists that Korea’s claims are disputable, and that
it also has irrefutable historical rights to these rocks. These conflicting
claims have generated a plethora of disputes and mutual distrust
between the two countries, particularly since 2005. The disputes over the
rocks should never have arisen, and the way they unfolded is
lamentable, although it is true that the controversy speaks of the
regrettable fact that unresolved histor ical issues and historical
misunderstandings continue to exist today between Korea and Japan
despite the prolific economic and cultural exchanges taking place
between the two societies.
In both countries, the governments refer to the Dokdo or
Takeshima problem as a “territorial problem” rather than necessarily a
“history problem,” unlike other issues discussed in this volume. The
supposedly territorial problem is, in fact, fundamentally a problem of
historical understanding, however, inseparable from how Korea and
Japan position their respective identities and mutual relationship in the
progression of the region’s modern history. The history in this context
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 37/116
39Special Edition
has multiple dimensions; national, regional and global - and the
controversy over the islets’ status should be viewed in a broad
perspective, considering the formation of the global Cold War and the
two nations’ places in it. The Dokdo/Takeshima issues constitute a
history problem, for they are embedded in how Japan and Korea
experienced the transition from the end of World War II to the onset of
the early Cold War, which was global in scale, and how they did so
differently from each other. The issue also constitute a memory
problem, in the sense that the disputes’ global historical origins are
typically relegated to oblivion by both parties to the conflict today,
which are instead intent on highlighting the milieu of their respective
national histories and the alleged, indubitably legitimate place of Dokdo
or Takeshima in those histories. Forgetting the horizon of global history
takes place in parallel with remembering anew the milieu of national
history, and this is how the humble, weather-beaten rocks called Dokdo
or Takeshima came to take on their current preeminence in Northeast
Asia as a major site of international conflict.
The Dokdo/Takeshima problem involved an upsurge of indignant
national sentiment in South Korea and, in Japan, a revival of imperial
nostalgia. The latter was evident when I went to visit the controversial
Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo in 2005. The shrine complex consisted mainly
of traditional buildings, beautifully laid out according to the Shinto
cosmology, but it also had one recently built structure of a distinctly
hypermodern style, which was the shrine’s public exhibition hall. At the
time of my visit the exhibition hall held a commemorative event for the
Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905), showing a collection of memorabilia
dedicated to the heroic fallen soldiers of that victorious war. The Russo-
Japanese War was a decisive event in the history of modern Japan. It is
observed that Japan emerged from this war as a self-consciously
imperial entity worthy of the name, believing that the nation’s victory in
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 38/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 40
this war proved that Japan was then able to compete with the Western
imperial powers (Russia was considered a European political entity at the
time by Japan). The year 2005 was the hundredth-year anniversary of
the end of the Russo-Japanese War, and, as we will see shortly, it was no
coincidence that the claims on Takeshima were reinvigorated in Japan in
the same year. The fate of the disputed rocks in Korea’s East Sea is
interlocked with the history of the Russo-Japanese War, the outcome of
which meant the pride of an imperial state (and the single modern power
of Asian origin) for Japan and the shame of colonial subjugation for
Korea.
On the Korean side, the disputes over the rocks triggered an
outpouring of anti-Japanese slogans and national sentiments. When the
local assembly of Shimane Prefecture passed an ordinance on 16
February 2005 that was intended to commemorate the 100th
anniversary of Japan’s assumption of control over Takeshima, followed
by the declaration of “Takeshima Day” on 22 February, the Korean
administration moved quickly to denounce it, and subsequently made
an official protest to Tokyo against the declaration, as well as against the
description of the islets as Japanese territory in some Japanese high
school textbooks. The Japanese claims on the islands, while initially
confined to a specific local area that declared its administrative rights on
Takeshima and fishing rights over the nearby maritime environment,
were nevertheless promptly brought into a wider public sphere as a
question of national interest by Japan’s national media and some
politicians. The claims then quickly developed to Japan’s official
position, now featured on the website of the Japanese Foreign Ministry
as “Japan’s Inalterable Position on the Status of Takeshima,” presented
in ten languages, which states:
In the light of historical facts and based upon international law, it
is apparent that Takeshima is an inherent part of the territory of Japan.
Japan's forced annexation of
Korea in 1910 and Dokdo issue
SPECIAL ISSUE 1
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 39/116
41Special Edition
The occupation of Takeshima by the Republic of Korea is an illegal
occupation undertaken on absolutely no basis in international law. Any
measures taken with regard to Takeshima by the Republic of Korea based
on such an illegal occupation have no legal justification.
The above development prompted angry reactions from
Pyongyang as well as Seoul, as the former teacher introduced earlier
indicated, and, in South Korea, the public also responded with loud
street demonstrations (with some unfortunate incidents of burning
Japan’s national flag), “Save Dokdo” campaigns organised by diverse
citizen’s groupings and civil associations, and “Love Dokdo” online
assemblies among the youth. The unfolding of the subsequent
controversy has been widely reported in the national press in both Japan
and Korea as well as internationally; here it suffices to emphasise that
Japan’s declared claim on the islands in 2005 has since provoked strong
reactions from Korea, not only from the administration but also from the
public at large, both within Korea and elsewhere. The New York Times
recently featured an article about the city’s new plastic covers for
laundry. Prepared and distributed by New York City’s Korean-American
Dry Cleaners Association, according to the article, the plastic bags show
a picture of a rock in a blue ocean, a place most New Yorkers have never
heard of, on which is written, “Dokdo is Korean territory.”
The timing of the Shimane declaration was most unfortunate.
The year 2005 was supposed to be the year of Korea-Japan Friendship; it
was also the 60th anniversary of Korea’s liberation from Japan’s colonial
rule in 1945. In Korea, as elsewhere in East Asia, the time span of sixty
years signifies the end of a historical cycle and the beginning of a new
spirit and a new era in time. The worst was that 2005 was the 100th year
of what Koreans remember as the beginning of their “National Shame,”
the loss of national sovereignty to Japan’s colonial power in 1905-1910
and the subsequent era of formal colonial rule that lasted until the end of
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 40/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 42
World War II. This shameful historical epoch began with Japan’s
annexation of Dokdo for military purposes in 1905 amidst its naval
campaigns against the Russian imperial fleet. The loss of Dokdo was
therefore a painful national historical event for Koreans, because it was
emblematic of Japan’s colonisation of their country and nation.
According to a statement from South Korea’s National Security Council
issued in March 2005:
Dokdo was forcefully taken from us in the course of the colonial
invasion and was restored to us with national liberation. This is not
simply a territorial issue. It is nothing short of a denial of the history of
our national liberation as well as a justification of aggression.
This view was not merely an official statement, but rather one
that represented broad public opinion in South Korea, across
generational and political differences. For many Koreans, Japan’s claims
to the islands were indeed nothing short of a blatant denial of colonial
history. The eminent Japanese historian of modern Korea, Wada Haruki,
grasped the situation succinctly when he said, “The Takeshima/Dokdo
problem is not a territorial dispute between sovereign states but a
problem rooted in the historical relationship between the two countries.”
In South Korea, much of the subsequent public attention to the
Dokdo/Takeshima controversy focused on the 1905-2005 temporal
nexus and the perceived return of the historical nightmare of the onset
of Japan’s colonial domination. In this milieu, the fate of Dokdo was
understood to embody the loss of Korea’ s sovereignty, and the
controversy over its status testified to the unresolved historical legacy of
colonialism in the region. In this sense, we may say that the problem of
Dokdo is an exemplary postcolonial question; the enduring, haunting
effect of colonial politics on present history. As several astute observers
Japan's forced annexation of
Korea in 1910 and Dokdo issue
SPECIAL ISSUE 1
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 41/116
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 42/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 44
entails an apparent change in the appearance of an object in view that
results from a change in the position of the viewer. It is a key concept in
astronomy, and is employed to explain such situations as that of a star
apparently changing in form or disappearing from view because of the
Earth (hence the observer) changing position in its orbit. Drawing an
analogy, Cumings explores the origins of the conflicts in Korea and
Vietnam, arguing that they are partly a product of geopolitical parallax.
The post-World War II shift in U.S. foreign policy, which Cumings
tries to depict with the idea of parallax visions, had a huge impact on the
developmental process of many postcolonial nations including those in
East Asia. The same idea applies to the enduring conflicts between Japan
and Korea and their effect on colonial legacies, of which the Dokdo/
Takeshima problem is a part. Kim Young-Soo, a political scientist at
South Korea’s Yeungnam University, argues:
The conflict between the two ideals [anti-fascism and anti-
communism] had a direct bearing on Korea’s post-war position. As the
United States turned from punishment of Japan to friendship with the
former enemy and established its Cold War policies for Northeast Asia,
Korea was confused about its approach toward Japan, clouding its
normalization talks with Japan. Debate on their shared history and the
territorial rights over Dokdo actually revolved around the conflicting
interpretations of the anti-fascist Cairo and Potsdam Declarations on
one hand and the anti-communist San Francisco Peace Treaty on the
other. Korea faced the dilemma of being anti-communist for the sake of
its alliance with the United States and being anti-Japanese because of its
complex historical relationship with Japan.
It is a well-known historical fact that the MacArthur administration
in postwar Japan excluded what Japan now calls Takeshima from the
Japan's forced annexation of
Korea in 1910 and Dokdo issue
SPECIAL ISSUE 1
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 43/116
45Special Edition
sphere of Japanese sovereignty. This was clearly stated in MacArthur’s
1946 edict, the so-called MacArthur Line, whereas in the subsequent
documents issued by his administration the status of Takeshima/Dokdo
was left unclear and ambiguous. A similar move took place in the
important international event for the future of northeast Asia, the San
Francisco Treaty of 1951. Historians question why the treaty left the
territorial question of Dokdo/Takeshima unclear, and why the U.S.
administration took measures to keep the islands’ status ambivalent
despite protests from other Allied powers, particularly Great Britain, and
against the Cairo and Potsdam agreements, which stated without
ambiguity the unjustifiable basis of Japan’s colonial rule of Korea,
including its territorial takeover. Kimie Hara describes in detail how the
final draft of the San Francisco agreement went against the several
earlier drafts, in which the islets were clearly marked as Korea’s territory,
avoiding a conclusive stand on the status of the islands and thereby
planting the seeds for future disputes such as those that we witness
today. According to Hara:
The equivocal wording of the treaty was neither coincidence
nor error; it followed careful deliberation and multiple revisions.
Various issues were deliberately left unresolved due to the regional
Cold War. Earlier drafts were, as a whole, based on U.S. wartime
studies and were consistent with the “punitive peace” plan and the
Yalta spirit of inter-Allied cooperation. However, with the emergence
of the Cold War in the immediate postwar years, Japan was given
central status in the U.S. Asia strategy, and the peace terms changed
from punitive to generous as U.S. strategic thinking focused on
securing Japan within the Western bloc and assuring a long-term U.S.
military presence in Japan, particularly in Okinawa.
Korea protested to the U.S. administration against the indecision
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 44/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 46SPECIAL ISSUE 1 Japan's forced annexation of
Korea in 1910 and Dokdo issue
in San Francisco over its East Sea islets, as did Britain, Australia and
New Zealand. However, there was not much it could do to correct the
inconclusive decision apart from voicing opposition in bilateral
diplomatic communiqués. The time of the San Francisco meeting was, as
we know, when the nation of Korea was embroiled in the vicious and
destructive civil-and-international war known as the Korean War, which
was one of the first violent manifestations, as well as one of the most
formative events, of the epochal shift in global power involving the
parallax effects mentioned above. According to Hara, the unfolding of
the Korean War had major implications on the decisions made in San
Francisco, which placed Japan’s territorial questions along the regional
Cold War frontiers of the so-called Acheson Line or Containment Line .
In the view of the United States, it was more rational to relegate the
Dokdo/Takeshima to Japan, which it was transforming into a safe ally in
the liberal world under its military occupation, rather than risking the
possibility of this potentially important geopolitical location falling into
hands of an enemy (North Korea) or those of a main ally of a more
powerful enemy (China), against which it was fighting a vicious total
war at the time.
The question of Dokdo, therefore, ought to be seen in light of the
progression of modern history, both at the regional and global level,
from colonial to bipolar formation. In chronological terms, 1905 and
1951 stand out with particular importance in this historical trajectory.
The year 1905 was the end of the Russo-Japanese war, epitomised in the
broad international sphere by the Treaty of Portsmouth in September
1905, and the Taft-Katsura Agreement in July 1905, in which the United
States and Imperial Japan mutually justified each other’s colonial
ventures into the Philippines and Korea respectively. Dokdo was the first
Korean territory annexed by Imperial Japan, an event that took place
discreetly while the desperate feudal state of old Korea lost its diplomatic
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 45/116
47Special Edition
rights under the 1905 Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty and was thereby
being practically stripped of its status as a sovereign entity. The year
was the actual beginning of Japan’s colonial rule over Korea, and the
public in Korea remember it as such.
If the year 1905 marked the beginning of the gloomy era of
Japan’s colonial expansion and militaristic adventure, which turned out
to have a devastating human and societal impact both within Japan and
far beyond, the year 1951 was supposed to mark the international will to
end Japan’s colonial rule in Asia and to open up a hopeful new era. The
hopeful spirit of the latter, however, was marred by the onset of the
militancy of the global Cold War and the accompanying collusion
between the United States and Japan on the question of containing
international communism in East Asia, and Japan’s increasingly
important role, in the perception of the United States, in defending
international liberal ideals and its own national interests within the region.
In this confusing field of parallax visions - confusing to the new
postcolonial nations, not necessarily to the old imperial powers - the
small, uninhabited, obscure islets in the East Sea became a small price to
pay, for the United States, to its former enemy for keeping the enemy
useful as part of a new regional order in the making. In short, the
ambiguity of Dokdo was, in fact, a gift to the new Japan after the end of
colonialism, made in exchange for Japan’s new role as an economic
power in the region and in the politics of the Cold War. The gift of
ambiguity turned a blind eye to the historical fact that the islets already
had a previous history of having been a gift - when the islands of Dokdo
became the first gift from Korea to the empire of Japan, acquired and
given by no one but the empire itself. The gift-taking in 1905 was, of
course, an unjustified, unjust act of a classical colonial nature. The
acquisition of the gift of ambiguity in 1951 was a less blatant but equally
dishonourable act.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 46/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 48 Japan's forced annexation of
Korea in 1910 and Dokdo issue
SPECIAL ISSUE 1
The year 2005 was the hundredth year following the tragedy of
1905; it was also the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of Korea from
colonialism in 1945, as well as the fortieth anniversary of the
normalisation of Korea-Japan relations in 1965. The year was also
supposed to be the Year of Friendship between the people of Japan and
the people of Korea. In traditional Korean custom, the sixtieth
anniversary is an occasion of considerable cultural importance and
moral import. It is when the community celebrates the longevity of sixty
years, retraces the past years of intimate relationship, and gives blessings
to prosperous future relations. It goes without saying that when
someone celebrates his or her sixtieth anniversary, it is the norm that the
family’s neighbours join the celebration and contribute to it with a good
round of heart-felt singing and dancing. The controversy over Dokdo/
Takeshima broke the celebratory spirit of a full sixty-year cycle away
from colonial history. It is clear that the controversy spoiled the
neighbourhood and its neighbourly spirit. It is also clear that modern
Japan has a lot of homework to do to learn about its neighbour’s culture
and history. The last includes the important recognition that the era of
1904-1905, which Japan remembers, to the nation’s pride, as a bright
shining victory against an imperial power, is remembered by its closest
neighbouring nation with an utterly different meaning, as shameful
subjugation to a colonial power. It is probably also the case that modern
Korea has to learn more about its neighbour’s history, expanding its
interest in questions such as why this great nation in its immediate
neighbourhood is finding it so hard to come to terms with its past,
particularly with the unpleasant aspects of the past, including the history
of colonialism. This includes the recognition that the era of 1950-1953,
which Korea remembers as the nation’s most tragic event of a civil war,
had a different meaning to its closest neighbour, as the end of political
isolation in the international sphere and the beginning of a postwar
economic recovery and eventual prosperity. The two nations have come
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 47/116
49Special Edition
very far from the destruction of war that each endured with great pains,
but they have not come far in getting to know each other’s war
experiences.
In pursuing this mutual understanding, it is important to
recognise that there is a field of geopolitical parallax that complicates
the two nations’ reciprocal relations. In order to strengthen the clarity of
this mutual recognition, it is important to see that the relations between
Japan and Korea are hampered by the enduring legacies of their Cold
War history as well as those of their colonial history. They need to be
able to see the historical traces of American power existing in the
turbulent waters of neighbourly relations across the Sea of Japan. But
this vision has to be a clear-sighted one based on a mutual recognition
of historical differences, yet with a shared sense of morality and
commitment to historical knowledge, rather than one that continues to
be swayed by the illusions created by parallax visions.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 48/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 50SPECIAL ISSUE 2Criticism on the Japanese Ministry of
Foreign Affairs' claims to Dokdo
With regard to territorial rights to Dokdo, the 1905 decision by
the Meiji government on “incorporation of Dokdo” and the public notice
of Shimane Prefecture are a double-edged sword for the Japanese
government. At a glance, they may be viewed as “objective” materials
evidencing Japan’s territorial rights to the island since they are official
documents rendering a decision to incorporate Dokdo in the form of
modern law. At the same time, however, these documents serve as
decisive evidence completely negating Japan’s territorial claims over
Dokdo in that they explicitly deny Japan’s historical possession of the
island.
In the latest brochure, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs
contends that Japan has “long” recognized the exis tence of
Takeshima(Dokdo) and established sovereignty over Takeshima by the
mid-17th century through navigation by the two families of Ohya and
Murakawa. The ministry also argues that in 1905, Japan incorporated
Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture, reaffirming its intention to claim
sovereignty over Takeshima. However, the Japanese Cabinet documents
kept at the National Archives of Japan obviously show that such logic
cannot be substantiated. A cabinet decision states that Dokdo was
incorporated into Japan’s territory and subordinated to Shimane
Prefecture because there were “no traces acknowledging its occupation
by any other country” and sea lion hunting by a Japanese man named
Nakai, which was commenced in 1903, fell under “occupation under
Criticism on the Japanese Ministry
of Foreign Affairs' claims to Dokdo:
from the perspective of history
Young-Ran HurProfessor, University of Ulsan
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 49/116
51Special Edition
international law.” It is illogical to say that Japan, which claims
historical territorial rights to Dokdo, made the decision that the island
belonged to Japan on the grounds of non-occupation by any other
country and fishing activities by an individual during a span of only two
years. A national of a country cannot occupy its territory under
international law. Therefore, it would be reasonable to think that the
Japanese government had no intention of claiming historical territorial
rights in 1905.
Moreover, two official documents of Japan not even mentioned
in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs brochure, i.e. the “Confidential Inquiry
into the Particulars of Korea’s Foreign Relations” (1870) and the
“Dajokan(Council of State) Order on Land Registration” (1877), identify
Ulleungdo and Dokdo as a set, stating that the two islands are territories
of Korea, not Japan. The former submitted to the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs includes a heading that reads “circumstances leading to the
incorporation of Takeshima and Matsushima into Korea.” The latter
containing a Dajoukan order on land registration clarifies that
“Takeshima and one other island are irrelevant to our nation (Japan).”
These documents could never exist if the Japanese government had
established its sovereignty over Takeshima since the 17th century. Since
Japan was aware of the existence of Dokdo as argued by the country, the
assertion that “Matsushima” and “Takeshima and another island” refer
to third islands, not Dokdo, is not convincing.
Given such historical documents, since the late 17th century, the
Japanese government which was aware of the existence of Dokdo had
known that Ulleungdo and Dokdo were at least territories of Korea, not
Japan. In 1905, when Japan was absorbed in imperialistic seizure of
islands, the country made a decision to incorporate Dokdo under the
pretext of prior occupation of an ownerless land.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 50/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 52
Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs brochure selectively presents
historical materials in an effort to conceal evident contradictions
inherent in Japan’s claims while pointing out problems with Korea’s
assertion. In other words, the brochure says that there exists no clear
rationale supporting that Usando is Dokdo; the statements by Ahn
Yong-Bok are questionable in many ways; it is doubtful that Seokdo,
mentioned in Imperial Ordinance No. 41 of Daehan Empire issued in
1900, refers to Dokdo; and even if assuming that this is the case, there is
no evidence that Korea has ever exercised effective control over Dokdo.
It is true that description of Usanguk or a tribal nation of Usan in
Samguk sagi (Historical Record of the Three Kingdoms) written by Kim
Bu-Shik in the mid-12th century and portrayal of Usando in Joseon
wangjo sillok (Annals of the Dynasty of Joseon) are different from
modern geographical information. However, it is reasonable from the
perspective of historical science to assume how Korea perceived Dokdo
based on descriptions of Usando in many historical data and ancient
maps. This is because Ulleungdo had been an inhabited island for an
extended period and it was possible to observe Dokdo with the naked
eye. A Japanese document on the Ahn Yong-Bok’s incident,One-volume
Memorandum Concerning the Korean Boat that Came Alongside the Pier
in the 9th Year of Genroku, which was discovered in Oki Island, Japan in
2005, clearly shows that Koreans in the 17th century knew the existence
and location of Ulleungdo and Dokdo, and recognized Dokdo as Korean
territory.
Then , was Dokdo under effective control by the Korean
government? In March 1906, Shim Heung-Taek, head of Uldo County
(Ulleungdo), made an urgent report to the central government, with such
expressions as “Dokdo belonging to our county”, “in the sea about 40
kilometers away” and “Japanese officials who came to the island and
Criticism on the Japanese Ministry of
Foreign Affairs' claims to Dokdo
SPECIAL ISSUE 2
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 51/116
53Special Edition
reportedly claimed it to be a Japanese territory.” This indicates that the
county head of Uldo, without hesitation, recognized Dokdo as an island
under his jurisdiction. It is unquestionable that Dokdo had been under
the jurisdiction of Uldo County. Ulleungdo was upgraded to the status of
Uldo County by Imperial Ordinance No. 41 in 1900, which clearly
defines “Ulleungdo and its annexed islets, Jukdo and Seokdo”, as areas
under jurisdiction. At the time, residents in Ulleungdo referred to Dokdo
as Stone Island or Dok Island. When written in Chinese characters, they
become Seokdo or Dokdo. Accordingly, Seokdo in Imperial Ordinance
No. 41 referred to Dokdo and the head of Uldo County gave an accurate
account. If Seokdo refers to a rocky island near Ulleungdo as argued by
some people, it cannot be explained how the head of Uldo County sent
an urgent report on Dokdo, describing it as an island under the county’s
control, in a situation where the Imperial Ordinance showing
jurisdictions in such detail did not even mention the island which was
deemed located about 40 kilometers away (about 87 kilometers away in
actuality).
Unlike the public notice by Japan’s Shimane Prefecture, Korea’s
Imperial Ordinance No. 41 did not newly declare territorial rights to
Dokdo. In upgrading Ulleungdo to a county, the ordinance specified the
administrative jurisdiction of Seokdo which had always been subject to
the jurisdiction of Daehan Empire. The Imperial Ordinance itself and the
report by the head of Uldo County itself constitute clear evidence of
Korea’s effective control of Seokdo, i.e. Dokdo.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 52/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 54Criticism on the Japanese Ministry of
Foreign Affairs' claims to Dokdo
SPECIAL ISSUE 2
Among the details of the brochure on Dokdo published by the
Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, matters requiring understanding
from the perspective of international law are, in many ways, intrinsically
related to the handling of the islands in the process of concluding the
San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951. Related documents indicate that in
terms of the structure of international politics at the time, the U.S., which
regarded rapid reconstruction and post-war handling of the defeated
Japan as the most prominent issue, abided by a strong pro-Tokyo
attitude while Great Britain and other members of the Allied Powers
called for clear resolution of the Dokdo issue. It seems that a leading role
played by the U.S. in the negotiations to coordinate conflicting interests
of the Allied Powers resulted in adoption of the arguments by the U.S. as
the final wording of the Treaty.
Political circumstances at the time including the outbreak of the
Korean War and enhancement of Japan’s role in East Asia in the Cold
War era prompted the U.S. to recognize rapid negotiations between the
victors and conclusion of a treaty with Japan as the items highest on its
policy agenda. As a result, the wording of the Treaty was written in a
manner that avoids addressing controversial matters. The Dokdo issue
was not free from such policy considerations of the U.S. The final
literature of the Treaty, which is currently known to the public, does not
even mention “Dokdo” or any other equivalent term.
Criticism on the Japanese Ministry of
Foreign Affairs’ claims to Dokdo:
from the perspective of international law
Seok-Woo LeeProfessor, Inha University
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 53/116
55Special Edition
Under these circumstances, one of the matters that must be
considered to understand the essence of this issue is to determine
whether the opinion of the U.S. expressed in then U.S. Undersecretary of
State Dean Rusk’s reply to then Korean ambassador to the U.S. is in line
with the legal conclusion that the San Francisco Peace Treaty attributed
Dokdo to Japan as mentioned in the latest brochure of the Japanese
Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the Dokdo issue.
Logically, this issue boils down to whether it is possible to come
to a legal conclusion as follows: First, the Potsdam Declaration
determined that specific islets would be continuously subject to Japan’s
sovereignty; second, such decision was supported by the interpretation
of the Treaty that Japan enjoys the rights to any and all islands and islets
to which it did not renounce rights under Article 2 of the Treaty; third,
prior to the conclusion of the Treaty, Korea made a request that Japan’s
renouncement of any claims to Dokdo be specified in the Treaty, only to
be rejected; and fourthly, the purport of the writers of the Treaty was that
Japan did not relinquish its claims or rights to Dokdo, and as such,
Dokdo is one of the islets determined to remain subject to Japan’s
sovereignty.
Basic understanding of international law is that establishment of
wartime occupation does not necessarily mean legal transfer of an
occupied nation’s sovereignty to the occupying nation. The occupying
nation merely obtains the authority and means to carry out acts
necessary to keep order and restore peace in the occupied country.
Accordingly, an occupying country during wartime has no title or
authority to the territory of an occupied nation under international law.
Accordingly, the occupying nation is not entitled to ultimately dispose
of the occupied nation. The status of the territory of the occupied
country is finally and conclusively determined by a peace treaty. What
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 54/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 56Criticism on the Japanese Ministry of
Foreign Affairs' claims to Dokdo
SPECIAL ISSUE 2
can be pointed out as a problem is the practice wherein victorious
nations, in handling the territory of defeated countries, do not take into
account historical interests of state parties that hold legal title to such
territory.
Seemingly, those practices were revealed in the process to verify
territorial claims over Dokdo. In connection with this situation, there is a
certain issue requiring consideration: the expression, “according to our
information” emphasized in the reply by then U.S. Undersecretary of
State Rusk to then Korean ambassador to the U.S. At the time, the U.S.
refused to specifically provide in the Treaty that Japan renounced its
claims to Dokdo as an extension of Japan’s relinquishment of
sovereignty over Korea.
This attests to a very limited understanding on the part of the U.S.
of Korea’s historical facts including the Dokdo issue. In particular,
internal documents of the U.S. Department of State concerning Dokdo
are mostly materials in Japanese available in the U.S. Department of
State or the Library of Congress, or merely based on only a few reports
on limited subjects prepared by the Department of State and the
Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Therefore, an approach to these
documents need to be taken on the basis of acknowledgment that
reference materials lack in objectivity.
Changes in U.S. policies toward occupied Japan were reflected in
the process of concluding the San Francisco Peace Treaty, resulting in a
moderate or favorable peace treaty for Japan compared to that of other
defeated nations including Germany and Italy. The implications of
political and economic interests of the U.S. underlying this situation
need to be resolved by means of the principles of law.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 55/116
57Special Edition
Byung-Sup ParkRepresentative of the Dokdo/Takeshima Research Net in Japan
Maps published by Japanese
government that mark Dokdo
outside of Japanese territory
Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphasizes in its brochure
that Japan had been well aware of Dokdo from ancient times while
Korea, on the contrary, had no knowledge of it. For instance, the
Ministry, in a bid to give an impression that Japan had accurate
knowledge, used Nagakubo Sekisui’s 19th-century Revised Complete
Map of Japanese Lands and Roads (Sekisui’s maps) using latitudes and
longi tudes. In an attempt to give an impress ion that Korea had
inaccurate knowledge, the Ministry used Paldo chongdo (Map of Eight
Provinces), a picture map annexed to Sinjeung dongguk yeoji seungnam
(Augmented Survey of the Geography of Korea), a government-
published book from the 16th century.
Unlike ordinary maps, picture maps are prone to inaccuracies.
Thus, it cannot be expected that the Map of Eight Provinces, a picture
map could provide accurate information on the size, location, etc. of far-
away islands. The Map of Eight Provinces merely shows the perception
of a space where the two islands of Ulleungdo and Usando exists in the
East Sea. It is almost meaningless to discuss the accuracy of the location,
size, etc. of Usando in the picture map. Despite such situation, the
brochure issued by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs criticizes
that Usando should have been described as a much smaller island than
Ulleungdo. Such critical attitude should be taken toward a full-fledged
map like Sekisui’s maps, not a picture map. From such perspective,
Sekisui’s maps describe Matsushima (Dokdo) as being almost the same
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 56/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 58Criticism on the Japanese Ministry of
Foreign Affairs' claims to Dokdo
SPECIAL ISSUE 2
size as Takeshima (Ulleungdo). Thus, Japan and its Ministry of Foreign
Affairs are not themselves free from such criticism.
Furthermore, Sekisui’s maps themselves are not favorable for
Japan. As described in the brochure, the first edition of Sekisui’s maps
was published in 1779. In the first edition, Takeshima and Matsushima
are uncolored like the Korean Peninsula whereas Japanese territories are
colored. This gives the perception that the islands are outside of
Japanese territory. This apparently forced the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
to use the sixth edition coloring Takeshima and Matsushima with the
same color as Oki Island to give the impression that Takeshima and
Matsushima are Japanese territories. However, the civilian publisher of
the sixth edition of Sekisui’s maps irresponsibly colored Takeshima and
Matsushima, at its own discretion, as if they were Japanese territory
since the publisher did not have the knowledge that the Edo Bakufu
prohibited illegal sailing to Takeshima (Ulleungdo) in 1696 based on its
judgment that the island did not belong to Japanese territory. At any
rate, the map is irrelevant to territorial recognition by the Shogunate.
Neither the first edition, nor the sixth edition, of the Sekisui’s
maps will be discussed in detail. Japan handles Takeshima and
Matsushima as a set. Ironically, Matsushima meaning “Pine Island” is an
island with not a single pine tree. Its name came from an idea that the
island forms a pair with Takeshima or “Bamboo Island.” Since Sekisui’s
maps representing the later days of the Edo era treated Takeshima and
Matsushima as a set, prohibition of navigation to Takeshima (Ulleungdo)
was simultaneously recognized as a ban on navigation to Matsushima
(Dokdo) as well, in general, during both the Edo or Meiji eras.
The Tokugawa Shogunate produced full-fledged maps named the
Maps of the Japanese Coastal Areas based on a survey by Ino Tadataka.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 57/116
59Special Edition
Often dubbed Ino’s maps, these maps comprising over 200 pages in total
represent the first modern government-published maps of Japan. Ino’s
maps do not contain Takeshima and Matsushima. This is because
Takeshima and annexed Matsushima (Dokdo) were not regarded as
Japanese territory as amply proven by the Shogunate ban on illegal
navigation to Takeshima (Ulleungdo). Such perception continued in the
Meiji government as well. The Ministry of Home Affairs in charge of
geographical issues produced maps and geographical records, based on
judgment that Takeshima and Matsushima are outside the boundary of
Japanese territory. One example is the Prefecture Jurisdiction Map of
Japan (1881). Included in the book is the Rough Map of Japan that
shows the entire Far East. Its first edition mistakenly colored Takeshima
and Matsushima in the same color as that used for the northwest region
of Japan. However, such error was corrected in its revised edition,
leaving Takeshima and Matsushima uncolored just like Korea.
In sum, maps published by the government of Japan delineating
the country’s territorial perception do not acknowledge Dokdo as its
territory until 1954 except as part of the Japanese colonial rule of Korea.
After the liberation of Korea, Japanese officials made a fuss by landing
in Dokdo, attracting public attention. In the wake of such incident,
Japan began to mark Dokdo as its own territory in its maps.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 58/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 60Controversy over Okinotorishima
SPECIAL ISSUE 3
Pae-Keun ParkProfessor, Pusan NationalUniversity
The question of whether Okinotorishima may have the status of an
island could be raised only after the conclusion of the 1982 UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), as Article 121 of the
UNCLOS differentiates islands from rocks and provides that rocks, even if
regarded as islands in a geographical sense, shall have no exclusive
economic zone or continental shelf. Accordingly, the question said above
can be answered by applying relevant provisions of the UNCLOS to the
facts concerning Okinotorishima.
The facts surrounding Okinotorishima are clear. Okinotorishima is
an uninhabited atoll of two coral reefs. About 1,740 kilometers south of
Tokyo and 900 kilometers from Ogasawara, it is referred to as the
southernmost island of Japan. It is no larger than a small room or king-
sized bed. Even only one or two people can barely stand on it. At high
tide, it is reportedly only about 70 centimeters above sea level. Several
nearby coral reefs have already disappeared below the surface due to
erosion, and Okinotorishima may suffer the same fate. That is the reason
why Japan built a breakwater made of concrete and steel around encased
the reefs, and again covered them with a titanium net to shield it from
concrete debris. Japan claims the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the
continental shelf around this tiny and feeble maritime feature of
Okinotorishima. The EEZ surrounding Okinotorishima is as large as
400,000 square kilometers.
Does it deserve the status of
island?
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 59/116
61Special Edition
In contrast to the clarity of such facts, the provisions of the
UNCLOS to be criteria for determining the legal status of Okinotorishima
are quite ambiguous. Article 121 para. 3 of the UNCLOS defines an island
as a “naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above
water at high tide.” However, it does not contain any definition of ‘rocks.’
Neither do the records on the negotiations which led to the drafting of the
article. Article 121 para. 3 of the UNCLOS only uses the expression which
says “rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of
their own.” Concepts such as “sustainability of human habitation” or
“sustainability of economic life of their own” are so unclear in their
meaning and leave too much room for various interpretations.
To be rocks under Article 121 para. 3 of the UNCLOS, should a
maritime feature be composed of hard rocks including not any soil or
sand? Should Rocks with soil or sand be regarded as ‘rocks’ in the legal
sense if they do not provide sustainability of human habitation or
sustainability of economic life of their own? Can sustainability of human
habitation be acknowledged only when the problomatic feature has
arable land or drinking water and have area no smaller than a certain
size? Or can it be acknowledged if human habitation may be sustained
through outside supply? Is sustainability of economic life of their own
linked to sustainability of human habitation? If so, is sustainability of
economic life of their own acknowledged only when food can be
procured through cultivation? Is sustainability of economic life of ‘their
own’ acknowledged if various economic needs can be satisfied from the
outside by using economic value that can be obtained in the
surroundings? The provisions of the UNCLOS does not answer any of
these questions in their interpretations.
Going back to the most fundamental principle of interpretation of
a treaty, if we interpret the provision according to the “ordinary meaning”
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 60/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 62
of the terms, what would be the result? Article 121 para. 3 of the UNCLOS
uses the word “or” between the expressions “sustainability of human
habitation” and “sustainability of economic life of their own.” Therefore,
from the logical perspective, it may be said that a geographical feature
which meets either of these requirements can be deemed an island, not a
rock. However, it would be difficult to construe the provision in disregard
of “sustainability of human habitation” when “normal meaning” of the
literature is seriously taken into account, even though the two
requirements are linked by the alternative conjunction of “or.” It seems
clear that Okinotorishima is uninhabitable. Even though the Japanese
government tries to demonstrate Okinotorishima’s “sustainability of
economic life of their own” by taking such measures as an installation of
a lighthouse and exploration of possibilities for power generation using
temperature differences, it does not seem to be arguing that this little
fearure is inhabitable. In this sense, it is very difficult to regard
Okinotorishima as an ‘island.’
What would be the result if we construe the provision in the
context of a treaty which imposes some limitation upon “normal
meaning” of a term? As is widely known, the UNCLOS is a product of
coordination and balancing of varying interests. Differentiation between
islands and rocks also reflects such coordination and balancing by the
UNCLOS. By introducing the regime of the EEZ and extending the limits
of continental shelves, the UNCLOS put more waters which previously
belonged to the international public domain under the jurisdiction of
coastal states. The significance of differentiation between islands and
rocks lies in pursuit of balance between the interests of coastal states and
the interests of the international community as whole by imposing certain
limitations on such expansion of jurisdictions and thus maintaining
traditional high seas as the international public domain. Arvid Pardo,
Malta’s ambassador to the UN who left great influence on the third United
Controversy over Okinotorishima
SPECIAL ISSUE 3
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 61/116
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 62/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 64
located near the coast of other state or in the EEZ of any other state while
others emphasized the existence of residents who have settled in. It seems
that the drafters of the UNCLOS intentionally used such obscure
expressions in an attempt to embrace all the conflicting positions and
views. This renders obtaining a clear guideline on interpretation of the
UNCLOS very difficult, even if negotiation records are examined.
It is a well-known fact that ambiguous expressions are often
intentionally included in a treaty since it must coordinate and reconcile
divergent interests when it is drafted. The UNCLOS provision on ‘rocks’ is
may be said to be a such example. In such a case, generally an interpretation
that is deemed reasonable and supported by the international community
gradually comes to be settled and adopted during the process of many
subsequent practices of states and exchange of various assertions. Therefore,
states are free at making arguments in favor of themselves and cumulatively
establish state practices in connection with interpretation of Article 121 para.
3 of the UNCLOS. However, it must be noted that some of such arguments
and state practices are accepted by the international community while others
invite objection and protest from many nations. Unreasonable and
implausible assertions or state practices cannot ultimately crystallized into
international law. They merely undermine national reputation.
If a geographical feature like Okinotorishima is acknowledged as an
island, then any rock on earth can be deemed an island and there would be
no “rocks” in the legal sense left. If so, Article 121 para. 3 of the UNCLOS
would loose its raison d’etre. In this respect also, it is deemed very far-
fetched to assert that Okinotorishima is not a rock, but an island. It would
not be easy for the government of a nation to change or withdraw an
argument involving international law that it had presented formerly before
the international community. However, no matter how much the issue is
pondered, it is difficult for Okinotorishima to be regarded as an island.
Controversy over Okinotorishima
SPECIAL ISSUE 3
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 63/116
65Special Edition
Tetsuo KotaniResearcher, Ocean PolicyResearch Foundation, Japan
A new maritime dispute?
Japan’s Okinotorishima policy and
its implications
Japan is introducing a law that will promote the development
and conservation of remote islands, notably Okinotorishima - the
southernmost island (atoll) of Japan. This will have important
implications for regional security.
Okinotorishima: basics
Okinotorishima is located on the Palau-Kyushu Ridge in the
Philippine Sea at 20°25′N 136°05′E, or roughly 1,700km south of Tokyo.
Okinotorishima consists of two islets, Higashikojima and Kitakojima. At
high tide, Higashikojima is roughly the size of a twin bed and pokes just
60 centimeters out of the water. Kitakojima is the size of a small
bedroom and rises about twice as high. These islets are in the western
part of a lagoon surrounded by a submerged coral reef and that extends
4.5 km east-west and 1.7 km north-south. Located in a tropical area and
in the path of typhoons, Okinotorishima is on the edge of submersion
due to erosion. In 1987, the Japanese government began protection of
Higashikojima and Kitakojima with concrete encasing. In 1999, the
island was put under the direct jurisdiction of the Japanese government.
In Okinotorishima, Japan conducts various scientific research, such as
biological observation and weather monitoring.
The atoll was discovered by Europeans and named “Douglas Reef”
after its founder the British Captain William Douglas in the 16th century.
After World War I, it became Japanese mandated territory in 1920, and the
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 64/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 66Controversy over Okinotorishima
SPECIAL ISSUE 3
Imperial Japanese Navy investigated it in 1922. In 1931, confirming that
there was no country claiming it, Japan declared it Japanese territory as
part of the Bonin Islands under the jurisdiction of Metropolis of Tokyo,
and gave it a new Japanese name, Okinotorishima. After World War II, the
Bonin Islands, including Okinotorishima, were put under United States
trusteeship until they were returned to Japan in 1968.
Based on its possession of Okinotorishima, Japan claimed an
Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ) of approximately 400,000 square
kilometers - larger than the area of Japanese land territory - under the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The waters
around the atoll are potentially rich in metallic minerals such as nickel,
manganese, cobalt, and copper.
In November 2008, Japan submitted to the Commission on the
Limits of the Continental Shelf(CLCS), in accordance with Article 76,
paragraph 8 of the UNCLOS, information on the limits of its continental
shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines. China and South
Korea object to Japan’s request on the ground that Okinotorishima is
considered as a “rock” that cannot have any exclusive economic zone
(EEZ) or continental shelf.
An island or a rock?
In April, 2004, during bilateral talks in Beijing to discuss Chinese
marine research activities within Japan’s EEZ, Chinese officials argued
that Okinotorishima is not an island but just a group of rocks while
acknowledging Japan’s territorial rights. Thus, by denying Japan’s EEZ
in the area, China claims that about half of 11 cases of such research
activities in 2004 were legal because they were conducted around
Okinotorishima. The Japanese government immediately refused to
accept China’s claim.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 65/116
67Special Edition
Under the UNCLOS, an island is “a naturally formed area of land,
surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide” (Article 121
paragraph 1). It also states that “rocks which cannot sustain human
habitation or economic li fe of their own shall have no exclusive
economic zone” (Article 121 paragraph 3).
The Japanese government regards Okinotorishima as an island
on the ground that there is no clear definition of rocks in the UNCLOS. A
prominent Japanese international law professor endorses this. Tadao
Kuribayashi argues that coral reefs are not defined as rocks, and
therefore any country can claim its own EEZ or continental shelf based
on its possession of coral reefs.
Japan’s Okinotorishima policy and its implication
Public-private partnership is the primary characteristic of Japan’s
Okinotorishima policy. Given the recommendations from the private
sector, the Japan Coast Guard constructed a lighthouse in Okinotorishima
and started its operation in March 2007, which has improved the safety
of the busy shipping route for ships carrying Australian iron ore and
other raw materials to Japan. Japan also introduced a hydrographic
observation radar in 2005, and the Japanese Fishery Agency started the
breeding of coral in 2006. Tokyo Metropolitan government conducts
several projects to create fishing grounds around Okinotorishima as well.
The Tokyo government also placed an official titanium address plaque in
Okinotorishima.
Japan enacted the Basic Act on Ocean Policy in July 2007 and
then introduced the Basic Plan on Ocean Policy in March 2008. The
Basic Plan calls for the preservation of islands. The white paper on land,
infrastructure and transport refers to the importance of Okinotorishima
as the baseline of a vast EEZ and states that the government will
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 66/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 68
consider possible use of the island through direct control. Accordingly,
Japan formulated a basic guideline on preservation and management of
remote islands in December 2009, and is preparing a law, aiming at
constructing port facilities in Okinotorishima.
The conservation of Okinotorishima will have positive impact not
only on Japan but also on other countries in Northeast Asia. The
lighthouse on Okinotorishima contributes a lot to the safety of
navigation between Oceania and Northeast Asia. Weather monitoring
from Okinotorishima also contributes to disaster prevention.
More important ly, the conservation of Okinotorishima
contributes significantly to regional security. It is believed that China
opposes the Japanese claim on the EEZ around Okinotorishima because
of its strategic position between Guam and Taiwan. China needs to map
the sea bottom so that its submarines could intercept US aircraft carriers
in a crisis. This has invited sharp protests from Japan that China is
violating its EEZ. As well-known, Chinese strategy conceives two
“island chains” as China’s maritime defense barrier: the first island chain
is formed by the Aleutians, the Kuriles , Japan’s archipelago, the
Ryukyus, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Borneo and the second chain
running from the Bonin Islands and moving southward through the
Mariana s, Guam, and the Caroline Islands. The EEZ around
Okinotorishima lies between China’s first and second island chains. In
this sense, the conservation of Okinotorishima is important for U.S. to
secure U.S. reinforcement from Guam in an armed conflict in the Korean
Peninsula or in the Taiwan Strait.
Controversy over Okinotorishima
SPECIAL ISSUE 3
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 67/116
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 68/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 70Controversy over Okinotorishima
SPECIAL ISSUE 3
According to Annex II of the UNCLOS, if a coastal state intends
to establish, pursuant to Article 76 of the UNCLOS, the outer limits of its
continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, it shall submit ‘particulars
of such limits to the Commission along with supporting scientific and
technical data.’ Such data should be submitted within 10 years of the
entry into forc e of the UNCLOS . The Comm issi on makes a
recommendation to a coastal state who submitted after reviewing the
data. The outer limits of a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles
are determined by such coastal states based on the Commission’s
recommendation that are final and binding.
Given the importance of the outer limits of a continental shelf
beyond 200 nautical miles and the highly complicated technical rules on
the outer limits of a continental shelf as provided in Article 76.4 through
76.6 of the UNCLOS, it was difficult for most developing countries to
submit such information by a set deadline. Therefore the eleventh
meeting of State parties to the UNCLOS in 2001, decided that State
parties which ratified or joined the UNCLOS prior to May 13, 1999 might
submit such data within 10 years from said date (May 12, 2009), which
substantially lessened the burden on State parties. May 12 was set as the
deadline because the scientific and technical guidelines necessary for
state parties to prepare documents on outer limits were issued on May
13, 1999, allowing coastal state parties to prepare and submit documents
on the basis of such guidelines. Despite the situation, most developing
countries faced difficulties in submitting official documents by May 12,
2009 for many reasons. In the eighteenth meeting of state parties to the
UNCLOS held in June 2008, the conditions for legally meeting the
deadline for submission of official documents were significantly relaxed
by allowing replacement of said documents by (i) indicative data on the
outer limits of a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles; (ii) report
on the status of preparation for drawing up such documents; and (iii)
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 69/116
71Special Edition
preliminary information including the scheduled time of official
document submission. Since preliminary information is not an official
document, the Commission does not review it.
2. Legal nature
1) Nature of the Commission
When coastal states submit scientific and technical data on the
outer limits of a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, the
Commission reviews it. The Commission specifically decides from a
scientific point of view whether the submitted data are consistent with
the UNCLOS provisions and standards, and makes recommendations on
the basis of its findings. The Commission is a body comprised of
scientists, not a legal or judicial organ. The UNCLOS does not grant
judicial jurisdiction to the Commission. However, Article 4 of Annex II
of the UNCLOS provides that coastal states are obligated to submit
scientific and technical data regarding the outer limits of a continental
shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. Accordingly, the Commission, unlike
ordinary international organizations, is mandated to supervise
determination of the outer limits of a continental shelf beyond 200
nautical miles by representing the international community for the
purpose of preventing coastal states from violating deep seabeds, a
common heritage of mankind. From this perspective, the Commission
plays the role of a watchdog.
2) Nature of recommendations
The Commission makes recommendations to state parties based
on results of its review of data presented by them. Since the Commission
is not a judicial organ, but a body of geologists, geophysicists, and
hydrographers, its recommendations based on its review findings do not
constitute judicial proceedings or judgments and thus are not legally
binding. However, Article 76.8 of the UNCLOS stipulates that the outer
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 70/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 72
limits of a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles established by a
coastal state on the basis of recommendations by the Commission shall
be final and binding. Conversely, this means that the outer limits of a
continental shelf which are not established on the basis of such
recommendations are not binding. This provision grants forcefulness to
the Commission’s recommendations in an unconventional manner and
renders them semi-judicial precedents.
Considering actual cases to date, the Commission’s recommendations
to coastal states serve as ‘precedents’ already referred to or to be referred
to in the future in examining a proposed determination of sea boundary
and preparing materials necessary for a coastal state to make a submission.
3. Problems
Given submissions by coastal states of extended outer limits of a
continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles and their review by the
Commission, applicable provisions of the UNCLOS cannot be deemed
impeccable. An increase in such submissions and extended examination
by the Commission in the future are likely to reveal more problems with
the UNCLOS. In particular, there exist a lack of continuity, ambiguity, or
contradictions among provisions on a continental shelf. Some matters
also still remain unaddressed.
1) Relationship between the Commission’s recommendations and
coastal states’ sovereign rights
According to the UNCLOS, the continental shelf of a coastal state
is the natural prolongation of its land territory. Therefore, a coastal state
has sovereign rights to explore and exploit the continental shelf for the
purpose of developing natural resources. Such rights are inherent and do
not depend on occupation, effective or notional, or on any express
proclamation. However, Article 76.8 of the UNCLOS provides that
Controversy over Okinotorishima
SPECIAL ISSUE 3
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 71/116
73Special Edition
information on the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200
nautical miles from the baselines shall be submitted by the coastal state
to the Commission and that only the limits of the shelf established on the
basis of recommendations by the Commission shall be final and binding.
These provisions, especially the provision in Article 76.8 of the UNCLOS
emphasizing the Commission’s recommendations, are viewed as
negating the inherent nature of a coastal state’s sovereign rights to
natural resources on a continental shelf as provided in Article 77.3
thereof. In other words, ambiguous or even contradicting relations
between coastal states’ sovereign rights and the Commission’s
recommendations affect overall integrity of the continental shelf system.
2) Revised or new submissions
The Commission reviews documents submitted by coastal states
and subsequently issues recommendations lacking clear legal force. For
this reason, coastal states may refuse to give consent to such
recommendations. According to Article 8 of Annex II of the UNCLOS, in
the case of disagreement by a coastal state with the recommendations of
the Commission, the coastal state shall, within a reasonable time, make a
revised or new submission to the Commission. However, this entails the
following problems:
First, how many times is a coastal state permitted to make a revised
or new submission, or how many times is it allowed to repeatedly make a
revised or new submission in disagreement with the Commission’s
recommendations? Theoretically, a coastal state may continue its
‘argument’ with the Commission indefinitely by making a revised or new
submission. Under Article 76.8 of the UNCLOS, the Commission will win
ultimately because only the outer limits of a continental shelf beyond 200
nautical miles established by a coastal state on the basis of the
Commission’s recommendations are deemed final and binding.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 72/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 74
Second, by which deadline is a coastal state required to make a
revised or new submission? This issue pertains to definition of a
reasonable time provided in Article 8 of Annex II of the UNCLOS.
Theoretically, the following two cases may be considered: (i) a coastal
state may make such submission on the day immediately following the
date of a recommendation by the Commission; and (ii) a coastal state
may not make a revised or new submission because it already met the
deadline by making a submission to the Commission within ten years
from its joining the UNCLOS. Under such circumstances, the outer limits
of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles established by a
coastal state will remain not finalized for a long time.
Third, by which deadline is a coastal state, which submitted
preliminary information, required to submit an official document?
Preliminary information merely mentions the time when the coastal
state is scheduled to submit an official document. Thus, it is at the
discretion of a coastal state to decide when it will submit such document.
By submitting preliminary information, a coastal state satisfies a
requirement in terms of time limits. From the standpoint of the
Commission, however, the practical period for submission of an official
document is prolonged.
3) Protection of the international community’s common interests
Deep seabed is a concept newly established by the UNCLOS. It
refers to the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof beyond the
limits of national jurisdiction. A coastal state’s deep seabed and its
resources outside the outer limits of a continental shelf represent a
common heritage of mankind. The International Seabed Authority,
representing mankind, exercises rights to deep seabeds and their
resources. No country may claim or exercise sovereignty or sovereign
rights to deep seabeds and their resources. In addition, no country,
Controversy over Okinotorishima
SPECIAL ISSUE 3
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 73/116
75Special Edition
natural person, or juristic person may occupy deep seabeds or their
resources.
There is a clear link between determination of the scope of deep
seabeds and establishment by a coastal state of the outer limits of a
continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. A coastal state establishes
the outer limits of a continental shelf on the basis of the Commission’s
recommendations and also determines the boundary between such
continental shelf and deep seabeds, a common heritage of mankind.
Accordingly, prolongation of the outer limits of a continental shelf by a
coastal state reduces the scope of deep seabeds. If a coastal state
excessively calls for extension of the limits of a continental shelf, it may
lead to reduction in the scope of deep seabeds and consequently
compromise the common interests of the international community.
In its official document submitted to the Commission on
November 12, 2008, Japan claimed the outer limits of a continental shelf
beyond 200 nautical miles regarding Okinotorishima, drawing the
attention of the international community and triggering related
discussions. China and Korea respectively submitted objections. On
February 6, 2009, China raised an objection to the UN secretary-general,
saying that Japan’s claim to a continental shelf within and beyond 200
nautical miles from the baseline of Okinotorishima is outside the
Commission’s authority to make recommendations under the UNCLOS.
China urged the Commission not to deliberate on said matter. Immediately
afterwards, Korea submitted a similar objection. In the fifteenth general
assembly of the International Seabed Authority in May 2009 and the
meeting of state parties to the UNCLOS in June 2009, Japan’s submission
was subjected to in-depth discussion. Many countries expressed keen
interest in possible erosion of international deep seabed areas by Japan’s
claim to the limits of a continental shelf with a reef as the baseline.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 74/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11 76
Natural attributes of Okinotorishima constitute common sense
and common perception by the international community. Article 121.3
of the UNCLOS provides that rocks which cannot sustain human
habitation or economic life of their own have no continental shelf,
which means that extension of the limits of a continental shelf cannot be
an issue. The fact that Japan’s claim to the extension of the limits of the
continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baseline of
Okinotorishima violates international deep seabed areas, goes against
the principle established under the UNCLOS that deep seabeds and their
resources are a common heritage of mankind, and directly breaches the
international community’s common rights and interests.
Members of the international community assume obligations to
protect the integrity of deep seabeds and their resources. They also need
to safeguard the principle of a common heritage of mankind. In
particular, the Commission, which deliberates on outer limits of a
continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles on the basis of the UNCLOS,
has to uphold the order of international maritime law established by the
CLOS.
Controversy over Okinotorishima
SPECIAL ISSUE 3
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 75/116
Policy Report
studies on doKdo problem by Japanese
international law scholars
natural resources development and
environmental issues of the arctic
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 76/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
POLICY REPORT78
➊ Studies on Dokdo problem by
Japanese international law scholars
Pae-Keun ParkProfessor, Pusan National
University
The so-called Dokdo problem is, in its nature, a matter of law,
thought it has many other aspects as a matter of politics, history,
economy, education, and so forth. As a legal problem, both law and
historical facts are important for it, for the truth and persuasiveness of
the arguments concerning territorial sovereignty over Dokdo is decided
by application of law to the established facts. However, the studies of
Dokdo problem in Japan seem to be focused on the historical facts.
Compared with the vigorous studies of the problem by historians, those
by international lawyers in Japan appear to be very little.
It was in 1952 when the so-called Peace Line Declaration was
proclaimed by Korea and Dokdo began to be perceived as a problematic
island or rock between Korea and Japan. From this year to now, articles
concerning Dokdo written by Japanese scholars of international law do
not exceed ten or so. In addition, greater part of them were written in the
time when Korea and Japan concluded their Basic Relations Treaty and
Fishery Treaty in 1965. From 1970 to 1990 is a period of blank and we
cannot find any Dokdo articles written by Japanese international
lawyers. From the late 1990s, some articles of international law treating
Dokdo problem have been published. However, their number is limited
to 3 or 4. This constitutes a remarkable contrast to the active
publishment of articles by Korean scholars of international law.
The reasons why Japanese scholars of international law did not
and do not write much regarding Dokdo problem are not so obvious.
Studies on Dokdo problem byJapanese international law scholars
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 77/116
79Special Edition
Some assumed reasons may be as follows: besides Dokdo problem,
Japan embraces other more important territorial problems such as four
Kurile Islands problem and Senkaku/ Diaoyutai problem, and their
attentions are more directed to these problems; though the number of
the articles is small, all the important legal points have been fully dealt
with and they do not feel any necessity to write redundant articles; and
territorial problem is not a subject attracting interest of many scholars in
the Japanese society of international law.
Among the small numbers of Dokdo articles written by Japanese
scholars of international law, the most influential ones may be those
written by Takeshi Minagawa and Kanae Taijudo. In particular, one of
Taijudo's article was published in the most authoritative international
law journal in Japan, Kokusaihogaikozassi (Journal of International Law
and Diplomacy). Academic appraisal of Taijudo is also high among the
Japanese international law scholars.
Taijudo's article has covered almost every important legal points
concerning Dokdo issues. Those points include: does Dokdo dispute
exist?, the critical date, effective occupation of the islet, necessity of
notification for an occupation to be valid one, Korean protest against
Japanese occupation of Dokdo, proximity theory concerning Ulleungdo
and Dokdo, interpretation of SCAPIN 677 and the article 2 of the 1951
Treaty of Peace with Japan. It goes without saying Minagawa and
Taijudo are supporting Japan's claim to Dokdo as its territory.
One problem which makes Japanese international lawyers feel
perplexed would be the contradiction between the argument that Dokdo
is historically original territory of Japan and the argument that Japan
occupied it as terra nullius, as historically original territory of a State
cannot be a terra nullius at all. The explanations about this contradiction
by Minagawa and Taijudo are as follows: the incorporation of Dokdo by
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 78/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
POLICY REPORT80
➊ Studies on Dokdo problem by
Japanese international law scholars
Japan through the measure of occupation is a substitution of a inchoate
title for a title under international law; or it represents a re-confirmation
of Japanese will to possess Dokdo as its own territory. Thus, they argue,
there is no contradiction between the two seemingly apparently
inconsistent arguments. These explanations sound as if poor excuses
and lack persuasiveness. Among Japanese scholars of international law,
Matsukuma frankly acknowledges the contradiction and regards
Japanese government's measure of occupation of Dokdo as an evidence
that it was not historically original Japanese territory. Professor Fukazu
also wrote an article concerning Dokdo. He seems to be trying to
maintain objective and academic position and his article does not seem
to be written under the object of proving and justifying Japanese
territorial sovereignty over Dokdo.
One Japanese scholar of international law who deserves special
reference is professor Serita. He, like Minagawa or Taijudo, tries hard to
demonstrate that Dokdo is a territory belonging to Japan. However, at
the same time, he proposes to recognize Korean sovereignty over Dokdo,
a bold assertion as he is a Japanese scholar. His suggestion of the
solution to the Dokdo problem is very definite and groundbreaking: on
the basis of the recognition of Korean sovereignty, designating the sea
belt around Dokdo as Natural Preservation Area and opening it for the
scientific research of the world. How much this suggestion comes to be
realistic and acceptable by Korea and Japan should be still observed.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 79/116
81Special Edition POLICY REPORT
➋ Natural resources development and
environmental issues of the Arctic
Ki-Sun KimDirector,
Sanhaon Environment Institute
The Korean icebreaker Araon and Korea's polar region activities
Korea's first ever icebraker, the Araon accomplished its first
Antarctic exploration and safely returned. During this exploration, the
Araon executed a close examination on Cape Burks and Terra Nova Bay
which are the promising sites for the Antarctica station. The Korean
government set up a plan to build the second station in the Antarctica
until 2014. On the basis of the examination results of the Araon, Terra
Nova Bay was decided as the final site and an environmental impact
assessment will be submitted to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative
Meeting (ATCM). After 20 years from the construction of the King
Sejong Station in King George Island of the Antarctic, the construction
of the second station is around the corner.
The Araon will leave for a voyage next July and it will carry out
polar researches in the Antarctic following the Arctic, which means
Korea is expanding it's marine scientific activity in the Polar regions.
Since 2002, Korea has been conducting ocean researches in the Dasan
Arctic Station in the Arctic's Spitsbergen Island and is now waiting for
an evaluation to join the Arctic States' High Ranked Government's
Forum, the Arctic Council as an observer. The neighboring countries are
all attempting for an active entry into the Arctic through the Arctic
Council, China joined in 2007, Japan applied to join as a observer in
2009. This shows that the Arctic Circle is a pressing matter of the
international society.
Natural resources development andenvironmental issues of the Arctic
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 80/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
POLICY REPORT82
➋ Natural resources development and
environmental issues of the Arctic
Climate change in the Arctic region
Global warming caused by human extensive use of fossil fuel
subsequent to the industrial evolution is bringing about a serious climate
change. The place where climate change is most fast and is happening
in a large extent is the Polar Regions. Climate change caused melting
the enormous ice of the Polar Regions, threatening the environment and
ecosystem which are vulnerable to external changes, causing abnormal
change of weather and the rise of the sea level.
In particular, climate change is prominently appearing in the
Arctic region. Compared to other regions, in the Arctic, the rise of air
temperature is happening 2 times higher and the thickness of the Arctic
Ocean's ice is reducing by over 30% and its size is reducing by 4% every
10 years. In the report of World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in October 2008, it
estimates that all of the ice in the Arctic Ocean will melt and disappear
by year 2013. The environment and the ecosystem of the Arctic are
being suffered the most by this sort of climate change. The Arctic's
peculiar ecosystem was formed by adjusting to the harsh natural
environment and climate condition. It is very sensitive to climate change
and external changes thus; the ecosystem is in a critical crisis of
extermination due to the change of habitat and decrease of food. Arctic's
representative animal, the Polar bear's population is rapidly decreasing
<A polar bear is sitting on a melting ice of the Arctic>
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 81/116
83Special Edition
because of lack of food; this symbolically shows the crisis of Arctic
ecosystem. In north of the Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean and in the
Arctic Ocean, the rise of sea level drove cod fishes, herring, etc. to them
thus, large sized fishing grounds are being formed. However, ocean
ecosystem's devastation due to excessive fishing using the trolling boats
is one of the suffering that the Arctic ecosystem is faced with.
Development of natural resources - sovereignty and marine jurisdiction
The present condition of the snow and ice disappearing due to
climate change in the Arctic paradoxically provides a turning point
which accelerates the development of the mineral resources that are
buried under there. The Arctic is well known as a rich repository of
natural resources such as oil, natural gas, gas hydrate, gold, silver,
diamond, iron, manganese nodules, etc. The U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) evaluates that oil of about 90 billion barrel and natural gas of
1670 trillion feet3, natural gas liquid (NGL) of 44 billion barrel, etc. are
buried in the arctic. They reach the world's undiscovered oil of 13%, gas
of 30% and NGL of 20%, of which 84% are distributed in the coastal
regions with less than 500m depth, especially the natural resources are
mostly distributed in Russia. 1)
The estimated amount of arctic oil is not as huge to change the
whole world's oil provision pattern. Also, considerable concern over the
Arctic Ocean's environmental issues is followed by the development of
mineral resources. However, the international society who is in the crisis
of energy resources exhaustion is showing a huge interest in the
development of Arctic's mineral resources, thus, the Arctic States are
starting disputes on sovereignty and marine jurisdiction to secure more
resources. Canada and Denmark are both arguing sovereignty over the
Ellesmere Island and Hans Island which are between the northern
Greenlands. Russia and Norway over the Barents Sea, U.S. and Canada
over the Beaufort Sea areas are engaged in conflicts to expand their
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 82/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
POLICY REPORT84
➋ Natural resources development and
environmental issues of the Arctic
marine jurisdiction. Especially, in the Lomonosov oceanic ridge that
goes through the seabed of the geographical North Pole, it is estimated
that there are 10 billion tons of natural gas, oil, silver, copper, diamond,
etc. buried under there. Thus Russia, Canada and Denmark, these three
countries are fiercely competing to occupy the jurisdiction over
geographical North Pole.
The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) regulates that the coasta l states could expand their
continental shelf for over 200 nautical miles. 70% of Arctic Ocean's total
area is occupied by the continental shelf, and is formed of a long
coastline of continent 45,389km. Therefore it allows the Arctic Circle
countries an advantageous condition. According to the guide “Maritime
jurisdiction and boundaries in the Arctic region" published by Durham
University's IBRU (International Boundaries Research Unit) in 2008, if all
of the Arctic State set up their continental shelf limit to 200 natural
miles, most of the Arctic Ocean will belong to these countries' marine
jurisdiction and in some cases, certain country's jurisdiction will reach
the geographical North Pole and its circumference. This sort of Arctic
State' division of the Arctic Ocean has a critical viewpoint, in terms of
“Territorialization of the Ocean" by the coastal states. But, there is a
dilemma in the respect that it is a legitimate marine jurisdiction exertion
based on the current international law.
Among the Arctic Ocean countries, Russia in 2001, Norway in
2006, Denmark in 2009, each country submitted a document about
setting up continental shelf limit to the United Nation Commission for
Limits for the Continental Shelf (UNCLCS). Russia's document about the
Lomonosov oceanic ridge was returned due to lack of scientific proof,
and 5 years later since then, in August 2007, Russian midget submarines
MIR No. 1 and No. 2 fixed Russia's national flag made of titanium at
4,261m deep in the water under the geographical North Pole. This case
caused military tension in the North Pole region against the neighboring
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 83/116
85Special Edition
countries expanding their scientific exploration activities around the
Arctic Ocean and strengthening their military activities. Russia made its
position that it will not extend the Sovereignty or the marine jurisdiction
disputes and peacefully resolve this matter through UNCLCS and
bilateral negotiations. But the international society is still watching this
region's military conflicts and military expansion with anxious eyes.
Opening of the Arctic route
Another change due to the Arctic climate change is the opening
of the Arctic Route. In the meantime, the Arctic Route was hard to sail
along because of the thick ice, but the decrease and retreat of the ice
helped facilitate opening of the rout. The voyage distance of North-West
route passing over Canada's archipelagos sea area and the North-East
route passing over Siberia's coast was reduced by 40% than the original
route, and if a direct route is opened that passes the geographical North
Pole, then this distance will be shortened by far more. In July 2009,
German freight vessel the Beluga Fraternity and the Beluga Foresight
which shipped cargo from Ulsan harbor in Korea succeeded in the
voyage to Rotterdam of Netherlands via the North-East route. This was
the first ever voyage that has been used the North-East route, Russian ice
boat escorted them but there was no ice thus, the voyage could not be
accomplished without the ice boat's help and it shortened 10 days more
than the original route which took 24 days.
The problem was the disputes based on international law related
to the ships' right-of-way for the Arctic route. Canada is limiting foreign
ships' voyage, for the reason that Canada's archipelagos sea area which
the North-West route passes through is historical internal water where
the Inuit tribe's livelihood was attained thousands of years ago. Canada
regards that their voyage can be limited according to the Canadian Law
since the foreign ships do not have the right of navigation based on
international law for the internal water. As another base to limiting the
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 84/116
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 85/116
87Special Edition
obtain authorization from the Canadian government when passing
through this sea zone. However, in 2005 when the U.S. nuclear-powered
submarine Charlotte sailed along Canada's Arctic sea zone without prior
notification and made it public in 2007, it brought a big stir in the both
countries' relationship.
Yet, there are not that many ships sailing in the North-West and
North-East route. In case of the North-West route, there are 20 to 30
sailings per year and fewer sailings are made in the North-East route.
Thus it is hard to acknowledge the straits located in these routes as
international straits. But, the Arctic ice is melting in quick speed; it
seems that sailings of the ships will rapidly increase accordingly. When
the internationalism of these routes are secured with the frequent usage
of the ships, one can see that their status as international straits will be
acknowledged and that the transit right-of-way will be guaranteed.
Marine pollution of the Arctic
Following the resources development of the Arctic and the
possibility of using of the Arctic routes, the problems that was being
brought up are the pollution of the marine environment and occurrence
of environmental disasters. In areas such as Canada, North Alaska,
Barents Sea, Kara Sea, Siberia region of Russia, etc., developments of
crude oil and natural gas were successful, thus, mining operations are
already being processed. The Arctic State did not stop here but it has a
wide plan to develop further mineral resources. At this time, what
naturally follows this is the environmental pollution, especially the
pollution of marine environment. This is because most of the oil and
natural resources are buried under the coastal regions.
The development of the oil resources by digging the Arctic
Ocean's ice carries a big danger. Because not only there are difficulties
with the drilling and mining, but when there is a spillage of crude oil due
to spurting of oil wells, leakage of pipelines, etc. their removal operations
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 86/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
POLICY REPORT88
➋ Natural resources development and
environmental issues of the Arctic
are also difficult. The marine pollution problem has been continuously
pointed out to the mining operations that are currently in progress.
However, considering that Arctic Ocean's oil resources are mostly buried
under the continental shelf, if the development is expanded, it can be
expected that a serious marine pollution will be accompanied. The crude
oil that is spilled onto the ice sea does not biologically decompose,
evaporate, dissolve nor precipitate; it will affect constantly effect to the
fragile Arctic environment and its ecosystem. In addition, the large sized
substructure that is needed for the development of oil and gas and
transportation of ports, roads, drainage works, etc. will indirectly give
damage to the ecosystem such as destruction of ecosystem's habitat and
the traveling routes and erosion of the sea beds, etc.
Transporting the oil resources using the Arctic routes has a
possibility to create even bigger environmental problem. As one can
see from the Exxon Valdez's accident that occurred in the Alaska coast
in 1989, in the Arctic Ocean, accidents of supertankers lead to a grand-
scale of environmental disaster. This accident resulted in 258,000 barrel
of crude oil spllage that covered 3,400km of the waters of Alaska,
250,000 sea birds, 300 sea otters, 250 bald eagles, 22 whales, and large
number of herring and salmon suffered deaths en masse. The ecosystem
around that sea water is still constantly being affected by the marine
pollution, and it is estimated that it will take over 30 years for it to
recover. Many Alaskan people lost their livelihood not only due to the
sea but due to the oil polluted land surrounding the sea water.
The situation is more serious when the marine pollution
accidents occur in the routes of North-West and North-East. There are
large numbers of islands scattered in the Archipelago water areas of
Canada, and because some routes pass near to the land, if a supertanker
is shipwrecked in that area, it seems that an unrecoverable damage will
occur. The North-West route is less severe than the North-East route but
in a respect that it passes around the islands of the Siberia coast, marine
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 87/116
89Special Edition
pollution is still a problem.
On this account, many environmental organizations oppose the
resources development of the Arctic. Environmental organizations such
as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) are worried about the effect that the
development of resources has made on the environment of the Arctic
and its ecosystem. The WWF is urging each government and oil
companies to reconsider the grand-scale development of oil and gas and
the IUCN chose Arctic fox, dolphins, ringed seal, etc. as the ten living
things that are faced with extermination crisis and points out that
climate change, commercial use of ships, oil and gas developments, etc.
are damaging their habitat.
The Arctic Council and regulations on marine pollution
The Arctic Council is a forum of high-ranking governments
established in 1996 for the environmental protection of the Arctic Circle
and its sustainable development. Even though the Arctic is a wild region
far from the industrial region, since 1980s environmental damages
started to appear, which were caused by decreasing ozone layers,
radioactive materials, Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), heavy metal
and oil, etc. Compared to residents of other regions, it is known that
10-20 times more POPs such as the polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), etc. are accumulated in the
internal bodies of the Canada's Inuit tribe that lived in the Arctic region
for thousands of years. This is because the marine mammals which the
Inuit tribe regarded as their traditional food were polluted with POPs,
which entered their internal bodies through the food chain. The Arctic
State, who realized the necessity to tackle the environmental problems,
adopted the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) in 1991
and 5 years later, an Arctic Council was established for accomplishing
this job.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 88/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
POLICY REPORT90
➋ Natural resources development and
environmental issues of the Arctic
The Arctic Council has 6 working groups. Among them, a group
that is directly related to environmental pollution of the marine are the
Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment Working Group (PAME)
and the Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Working
Group (EPPR). PAME totally handles the problem, which the Arctic
coasts and the marine environment are faced with. EPPR handles
environmental emergency preventions and response issues of spillage
and transportation of oil and gas, radioactivity damage, natural
disasters, etc. With their constant efforts, Arctic Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) Guideline, Arctic Guide for Emergency Prevention,
Preparedness and Response, and Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines,
etc. were adopted and many reports were published such as the Arctic
Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) of 2004 that scientifically evaluated
and consolidated the impact of Arctic climate change.
In April 2004, PAME published a recent Arctic Coast Oil and Gas
Guideline. This guideline presents a series of recommended practices and
strategic measures that are to be considered when Arctic States are in the
process of developing oil and gas along the coast. This guideline
supports the basic rule of the precautionary principle, polluter pays
principle and sustainable developments, etc. It also presents detailed
standards from the Environmental Impact Assessment process and
environmental monitoring standard up to the preparation and
countermeasures, dismantlement of development tools and purification
of development areas regarding the safety of development activities,
environmental management, waste management, human health and
safety, transportation, state of emergency. This guideline was adopted to
protect the Arctic environment from the Arctic Coast's indiscreet oil
development activities and related potential impact. Thus, it reflects
environmental damages caused by Arcti c States' oil and gas
development activities. However, this sort of guideline does not force the
Arctic States but it is merely a guideline and that is used for joint policy
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 89/116
91Special Edition
development considering the Arctic States' legal, political, economic
conditions. Thus, difficulty in forming a regulation with a binding force
is the weak point it has.
Possibility of Arctic Treaty
The Arctic Council has successfully led an international
cooperati on for environmental protection and sustainable
development between the countries and the respect that it has obtained
good resul ts in the field of environmental pollut ion are being
acknowledged. But, the Arctic Council is an organization with a legal
aspect and a decision-making power, thus it is based on the approach
method of soft-law. Accordingly, the Arctic Council's system depends
on guidelines than forceful law regulations. Therefore it cannot impose
obligations with binding powers to the relevant countries. Also, it does
not inclusively handle problems that the Arctic Circle is faced with
such as climate change, Sovere ignty, resource competiti on,
environmental management, aborigine's pro tection of rights,
ecosystem protections, etc.
Because of this, the insiders of the Arctic Circle and the
international society have been requesting to make a legal system with
binding powers, modeling the Antarctic Treaty System. Especially the
European Union has suggested starting negotiation to enter into a new
treaty for the Arctic through the report of European Union's council
members of March 2008. In the resolution about Arctic management
adopted in October 2008 and in the resolution draft of March 2009. The
European Union urged to freeze the Arctic's resources development for
50 years and set up a new treaty. Thereupon, five Arctic States; U.S.,
Canada, Russia, Denmark, and Norway refused the suggestion through
the Illulissat declaration adopted in the Arctic Ocean conference in May
2008 as well as Tromsø declaration adopted in the 6th Cabinet Meeting
of the Arctic Council in 2009. In line with states' positions, they claim
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 90/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
POLICY REPORT92
➋ Natural resources development and
environmental issues of the Arctic
that in the Arctic Circle, a rock-ribbon legal legislation including the
UNCLOS and IMO agreement are already constituted and that they will
solve the problems of the Arctic Circle through this.
With this, Arctic's issue related to a new treaty entered a state of
lull. In a situation where the powerful countries such as U.S., Russia and
Canada, etc. actively rejects to entering into a treaty, it seems to be hard
to raise further questions. In addition, in the position of the EU, rather
than stimulating the Arctic States, they may have judged that it would
be better to construct a favorable position in the resources development
of the Arctic Circle and use of Arctic routes through the international
cooperation which the Arctic States request for. Now, the international
society is watching the development of the state of things with a deep
interest.
Closing comments
Like the Antarctic, the Arctic maintains cold and harsh climates
and fragile natural environment and ecosystem, but for the past
thousands of years, aborigine who preserved the traditional history and
culture has lived, and it is a place where their own economic activities
have been operated. For a long time, the Arctic was their livelihood
passed through East and West camps' Cold War Structure, and now, a
new Cold War time is being announced by conflicts among the countries
regarding Sovereignty, marine jurisdiction, resources developments and
environmental problems. The Arctic Ocean is facing a division caused by
the Arctic States and it is placed in an unknown situation where the
geographical North Pole may become appertained under these countries'
jurisdiction. The more serious thing is the environmental problem which
the resources development of the Arctic Circle will bring.
The Arctic States say that it is no wonder that they have the
rights for resource development because the territory and Ocean of the
Arctic Circle are within their sovereignty and jurisdiction. It is true.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 91/116
93Special Edition
However, the Arctic States also have the responsibility to prevent the
environmental pollution resulted from resource development and the
damages it causes against other countries and other regions.
Furthermore, the Arctic is a region which it has a direct impact on the
whole earth's weather and climate and its environmental pollution also
has an impact on the whole earth. In this respect, the Arctic States'
development activity not only reaches their own regions but it is directly
related to the gain and loss of the international society on the whole.
Consequently, one thinks that a new treaty system is necessary instead
of the original legal system centered on the Arctic Council, so that
imprudent development activities of the Arctic must be actively
regulated. In order to minimize the environmental damages due to
reckless development activities and to make sustainable development
possible, a legal system with a compelling and binding power is a
necessity.
Korea begins ahead a full-scale of entry into the Arctic region
along the Arctic routes that are starting to open due to climate change.
Korea as one of the world's six maritime powers relies on sea
transportation for most of its exports and imports. If the Arctic routes
are used instead of the original route of passing through the Suez Canal,
the distribution costs will be largely cut down. Making inroads into the
shipbuilding industry of building ice boats, etc. will be possible, and it is
not long before, we have the opportunity to participate in the resource
development. However, before the entry into the Arctic, we need to have
understanding and interest towards the new opportunity that climate
change in the Arctic is giving us. Most of all, we must have a deep
understanding and interest towards the darker side in which the Arctic is
encountering various issue, such as the environmental impact, military
tension, aborigine's protection of rights, etc.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 92/116
DOKDO GALLERY 2
English name : Black wood pigeon
Scientific name : Columba janthina
Size : 40cm
A specimen of a female black wood pigeon caught by a Japanese on Ulleungdo on August 26, 1936 was
introduced to the Korean academia for the first time in 1938.
Black wood pigeons are mainly distributed in islands. They live in dark woods. Their primary habitats inKorea are silver magnolia forests. On Ulleungdo, the colony of silver magnolia near Sadong Port remains
designated as a protection area for these birds. At present, black wood pigeons tend to spread in many
areas around the island. On Dokdo, a small number of the birds are observed in some areas on its West
Island that features a gentle gradient as well as on its peak.
On Ulleungdo, black wood pigeons have been under protection since their designation as Natural
Monument No. 215 on November 20, 1968. Their habitat in Sadong is being protected as a Natural
Monument. They breed from February to October each year.
(Photos provided by Hee-Cheon Park, Kyungbuk National University)
Flock of black wood pigeon
© Hee-Cheon Park
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 93/116
Global Ocean
Focus
Bangladesh Brings sea Boundary dispute to itlos
Climate Change: new Challenge to the law of
the sea regime
marine Biodiversity: trend and Challenges of the
international Community
China's law on island proteCtion to strengthen
maritime jurisdiCtion
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 94/116
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 95/116
97Special Edition
Marine resources development is at the heart of the sea boundary
dispute
The sea boundary dispute involving Bangladesh flared into a full-
scale row in 2008. It originated from development of oil resources across the
wide continental shelf in the Bay of Bengal. Sediment deposition by the
Ganges-Brahmaputra River out of Bangladesh has created the world's
largest delta in the Bay of Bengal. The fan of the delta ranges over 350
nautical miles from Bangladesh towards the Indian Ocean. Since declarationof the EEZ by Bangladesh in 1974 , the country's frictions with neighboring
nations over oil resources exploration have persisted, though full-scale
frictions were not touched off until 2008, when Bangladesh granted oil
exploration licenses in Block AD-7 claimed by Myanmar. Myanmar
concluded an agreement with Daewoo International, a Korean company, to
explore this block. Myanmar raised a strong objection, which consequently
brought the entire development programs undertaken by the two nations to
a halt.
‘Depth criteria’ in Delta area was not accepted
The coastline of the delta formed by Bangladesh ’s Ganges-
Brahmaputra River varies enormously due to heavy annual precipitation of
1,500mm to 2,500mm. This prompted Bangladesh to adopt a unique method
of determination of the straight baseline called ‘depth criteria,' rather than
to use a low-water line. A layer of sediment under the estuary barragechanges markedly each year owing to frequent flooding. For this reason,
Bangladesh employs the depth criteria approach, in which a certain depth of
water with minimal coastline changes serves as a baseline standard.
However, Article 7(2) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
concerning determination of the straight baseline of a delta designates the
‘furthest seaward extent of the low-water line' as the baseline. This provision
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 96/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
GLOBAL OCEAN FOCUS98
➊ Bangladesh Brings Sea Boundary
Dispute to ITLOS
was newly adopted in drafting the third UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea. Artic le 7(2) can be understood as response of the demand by
Bangladesh, which participated in the drafting process beginning with the
second Convention in 1974, to reflect its method to determine the delta
straight baseline. Nevertheless, the ‘depth criteria and bathymetric factors'
argued by Bangladesh regarding 'unstable characteristics of its coast' were
never accepted. In its final letter for the negotiation, Bangladesh expressed
its position that Article 7 of the draft Convention does not deny a baselinesystem based on the depth criteria and bathymetric factors.
Myanmar requests application of an equidistance line
When Bangladesh set the straight baseline at 10 fathoms of waterdepth according to the depth criteria, there was a strong backlash from India
and Myanmar, its neighbors. In sum, they did not acknowledge the method
as to determining the straight baseline. India asserts that about 21 nautical
miles of its territorial waters have been violated as a result of Bangladesh's
application of the depth criteria. India and Myanmar have suggested that the
low-water line should be strictly used as a point to determine the straight
baseline. They also have contended that Bangladesh should apply the
equidistance line in the waters of the Bay of Bengal where a sufficient EEZ
<Bangladesh's straight baseline>Source: Muhmmad Nazmul Hoque,“The legal and scientific assessment of
Bangladesh's baseline in the context of Article 76 of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea", 2006, UN, p.59
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 97/116
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 98/116
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 99/116
101GLOBAL OCEAN FOCUSSpecial Edition
➋ Climate change: new challenge to
the law of the sea regime
Ja-Young KimInternational Marine Affairs &
Territory Research Department,
KMI
In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),established by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), issued its
fourth Assessment Report of more than 3,000 pages. The most important
conclusion in this report is that global warming is evident and that its highly
probable cause is a greenhouse effect triggered by increasing concentration
levels of greenhouse gases.
Fueling political and economic frictions
The threat of climate change has emerged as an inter-governmental
political issue, going beyond environmental concerns. The potential effects
of climate change include changes in traditional shipping lanes, access to
resources that were previously deemed technically inaccessible, and changes
in availability of water resources and energy utilization. Because of these
potential effects, countries put climate change on the agenda related to
international security to the UN Security Council in April 2007.
Climate change: new challengeto the law of the sea regime
Source: Telegraph.co.uk
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 100/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
GLOBAL OCEAN FOCUS102
The impact of climate change is still uncertain, but changes in two
respects are well known: continental glaciers continue to melt, and sea level
will rise 0.5 to 1 meter by the end of 21st century. The Hadley Center for
Climate Prediction and Research predicts that the Arctic may melt entirely
within the 21st century. Countries including Russia, Canada, the US, Norway,
and Denmark are now competing for undersea resources in the Arctic Ocean,
triggering excessive political tensions among those countries. The
continental shelf of the Arctic Ocean is believed to hold over 25% of allundiscovered oil and gas reserves around the world, giving rise to heated
competition to secure it.
Rising sea level threatens coastal states
The issues related to thawing of the Arctic ice in which many
countries have a stake have attracted great concern in general. Nonetheless,
resolution of issues concerning the Law of the Sea that arise to coastal states
and low-lying countries has not been adequately discussed.
Sea level is now rising at a rate of about 2mm a year around the
globe and is accelerating. A one-meter rise in sea level would submerge 75%
➋ Climate change: new challenge to
the law of the sea regime
<Reduction in Arctic ice because of global warming>
Source: NASA (http://www.nasa.gov)
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 101/116
103Special Edition
of the low-lying islands in Vanuatu and 80% of the Majuro Atoll of the
Marshall Islands, and inundate residential areas for half of the public. In
addition to this serious threat of flooding, many coastal states may witness a
change in existing coastlines or may be submerged due to the rising sea level.
Such change in coastlines may also lead to emerging issues regarding
coastal states' rights to the maritime zones including their territorial waters
and Exclusive Economic Zones (hereinafter 'EEZ').
Among the potential problems that may be sparked by the receding
or advancing coastlines and complete disappearance of low-lying islands, an
important issue pertaining to the Law of the Sea is whether maritime
boundaries may be subject to continual modification depending on coastline
changes.
Possibility of maritime boundary changes
As defined in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter
‘the Convention'), all maritime zones including territorial water, continental
shelf, and EEZ are measured from a baseline. Accordingly, any movement of
such baseline will lead to a change in maritime boundaries. If a base point
such as an exposed rock disappears, it may be claimed that the boundary
based on such point has moved or disappeared.
There are basically four types of baselines regarding which an issuemay be raised owing to the rising sea level: low-tide elevations, fringing
reefs, river banks, and islands. First, under Article 13 of the Convention, if a
low-tide elevation is situated in the territorial sea, the low-water line on that
low-tide elevation may be used as the baseline. If such low-tide elevation is
submerged permanently because of rising sea level, the country concerned
may lose the territorial waters accorded by such base point. Second, in the
case of islands surrounded by reefs, the baseline for measuring the breadth
of the territorial waters is the seaward low-water line of the fringing reefs.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 102/116
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 103/116
105Special Edition
boundaries are determined. In order to prevent such dispute, it is necessary
to guarantee firm expectations to all countries that have divergent interests
concerning a maritime boundary. The easiest way to resolve potential
disputes arising from rising sea level -- a change of great magnitude -- may
be reducing the possibility of a change in maritime boundary in such ways as
formulation of strict procedures to officially modify a maritime boundary.
The issue of fixing maritime boundaries concerning a delta is hardly new: it
was raised during the drafting of the Convention. However, most agreementson maritime boundaries are bilateral, and the countries concerned take
different stances. Under the situation, establishment of universal rules by
means of a multilateral agreement or an international organization is
deemed to be very difficult.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 104/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
GLOBAL OCEAN FOCUS106
The Year 2010, international year of biodiversity
The United Nations designated 2010 as the International Year of
Biodiversity to raise the international community's awareness of the need for
biodiversity protection and sustainable development and to map out concrete
action plans within this year.
In connection with this, marine organisms have garnered significant
interest. Marine organisms account for 50% to 90% of all species around the
world. Accordingly, marine organisms constitute the starting point for
biodiversity protection and utilization. Recently climate change, ocean
acidification, and marine pollution have accelerated the destruction of marine
ecosystems. A series of reports indicate that the rate of biodiversity reduction is
up to 1,000 times the natural decline rate. A reduction in marine species
resulting from destruction of marine ecosystems disrupts the balance of the
global ecosystem. It also eliminates opportunities for development of
bioengineering through use of marine genetic resources. Bioengineeringtechnology, in combination with other state-of-the-art technologies including
IT and NT, has developed at an unprecedented speed. The bio-engineering
market has been growing at an average annual rate of over 11%, and the value
of marine organisms for development of new material, new materials is
estimated at approximately US$26 trillion according to investigation findings.
Therefore, a reduction in marine species may lead to enormous economic
losses. A 2009 EU report forecasts that losses caused by destruction of the
ecosystem will amount to as much as 50 billion euros each year.
Min-Su KimGlobal & Future Research
Division, KMI
Marine biodiversity: trend andchallenges of the internationalcommunity
➌ Marine biodiversity: trend and
challenges of the international
community
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 105/116
107Special Edition
In 2010, efforts to specify a blueprint laid down by the UN have been
gaining momentum. The UNESCO held a meeting of high-ranking officials in
Paris on January 21 - 22, which produced this year's blueprint for biodiversity
protection. The third meeting of the Informal Working Group on the
conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of
national jurisdictionwas held at the UN headquarters on February 1 - 5.
Beginning with its recommendation on implementing IntegratedCoastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Europe in 2002, the EU has emphasized
protection and sustainable use of marine organisms through the 2006 EU
Green Paper on Maritime Policy and the 2007 EU Integrated Maritime Policy
dubbed the 'Blue Book.' On January 19, 2010, it submitted a report titled
‘Options for an EU vision and target for biodiversity beyond 2010.' This report is
designed to reinforce the 'Marine Strategy Framework Directive' issued in June
2008 and finalize a 2020 action plan by positive use of the existing European
Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODNET) and Maritime Spatial
Planning (MSP).
For China, Minister of Environmental Protection Zhou Shengxian said
in the ‘Action in China for 2010 International Year of Biodiversity' held in
Beijing on January 26, 2010 that establishment of a legal mechanism for
biodiversity protection was urgently needed and that the Chinese government
would make every possible effort towards that end.
Popular Name Title Date of Enactment
[Table 1] EU's legal systems related to protection of marine biodiversity
2002
Recommendation on
implementing
Integrated Coastal
Zone Management
(ICZM) in Europe
Proposal for Marine
Strategy Directive
Green Paper
• European Parliament and Council Recommendation concerning
the implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in
Europe
• Communication from the Commission to the Council and the
European Parliament of 24 October 2005, "Thematic Strategy on
the Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment"
• Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and Council
establishing a Framework for community Action in the field of
Marine Environment Policy (Marine Strategy Directive)
• Green Paper - Towards a Future Maritime Policy for the Union :A European vision for the oceans and seas
May 30, 2002
Oct. 24, 2005
Oct. 24, 2005
Jun. 7, 2006
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 106/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
GLOBAL OCEAN FOCUS108
Marine biodiversity protection in areas beyond the limits of national
jurisdiction is the central issue
Marine biodiversity is being protected with a certain degree of
efficiency in marine areas within the limits of national jurisdiction under
national legal systems. Under these circumstances, the focus of marine
biodiversity protection is shifting to areas beyond the limits of national
jurisdiction including high seas and deep seabeds. As land without an owner is
inclined to become desolate, marine species outside the national jurisdiction of
a country are at greater risk. In this context, countries around the world are
stepping up cooperation to establish a legal mechanism for biodiversity
protection and use in areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
Such efforts date back to the UN General Assembly's resolution in 1970
(A.RES/25/2749). This resolution further specified the concept of common
heritage of mankind suggested by Ambassador Arvid Pardo of Malta in the22nd UN General Assembly in 1967, and internationally confirmed a need for
an international legal system regulating marine biodiversity conservation and
use in areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
This effort became more tangible in the UN Convention on the Law of
the Sea and the Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (deep seabed). Following
entry into force of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1994, full-scale
➌ Marine biodiversity: trend and
challenges of the international
community
Source: Betty Queffelec and two others, ‘Integrated management of marine diversity in Europe: perspective from
ICZM and the evolving EU maritime policy framework'
Blue Book
• Communication from the Commissi on to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions: An Integrated
Maritime Policy for the European Union
• Conclusion from the Consultation on a European Maritime Policy
Oct. 10, 2007
Marine Framework
Directive
• Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council establishing a framework for Community Action in the field
of Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Framework Directive)
Jun. 17, 2008
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 107/116
109Special Edition
discussions on marine biodiversity conservation and use in areas beyond the
limits of national jurisdiction were launched, beginning with the 5th meeting
of the UN Open-Ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law
of the Sea in June 2004. The meeting provided a venue where the Informal
Working Group dealing with marine biological diversity beyond areas of
national jurisdiction was created. The Working Group has been convened every
two years since 2006. Its third meeting was held in February 2010. The Working
Group discusses issues that must be resolved from a scientific, technological,economic, legal, environmental, and socioeconomic viewpoint for the purpose
of conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond the
limits of national jurisdiction. High on its agenda are ways to promote
international cooperation.
Human activities in areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction may
be divided into bioprospecting, which represents exploration and research
activities for commercial use of biological resources (medicine, etc.), fisheries,
cable and pipe laying, and development of marine resources including oil and
natural gas. The existing legal systems focus on protecting marine biodiversity
Source: Korea Maritime Institute
Session Period Agenda
[Table 2] Agenda of the UN Open-Ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea
-
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
Nov. 24, 1999
May 30 -
Jun. 2,2000
May 7 - 11, 2001
Apr. 8 - 15, 2002
Jun. 2 - 6, 2003
Jun. 7 - 11, 2004
Jun. 6 - 10, 2005
Jun. 12 - 16, 2006
Jun. 25 - 29, 2007
Jun. 23 - 27, 2008
Jun. 17 - 19, 2009
Establishment of the Informal Consultative Process with adoption of the UN
General Assembly Resolution 54/33
Fisheries and marine pollution
International cooperation for marine scie nce and technology and for
combating piracy and armed robbery against ships
Marine environment protection
Navigation safety and marine ecosystem protection
Conservation and management of the biological diversity of the seabed in
areas beyond national jurisdiction
Fisheries and marine wastes in terms of sustainable development
Marine ecosystem management
Marine genetic resources
Maritime security and safetyAssessment of activities for 10 years, centering on the Informal Consultative
Process
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 108/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
GLOBAL OCEAN FOCUS110
based on regulation of such human activities. With the UN Convention on the
Law of the Sea at the center, the International Maritime Organization (IMO),
UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), UNESCO, etc. enact and
implement related international conventions. The legal systems concerned are
summarized as follows:
➌ Marine biodiversity: trend and
challenges of the international
community
Source: UN, ‘The International Legal Regime of the High Seas and the Seabed beyond the Limits of NationalJurisdiction and Options for Cooperation for the Establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAS) in Marine Areas
beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction' (November 2005)
Navigation
(including pollution, inflow
of foreign species, noise,and marine wastes)
Bioprospecting
Marine scientific research
Laying of submarine cables
Marine wastes dumping
Renewable energy
(Including tidal and wind
power generation as well as
ocean thermal energy
conversion)
Open Ocean Aquaculture
Ocean acidification and
maritime treatment of
carbon dioxide
Underwater Heritage
Marine Tourism
(including noise and
marine pollution)
Land-Based Activities
•UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
• IMO Conventions (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships (MARPOL) 73/78, Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), International Convention for
the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments) IMO implementation measures: Navigation in Particularly Sensitive Sea
Areas(PSSAs) and compulsory pilotage
•UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
•UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Antartic Treaty
•UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
•UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
1972 Convention for Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and
Other Matter) and the 1996 Protocol
Other applicable regional agreements
•UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
• IMO Convention (MARPOL 73/78)
•UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
• IMO Convention (MARPOL 73/78)
•UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
•UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
•2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage
•UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
•UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, related local agreements/protocols
Human Activities Major Legal Systems
[Table 3] Human activities and legal systems related to areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction
Fishing
(including illegal/
unregulated/unreported
fishing and fishing tool
dumping)
Marine Mineral Resources
Development
(including physical
destruction, pollution and
noise)
• UN Convention on the Law of the Sea• International Whaling Convention
• UN Fish Stocks Agreement
• FAO Compliance Agreement
• Convention on Migratory Species
• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
• Other regional fishing agreements
• UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1994 Agreement Relating to the
Implementation of the Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 109/116
111Special Edition
Conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas
beyond the limits of national jurisdiction are being conducted in a three-
pronged manner: (i) assessment of the impact of human activities on the local
marine ecosystem environment; (ii) establishment of an area-based
management system by designating marine protected areas and building a
network of marine protected areas; and (iii) cooperation considering different
capabilities of countries and overhaul of related legal schemes. The key is how
to overcome differences between developing countries and industrializedcountries
Despite these efforts, the biggest hurdle, i.e. a failure to work out an
international agreement on conservation and use of deep seabed resources,
still exists because of divergent views of industrialized countries and
developing countries. Such confrontation is deepening in a situation where
industrialized countries intend to expand their control over the seas beyond
the limits of national jurisdiction including international waters and deep
seabeds on the strength of their advanced science and technology, and
developing countries wish to prevent the oceans from being subject to
exclusive jurisdiction of industrialized countries by invoking the concept of
common heritage of mankind and sustainable development.
From the perspective of Korea, confrontation between industrialized
countries and developing countries is not welcome. Their tug-of-war over useand conservation of deep seabed resources may impede Korea's plan to realize
two objectives, i.e. securing mineral resources and developing the marine bio-
industry, through deep seabed development. Therefore, Korea needs to
proactively participate in the international community's discussions to forge
an agreement, serving as a mediator reconciling the different opinions of the
two parties and endeavoring to reflect its position consistently.
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 110/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
GLOBAL OCEAN FOCUS112
➍ China's Law on Island Protection
to strengthen maritime jurisdiction
China has aggressively pushed recently for integrated island
development strategies in order to expand its maritime territory and bolsterits maritime jurisdiction. It established the ‘Department of Sea Area and Island
Management’ in the State Oceanic Administration in July 2008, investing the
agency with the additional funct ions of ecological protection and
management of uninhabited islands. In 2009, China enacted the Law on
Island Protection for extensive management of uninhabited islands. At
present, China has over 6,900 islands of 500㎡ or larger. There are 6,500
uninhabited islands, accounting for 92% of all islands.
Law on Island Protection enters into full effect
As part of China's adoption of a strategy to bolster its maritime
jurisdiction in earnest, the Law on Island Protection pursued since 2003 was
passed in the 12th session of the Standing Committee of the 11th National
People's Congress on December 26, 2009. It went into force on March 1, 2010.
Piao Wen-JinGlobal & Future Research
Division, KMI
China's Law on Island Protection tostrengthen maritime jurisdiction
Source: Data compiled from materials posted on the webpage of the National People's Congress of the People's
Republic of China
Time Details Remarks
[Table 1] Milestones in Legislation of the Law on Island Protection
Nov. 2003
Aug. 2006
Oct. 2008
Jun. 2009
Oct. 2009
Dec. 2009
Organization of a legislative team of the Environmental and Resources
Protection Committee of the 10th National People's Congress
Deliberation in the 21st session of the Environmental and Resources
Protection Committee of the 10th National People's Congress
Deliberation in the 5th session of the Environmental and Resources
Protection Committee of the 11th National People's Congress
1st deliberation in the 9th session of the Standing Committee of the
11th National People's Congress
2nd deliberation in the 11th session of the Standing Committee of the
11th National People's Congress
3rd deliberation in the 12th session of the Standing Committee of the
11th National People's Congress
Commencement
of drafting
Passage of a draft
Reflection of the State Council's opinions
Passage of
a modified draft
Reflection of opinions from
all walks of life
Reflection of opinions from
experts
Passage
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 111/116
113Special Edition
Comprised of 58 articles in 6 chapters in total, the bill attributes
ownership of uninhabited islands to the state, aims to protect island
ecosystems and prevent reckless development, and provides for stringent
management of special islands including islands on baseline points of
territorial waters.
Chapter Item Major Details
[Table 2] Major Details of the Law on Island Protection
1Generals
(Articles 1~7)
•P-Purport of legislation: protection of the ecosystems on islands and in
surrounding waters, rational development and use of natural resources on
islands, protection of the country's maritime rights, and promotion of
sustainable development in economic and social terms
•Principles of protection: principles of scientific plans and priority protection,
and reasonable development and sustainable use
•Ownership and management of uninhabited islands: Ownership attributed to
the state/ concentrated and coordinated management by the department in
charge of maritime affairs under the State Council
2
Island protection
plan
(Articles 8~15)
•Establishment of an island protection planning scheme encompassing a
national and marginal sea area island protection plan, national island
statistics survey system, island management information system, etc.
3Island protection
(Articles 16~35)
• Imposition of tight restrictions on establishment of buildings and facilities and
prohibition of stone/sand collection and logging under the primary purpose of
strengthening protection of the island ecosystem and preventing destruction
of the ecological environment
•A special fund raised for island protection to be used for island protection,
ecological restoration, and scientific research
•Specific measures concerning review and ratification relating to development
and use of uninhabited islands to be separately determined by the State
Council
•Special protection to be provided to islands for special purposes; scope of
protection for islands located on baseline points of territorial waters, inparticular, to be determined by a provincial-level government and reported to
the department in charge of maritime affairs under the State Council for
registration
4
Supervision and
inspection
(Articles 36~43)
•Mandatory supervision and inspection by the central and local marine
administrative agencies
5Legal liability
(Articles 44~55)•Penalties against violations of the Law
6Addenda
(Articles 56~58) •Definitions of the terms used in the Law and the date of its entry into force
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 112/116
Dokdo Research Journal
Autumn 2010 Volume 11
GLOBAL OCEAN FOCUS114
➍ China's Law on Island Protection
to strengthen maritime jurisdiction
Primary purpose of the law is to secure marine resources and reinforce
maritime sovereignty
The grand cause of this bill is to prevent reckless development of
uninhabited islands and to preserve the ecological environment. Practically,
however, its primary objective is to secure resources on uninhabited islands
and in the surrounding Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) through integrated
management and to bolster maritime sovereignty. In other words, China
intends to step up management of uninhabited islands in a bid to gain astronger bargaining position in disputes with neighboring countries over
resources and maritime jurisdiction.
By bolstering management of islands for special purposes including
those located on the baseline points of territorial sea or needed for marine
scientific research, China is expected to manage, in a more stringent manner,
uninhabited islands necessary for determining its sea boundary. On the basis
of the bill, it is very likely that the country will select points in the northern
waters of the Yellow Sea and the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea as
additional baseline points of its territorial sea.
Concerns about a possible maritime dispute with neighboring countries
China's enactment of the Law on Island Protection constitutes a part
of its recent efforts to increase its maritime jurisdiction. It is expected that the
country's frictions with neighboring nations over securing marine resourcesand determining a sea boundary will escalate further.
At present , China is in rows over sea boundaries with eight
neighboring countries: a territorial dispute over islands with five countries
including Vietnam in the South China Sea and over Diaoyutai or Senkaku
Islands with Japan in the East China Sea. Enactment of the Philippines
Baseline Act in March last year and extended continental shelf submission by
Vietnam and Malaysia in May last year regarding the South China Sea are
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 113/116
115Special Edition
indications that another territorial dispute is brewing. In the East China Sea,
Japan stationed a large patrol ship carrying a helicopter in waters near
Diaoyutai Islands in early February last year. In early July last year, Japan
pressed for deployment of its Ground Self-Defense Force troops on Yonaguni
Island, an inhabited island near Diaoyutai Islands, sparking a strong response
from China.
As a result of strengthened management of uninhabited islands,China is expected to beef up its patrol activities. There is a concern that such
situation might exacerbate its maritime frictions with neighboring countries.
Maritime boundary between South Korea and China
South Korea has to finalize its sea boundary with China. By the end of
the previous year, the two nations had held fifteen rounds of talks towards
that end. Bolstered management of uninhabited islands following entry into
force of the Law on Island Protection may support China's claims over
unreasonable baseline points of its territorial waters, firstly. According to the
Korea Hydrographic and Oceanographic Administration, if China's Macaiheng
Island, Waikejiao Island, Haijiao Reef, etc. are acknowledged as baseline
points of its territorial water, South Korea will sustain an estimated loss of
about 9,000㎢ in its waters. Secondly, selection of any additional baseline
points of terr itorial waters in the northern Yellow Sea may affect
determination of Sino-North Korean sea boundary.
In the wake of enactment of the Law on Island Protection, China is
expected to take a series of additional actions necessary for its enforcement.
In particular, the country is likely to formulate the island development,
protection, and management system; special island protection and
management system; and island development and protection plan.
<Disputes in the East and
South China Sea between
China and neighboring
countries>
Source: Korea Maritime Institute
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 114/116
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 115/116
117Special Edition
<Translation of Historical Materials>
1) Sejong sillok jiriji (Geographical Appendix to the Veritable Records of King Sejong) (1432,
1454) Vol. 153/ Gangwon-do/ Samcheok Dohobu (an administrative district)/ Uljin-hyeon
• Usan and Mureung
The two islands are at the heart of the sea due east of Uljin-hyeon.
[The two islands are close enough to observe each other on clear days. During the
Silla dynasty, they were called Usanguk, or a tribal nation of Usan. They are also
referred to as Ulleungdo. It's circumference is about 40 kilometers in all directions...]
2) Goryeosa jiriji (Geographical Appendix to the History of Goryeo) (1451) Vol. 58 Jiri 3/
Donggye/ Uljin-hyeon
• Ulleungdo
[It is located at the center of the sea due east of (Uljin-)hyeon. During the Silla
dynasty, it was called Usanguk, or a tribal nation of Usan. It is also known as
Mureung or Ureung. Its circumference is about 40 kilometers in all directions, and it
surrendered in the 12th year of King Jijeung's reign. ...... Some say that “Usan and
Mureung are originally two separate islands, but they are close enough to observe
each other on clear days.”]
3) Sinjeung Dongguk yeoji seungnam (Augmented Survey of the Geography of Korea) (1530) Vol.
45/ Gangwon-do/ Uljin-hyeon
• Usando · Ulleungdo
They are also called Mureung or Ureung. Both islands are situated at the center of the
sea due east of (Uljin-)hyeon. The three peaks (of Ulleungdo) are so high that they
may reach the sky. The south peak is slightly lower. It is possible to clearly observe
trees on the top of the peaks and sandy plains at the foot of the mountain on clear
days. When sailing downwind, one may reach Ulleungdo in two days. Some say that
Usan and Ulleung were one island originally, and Ulleungdo's circumference is
about 40 kilometers in all directions.
Mi-Rim Yoo International Marine Affairs& Territory Research Department, KMI
8/13/2019 Articles on Dokdo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articles-on-dokdo 116/116
Special Edition
Dokdo Research Journal
KMI International Journalof Maritime Affairs and Fisheries