일본의 독도고유영토, 무주지선점, 그리고 국제법적주장의 허구와 한계
The Flaws and Limits of Japan's Claims over Dokdo ; In Terms of Indigenous Territory Theory, Terra Nullius Theory, and International Law
1
조회
0
다운로드
9
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Title: The Flaws and Limits of Japan's Claims over Dokdo; In Terms of Indigenous Territory Theory, Terra Nullius Theory, and International Law This paper analyzes Japan's claim over Dokdo in three terms; first, indigenous territory argument, second, terra nullius argument, and third, international law argument. First, the indigenous territory argument claims that Japan recognized Dokdo earlier than Korea. An example is that Japanese fishers fished in Dokdo since the 17th century, and thus they occupied Dokdo. Second, according to the terra nullius theory, Japan first claimed the terra nullius and intimated it as Japanese territory on Shimane Prefecture's gazette, Feb.22, 1905. Third, according to international law, the Japanese government criticizes Korea for illegally occupying Japanese territory, which is legally Japanese based on the first two arguments. Regarding each of these three arguments, this paper points out the flaws and limits.
Abstract
Title: The Flaws and Limits of Japan's Claims over Dokdo; In Terms of Indigenous Territory Theory, Terra Nullius Theory, and International Law This paper analyzes Japan's claim over Dokdo in three terms; first, indigenous territory argument, second, terra nullius argument, and third, international law argument. First, the indigenous territory argument claims that Japan recognized Dokdo earlier than Korea. An example is that Japanese fishers fished in Dokdo since the 17th century, and thus they occupied Dokdo. Second, according to the terra nullius theory, Japan first claimed the terra nullius and intimated it as Japanese territory on Shimane Prefecture's gazette, Feb.22, 1905. Third, according to international law, the Japanese government criticizes Korea for illegally occupying Japanese territory, which is legally Japanese based on the first two arguments. Regarding each of these three arguments, this paper points out the flaws and limits.
참고문헌 (17)
- 김학준, "독도연구" (2010), 동북아역사재단
- 김명기, "일본외무성 다케시마문제의 개요비판" (2010), 책과 사람들
- 김병렬, "The History of Imperial Japan's Seizure of Dokdo" (2008), Northeast Asian History Foundation
- 최장근, "일본의 독도영유권 조작의 계보 -독도영토 부정과 ‘죽도’신영토론 조작" (2011), 제이앤씨
- 최장근, "한국영토 독도의 ‘고유영토론’ -미국과 일본의 영토팽창론을 경계하다-" (2014), 제이앤씨
- 愼鏞厦, "獨島領有權資料의 探究 제3권" (2000), 독도연구보존협회
- 内藤正中, "竹島=獨島問題入門日本外務省竹島批判" (2008), 新幹社
- 内藤正中, "竹島=獨島論争 歴史資料から考える" (2007), 新幹社
- 동북아역사재단, "일본국회 독도관련 기록모음집 2부" (2008), 동북아역사재단
- 영남대학교 독도연구소, "독도 영유권 확립을 위한 연구" (2009), 경인문화사
- 곽진오, "일본문화학보 제54편", 한국일본문화학회, ~ (2012)
- 「竹島問題に関する調査研究」最終報告書, "나카노데츠야", 竹島問題研究会, ~ (2012)
- "世宗實錄地理志", ~
- "은주시청합기(隱州視聽合紀)", ~
- "독도자료집 III", 동북아역사재단, ~ (2007)
- "연합뉴스(2006.10.27)", ~ (2006)
- "日本外務省홈페이지"[URL]
