1905년 일본의 독도편입 증거에 대한 국제법적 분석
Analysis of Evidences concerning the 1905 Japanese Territorial Incorporation of Dokdo under International Law
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The decision of the Japanese Cabinet adopted on January 28, 1905 for the incorporation of Dokdo was made to clarify its government's will to add the small islet to the Japanese territory. It was not published officially. Instruction No. 87 of the Japanese Minister of Domestic Affairs in 1905 was given to local government office in accordance with the cabinet decision. But the instruction was merely an internal expression of intention to the lower authorities in the then Japanese administrative system. Besides, the original of Shimane Prefecture Notice 40 does not exist at this time. The existing one is not exactly a copy of the original document. So it could not be said to be a duplicate. Even though it could be regarded as a real copy, it would not be recognized having evidentiary value the same as that of the original. At most, it can have a restricted provative value as a secondary or circumstantial evidence. It's because there are no official seal at the Shimane Prefectural notification. The Notice 40 was likely to go into the local gazette of Shimane Prefecture. In spite of that high probability, such publication was nothing but local notification. In any case, it did not amount to international notification on the part of central government. Also there were no international procedures for the announcement or inquiry related to territorial incorporation. Considering these facts, the announcement by the Shimane Prefectural gazette could not bring about lawful occupation of Dokdo under international law.
Abstract
The decision of the Japanese Cabinet adopted on January 28, 1905 for the incorporation of Dokdo was made to clarify its government's will to add the small islet to the Japanese territory. It was not published officially. Instruction No. 87 of the Japanese Minister of Domestic Affairs in 1905 was given to local government office in accordance with the cabinet decision. But the instruction was merely an internal expression of intention to the lower authorities in the then Japanese administrative system. Besides, the original of Shimane Prefecture Notice 40 does not exist at this time. The existing one is not exactly a copy of the original document. So it could not be said to be a duplicate. Even though it could be regarded as a real copy, it would not be recognized having evidentiary value the same as that of the original. At most, it can have a restricted provative value as a secondary or circumstantial evidence. It's because there are no official seal at the Shimane Prefectural notification. The Notice 40 was likely to go into the local gazette of Shimane Prefecture. In spite of that high probability, such publication was nothing but local notification. In any case, it did not amount to international notification on the part of central government. Also there were no international procedures for the announcement or inquiry related to territorial incorporation. Considering these facts, the announcement by the Shimane Prefectural gazette could not bring about lawful occupation of Dokdo under international law.
참고문헌 (33)
- 국제법출판사, "국제사법재판소규정 및 국제사법재판소규칙", 국제법출판사, ~ (1995)
- 국회도서관, "일본자료로 보는 독도", Fact Book, 38 (2013), 국회도서관
- 김래주, "대조선인 안용복 1,2" (2005), 늘푸른 소나무 간
- 김명기, "독도연구" (1996), 한국정신문화연구원
- 김문길, "독도 일본식 호칭에 대한 인식 재고와 편입문서의 불확실성, 독도일본에알리기운동연대", 소위 시마네현 고시 제40호에 의한 독도편입의허구성 검토 학술회의, 제2차 독도련 주최 학술대회 (2013)
- 김정균, "中井養三郞의 소위 「독도편입 및 대하청원」에 관한 연구", 국제법학회논총, 27(2) (1982)
- 김종하, "독도연구" (1997), 법률출판사
- 김학준, "독도는 우리땅: 독도의 어제, 오늘, 그리고 내일" (1996), 한줄기
- "독도 영유권에 대한 일본주장은 왜 오류인가?", 독도학회[URL]
- 백충현, "영토분쟁의 해결방식과 증거", 서울대학교 법학, 23(4) (1982)
- 申珏秀, "國境紛爭의 國際法的 解決에 관한 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.1991
- 신용하, "독도, 보배로운 한국영토: 일본의 독도영유권 주장에 대한 총비판" (1996), 지식산업사
- 奧原碧雲, "竹島沿革考", 歷史地理, 8(6) (1906)
- 독도관계 자료집(Ⅰ) -왕복외교문서(1952～76)-, "외무부", 외무부, ~, pp.집무자료 77-134 (북일) (1977)
- 이상태, "시마네현 고시 제40호의 실체의 재발견, 독도일본에알리기운동연대", 소위 시마네현 고시 제40호에 의한 독도편입의 허구성 검토 학술회의 , 제2차 독도련 주최 학술대회 (2013)
- 이장희, "독도 영유권 위기 연구" (2003), 백산서당
- 이중범, "독도에 대한 ‘島根縣告示제40호’의 문제점", 국제법협회논총, 2 (1986)
- 이한기, "한국의 영토" (1969), 서울대학교 출판부
- 이한기, "국제법강의" (1997), 박영사
- 정하중, "행정법개론" (2007), 법문사
- 정인섭, "독도연구" (1996)
- 정인섭, "일본의 독도 영유권 주장의 논리구조: 국제법 측면을 중심으로", 독도 영유의 역사와 국제관계 , 독도학회 제3회 학술심포지움 발표논문집 (1997), 독도학회
- 제성호, "국제법상 島根縣 告示 제40호의 불법·무효성", 중앙법학, 10(1), pp.430~465 (2008), 중앙법학회
- 제성호, "독도 영유권과 한국 측 증거 - ‘결정적 기일’의 맥락에서 본 주요 증거 -", 중앙법학, 15(3), pp.309~344 (2013), 중앙법학회
- "일본의 독도 편입 근거, 실체가 없다" (2013)[URL]
- 한국교육과정평가원, "초․중․고등학교 독도 교수․학습 지도서" (2003), 교육인적자원부
- 洪聖根, "독도의 실효적 지배에 관한 국제법적 연구", 석사, 국제법, pp.1998
- "山陰新聞", ~ (1905)
- "시민단체, 日시마네현 고시 제40호, 68년 전 소실", 연합뉴스, ~ (2013)
- Brownlie, Ian, "Principles of Public International Law" (1998), Clarendon Press
- Cheng, Bin, "General Principles of Law" (1953), Stevens and Sons
- Roche, A. G., "The Minquiers and Ecrehos Case: an analysis of the decision of the International court of justice" (1959), Droz
- Sandifer, Durward V., "Evidence before International Tribunals" (1975), University Press of Virginia