독도영유권을 둘러싼 한일 양국의 핵심쟁점 검토

Abstract

The problem regarding the possession of Dokdo continuously comes up as a major longstanding issue between Korea and Japan, which has been politically and diplomatically sensitive matter. On January 1, 1952, Korea declared "the Peace Line," and on January 28, Japan officially protested. Since 1952, Korea and Japan each exchanged verbal statement four times regarding Dokdo. Opinions of both nations classify the current issue with historical entitlement and effective possession over Dokdo. Some of historical materials acknowledging Dokdo of Korea are Samguksagi(1145), Sejong Sillok Jiriji(1454), Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam (1531)', 'Dongguk Munheon Bigo (1770), Mangiyoram(1808), etc., On the other hand, Some Japanese documents recognizing the Korean possession of Dokdo are as followed. In 1870, Dajokan(the Imperial Japanese Council of State) issued a formal conclusion that Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) were part of Korean territory and not related with Japan. There are some hard core issues for both nations' opinions for effective possession which may be different from the fact. One is on the Shimane Prefecture's bulletin No. 40 which is strongly insisted by Japan as an historical document in supporting Japan's claim. Korean scholars were told that the bulletin was an announcement by prefecture government and analyzed accordingly. However, it was found out that this bulletin was only a 'circular notice' within prefecture government, an implicit circular among prefecture level, and not an opinion of national level dealing with assuming outside territory as a part of national territory. Therefore, one cannot accept this bulletin as a national position or national proclamation. And, the most important national representative material for Korea is the Chignyeong No. 41 in 1900. This Chignyeong No. 41 describes an island named Seokdo which Korea claims is Dokdo whereas Japan disagrees. More research should be conducted to find evidence which clearly indicate that Seokdo is Dokdo. When Seokdo is clearly identified as Dokdo, the Shimane Prefecture's bulletin No. 40 will become null and void. The KMI said that two Japanese Ordinance excluded the islets from Japan's maritime territory when it rearranged property acquired during its colonization of nearby countries. But these two document could not have entitlement for renouncement of the territory. All the reports stated above is one that we have to review the accuracy of information then react to the necessary actions based on all facts. Only the rational approach through accurate facts is the way to promote desirable relationship between Korean and Japan to resolve the heightened emotional tensions and work toward beneficial partnership of the future.