A Critical Survey of the Channel Islands Dispute between the Uk and France: A Comparative Study of the Minquiers-Ecrehos Case and the Dokdo Problem

Abstract

After the 1998 Korea-Japan fisheries agreement, the Korean government was open to the criticism - that the agreement may have given Japan an excuse to assert possession over the Dokdo. The main reason for the criticism regarding the 1998 fisheries agreement is that Dokdo is located in the provisionally arranged zone which is a kind of common management water area stipulated by the agreement. To avoid these criticisms, the Korean government used the Minquiers - Ecrehos case. They asserted that the fisheries agreement and sovereignty of Dokdo are totally unrelated, and they applied the Minquiers - Ecrehos case as a precedent to support their claim. It was because the International Court of Justice excluded the effect of fishery convention between the UK and France to decide the sovereignty of the islands in the Minquiers - Ecrehos case. However, the decision of ICJ in the Minquiers - Ecrehos case should not be applied to Dokdo problem without distinguishing different situations. It is a dangerous attitude to adopt a certain international legal theory to particular cases without considering the specific situations of the disputed area. In the Minquiers - Ecrehos case, the effect of fishery convention to decide the sovereignty of the islands was not the ratio decidendi. The ratio decidendi of the case was the effective possession. Hence, it is unreasonable that the attempt to adopt this case to the 1998 Korea-Japan fisheries agreement. There are many different features between the Minquiers - Ecrehos case and the Dokdo problem such as geographical, historical and political situations. However, the arguments from the Minquiers - Ecrehos case can be applied to the settlement of the territorial dispute over Dokdo. In particular, the Minquiers - Ecrehos case suggests that the evidence of effective possession is the key to solve Dokdo problem.