• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• v.36 no.3
• /
• pp.255-276
• /
• 2014

The dispute between China and Japan regarding $Di\grave{a}oy\acute{u}t\acute{a}i$ is believed to be quite similar to the controversy surrounding Dokdo in terms of historical and post-war processes except for the point that the phenomena of occupation is different with regard to Dokdo. China's claim to $Di\grave{a}oy\acute{u}t\acute{a}i$ is based on historical title and continuous use while the basis of Japan's claim is summarized as preoccupancy of ownerless land. Even though Japan acknowledges that China discovered $Di\grave{a}oy\acute{u}t\acute{a}i$, Japan claims that the act to establish sovereignty over the island from the standpoint of International Law was not taken by China. However, at that time, effective occupation was not an essential prerequisite for the acquisition of a territory. That is to say, from a legal perspective, the legal right for an area could be established based on the discovery of the land, and so it is thought that Japan is applying the current criteria of International Law in a manner that is inappropriate. When we review the post-war process, the San Francisco Peace Treaty does not directly mention $Di\grave{a}oy\acute{u}t\acute{a}i$. But based on the said treaty, we can note that Japan gave up all rights for the southern area that is north of the boundary line that equates to latitude $29^{\circ}$ and that includes the Ryuku Islands and $Di\grave{a}oy\acute{u}t\acute{a}i$. Of course, the provisions for the territory in the San Francisco Peace Treaty and its disposal are not the final factor for the judgment regarding dominium of $Di\grave{a}oy\acute{u}t\acute{a}i$. However, it seems clear that Japan's attitude and interpretation regarding the issues of $Di\grave{a}oy\acute{u}t\acute{a}i$, the Kuril Islands and Dokdo is problematic.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.31
• /
• pp.164-189
• /
• 2013

Last December, the Abe government came back, and it is critical core of Northeast Asia. They visited to Yasukuni Shrine, denied to Korea's invasion and they are denying all of their invasion history. I'm afraid they want to take Dokdo. Dokdo is Korean territory, but Japan politics assert it belongs to them. To make matters worse, they are waiting an opportunity to invade. Ministry of Foreign Affair blue paper and Ministry of Defense white paper have claimed Dokdo as Japanese territory, and many right wing politicians are taking part in the Cabinet. Liberal Democratic Party of Japan is becoming more right wing politicians than before by Japan Restoration Party, and the others also have more right wing ideologies. It can't control Japan right wing political parties. They finally aim to take Dokdo. In this situation, we have to defend Dokdo. Japan must be very important partner for our nation's development. But it is necessary to trust between two countries. Dokdo is effective controlled by Korea. It is the best way how to keep Dokdo. During Dokdo is effective controlled by Korea, the Japanese Government has limited Dokdo's ownership. Now we don't have any way to keep Dokdo except more effective control. We have strategies about Japanese claim of Dokdo's ownership as follows. First, we can overpower Japan right wing politics as Japan conscientious force's ideology. Second, Japan politics say to Dokdo's ownership is based on The San Francisco Treaty. But it is not right. Third, we have to exchange a lot of local government and civic society in Japan. Finally, we must prepare thoroughly to bring the matter to the International Court of Justice.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.150-183
• /
• 1999

Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement concluded in 1965 made a contribution to the stable development of fisheries relationship for both countries until the year of 1980. From the time on thereafter a series of respectable fishery disputes occurred throughout the period of fisheries self-regulation in accordance with alteration of home and abroad conditions. And both countries marched into a cooperation era by enforcement of the new fisheries agreement from the 23 January 1999, because the Fisheries Agreement system of 1965 had many limitations to settle the fundamental fisheries problems. In this paper, the author carried out the legal interpretation, arrangement of historical facts and evaluation of actual results of the Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement of 1965. The key contents of the Fisheries Agreement were the establishment of 12-nautical mile exclusive fishery zone and the joint-control fishery zone under the principles of maintenance of MSY for fishery resources, freedom of high seas and mutual cooperation. The legal foundation of the conclusion of the Fisheries Agreement were the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1952 and the four International Conventions on the Law of the Sea of 1958. During the 33 years, the fisheries power of Korea made a rapid stride, on the other hand that of Japan was almost stagnated. And in the meantime, there were very important development on the international law of the sea, for instant, the settlement of 12-nautical mile territorial sea regime and the establishment of 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone regime. Annual meetings of the Joint Fisheries Committee were not successful to fill the role for conservation of fishery resources. The Fisheries Self-Regulation Agreement concluded in 1980 was also insufficient to accept the new international regime on the law of the sea, for that reason it was terminated on 23 January 1999. But it is true that the Fisheries Agreement of 1965 made a contribution to normalization of fisheries relationship between both countries and fisheries development of Korea.