• The Sea:JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN SOCIETY OF OCEANOGRAPHY
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.125-151
• /
• 2018

We grouped the names attributed to the seas surrounding the Korean Peninsula in maps published in two major Korean ocean and fisheries science journals over the period from 1998 to 2017: the Journal of the Korean Society of Oceanography (The Sea) and the Korean Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science (KFAS). The names attributed to these seas in maps of journal paper broadly were classified into three groupings: (1) East Sea and Yellow Sea; (2) East Sea, Yellow Sea, and South Sea; or (3) East Sea, West Sea and South Sea. The name 'East Sea' was dominantly used for the waters between Korea and Japan. In contrast, the water between Korea and China has been mostly labelled as 'Yellow Sea' but sometimes labelled as 'West Sea'. The waters between the south coast of Korea and Kyushu, Japan were labelled as either 'Korea Strait' or 'South Sea'. This analysis on sea names in the maps of 'The Sea' and 'KFAS' reveals that domestic researchers frequently mix geographical and international names when referring to the waters surrounding the Korean Peninsula. These inconsistencies provide the motivation for the development of a basic unifying guideline for naming the seas surrounding the Korean Peninsula. With respect to this, we recommend the use of separate names for the marginal seas between continental landmasses and/or islands versus for the coastal waters surrounding Korea. For the marginal seas, the internationally recognized names are recommended to be used: East Sea; Yellow Sea; Korea Strait; and East China Sea. While for coastal seas, including Korea's territorial sea, the following geographical nomenclature is suggested to differentiate them from the marginal sea names: Coastal Sea off the East Coast of Korea (or the East Korea Coastal Zone), Coastal Sea off the South Coast of Korea (or the South Coastal Zone of Korea), and Coastal Sea off the West Coast of Korea (or the West Korea Coastal Zone). Further, for small or specific study areas, the local region names, district names, the sea names and the undersea feature names can be used on the maps.

• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.42 no.5
• /
• pp.745-760
• /
• 2007

This study aims to categorize and analyze internationally standardized sea names based on their origins. Especially noting the cases of sea names using country names and dual naming of seas, it draws some implications for complementing logics for restoring the name East Sea. Of the 110 names for 98 bodies of water listed in the book titled Limits of Oceans and Seas, the most prevalent cases are named after adjacent geographical features; followed by commemorative names after persons, directions, and characteristics of seas. These international practices of naming seas are contrary to Japan's argument for the principle of using the name of archipelago or peninsula. There are several cases of using a single name of country in naming a sea bordering more than two countries, with no serious disputes. This implies that a specific focus should be given to peculiar situation that the name East Sea contains, rather than the negative side of using single country name. In order to strengthen the logic for justifying dual naming, it is suggested, an appropriate reference should be made to the three newly adopted cases of dual names, in the respects of the history of the surrounding region and the names, people's perception, power structure of the relevant countries, and the process of the standardization of dual names. In order to endow East Sea with the meaning of the east of the Eurasian continent, westerners' perception on the Far East should be elaborated in more detail.

• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.39 no.1
• /
• pp.1-12
• /
• 2004

This paper deals with a possible contribution to international relations and affairs by the discipline of geography and raises the necessity of a new field in geography that would study relations between nations. The proposed change of the name 'East Sea' is used as a case study in promoting international standardization. Two major international organizations oversee the international standardization of geographical names. One is the UN Conferences of the Standardization of the Geographical Names which work in association with the UN Group of Experts on Geographical Names, and the other is the International Hydrographic Organization. These two organizations have in the past passed all the relevant resolutions pertaining to geographical names. From recent developments on the Korean Peninsula, however, it has become evident that international disputes on place names sometimes require a long process of consultation with the relevant parties. Efforts being made to restore the historically appropriate name of 'East Sea' as opposed to the 'Sea of Japan' have only now begun to diffuse in many areas. It would be appropriate if geographers could develop a new area of 'Geography of International Relations' that deals with WTO, oceans, environment and climatic issues, FAT, as well as territories and boundaries. Furthermore, it would improve the quality of discourse if geographers participated more in the decision-making processes in international affairs.

• Journal of Korean Society for Geospatial Information Science
• /
• v.11 no.3 s.26
• /
• pp.41-46
• /
• 2003

Marine geographical names refer to the names for the geographical forms in nature such as oceans, straits, bays, inlets, and channels as well as the various undersea form including reefs and trenches. Marine geographical forms, lying under the sea, are different from those in land and are related directly and indirectly to the safe navigation of ships, that is, property and life of human beings. Marine geographical names have not been correctly named and used so far as in the case of using the name 'Sea of Japan' instead of 'East Sea' Marine geographical names have been created arbitrarily from various sources including researchers, institutes, and academic societies, which leads to confusion and makes it difficult for those to be acknowledged internationally. This paper examines the uniqueness and technicality of marine geographical names and analyzes the efforts and status for the standardization processes in Korea.

• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.41 no.5 s.116
• /
• pp.623-629
• /
• 2006

At present, 3 names about undersea features in the East Sea - Korean Plateau, Tsushima Basin, Syun-yo Bank - are listed on Gazetteer Any explanations are not given for registration of these names. Just it seems that the names written on International marine chart(INT 511) were recorded to Gazetteer. Furthermore Tsushima Basin and Syun-yo Bank have no oceanographic, geologic reason and geographical relevance, and the names should be replaced by Ulleung Basin and Isabu Tablemount, respectively, that is deeply related to geographical relevance and genetic origin.

• 중국학논총
• /
• no.70
• /
• pp.239-260
• /
• 2021

In this paper, a total of 4413 place names are collected to analyze the origin and structure of place names from the two categories of nature and humanity. In this collection, there are slightly more natural place-names than humanistic ones, and hydrological ones account for the largest proportion of natural place-names, reflecting the geographical characteristics of Leizhou Peninsula surrounded by sea on three sides. Most of the place names handed down from the feudal period were natural ones. In addition, most of the place names produced after the founding of the People's Republic of China are mainly humanistic place names. In the phonetic aspect of place names, there are still quite a few ancient Vietnamese place names that can be remembered because of oral transmission. With the progress of cultural and economic development, the further development of place names will be dominated by humanistic place names.

• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.41 no.5 s.116
• /
• pp.630-638
• /
• 2006

This paper reviews international practices of naming undersea features, centered on SCUFN (Sub-Committee on Undersea Feature Names), and draws some implications for the newly announced undersea feature names in East Sea. Even though the history of the activities of naming undersea features in Korea is not long, recent years have witnessed considerable progress in finding and naming undersea features. In view of the guidelines for naming undersea features by SCUFN, it is evaluated that most of these names have been appropriately selected. But more justification should be made for specific terms using historical persons, symbolic term, and for two names proposed for those already listed in the Gazetteer. For further works on naming undersea features, three steps are suggested: first, conducting surveys and accumulating data on undersea features, second, naming and announcing newly found features and publicizing them, and third, making attempts to achieve international standardization of domestically announced names.

• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.34 no.5
• /
• pp.507-516
• /
• 1999

More than twenty-five major international bodies of water bear the names of particular nations or states. Many of these are not names are widely accepted, but considerable disagreement has developed in some cases. A systematic examination of the level of conflict over the use of national names for international bodies of water indicates that conflict is most likely to develop where shifting power relations among interested states produce concern about the hegemonic ambitions of the state after which the body of water is named. This is the case in the three situations where considerable contention exists over the use of a national name for an international body of water: the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea, the Sea of Japan/East Sea, and the South China SealBien Dong. Cases evidencing little contention are those where either no state has a significant interest in the naming issue, or where the name that is attached to the body of water is that of a state that has not been a historic threat to others in the region. Naming international bodies of water after nations or states is potentially problematic because such appellations can connote ownership or control by a single people or political entity. An understanding of the controversies surrounding these place names requires consideration of the geopolitical context in which they are embedded.

• Journal of the Korean association of regional geographers
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.745-760
• /
• 2016

The name of a place represents the social and political power relations as well as showing a certain physical space. In particular, the East Sea is not only a representative name of areas represent our country, but also the name of place being in competition with the Sea of Japan internationally. Korea is committed in many ways to spread the name of East Sea in the international community, and gradually expand its name power. The purpose of this study was to investigate the names used in the newspapers and broadcasting in Francophone countries except France by analyzing the newspaper articles and broadcasting contents, and to illuminate how the names of the East Sea produced in France, and the discussion about the names were diffused in Francophone countries and what kind of influence they had on those countries. This study selected Algeria in North Africa, Belgium and Luxembourg in West Europe, and Quebec in Canada for the research areas. As a result, while Algeria in North Africa and Luxembourg are showing inhospitality to the name East Sea, Belgium and Quebec are taking a flexible attitude toward this name. In general, most Francophone countries are provided with press releases from AFP in France. Even in same article provided by AFP, The result shows that some media stick to use the name Sea of Japan solely, and others demonstrate a will to use both name East Sea and Sea of Japan simultaneously. This study was able to show that the diffusion and spread of the place name was significantly influenced by social, political interests and powers, the mess geopolitics in pop cultural materials.

• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.48 no.6
• /
• pp.914-928
• /
• 2013

Establishment of limits and names for oceans and seas is necessary for a safety of navigation. Even if there are no national and international standard for the delimitation of sea boundaries, we can take guidelines for the delimitation of sea boundaries through the analysis of IHO official publications, Limits and Names for Oceans and Sea; S-23. This paper shows the changes of the spatial limit of seas since first edition publication, and the standards for a delimitation of oceans and seas were analyzed using S-23 4th edition draft(2002) in terms of physical geographic features. The generic terms of S-23 include Ocean, Sea, Channel, Passage, Strait, Sound, Gulf, Bay and Bight, and each generic term shows hierarchical structures. Several seas show different characteristics compared with definitions of IHO dictionary. Sea boundaries are delimited by longitude and latitude, cape, river mouth, sandbar, and so on. Undersea features such as a shelf, trench, trough, rise, bank and reef are also important features for delimitation of sea boundary. Especially, seas that are delimited by undersea feature are mainly located Arctic and Southern ocean area in S-23 4th edition. Advanced knowledge of marine science with a technical advance might affect to delimit for sea boundary.