In international law, does geographical proximity of an island to a nation's territory have any significance with regard to sovereignty over that island?A1The Republic of Korea (hereafter, ROK) alleges that the geographical proximity of Takeshima to Utsuryo Island proves that Takeshima is geographically part of Utsuryo Island. However, in international law, geographical proximity itself has no significance with regard to territorial sovereignty. This understanding is apparent in precedents set by international courts.
For example, back in the 1920s, when the United States and the Netherlands disputed sovereignty over the Island of Palmas, the Arbitration court ruled: “The title of contiguity, understood as a basis of territorial sovereignty, has no foundation in international law….” Furthermore, recently, in its Judgment in the Case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (2007), the ICJ did not recognize the geographical proximity that Nicaragua claimed should be involved as an element in determining sovereignty over maritime features of the disputed area. Additionally, in the case concerning the dispute over the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan between Indonesia and Malaysia (2002), the ICJ rejected the contention of Indonesia that the two islands, 40 nautical miles from an island in regard to which sovereignty was not disputed, were islets belonging to it.
Q2Is Takeshima mentioned in Korean period documents or maps in the ROK?
A2No. While the ROK claims that the Usan Island listed in their period documents and maps is the current Takeshima, there are no grounds for this claim.
Period documents that the ROK claims as proof:
The ROK claims, using Korean period documents, that it has been aware of the two islands of Utsuryo Island and Usan Island for centuries, and that Usan Island is none other than the current Takeshima. However, no proof has been found for the ROK's claim that the Usan Island in Korean period documents is in fact the current Takeshima.
For example, in Sejong Sillok, Jiriji (Geography Section of the Annals of King Sejong's Reign: 1454) and Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam (Revised and Augmented Edition of the Survey of the Geography of Korea: 1531), the ROK claims that the two islands of Usan and Utsuryo are listed as being in the sea to the east of the prefecture of Uljin, which means that this Usan Island is Takeshima. However, Sejong Sillok, Jiriji notes that “In the Shilla Period, it was called Usan Province. It was also called Utsuryo Island. The land is a hundred square ri.” (新羅時称于山国一云欝陵島地方百里), and in Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam it is referred to in the following: “In one theory, Usan and Utsuryo are originally the same island. Its area is a hundred square ri." (一説于山欝陵本一島地方百里). These documents do not contain anything specific regarding Usan Island; they contain only writings concerning Utsuryo Island. There are also Korean documents that clearly show that Usan Island is not the current Takeshima. For example, Volume 33 of the Annals of King Taejong, covering February of the 17th year of his reign (1417), contains the statement that “Royal Inspector Kim In-u returned from Usan Island and brought local products as tribute, including large bamboos […]. He also brought back three residents of the place. There were about fifteen families living on the island for a total of 86 men and women.” (按撫使金麟雨還自于山島獻土産大竹水牛皮生苧綿子撿撲木等物且率居人三名以来其島戸凡十五口男女并八十六) However, there is no bamboo on Takeshima, nor could 86 people live there.
The ROK claims that the Dongguk Munheon Bigo (Reference Compilation of Documents on Korea: 1770) and other documents which state “Utsuryo and Usan are all land belonging to Usan Province, and Usan is called Matsushima in Japan,” but these documents dating from the 18th century or later are based on an unreliable statement by a man named Ahn Yong-bok who had illegally entered Japan in 1696 (refer to Q&A (3)). In addition, although editors of documents in the 18th and 19th centuries may have written “Usan is called Matsushima in Japan,” this does not mean that the “Usan” mentioned in the 15th century Sejong Sillok Jiriji (Geographical Appendix to the Veritable Records of King Sejong) or the 16th century Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam (A Revised Edition of the Augmented Survey of the Geography of Korea) is in fact Takeshima.
Period maps that the ROK claims as proof*:
The ROK also insists that Korean maps dating from the 16th century show Takeshima as Usan Island, but the Usan Island shown on Korean maps to date is not Takeshima.
* Note that in terms of international law, maps that are not associated with treaties are not considered to be a basis for territorial claims, and even maps associated with treaties have only a supplementary meaning as the intent of the treaty signers is expressed in the main text.
For example, the map attached to Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam (Revised and Augmented Edition of the Survey of the Geography of Korea), “The Map of Eight Provinces of Korea,” shows the two islands of Utsuryo Island and “Usan Island.” If “Usan Island” is assumed as Takeshima, as the ROK claims, then this island should have been depicted as an island far to the east of, and much smaller than, Utsuryo Island. However, the “Usan Island” in this map is between the Korean peninsula and Utsuryo Island, and is shown to be about the same size as Utsuryo Island. Therefore, the “Usan Island” in the Map of Eight Provinces of Korea is either Utsuryo Island shown as two islands, or a non-existent island, and not Takeshima, which is far to the east of Utsuryo Island.
일단 모든 질문들에 대해 일본 유리한 쪽으로 답변을 하였고, 한국 측에서 독도를 거리 상으로만 우리나라 땅이라고 주장했다고 홈페이지에서 공식적으로 답변을 하였다. 이 밖에도 다른 페이지나 다른 질문에서도 우리가 봤을떄는 어의 없을 법한 내용들이 많이 담겨져있다. 따라서 우리는 이러한 일들을 막기 위하여 독도에 대해 더 잘 알아야 하고, 전 세계 많은 사람들에게 알려야한다.
조회 : 486
