독도오류표기 사이버단 > 항의서한발송

:::::: 나라[독도]살리기운동본부 ::::::

이 름

패스워드

서한

시정서한 친선서한 항의서한

제 목

매체

일본교과서 전세계교과서 관광 문화출판물 웹사이트 스마트폰 게임 영화 드라마

이슈

동해 독도/영토 역사 문화/유산 그외이슈

언어

서한보내는곳

오류내용

E-mail / Contact

서론

본론

<div>You pick the year of 1905 as critical time that decide the sovereignty of the island. As quoted, “Japan had annexed the rocks in January 1905, eight months prior to the signing of the Treaty of Portsmouth. It had done so under the presumption of terra nullius, or ’empty land’. A month later, on February 22nd, it was incorporated into Shimane Prefecture. It was only after the signing of the Treaty of Portsmouth, over a year after the annexation of the Liancourt Rocks, that Japan informed Korea, who by that time were already controlled by Japan. The Treaty of Portsmouth (1905) gave control of Korea to Japan. Article 2 of the treaty reads” Historically, Japan began to approach into Korean territory since 1870s with bare intent to have control over Korea. Since then, Japan forced Korean government to consent unilateral treaties that meet only Japanese interests in politics, diplomacy and economy. In 1905, Japan threatened Korean government to sign a treaty taking away Korean diplomatic power by force. Annexation of Dok-do and incorporation of the island into Japanese sovereignty occurred during this kind of colonialization. In 1910, Japan finally succeeded in annexation of Korean peninsular. So, your basis for justifying Dok-do under Japanese sovereignty is no more than justifying illegal colonialization. It was a stolen property on the part of Korea. After Japanese surrender in 1945, it is so much legitimate and reasonable to get it back to Korea. It is no different to say that a robber still claims the stolen property belongs to his ownership. </div>

결론

<div>I hope Japan would throw away the still-colonialist’s reasoning on Dok-do as soon as possible. I strongly believe that judging the matter of sovereignty should be based on historical data to find out how the territory was historically treated between neighboring countries. Please research historical data prior to 1905. Lastly, you only mark the island by naming “Takeshima” in the map and comments, but I believe it is quite fair to mark the island as Dok-do as well, just as you say you try to be neutral on this issue. Thank you for your reading my comment. I wish you best luck. </div>

링크 #1

링크 #2

파일첨부

왼쪽의 글자를 입력하세요.