애스크로AIPublic Preview
← 학술논문 검색
학술논문영남법학2010.04 발행KCI 피인용 6

독도영유권에 대한 국제법적 쟁점

A Study on the Korean Title to Territory over Dokdo under International Law

이환규(영남대학교)

30호, 473~494쪽

초록

Japanese Government claims that the occupation of Takeshima (i.e. Dokdo) by Korea is an illegal occupation undertaken on absolutely no basis of international law, and no measure taken by Korea during the illegal occupation with regard to Takeshima has any legal justification. But Japanese assertion is groundless. Japan's incorporation of Dokdo in 1905 was illegal under international law because the island was not terra nullius at the time when the measure was taken. The territorial sovereignty of Korea over Dokdo had been fully established with a new administrative division given to the island via the Korean Imperial Order No. 41 (1900)which is clear evidence that Korea had effective control over Dokdo. The Korean Empire made a clear statement that Seokdo (i.e. Dokdo) is under the jurisdiction of Ulleung-gun, or Ulleung County. The General Headquarters of the Allied Powers, during its occupation of Japan, applied Directive SCAPIN-677 without issuing any other specific orders. The Directive SCAPIN-677 provides that Dokdo along with Ulleungdo, belongs to the area which is excluded from Japan’s governmental or administrative authority. The Allied Forces’ decision to exclude Dokdo from Japan’s territory,between World War II and the conclusion of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, was part of postwar measures to implement the results from the Cairo Declaration (1943) and the Potsdam Declaration (1945). This article proves Japanese assertion is groundless by analyzing the theory of effective occupation and examining historical documents.

Abstract

Japanese Government claims that the occupation of Takeshima (i.e. Dokdo) by Korea is an illegal occupation undertaken on absolutely no basis of international law, and no measure taken by Korea during the illegal occupation with regard to Takeshima has any legal justification. But Japanese assertion is groundless. Japan's incorporation of Dokdo in 1905 was illegal under international law because the island was not terra nullius at the time when the measure was taken. The territorial sovereignty of Korea over Dokdo had been fully established with a new administrative division given to the island via the Korean Imperial Order No. 41 (1900)which is clear evidence that Korea had effective control over Dokdo. The Korean Empire made a clear statement that Seokdo (i.e. Dokdo) is under the jurisdiction of Ulleung-gun, or Ulleung County. The General Headquarters of the Allied Powers, during its occupation of Japan, applied Directive SCAPIN-677 without issuing any other specific orders. The Directive SCAPIN-677 provides that Dokdo along with Ulleungdo, belongs to the area which is excluded from Japan’s governmental or administrative authority. The Allied Forces’ decision to exclude Dokdo from Japan’s territory,between World War II and the conclusion of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, was part of postwar measures to implement the results from the Cairo Declaration (1943) and the Potsdam Declaration (1945). This article proves Japanese assertion is groundless by analyzing the theory of effective occupation and examining historical documents.

발행기관:
법학연구소
분류:
법학일반

AI 법률 상담

이 논문의 주제에 대해 더 알고 싶으신가요?

460만+ 법률 자료에서 관련 판례·법령·해석례를 찾아 답변합니다

AI 상담 시작
독도영유권에 대한 국제법적 쟁점 | 영남법학 2010 | AskLaw | 애스크로 AI