일본 헌법상 영토론에 대한 이해와 그 변화의 고찰 - 지정학을 기초로 한 헌법상 영토조항 해석의 새로운 시도 -

In order to understanding a constitutional territory I have discussed on a completely different way in this study. Simply Japan’s claim to Dokdo is still escalating situation, I challenged to present how we should have a discussion about constitutional territory in the constitutional law area. In fact, theory of territory in our country is very dangerous political discussion. The reason is that we are still divided by the two Koreas and Japan appeared never lucid argument of forced interpretation of the Dokdo even after 18th century, the state were perceived as an organic being in Europe, since then the territorial issue have been dissolved on the basis of expand the colonies and settlement the war. But Japan’s ambitions over pillage state was not seen the end even though the acts of aggression are prohibited and to change the territory, and the possibility of territory change was completely wiped out as the result of war in the world of the law, including the postwar readjustment of the Second World War II. Thus, the dispute of the space letting to an international conference is somewhat idea of getting an abrogation of duty as a legal scholar. In other words, if we left the territory issue to the international law, it will contribute still about territory in international law textbooks, and the discussion of territory is an exceptional for the constitutional law for the theory of that reason. But unlike the theme of constitutional law, the theory of territory as a matter of constitutional law application, the territory issue can still be won over to the discussions change their shape by the brass tacks. What is the each absence of articles on territory in the old and the new Constitution of Japan? In Japan, facing heated criticism, triggered by an ideological and political problems of national sovereignty and international expansion and the territory issue did not concern people themselves with the correlation with the constituent process. In other words, expansionist ideology was not revealed in the specific legislation. While the specific political process of Japanese imperialist expansion was reached in ‘the Great Empire of Japan,’ it is very important thing that Japan’s colonial rule does create chaos in after considering the fact without legal support for the territorial issue in the first place of the ideological spectrum. But as Japan’s new constitution unlike the interests of the old one, should be understand the spirit of the peace of constitutional law in accordance with the doctrine of modern international law. But now in Japan there has been discussion over the territory clause modification in terms of constitutional amendment or there is a proposal of an article insertion on territory. We need to keep an eye on this. The theory of territory which was born in Europe but want to destroy the territory in Europe is a very interesting phenomenon. The theory of territory previously tied in the subject and intention to rule out the strangers. The theory of territory is formed by a new framework in the international law with the idea of the border be created with opportunistic. Now it was the turn, they should be constitution. It is certain that the state is necessarily required regular space that its provisions for the Constitution lost the article of territory, there is not a problem even if the territory is not exclusive in the Constitution but it is something that needs space to compare with a regular judicial real estate. But if we look at the current Dokdo, we cannot help but feel the grief of national being. Japan’s intellects who are captured by an illusion is now return to the original state of peaceful spirit of the Constitutional father with fully understand Japan’s territorial issues shall not be realized in the process of political arguments.