gv-01-02

comment number 37 by: pacifist
August 24th, 2006 at 9:09 am

toadface,

You forgot the important point – Korea has not owned Dokdo in the past. Korea even never knew about the rock islets, until a Japanese hired Korean fishermen in early 20th century. So Korea doesn’t have a right to claim Dokdo at all.

As long as it hasn’t owned by Korea and Japan declared to incorporate it into Shimane prefecture in 1905, Korea doesn’t have a slightest right to claim Dokdo.

If you have objective opinions, you should show why Korea has a right to claim, before you murmur something.
Did Korea know the rock islets?
Are there old maps which depicted the unique shape of the two rocks? Did the Korean old document clearly say the concrete location of the two rocks, such as “two days water route from Ulleungdo to east” ETC?
If you can’t you should shut your toadmouth!

comment number 38 by: Gerry-Bevers
August 24th, 2006 at 9:51 am

Toadface,

The 1952 San Franciso Treaty recognized Japanese sovereignty over Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima). The US and her allies stripped Japan of Korea, Formosa, the Kurile Islands, and part of Sakhalin, but they did not strip her of Liancourt Rocks because they believed them to be Japanese territory, as was told to the Koreans in the Dean Rusk letter. That means that the US and her allies did not consider Japan’s incorporation of Liancourt Rocks in 1905 to be aggressive or illegal.

In 1906, the Korean head of Uldo (Ulleungdo) County wrote to his superiors telling them that the Japanese had incorporated “Dokdo,” which he said was part of his “county,” but if that were true, why didn’t he know the location of “Dokdo”? Afterall, he was the county head, wasn’t he?

In his letter, the Uldo County head said that “Dokdo” was about 100 ri east of Ulleungdo, but 100 ri was only about forty kilometers, which was not even half the distance to “Dokdo.” I think what happened was that the county head had heard of “Dokdo” for the first time from the Japanese officials who were visiting him and probably felt that forty kilometers should have put the islets in Korean territorial waters, which is why he wrote to his superiors asking them for their advice. I think the county head got the “100 ri” from the Japanese officials, but did not realize that the Japanese officials were using ri to represent kilometers. The fact that his superiors wrote back asking him to get more information on the islets shows that they did not even know much about “Dokdo.” I think that after an investigation, the Koreans realized that they had no claim on the islets, which is why they did not protest to Japan.

Toadface, in the 1950s, Koreans illegally and violently occupied Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima), which is why Korea does not take the issue to the International Court of Justice. The Koreans know they would lose.

comment number 39 by: ponta
August 24th, 2006 at 10:42 am

Toadface
Thanks


Ponta, I nor the Korean have to prove anything to you. The Koreans have the island remember?

Oh, sure, you don’t have to prove anything to me. But you have to prove to the world outside Korea that the present Korean occupation is legal.

What you have to prove is that the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion (Japans only documented claim) was a legitimate land acquisition

To be a legitimate acquisition, it needs to be (1)peaceful and (2)continuous display of effective control.
(1) Korea did not protest.
(2) Chronological Table of Takeshima

the general public outside Japan (unlike you) understands all to well Japanese expansionism during this time.

I understand all too well Japanese expansionism around this time.
And USA also understood it too well. USA was determined to see it that the territory which was taken by force and greed shall be returned ,
And even the USA. the most sympathizer of Korea, judged that Dokdo belonged to Japan, because Korea’s claim that Prangdo, nonexistent island, and Tsushima,and Dokdo, Japanese territory, be given to Korea was most unreasonable by far.
USA even suggested to send the issue to ICJ,so that Korea would be convinced itself. but nah, Korea rejected, thinking ““victory is reserved for a Korean team”, “only Koreans will be allowed to win, and they were not allowed to play .”anymore.

The Japanese government claims that no external announcements needs to made when acquiring territory but this is highly debatable

Now Japan showed, citing the precedence, that no external announcement is necessary. It is Korea’s turn that external announcement is necessary. But you have shown none.
In passing, the inclusion was not done in secret. It was announced by newspaper, it was announced to Korea, that is why local government reported it to the central government.

If you can find a law that states what degree an occupied country must dispute an illegal land claim let me know. At the time the Japanese stole Dokdo Korea had bigger problems that a couple of rocks 92 clicks from Ulleungdo.

It is you that should find a law that states what degree an occupied country must dispute an illegal land. By the way, Korea was not occupied by Japan at the time. And modern state always has big issues, and if territorial issues is not a big issue for a state, what is?
The most important things is that you have not shown Dokdo belonged to Korea at the timeAll you have done is, in essence, Japan has been evil, so Japan’s claim is evil, so Japan’s claim is not valid.(this is consistent Korean formula on other issues too).

1. Japan lost (the illegal) effective control of Dokdo.
2. No further directives were issued on the status of Dokdo

Korean claim is this: once you lose sight of your bag, it is up for grab.
I am not sure if that is true in Korea, but in Japan and in civilized countries, even if you lost your bag, somebody should take it to the police, if the authority judged it it was yours, it would be returned to you.

Toadface I appreciate your effort.

comment number 40 by: sqz
August 24th, 2006 at 10:48 am

toadface wrote:

The 1885 Berlin Convention established regulations to be followed upon when colonial powers were to take over territories in Africa and these precedents were used in land acquisitions across the globe. Article 34 requires an open and public announcement to other powers.

確かにベルリン議定書で領有の通知が義務づけられたが、それはアフリカ地域のみであり、
その後のサンジェルマン条約では、通告の義務は除外している。
A notice of possession was surely obliged to with Berlin protocol.
But it was only an African area.
And it was deleted in a the later Saint-Germain treaty.
一度義務であったものが、義務では無くする為に削除されたのである。
There was at once.
And it was deleted to invalidate duty.
よって、条約などの文書化されたものが無い限り、領有の通知に義務など無い。
Therefore, there is not duty for a notice of possession because there is not a thing done documentations such as treaties of.

comment number 41 by: toadface
August 25th, 2006 at 9:34 am

The Koreans acquired Dokdo because it was terra nullius. Japan was obligated to release the islands under the conditions of surrender. So the island was ownerless as Japan had ceased exercising (illiegal) effective control over Dokdo.
Korea acquired the islands as an new independent country and is not subject to the whishes of the Allied forces. Unfortunately Japan was.
For the last time.
America issued no further decisions regarding Dokdo with respect to Japan so Korea took back what was hers.
What is American policy on Dokdo these days?

Sqz: The Berlin Act was often cited as the proper procedure for acquiring land beyond the African continent. Many lega; scholars of the time felt the Berlin Act had greater impact than just for Africa and considered it a general international guideline. For example:
M.F Lindley wrote in “The Acquisition of and Government of Backward Territory in International Law in 1926….There were no colonial states which took exception to the application of the new rule of occupation and it seems to be justified to say that all recent acquisition of territory obeys this rule whether it is the African coast or not.
Charles de Vissher wrote in “Theory and Reality in Public International Law” Princeton Press “The Berlin Act was devised to set up a legal rule relating to occupation of ownerless territory while guaranteeing benefit of peace, protection of indigenous prople and freedom of trade. This is clearly a collective and normative act establishing a highly internationalized legal regime.
Legal scholar Charles G Fenwick expresses his view on notification as follows: The provisions of the Berlin Convention showed the desirability of formulating a general rule of international law upon the subject. In consequence the question was taken up by the Institute of International Law which offered in 1888 a Draft of International Declaration Regarding Occupation of Territories..

There are more legal scholars who share the same views but I don’t have the time to post them all.

In addition the treaty of Saint Germain was signed in 1919 long before the annexing of Dokdo. So you see, just because the Japanese Ministry says notification is not necessary it doesn’t mean it is so. the Japanese don’t take into consideration the differences in past precedents. As you see many legal experts from the past disagree with Japan’s position.

comment number 42 by: sqz
August 25th, 2006 at 10:41 am

toadface

では、韓国は領有の告知を、世界のすべての国にしましたか?
Then, did Korea make a notice of possession of Korean territories for all world countries?
してませんね。
No, it did not.
よって、竹島どころか朝鮮半島も鬱陵島も、すべての韓国の領土が無効になりますよ。(笑
Therefore, Takeshima, The Korean Peninsura, Ulleungdo, all Korean territories is invalid.

そうそう、SF講和条約があると言っても、それでは不足ですよ。
By the way, it is lack by an SF peace treaty.
調印していない国々が沢山ありますから。
Because there is many countries where it did not sign.
韓国は条約に調印してませんね。
Korea did not sign a treaty.
それから、韓国大統領が宣言したという理由も無駄です。
And, The reason that President of Korea declared it is useless, too.
マスコミが報道しなければ、誰も知りえませんから。
Because if mass communication did not report it, anybody can not know it.

世界のすべての国の政府に対し、韓国政府が告知文書を送付しなければ駄目ですよ。
The Korea government must send a notice document for the government of all world countries.

comment number 43 by: ponta
August 25th, 2006 at 1:05 pm

Toadface.
Big thanks.

The Koreans acquired Dokdo because it was terra nullius……Korea acquired the islands as an new independent country and is not subject to the whishes of the Allied forces.

Korean government and MaK have been claiming that dokdo has belonged to Korea from ancient times. Here Toadface makes it clear that they were lying. He says, Dokdo was not not owned by any state,
that means it was not owned even by Korea. I think Gerry’s post here and in his blog are taking effect.

Now, the directive toadface is talking about was issued by SCAP


SCAP(Supureme .
For the territory to be acquired or given up, you need a treaty or effective control .
Thus Japan abandoned the territory mentioned in SF treaty.
But Dokdo is not mentioned in SF treaty.
Therefore Japan did not give up Dokdo.
Japan had had effective control over Dokdo before.
Japan still has the title to Dokdo, Korea is illegally occupying it.
And
SCAP is not the subject of treaty. It has no power to make any county to acquire or give up the territory. It had power to temporarily stop Japanese administration over Dokdo, which by the way presuppose Japan had sovereignty over Dokdo. Because SCAP has no power to make Japan acquire and abandon the title to territory, SF treaty was concluded.
These points should be made clear.
.

As for the external notification,
Japan has shown it is not necessary.
All Toadface has shown is some scholars do not think it is not necessary.
Toadface has yet to show that it is necessary, citing the precedence.
He has yet to show Japan failed to the notification that is necessary in terms of international law.

Thank you.


comment number 44 by: toadface
August 26th, 2006 at 7:14 am

SQZ: The Berlin Act doesn’t anything about notifying all countries upon acquiring land it states simply giving notification. Japan gave none.
First, the announcement made was internal and made by a regional branch of government. Local government announcements cannot be seen as intent of a state’s will.
The Governor of Shimane Prefecture is merely an administrative organ which could announce publicly administrative action under Japan’s domestic law, but cannot represent the State, in marking declaration or notification of the occupation of territory or the intention of sovereign occupation by the State under international law. The public announcement by the Governor of Shimane Prefecture was not an act beyond power, but an act without power.
A notice is designed for many and unspecified people ⑴ to inform them do a specific matter, ⑵ to announce the enactment of a law or regulation ; ⑶ and to make public an administrative disposition or legislation. The Shimane Prefecture Public Notice No. 40” is not a declaration or notification of occupation because it was not conducted as an interstate activity but was merely an administrative action under municipal law.,, the Shimane Prefecture Public Notice No. 40” is non-existent as a declaration of occupation or notification under international law.
Yes, Ponta I have shown some legal experts disagree with Japan’s statement that notification is necessary. These people were/are a more credible source of information than you or I. When Princeton University publishes your works let me know
Therefore, my point is valid. That being, just because the Japanese Foreign Ministry says notification is not necessary doesn’t make it so.
Before the world will hear Japan’s claim toward Dokdo I think the Japanese Foreign Ministry should answer some questions.
1) Why didn’t the Japanese follow their own standard procedure of land aquisition like the did when they incorporated the Bonin Islands ?(they notfied Britain and US)
2) Why did they wait a full year before notifying Korea?

Ponta, Japan was stripped of Dokdo and no future instruction on its ownership were given. Case closed. What does America say about Dokdo now? Do they support Japans claim. NO !!

comment number 45 by: sqz
August 26th, 2006 at 10:36 am

toadface wrote:

The Berlin Act doesn’t anything about notifying all countries upon acquiring land it states simply giving notification.

ベルリン議定書では、議定書に調印した国々にだけ告知をすればいいのです。
With Berlin protocol, government should notify only the countries which signed a protocol.
その義務も議定書に調印した国々にだけしかありません。
There is the duty only in the countries which signed a protocol.
日本も韓国も、ベルリン議定書に調印していません。
Neither Japan nor Korea signs Berlin protocol.
しかし、君は慣習法になったと主張しました。
But, you insisted that it became a customary law.
慣習法なのですから、世界のすべての国々に適用されます。
Because it is a customary law, it is applied to all world countries.

韓国は領有の告知を、世界のすべての国にしてませんね。
Korea did not make a notice of possession of Korean territories for all world countries.
よって、竹島どころか朝鮮半島も鬱陵島も、すべての韓国の領土が無効になりますよ。(笑
Therefore, Takeshima, The Korean Peninsura, Ulleungdo, all Korean territories is invalid.

comment number 46 by: ponta
August 26th, 2006 at 1:16 pm

Toadface

The Governor of Shimane Prefecture is merely an administrative organ which could announce publicly administrative action under Japan’s domestic law, but cannot represent the State,

MINQUIERS AND ECREHOS CASE(ICJ 1953)
The Court attached probative value to various acts relating to the exercise by Jersey of jurisdiction and local administration and to legislation,

CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN(ICJ 2002)
Finally, Indonesia states that the waters around Ligitan and Sipadan have traditionally been used by Indonesian fishermen. The Court observes, however, that activities by private persons cannot be seen as effectivités if they do not take place on the basis of official regulations or under governmental authority.(Apply it to the An’s case)

1) Why didn’t the Japanese follow their own standard procedure of land aquisition like the did when they incorporated the Bonin Islands ?(they notfied Britain and US)
2) Why did they wait a full year before notifying Korea?

What do these questions have to do with the title of Dokdo?
To acquire the territory, you need the treaty,or the effecitve control without contest.Japan satisfy the latter.
There might be many speculations as to your questions, and some Koreans love conspiracy theory but in any case it does not matter. Asking irrelevant questions is not a good way for Korea to prove that (1)Korea recognized Dokdo ,(2)Korea had effective control over Dokdo.

Japan was stripped of Dokdo and no future instruction on its ownership were given. Case closed. What does America say about Dokdo now? Do they support Japans claim. NO !!

Japan was temporarily prevented from exercising administrative power over Dokdo. SCAP had no power to give or take the territory. That is why SF treaty was concluded. It is reasonable to suppose that at the latest, when the SCAP dissolved, its directive became legally ineffective.(who legally binds Japan by the SCAP directive when there is no SCAP ?)

USA recognized that Dokdo belonged to Japan, that Korea claim is groundless.

the Republic of Korea asserted its claims to Dokto but the United States concluded that they remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty. The Republic of Korea has been confidentially informed of the United States position regarding the islands but our position has not been made public. Though the United States considers that the islands are Japanese territory, we have declined to interfere in the dispute. Our position has been that the dispute might properly be referred to the International Court of Justice and this suggestion has been informally conveyed to the Republic of Korea.

And USA has been a mature nation, it does not want to be involved in the territorial issue. So it suggested Korea to send the issue to ICJ if Korea had complaints. USA’s position is consistent. It wants Korea and Japan to settle the issues peacefully. Nonetheless, Korea grabbed DoKdo by force and greed.

the Republic of Korea Navy has fired upon Japanese vessels; some of the vessels have been apprehended and taken to Korean ports…… but the vessels usually have been detained and are now being reportedly operated by the Republic of Koreaus report

And some Japanese fishermen were killed.

And now Korean Navy is preparing for the war with Japan.ーーーscary, one might mistake SK for NK if he/she is not careful.

comment number 47 by: toadface
August 27th, 2006 at 11:10 pm

Ponta. says:
1. The Republic of Korea has been confidentially informed of the United States position regarding the islands but our position has not been made public

This is not an official statement that can be seen as the intent of America.

First of all as I mentioned. Who made America the moral authority as to which state gets to own which territory in Asia.
America is a mature country. Just a few years before the Dokdo problem arose they bombed your country back to the stone stone ages. Do you agree with that decision. America couldn’t have cared less who was the rightful owner of Dokdo as this time. The had Japan defeated and if the gave Dokdo to Japan they would have easier access to the East Sea.

Second of all, what is the attitude of the Amercian government in more recent times? A lot more evidence has come forward since then. America does not support Japans claim to Dokdo.

Ponta says:
2. Japan was temporarily prevented from exercising administrative power.
There were no further instructions given to the status of Dokdo by the Americans and the Koreans now have the islands. Korea was not bound by any other treaty upon taking over command from USFK.
In conclusion. Too bad.

Korea has never fired a shot in an offensive manner. All military actions were in a defensive manner because Japanese aggressively tried to invade the area.

SQZ: When Korea declared her sovereignty she announced all territories that were inclusive to her land and Dokdo was included.

As I’ve mentioned many legal experts agree the Berlin Protocal has validity beyond the scope of the African continent.

3. The Governor of Shimane Prefecture is merely an administrative organ which could announce publicly administrative action under Japan’s domestic law, but cannot represent the State, in marking declaration or notification of the occupation of territory or the intention of sovereign occupation by the State under international law. The public announcement by the Governor of Shimane Prefecture was not an act beyond power, but an act without power.
4. A notice is designed for many and unspecified people ⑴ to inform them do a specific matter, ⑵ to announce the enactment of a law or regulation ; ⑶ and to make public an administrative disposition or legislation. The Shimane Prefecture Public Notice No. 40” is not a declaration or notification of occupation because it was not conducted as an interstate activity but was merely an administrative action under municipal law.,, the Shimane Prefecture Public Notice No. 40” is non-existent as a declaration of occupation or notification under international law

comment number 48 by: ponta
August 28th, 2006 at 12:20 am

Toadface
Thanks

1

America couldn’t have cared less who was the rightful owner of Dokdo as this time.

That is right, and that makes American statement about Dokdo credible. and they concluded Dokdo belonged to Japan.

America does not support Japans claim to Dokdo.

America does not support Korea’s claim either. American position is the issue should be settled peacefully. She suggested the issue to be settled by ICJ. Japan agreed, Korea rejected because Korea know it was illegal..

2

There were no further instructions given to the status of Dokdo by the Americans and the Koreans now have the islands. Korea was not bound by any other treaty upon taking over command from USFK

That there was no further instructions, coupled with SF treaty and other documents is a proof that Dokdo belonged to Japan.
Korea is bound by international law, and probably also by simple moral law if i am not mistaken:Do not steal.

Korea has never fired a shot in an offensive manner. All military actions were in a defensive manner because Japanese aggressively tried to invade the area.

Korea has fired a shot and as a result some Japanese fishermen were killed, and many were wounded. They were detained and released later, but their ships were taken up and Koreans used them.
Whether Japanese fishermen invaded depends on whether Dokdo belongs to Korea. and Dokdo does not belongs to Korea, Korea has been illegally occupying it, killing and wounding Japanese fishermen. Korea’s occupation is not peaceful at all.

3
To acquire the territory, the effective control is necessary. and sufficient.
The effective control by local government is good enough as the precedence shows.
Japan showed the precedences where notification was not necessary.
Toadface, could you show us the similar case where the title was denied because the notification was like Shimane’s?Then and only then people will be convinced. Please for the sake of Korea, show us the precedence..

Japan had effective control sufficient enough, according to the precedence, to establish the title.
On the other hand all Korea has is illegal occupation

BTW I think Roh is a great president. I was not interested in Dokdo before Roh made a fuss. Probably many Japanese were like that. And Korean navy is preparing the war with Japan about Dokdo.That is a proof that it is a disputed island. Let’s settle it peacefully at ICJ. If Korea wins, she get much larger EEZ. Does that sound good for Korea?

comment number 49 by: ponta
August 28th, 2006 at 1:20 am

Toadface
lest you be deceived by Korean histrians.
incident
(Japanese version is written in much detail)
Do you call firing away civilian fisherman by a machine gun “defensive”
Ask Korean histrians how many Japanese fishermen were killed, wounded, detained. Ask them how brutally they were treated.

comment number 50 by: toadface
August 28th, 2006 at 2:05 am

Ponta, Korea didn’t steal Dokdo they took back what they claimed in 1900. Remember this?

Ponta says
To acquire the territory, the effective control is necessary. and sufficient.
The effective control by local government is good enough as the precedence shows.
First the case you cite was 50 years after the laws regarding notification were changed in 1919 via the St Germain Treaty.
Secondly effective control must be uncontested and Korea contested it. Whether you agree it was sufficient is irrelevant. Given the fact that the Korean Foriegn Ministry was dismantled at this time the Korean illustrated cleary they considered Dokdo Korean territory. Korea protested through media and through what governmental organs (provincial and municipal) were still intact.

Period. Effective control doesn’t come first it comes after the required legal procedures are fulfilled. You are putting the cart before the horse Ponta.
Read above what I’ve posted and you will see the Japanese postion is full of holes.
Claims made by municipal governments cannot be made on behalf of a state. California can’t claim Hawaii on behalf of America.
In addition, the issue of notification is debatable as well and the quotes from international experts support my views.
Just because the Japanese Foreign Ministry says notification isn’t necessary doesn’t make it so.

Japan refused to go to ICJ on other issues. Didn’t they?

If Korea makes Dokdo habitable they get a larger EEZ anyway. So why bother?

BTW. Don’t use Dean Rusk as a moral guide to who gets what territory in Asia. First of all Dean Rusk was a strict anti-Communist. He was in favor of military action in both Vietnam and Korea and believed in the use of military power to prevent the spread of Communism in Asia. It’s clear he was on Japan’s side in the Dokdo issue to give the States a good position while anticipating the oncoming cold war with Russia.

comment number 51 by: ponta
August 28th, 2006 at 4:45 am

Toadface
Thanks
Do you seriously believe that Imperial Ordinance No. 41 in 1900 is a claim to dokdo?

勅令第四十一號
Imperial Ordinance No. 41……..
第二條…..郡廳位置눈台霞洞으로定하고區域은鬱陵全島와
………….竹島石島를管轄할事
Ariticle 2..Seat of Prefectural Office shall be in Taeha-dong, as for jurisdiction Prefect shall govern the whole of Ullung Is., Chuk Is., and Sok Is.

Where is Dokdo mentioned?
And tell me if Korea notify it to Japan.

Legally,

The Court finally observes that it can only consider those acts as constituting a relevant display of authority which leave no doubt as to their specific reference to the islands in dispute as such.

CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN(ICJ 2002)

According to ICJ, the reference must be so clear as to leave no doubt.
But Korea’s document leave tons of doubts, since it did not mention Dokdo at all.

Historically,
Kwanundo 観音島 was called sokdo
map
石 was pronounced as sok in Ulleungdo.
toron
石 is still read as seok in Korea
石 is still pronounced as seok in Ulleungdo.
In Jeodong (저동), the largest village on the island, there are the famous Bongnae (봉래) waterfall and Seokpo (석포) village that provides a beautiful trekking course. You can also enjoy looking at neighboring Jukdo (죽도) and Gwaneumdo (관음도) islands while trekking http://english.daegu.go.kr/group02/chingusai/200307.htm
Thus it is most reasonable to assume 石島 in ordinance refer to Kwanundo.

That some Koreans in Ulleungdo from 全羅道pronounced 石 as Dok is no proof that Sokdo in question is Dokdo.
(1)Not everyone is from 全羅道 province In fact as of 1906, it is reported that most people were from 江原道慶尚道 http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/hennyu/ishijima2.html
(2) It must be proved ,and it is essential that these people from全羅道 actually referred to Dokdo/takeshima by “Doksum”.So far no Korean historians proved it. All they proved that there is a dialect in which some people pronounced 石 as Dok.

First the case you cite was 50 years after the laws regarding notification were changed in 1919 via the St Germain Treaty.

Sorry, but I don’t understand what you are saying here.

Secondly effective control must be uncontested and Korea contested it. Whether you agree it was sufficient is irrelevant.

You are right. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. But the fact
remain that Korea did not protest to Japan or any other countries.

Korea protested through media and through what governmental organs (provincial and municipal) were still intact.

To whom?

Effective control doesn’t come first it comes after the required legal procedures are fulfilled. You are putting the cart before the horse Ponta.

Do you mean legendary Korean bear (was it a tiger?) took the legal procedure before he had effective control over peninsula? ーーーDamn, why did the Korean history not mention it!

The control of territory and the peaceful and effective exercise of the functions of a sate therein is the primary means of acquiring title to territory in international law. They can be subdivided into two classes. When the exercise of authority takes place in a territory which does not belong to any other state(Terra nullius)we may say that title is based on effective “occupation”. When the exercise of authority takes place in a territory which formally belongs to another state, we may say that title is based on ‘prescription. However the difference between these two concept is only one of degree and the essential element of both is the exercise of state functionpage144

And Dokdo was not owned by Korea, and Japan had effective control.

the issue of notification is debatable as well and the quotes from international experts support my views.

Just give us a precedence, if there is none, tell us so.

Japan refused to go to ICJ on other issues

What other issue are you talking about?Which country suggest to send the matter to ICJ?

If Korea makes Dokdo habitable they get a larger EEZ anyway. So why bother

No, Korea can not. But if Korea win at ICJ, she is most likely to l get larger EEZ.

Don’t use Dean Rusk as a moral guide to who gets what territory in Asia. First of all Dean Rusk was a strict anti-Communist. He was in favor of military action in both Vietnam and Korea and believed in the use of military power to prevent the spread of Communism in Asia. It’s clear he was on Japan’s side in the Dokdo issue to give the States a good position while anticipating the oncoming cold war with Russia.

It was not Rusk it was a Report of Van Fleet mission.
You said before “America couldn’t have cared less who was the rightful owner of Dokdo as this time.” Now you changed you view, didn’t you?
What makes USA on Japan’s side? No conspiracy theory is needed here.
USA was reasonable in rejecting Korean claim that Prangdo= non-existent imaginary island , Tsushima and Takeshima=Japanese islands, be given to Korea
I love USA.

comment number 52 by: Gerry-Bevers
August 28th, 2006 at 4:46 am

Toadface,

The Uldo (Ulleungdo) County head said “Dokdo” was 100 ri from Ulleungdo, but it was actually over 200 ri. If Dokdo had really been a part of Uldo County, why didn’t the county head know where the island was? Why did he say 100 ri?

I think he said 100 ri because the Japanese told him it was 100 ri away. By that time, the Japanese were using ri to refer to kilometers, but, as far as I know, the Koreans were still using a 0.4 kilometer ri.

The Koreans may have heard of Dokdo, and some Koreans may have even fished there, but Dokdo was not Seokdo, which was the Ulleungdo neighboring island that was made a part of Uldo County in 1900.

In 1882, Lee Gyu-won surveyed Ulleungdo and said it had two neighboring islands called Jukdo and Dohang. The map he draw of Ulleungdo shows Jukdo to be present-day Jukdo and Dohang to be present-day Kwaneumdo, both of which are neighboring islands of present-day Ulleungdo. The 1900 Royal Edict also said that Ulleungdo (蔚陵島) had two neighboring islands, which were Jukdo (竹島) and Seokdo (石島). Ulleungdo and its two neighboring islands were referred to as Uldo County.

Seokdo (石島) means “rock island,” and Dokdo (獨島) means “lonely island, which means that not only are the names of the two islands different, but their Chinese characters and their meanings are different.

Yes, Koreans claim that in the Cholla dialect “Seok” (石) is sometimes pronounced as “Dok,” but that that would still not explain the difference in Chinese characters. And even if “Dokdo” had been a nickname for Seokdo, it is very, very unlikely that the head of the county would send an official letter to his superiors using the “nickname.” The letter would have referred to the island by its official name.

I think the Korean county head heard the Japanese say that “Dokdo” was 100 ri east of his county, misunderstood 100 ri to be 40 kilometers, and felt that that was too close to his county to be considered Japanese territory. He did not know that “Dokdo” was actually 92 kilometers away. If Dokdo had really been part of his county, he would have known where it was located.

By the way, his superiors did not know where Dokdo was, either, and told the Uldo county head to investigate the island and report. Since Korea never did protest to the Japanese about their incorporation of Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima), the Korean investigation must have shown that “Dokdo” was not part of Korean territory.

By the way, I used to know a Steve Barber who was a Korean linguist in the army in the late 1970s. We went to DLI together. I wonder if the Steve Barber mentioned on Lovmo’s site is the one I knew?

comment number 53 by: sqz
August 28th, 2006 at 8:41 am

ponta

First the case you cite was 50 years after the laws regarding notification were changed in 1919 via the St Germain Treaty.

Sorry, but I don’t understand what you are saying here.

toadfaceが、まともに人の主張を聞いていないことの証拠ですよ。
It is the evidence that toadface does not hear opinions of a person directly.
サンジェルマン条約を言ったのは僕です。
It is me that said Saint-Germain treaty.
それから彼の僕に対する反論に対する反論を、もはや先に書いていあるというのに、彼は気付いてません。
Then though I wrote an argument for an argument for me of toadface earlier, he does not notice it.

comment number 54 by: ponta
August 28th, 2006 at 3:46 pm

sqz thanks
Anyway

Legally 1900 Korea edict is not specific enough to establish the title to Dokdo.
Historically Seokdo in 1900 document is most likely to refer to Kwanundo.
And according to Toadface, it is invalid because Korea did not notify it to Japan

comment number 55 by: Two Cents
September 1st, 2006 at 1:53 am

Although I’m way late on the topic, I though I’d point this out since no one seems to have, out of fondness of memories of my college years that the picture brought back.

In the link provided by toadface, there is a map (2nd from last) with the label “A 1946 map published by Japan’s Geographical Department shows no islands West of Oki Islands.” He seems to use this as proof that the Japanese govenment did not recognize Takeshima even in 1946.

However, this map is not a territorial map. In fact, it’s NOT a map in the real sense of the word. It’s a CATALOGUE OF MAPS published by the geographical department (presently published by the Geographical Survey Institute). See how the blocks have a name of a region printed in them? You order the maps by this name and scale. See this online catalogue available presently.
In my college days, there was no such thing as online shopping, and we used the same catalogue as the one given by the link in toadface above (except a more updated version), provided free of charge by your local mapseller.

The GSI does not issue separate large-scale maps for isolated islands in the sea, and they are usually provided as insertions into maps of the adjoing area for convenience, and Takeshima is no exception. In my days, you asked your local mapseller to find out which islands were included in which area. Now, it seems the information is provided in the catalogue.

Anyhow, this was a version issued before the San Francisco Treaty, so it really doesn’t prove anything either way.

comment number 56 by: katie646
November 16th, 2006 at 12:12 am

I just read up to the first video and have a question.
It seems that you doubt about the usando as the old name of Dokto because of the totally different natural environments. But it doesn’t seem that not only the Korean side that has the problem of matching the names of island in that area. For example, you mentioned jukdo(chukdo), but did you know that it uses the same chinese letters with Japanese Takeshima? I always wondered, if then Dokdo is originally Takeshima, why there is no bamboos at all but just rocks?

Jukdo/Takeshima mean “island of bamboo.” But I don’t know how come the both countries have the same name for different islands, which do not really match with their natural environments.


comment number 57 by: Two Cents
January 17th, 2007 at 9:09 am

katie,
Yes, we are all aware of the Jukto and Takeshima being written using the same Chinese characters, and that the fact is adding to the confusion.

Ulleungdo had lots of bamboos, and that is why the Japanese originally referred to Ullengdo as Takeshima. However, when westerners mapped the islands in the Sea of Japan in the 19th century, they mistakenly mapped 3 islands instead of 2. Thus, the Japanese name shifted towards the Korean peninsula with the Liancourt Rocks being added on the Japanese side. Takeshima became the name for Argonaut Island, which was later found to be non-existent, and thus, the name Takeshima was lost. When Japan incorporated the Liancourt Rocks in 1905, it gave the island the “lost” name of Takeshima.

comment number 58 by: Kaneganese
February 5th, 2007 at 8:44 am

(Japanese translation for Gerry’s post)
(Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です。)

嘘、(欺瞞に満ちた)半面の真理、そして(人の注意をそらすような)空論

これは、韓国政府による”独島” (竹島/Liancourt Rocks)が歴史的に韓国の領土であることを主張するビデオです。最初はビデオを最後まで見ながら一つ一つ問題点を指摘しようと思っていました。しかし、余りにも多くの嘘、欺瞞に満ちた半面の真理、そして人の注意をそらすような実の無い論議に満ち満ちており、それらを数えているうちにすっかりイヤになってしまいました。そんな事をして貴重な時間を無駄にするより、私はただ、次のように言いたいと思います。「1905年以前の韓国の地図や文献には、日本海に浮かぶいかなる島も、“独島”と言う名称で呼ばれていた事を示すものは無い。」ということです。「アメリカ人の法学教授が言った」という1900年公布の大韓帝国勅令第41号も、もちろんその中の一つです。つまり「韓国の地図や文献が“独島”の事を言っている」とビデオの中で流れる度に、それは嘘だ、と言うことが分かるでしょう。

韓国の古い地図や文献には、日本海(東海)に浮かぶ二つの島について記述があります。その島の名前は、鬱陵島(武陵島)と于山島です。韓国人は、于山島が“独島”のことだと主張しており、そのため韓国の地図や文献の中に于山島という名前が出てくると、彼等は記述されている通りの名前ではなく、自動的にその島を独島と呼び変えてしまうのです。しかし、それはとても誤解を生じ易いというだけではなく、そもそも大きな誤りだと言えます。というのも、こうした地図や文献の中に出てくる于山島は、実際には竹嶼(竹島/Jukdo)という、鬱陵島の東沖4kmに満たない近い距離にある小さな島嶼のことを示しているのです。このことはつまり、ビデオの中で「日本側の文献が“独島”について何らかの記述がある」といっている時は、鬱陵島の隣接島の“竹嶼(竹島・Jukdo)”の事をいっていることになります。現在の“独島”のことではないのです。

韓国の古地図には、于山島が鬱陵島のすぐ隣に描かれており、その場所は現在の独島 (竹島/Liancourt Rocks)が位置している鬱陵島東南93km沖ではありません。韓国の古い文献には于山島はとても肥沃な土地で、木や他の植物が生えている、と記述していますが、独島 (竹島/Liancourt Rocks)はただの岩山で木はおろか植物さえ殆ど生えていません。最近韓国人が土を持ち込んで植物を植えようとしていますが、それも目立つようなものではなく、木に至っては全くありません。韓国の古い文献では于山島の住民についても記述があります。それもこの島が“独島”ではありえない事を意味しています。独島 (竹島/Liancourt Rocks)には水も土も無く、人が生きていくことが出来ないからです。

ビデオへのリンクの下に、于山島が現在の独島 (竹島/Liancourt Rocks)では有り得ない事を証明する韓国の古地図や、古い文献からの引用へのリンクを示します。しかし、まずは問題のビデオを見て、いくつ嘘や欺瞞に満ちた半面の真理を見つけられるか、試して見て下さい。

“独島”ビデオへのリンク〈リンク〉
〈日本語スクリプトへのリンク〉

“(1145年) 三国史記 卷四・新羅本紀・智証麻立干 智証王13年(512年)夏6月条
13年(512年)夏(6月)、于山国が服属し、その年から貢物をした。于山国は、溟州の真東にあり、別名鬱陵島ともいう。四方は100里ある。”

「于山国は、別名鬱陵島ともいう」と記述されている事に注目して下さい。文中の面積も鬱陵島の面積とほぼ一致します。ところで于山国とは文字通り、“大きな山の国”という意味で、鬱陵島は“こんもり茂る大きな丘の島”の意味です。これは単なる偶然の一致でしょうか?

“(1277年頃) 三国遺事 巻一 智哲老王
以前琵羅州と呼ばれていた溟州の東の海中、風がよければ2日ほどの距離に、于陵島がある。その島は現在羽陵と呼ばれており、周囲の距離は26,730歩ある。”

上記の引用で、鬱陵島は于陵島と記述されています。この記録の中では、于陵島の“于”は、于山島の“于”と同じ漢字が使用されています。このことから、于山島と鬱陵島は元々は一つの島に付けられた二つの名前であったことが窺い知れるのです。

“(1412年 4月15日)太宗実録12年4月巳巳条 
政府の命により、流山国島(Yusanguk-do)の人々をどう取り扱うべきかが議論された。江原道の観察使が流山国人の白加勿ら12名が高城の羅津にやってきて停泊し、言った事を次のように報告した。‘私達は武陵島で生まれ育ったが、後に本島に移住して今はそこに住んでいる。その島には11の家族がおり、全部で60人以上の住民がいる。島の距離は、東西と南北はそれぞれ2息〈60里〉で、周囲は8息(240里)ある。牛馬、水田は無いが、豆を1斗植えれば20石とれる。麦を1石植えれば50石余りの収穫が見込める。竹は椽〈たるき〉のように大きく、沢山の海産物や果物の木がある。’”

知事が“流山国”と呼ばれる島(Yusanguk-do)から12人の人々がやってきた、と発言していることにお気づきでしょうか。さらに面白いのは、人々は“武陵島”と呼ばれる島で生まれ育ったものの、のちに于山国島と考えられる“本島”へ移動したと言っている事です。それはつまり、武陵島は于山国島に隣接する島で、11家族60人もの人間が生活できるだけのライフサポート=生活必需品があったのです。ということは、その隣接する島は、2,3人の人でさえ住めないただの岩山である独島/竹島では有り得ない訳です。

住民による流山国島の描写から、“本島”が鬱陵島のことを指していることが分かります。隣接する、彼等が生まれ育った島(武陵島)はほぼ確実に、鬱陵島の最大の付属島である竹嶼/竹島〈Jukdo)であると言えます。下に、現在の鬱陵島の地図を揚げました。

地図1:現在の鬱陵島

上記の1412年の文献の引用によりますと、鬱陵島の住民は本島を“于山国島”と呼んでおり、隣接する島を“武陵島”と呼んでいました。もし、于山国島が鬱陵島の事を指しているのなら、武陵島はその東岸沖にあったはずです。と言うのも、鬱陵島の付属島は東岸沖にしかないからです。それは、何故初期の韓国の鬱陵島の地図では、于山島が鬱陵島の西に描かれていたのか、説明がつきます。ビデオの中に出てきた、1530年の韓国の地図からの切り抜きをご覧になって下さい。

地図2: 八道総図 (1530)からの抜粋

この地図で、于山島が鬱陵島の西に描かれていることがお分かりでしょうか。これは、上で説明した1412年の太宗実録の記録の中で、于山国島の住民が行った2島の位置関係の描写と一致します。

ところで、独島ビデオの中で、この地図が韓国の地図で初めて“独島“の事を描いたものだ、と言っていますが、この地図の中では“独島”であるはずの島は“独島”とは呼ばれていません。しかも鬱陵島の西にあるので、実際は鬱陵島南東沖92kmに位置する”独島” (竹島/Liancourt Rocks)ではありえません。

これら2つの島の名前は1700年代になって初めて入れ替わるのです。

“(1416年9月2日) 大宗実録16年丙申九月庚寅条
金麟雨〈キム・インウ)を武陵地域の安撫使に任命した。戸曹参判の朴習はこう言った。「私が江原道の都観察使(長官・知事)だった時、こう聞いた。‘武陵島の 周囲は7息で, そばに 小島があり, 田地が 50結ほどになるのに、その道は人が並んで歩く事はできないほど狭い。昔、方之用という者がおり、15戸の家族を率いて住み、時に仮倭(倭寇の振りをした朝鮮人)として盗みを働いた。その島を知っている者が三陟にいるので、使いをやって見てきてください。’

王はそうすべきだと考え、三陟人の前万戸である金麟雨に武陵島について尋ねた。金麟雨は「三陟人の李万が武陵に行って戻ったことがあり、その島について詳しく知っているはずです。」と言い、すぐに李万を召還した。麟雨が言うには、「武陵島は遠く海の中にあり、互いに往来することが出来ないので、軍役を避ける者が時々逃げ込んで行くのです。もし この島に多くの人が接するようになれば、必ず侵犯して日本からやって来て盗みを働くでしょう。このようにして江原道を徐々に侵犯するやもしれません。」

王は納得し、金麟雨を武陵地域の安撫使に任命し、李万を伴わせて、兵船 2尺、抄工 2人、引海 2人、銃と火薬、食料を携えその島へ行き、島の頭目人を諭して、戻ってきた。王は金麟雨に衣服、かさ、靴を褒美に与えた。”

上記の記録で、前の江原道都観察使は、武陵島を本島と言っていますが、同時にその島には隣接する島があるとも言っています。おそらく彼は、1412年より以前に江原道都観察使の任に当たっており、“流山国島”の住民が鬱陵島の本島は、“流山国島”で、それより小さな隣接島は“武陵島”である、と伝えた時期より前だったのでしょう。

王が金麟雨に島の検察を命じたとき、彼は金に単なる“武陵の安撫使”では無く、“武陵地域の安撫使”と言う肩書きを与えたのです。つまり、王はこの肩書きを作ったとき隣接する島の噂を聞いていたと考えられるのです。

“(1417年2月5日) 大宗実録17年丁酉二月壬戌条
安撫使(検察使)の金麟雨が于山島から戻り、土産に大竹、水牛皮、生苧、綿子、検撲(木業)木などの物を持ち帰り献上した。住民を3名連れて帰った。島には15戸の家族が住んでおり、人数は男女全員で86人である。島から帰還する際、再び台風に遭遇し、何とか生きて帰ることが出来た。”

1416年の9月に金麟雨は、“武陵地域の安撫使”と言う任務を拝命して武陵島へ検察へ赴きます。しかし、お気づきでしょうか。この記録の中で金は、“武陵島”ではなく“于山島”から戻った、と書かれています。彼はまた、大竹や木などのお土産を持ち帰っています。おそらく金が武陵島に着いた時、島の住民がそこは武陵島ではなく“于山島”だ、と教えたのでしょう。記録の中では近くの小さな島が何という名で呼ばれていたのか記述されていませんが、はっきりと言えることは、金は大竹や木などを于山島で採取したということです。つまり、于山島は独島ではない、ということです。独島はこうした植物の生えない二つの岩で出来た島に過ぎないからです。

“ (1417年2月8日) 大宗実録17年二月乙丑
右議政韓尚敬が6人の大臣に命じ、于山武陵から住民をどう退去させるか協議した。皆このように言った。「武陵の住民を退去させない方がよいでしょう。五穀を給付し、農機具を与えて、安心して農業をさせましょう。そして帥撫使(武官?)を派遣して年貢を定めればよいではないですか。」

しかし、工曹判書の黄喜だけは反対し、「彼等を定住させずに、速やかに退去させるべきです。」と申し上げた。

王曰く「住民を退去させるのがよいであろう。これらの人民は今まで使役を逃れのんきに暮らしてきた。もし年貢を定めて武官を常駐させれば、必ず恨みを持つだろう。よって、これ以上長く停留させるわけにはいかない。金麟雨を安撫使に留めておき、于山武陵地域にもう一度派遣して住民を島から退去して本土へ戻るよう引率させよう。」

王は(金麟雨へ)衣類、笠、及び靴を、また于山の住民3人に衣服を1揃いずつ与えた。そして江原道の観察使に命じ、兵船二隻を供給し、道内の水軍の中から有能な者を選んで麟雨に同行させるよう言った。”

上記の記録では、大臣達は金麟雨が最近行った鬱陵島検察について話し合っています。彼等が住民のことを“于山武陵の住民”と言っていることに注意して下さい。つまり、于山と武陵が隣同士の島であるだけでなく、どちらの島にも住民が居る事を物語っています。また、“于山”という名前が“武陵”の前に付いていることがお分かりでしょうか。つまり、于山の方が大きな島である可能性が高いのです。最後に、金が“于山”の住民三名を連れ帰ったことに注目します。つまり、于山島には人が住んでいたのです。ここでまた、于山島が現在の独島では無いことが証明されました。

“ (1417年8月6日) 大宗実録十七年八月条
倭寇が于山と武陵島を襲った。”

この記録は重ねて、于山島と武陵島が隣同士の島であったことを示しています。もし、二つの島のうちどちらかが現在の独島であるとすれば、どうやって片方の島が略奪にあっていることに気がつくのでしょう。92kmも離れているにも関わらず。そもそも、独島に略奪するものがあったのでしょうか?有り得ません。

“(1425年8月8日) 世宗実録世宗七年八月条
王(世宗)は金麟雨を再び于山武陵等安撫使に任命した。1416年、金乙之、李萬金、*(汚の右側)乙金ら、武陵島に住む平海の元住人の逃亡者を連れ帰った。1423年には金乙之を含む23人の男女が島へ逃げ戻った。その年5月、金乙之を含む7人の住民が妻や子を島に残して小さな船で海を渡り、平海の港へ密かに戻った所で発見された。監司は彼等を逮捕し、緊急の命令を出して島に残る住民を、村から一掃して連れ戻すように指示した。50人の人員と軍事物資を載せ、3ヵ月後金麟雨は船に乗り込み、出立した。その島は、東の海中にある。金麟雨は三陟の出身。”

上記の記録で、金麟雨は今だ“于山武陵等安撫使”と呼ばれている事にお気づきでしょうか。彼は再び武陵島に派遣され、住民を連れ帰るように命じられます。ここでまた、彼の肩書きが于山と武陵島が隣り合う島であることを示唆しています。私は、ここで使われている武陵島という名称はその地域の一般的な名称ではないかと思っています。

“(1425年10月20日) 世宗実録世宗7年10月乙酉條
于山武陵等處按撫使の金麟雨 は、使役の義務を逃れるために島に渡っていた男女20人を探して捕え、帰還した。最初、麟雨は兵船二隻を拝領して茂陵島へ向かったが、46名を載せた一隻の兵船が途中強い風に吹かれて失踪してしまった。

王が皆に言った。「20人を捕えるのに40人以上を失い、何の利益があろうか。あの島には特別な産物は無く、人々はただ賦役を逃れんがために島へ行くのであろう。」

禮曹參判の金自知が言った。「今般捉えた逃亡民は、法律にのっとって裁かれるべきです。」王曰く「これらの者どもは、誰かに従って外国へ行ったわけではなく、しかもこうした事例では、以前は赦免されているので、新たに罪を加えることはあってはならない。」

王は兵曹(法務省)に命じ、于忠清道の遠く深い山の中へ追放し、二度と逃亡出来ないようにした。また、3年間使役と年貢を免除した。”

金麟雨 が茂陵島から20名の島民を連れ帰ったことに注意して下さい。

“(1436年6月19日) 世宗実録世宗18年閏6月甲申條
江原道監司の柳季聞が言った。「武陵島牛山 は、土地が肥沃で東西南北はそれぞれ50余里ある。沿海部は四方が石の壁で囲まれており、船が停泊できる場所がある。どうか、私に許可を頂き民を集め、この地を開拓させてください。もし萬戸守令を置いていただければ、長く努力することでしょう。」この希望は、宮廷から却下された。”

上記の記録によると、江原道監司は“武陵島牛山”の開拓を願い出ており、つまり、于山が武陵島諸島に属していることを示しています。武陵島ではなく、牛山への移住を打診しているところから、于山が主島であることが分かります。事実、この于山の記述は、鬱陵島の主島の記述と合致します。

“世宗実録世宗19年2月(1437年2月8日)
江原道監司の柳季聞に対し王曰く‘1436年秋に茂陵島の土地は大変肥沃で、穀物は陸地の10倍とれ、多くの産物があるので県を設置し、守護を配置するのがよい、とお前は言った。また、そうすることで嶺東のフェンスとすべきだ、とも言った。すぐに大臣に命じ、討議させたが、皆口を揃えてこう言った。「この島は、本土から大変遠く、風と波が高く、不測の事態が起きやすい。よって、郡や県を設置するのは宜しくない。」

お前は、今になってこのように言う。‘古老が言うには、以前日本人がやって来て嶺東を略奪している間、島に住んでいた。また、対馬に住んで嶺東から、東は咸吉道を侵略していた。茂陵島はずっと無人島であったため崎に日本人が占拠していたなら、将来大変憂慮すべきことになる。しかし、県を設置し守護を派遣して、住民を移住させることが難しい。ならば、毎年人員を派遣して、あるいは島内を探索したり産物を採取したり、馬場を作るなどすれば、日本人はこの島が我が国の地であると考えるだろう。’

‘どのくらい前に日本人達はやって来て住んでいるのか?いわゆる古老とは、何人いるのか?もし人を派遣するとすれば、何月のいつ頃波風が適当なのか?島へ行くには装備、物資はいかほどか?船は何艘必要か?”

これらは、世宗が江原道監司の茂陵島開拓願に対する返答であるようです。しかし、王が“茂陵島の于山”ではなく、“茂陵島”と言っていることにお気づきでしょうか。王と監司は明らかに同じ場所について話しています。つまり、この“茂陵島”は単に于山の別名であるか、もしくは諸島グループを指す一般名なのでしょう。監司が前回は確実に“于山”の開拓を願い出ていた事を考えると、私は、おそらく後者の可能性が高いと思っています。

これまでずっと韓国の歴史的文献を見てきましたが、今の所、茂陵島や于山島が独島の事を指している事を伺わせるようなものは何もありませんでした。それどころか、記録を見るとその地域には隣り合う2つの島があり、于山島がその二つのうち大きな島の方である事を知ることが出来ます。記録では、どちらの島にも植物があり、ある時期には住民がいた事が記述されています。

では、一体韓国人は何処で于山島が独島を指していると言う考えを持ったのでしょう?実は、次に揚げる1454年の記録にその証拠がある、と彼等は主張しています。その記録とは、実際は江原道のある県にあたる、蔚珍県の様子を記述したものです。しかしながら、韓国人がこの記録を引用する時、彼等は蔚珍県の記述を全く省略してしまい、記録のうちたった1、2文だけを強調するのです。そこで、私はこの蔚珍県の記録の全文を載せようと思います。全体の文脈の中で問題の1,2文を読むことが、とても重用だと思うからです。

“1454年 世宗実録「地理志」
蔚珍県 監司(県知事)が1名いる。 高句麗時代の元の名称は于珍也県で新羅時代に現在の名称に変わり、郡になった。高麗時代には蔚珍県と呼ばれており、現王朝期も同じ名称でまだ呼ばれている。県の住民は、過去には半伊郡もしくは仙槎郞と呼ばれた、と言っている。

藥師津は県南部にあり、骨長津は県北部にある。県境は、東は海岸までの8里、西は慶尙道安東任內小川県までの63里、南は平海までの37里、北は三陟までの32里である。270の池があり、人口は1430。軍隊は侍衛軍〈陸軍?〉が38人、水軍が70人、城の近衛軍が4人である。住民の名前は林、張、鄭、房、劉である。栄川から来た郷吏の閔と言う姓もある。土地の半分は肥沃であるが、残りは違う。漁労で生計を立てているが、皆とても武芸を崇敬している。1351結の土地を耕し、その3分の1は稲田である。その他、五穀, 桑、麻、柿、栗、梨、楮(こうぞ)などを生産している。貢物としては、蜂蜜、黃蠟、鐵、胡桃、石茸、五倍子、川椒、藿、漆、鹿脯、狐皮、狸皮、獐皮、虎皮、猪毛、大口魚、文魚、水魚、全鮑、紅蛤。薬草は、茯苓、當歸、前胡、白芨、五味子、人蔘がある。地場産物は61あり、篠竹、大きい竹と塩を含む。磁器の製作所が薪谷里の北方10里の所に、陶器の製作所は甘大里の北方12里の所にある。製品は余り質がよくない。皇山石城は周囲が徒歩616歩5尺で、時に村になっている。城内には泉が4つ、池が1つある。池は旱魃の厳しい時は干上がってしまうが、泉は決して涸れない。仇水亏勿山洞西部の興富駅北方44里のところに、温泉がある。駅は興富(古称は興府)・德神(古称は德新)・守山(古称は壽山)の3つである。狼煙を挙げる場所が4ヶ所あり、そのうち一つは平海沙冬山の南、竹津山の北の全反仁山にある。2つ目は竹津山で、竹邊串の北にある。3つ目は竹邊串で、亘出道山の北にある。最後は亘出道山で、三陟可谷山の北にある。

県の西部の沖に于山、武陵という2つの島がある。これらの島々(と)の距離はさほど遠くなく、晴天で風のある日にはよく見える。新羅の時代には、于山國あるいは鬱陵島と呼ばれた。面積は100里である。

大変険しい土地で、征服するのが難しいと思われたが、智證王十二年 (512 A.D.)に、異斯夫という者が何瑟羅州軍の長となり、こう言った。「于山人は無知で野蛮なので、武力で征服するのは困難である。そこで、知略を施さなければならない。」彼は恐ろしく獰猛そうな猛獣を木で作り、複数の軍の船に分載して島へ行き

  • 最終更新:2009-08-22 10:27:45

このWIKIを編集するにはパスワード入力が必要です

認証パスワード