Jump to content

User:Opp2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Endroit (talk | contribs) at 12:15, 13 February 2007 (interim: minor fixes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I am not good at English. Please point it out when the mistake is found in the grammar etc.

interim

Dokdo (Takeshima) is a group of islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) whose sovereignty remains unsettled. [1] The islets are claimed by both Japan and South Korea, but have been occupied by South Korea since 1954 despite repeated protests by Japan. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Takeshima is Japanese name which was officially named when Japan incorporated it into Shimane Prefecture in 1905.[10] And, Dokdo is Korean name which Koreans formally named in 1906 after Japan notified its incroporation to Korea.[11] [12] The islets had been also known as the Liancourt Rocks in English since the French whaling ship charted the islets in 1849.

Japanese claims are based on seventeenth century records and a reconmfirmation of the Japanese intention to possess it by its incorporation to the Shimane Prefecture in 1905. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]Japan designates the islets as a part of Okinoshima Town of the Oki District in Shimane Prefecture.[19]

Korean claims are based on records that date back to the sixth century, including the 1900 Korean Empire ordinance that officially incorporated Dokdo into the modern-day Ulleung County of the Gyeongsangbuk-do.

  1. ^ United Nations. "List of Territories" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-02-10. Status of Liancourt Rock :Sovereignity Unsettled {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month=, |accessyear=, |accessmonthday=, and |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ CIA (2007-02-08). "The world fact book". CIA. Retrieved 2007-02-10. South Korea and Japan claim Liancourt Rocks (Tok-do/Take-shima), occupied by South Korea since 1954 {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |month=, |accessmonthday=, and |coauthors= (help)
  3. ^ "Seoul and Tokyo hold island talks". BBC. 2005-04-20. Retrieved 2007-02-10. Japan's and South Korea's claims go back centuries, but islands occupied by S Korea since 1953 {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  4. ^ Anthony, Faiola (2005-05-16). "Islands Come Between South Korea and Japan". TIME. Retrieved 2007-02-10. Occupied by South Korea in the 1950s, the islands are coveted largely for their fishing rights. The Japanese have called the occupation illegal. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  5. ^ "Liancourt Rocks". The Columbia Encyclopedia. Columbia University Press. 2001-05. the Liancourt Rocks are claimed by Japan and South Korea, and have been occupied by South Korea since 1954. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ "Key facts over disputed islands". TVNZ. 2005-05-16. Retrieved 2007-02-10. South Korea has built lodgings, lighthouses and a monitoring facility on the islets despite repeated protests by Japan. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  7. ^ GrovalSecurity. "Liancourt Rocks / Takeshima / Dokdo / Tokto". GrovalSecurity. Retrieved 2007-02-10. During the rule of Syngman Rhee, South Korean navy vessels were dispatched to chase away Japanese intruders on the island. Since 1954, South Korea's Coast Guard has been stationed there as a symbol of the nation's ownership. Since July 1954 to the present, the Republic of Korea has stationed a number of security guards on Takeshima, the scale of which has continued to increase year by year, including lodgings, a lighthouse, a monitoring facility and antenna. In November 1997, despite repeated protests by Japan {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |month=, |accessmonthday=, and |coauthors= (help)
  8. ^ Jon M. Van Dyke. "Who Owns Tok-Do/Takeshima?" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-02-10. Japan's protests appear to have been sufficient to overcome a presumption of acquiescence, and thus if Korea's claim were based solely on its occupation of the islets since World War II, these protests could be seen as adequate to block a claim based on prescription. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |month=, |accessmonthday=, and |coauthors= (help)
  9. ^ Kim, Chan Kyu. "獨島問題와 國際裁判(Dokdo problem and International justice)" (PDF) (in Korean). p. 159. Retrieved 2007-02-11. 현재 한일간에 서로 주장이 다르나 국제판례나 국내 여러 국제 법학자 들의 견해로는 독도문제의 결정적 기일은 일본의 주장대로 일본이 처음 공식 항의를 제기한 1952년 2월 28일이 될 가능성이높은 것으로 되어 있다.(In judicial precedents and opinions of a lot of domestic(Korean) scholars of International Law, they are assumed that the possibility that February, 1952 becomes a critical date is high as shown in the insistence of Japan. ) {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  10. ^ "The Issue of Takeshima" (Press release). The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. 2004-03. Retrieved 2007-02-11. January 28, 1905 Takeshima is officially named during a cabinet meeting, and is put under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands, Shimane Prefecture. {{cite press release}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); line feed character in |quote= at position 17 (help)
  11. ^ GrovalSecurity. "Liancourt Rocks / Takeshima / Dokdo / Tokto". GrovalSecurity. Retrieved 2007-02-10. The name 'Dokdo' appears for the first time in the Report of Sim Heungtak, the governor of Ulleung-gun in 1906. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |month=, |accessmonthday=, and |coauthors= (help)
  12. ^ Lee, Sang-tae. "Dokdo Is Korean Territory". Korean Fundation. Retrieved 2007-02-10. As for Korean documents, the name Dokdo was first found in a report prepared by Ulleung county governor Sim Heung-taek in 1906. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  13. ^ Kawakami, Kenzo (1996-06). Takashima no Rekisi Chirigaku teki kenkyu(Geography and historical research on Takeshima) (in Japanese). Japan: Kokon Syoin. p. 79. ISBN 4-7722-1856-4. 万治三年または寛文元年の松島渡海というのは、大谷・村川両家が幕府の正式承認の下に、同島におもむくようになった年を意味しているようにも考えられる。(It is thought that the take passages in 1660 and 1661 to Matsushima(present Takeshima) are formally passages because House of Ootani and Murakawa is approved from the shogunate.) {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  14. ^ "The Issue of Takeshima" (Press release). The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. 2004-03. Retrieved 2007-02-11. The measures to incorporate Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture in 1905, through the Cabinet decision and notification by Shimane Prefecture reaffirmed the intention of the Japanese government to claim territorial rights as a modern nation over Takeshima. There were no indications that Japan did not hold territorial rights prior to that, nor were there any counter claims by any other country of territorial rights over Takeshima. In addition, the incorporation of Takeshima was reported in the newspapers and was not undertaken secretly, hence it can be seen to have been implemented validly. {{cite press release}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  15. ^ Serita, Kentaro (2002-06). Nihon no Ryodo(Japanese Territory). Japan: Tyukou sousyo. p. 153. ISBN 354063293X. 日本政府はこの領土編入行為を無主地に対する先占行為とは認めておらず、この点に関する日本の主張は開国以前の日本には国際法の適用はないので、当時にあっては、実際に日本で日本の領土と考え、日本の領土として扱い、他国がそれを争わなければ、それで領有するのは十分であったと認められるというものである。(Japanese Government doesn't admit the incorporation as the occupation title of terra nullius. Japan insist that if it treats as a Japanese territory at that time and another country doesn't object to it, it is enough to acquisition because International Law doesn't apply before opening the country to the world.) {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  16. ^ Daijyudo, Kanae (1998-09). Ryodo kizoku no Kokusaihou(International law about territory) (in Japanese). Japan: Toshindo. p. 143. ISBN 978-4887133044. 日本政府による明治38年の領土編入措置と、それに続く国家機能の継続した発現は、十七世紀に、当時の国際法にもほぼ合致して有効に設定されたと思われる日本の権原を、現代的な要請に応じて十分に取替えるものであった。(The incorporation in 1905 and the effective control afterwards are enough to change the title accordind to modern demand thought Japan effectively acquired comply with International Law at that time in the 17th century.) {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  17. ^ Bak, Baegun (2006-08-05). Nihonniyoru tosyosensen no syosennrei (in Japanese). Vol. 105–2. Japanese Society of International Law. p. 38. 竹島/独島に対する領域権原を近代国際法に照らして確実なものにするために日本が先占のような追加措置を取ることは、近代国際法の観点からみると論理的に可能なことであり、意義のないことでもない。(It is logically possible to do the same act in case of title by occupation against Takeshima for Japan to make the territorial title of certain based on modern International Law. And, it is not meaningless.) {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  18. ^ Minagawa, Takeshi (1985-03). Kokusaiho kenkyu(Research of International Law) (in Japanese). Japan: Yuhikaku. p. 228. ISBN 4-641-04568-2. 日本の原始的タイトルは存続したものとみなされるべきで、それが、1905年実効的占有(effective possesion)という実体国際法の要求する権原に代替されたのである。(Acient title of Japan should be considered to be continuance. And, it was substituted to the title by effective possesion that is demanded by International Law in 1905.) {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  19. ^ "About Takeshima" (Press release). Shimane Prefectual Government. Retrieved 2007-02-11. Takeshima is part of Okinoshima Town, Oki-gun, Shimane Prefecture

Meaning of "critical date":In international law the point of time falling at the end of a period within which the material facts of dispute are said to have occurred is usually called the "critical date." It is also the date after which the actions of the parties to a dispute can no longer affect issue. It is exclusionary, and it is terminal. Hence is most frequently resorted to in territorial disputes to indicate the period within which a party should be able to show the consolidation of its title or its fulfillment of the requirement of the doctrine of occupation.[1]