티스토리 뷰
[Annotated] A Rebuttal to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Territorial Claims over Dokdo
af334 2017. 7. 19. 13:471. Introduction
On March 30, 2011, the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) announced the screening results of1 included matters concerning Dokdo (known as "Takeshima"" in Japanese) in all geography and civics textbooks2. The volume of Dokdo related content had increased significantly from previous editions, and Japan's territorial claims over3 Dokdo were described in detail4. The core message in the Japanese textbooks is that "Dokdo is an inherent5 territory of6 Japan" and that "Korea has been illegally occupying7 the island."
Three primary rationales8 are cited to9 support this claim; First, Japan established its sovereignty10 over11 Dokdo in the mid-17th century; Second, Dokdo was incorporated into12 Shimane Prefecture in 1905 in accordance with13 international law14 and has been effectively controlled by Japan since then; Third, Dokdo was confirmed as15 Japanese territory pursuant to16 the San Francisco Peace Treaty at the end of World War II.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan is at the heart of these claims. Its website page "Takeshima" [Dokdo] includes a statement titled "Japan's Consistent17 Position on18 the Territorial Sovereignty over Takeshima," which sets out19 two basic stances of20 the Japanese government on the issue: "Takeshima [Dokdo] is indisputably21 an inherent part of the Japanese territory, in light of22 historical facts and based on international law," and "the Republic of Korea has been occupying Takeshima [Dokdo] with no basis in23 international law." The Japanese Foreign Ministry also posts such contents in Korean on the website of the Japanese Embassy to Korea and, in February 2008, a pamphlet24 with similar claims was published in ten languages including Korean and English to be distributed online as well as offline.
The pamphlet consists of ten elements, eight of which explain Japan's territorial claims over Dokdo and the remaining25 two explain the current status of26 Dokdo and possible resolutions27. The latter two assert that28 Japan is 1) protesting Korea's unlawful29 occupation of30 Dokdo; and 2) proposing to Korea to refer the Dokdo issue to31 the International Court of Justice32 but Korea has rejected the proposal.
Although Japan's territorial claims over Dokdo are organized into33 eight categories, they can be divided into34 nine categories in terms of content. The claims assert that "Japan has long recognized the existence of Dokdo; 2) there is no evidence indicating that35 Korea has long recognized the existence of Dokdo; 3) Japan had established sovereignty over Dokddo by the 17th century at the latest36; 4) while Japan prohibited37 passage to Ulleungdo (Utsuryo Island) towards the end of the 17th century, passage to Dokdo was not prohibited; 5) there are numerous38 factual39 inconsistencies in40 the statement made by An Yong-bok; 6) in 1905, Japan reaffirmed41 its sovereignty over Dokdo by incorporating the island into its territory by a Cabinet decision42; 7) there is no evidence that Korea has ever exerted effective control over43 Dokdo; 8) in the process of drafting44 the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the United States recognized that Dokdo is Japanese territory; 9) while designating45 Dokdo as a bombing range for the U.S. Forces stationed in46 Japan, Dokdo was dealt with as Japanese territory.
This article aims to refute47 the aforementioned48 nine claims respectively49. The repetition of50 presentation of51 explanations and evidences is somewhat52 inevitable in order to refute each argument but is kept to a minimum for brevity53. Furthermore54, Japan's claims are often more peripheral55 than fundamental, and centered around56 overly57 partial58 details that may not be applicable in59 the whole perspective. In such cases60, a direct one-to-one61 rebuttal62 may result in controversy over63 non-essential64 issues. Therefore, while Japan's claims are individually refuted herein65, the rebuttals are provided in consideration of66 the overall perspective67 that Dokdo is not a territory of Japan but an inherent territory of Korea.
2. Rebuttals to Japan's Nine Claims over Dokdo
1) Has Japan long recognized the existence of Dokdo?
Japan claims that it has "long recognized the existence of Takeshima [Dokdo]," presenting68 Nagakubo Sekisui's Revised Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads (Kaisei Nihon Rotei Zenzu, first edition; 1779) as evidence. Japan states that this map with longitude69 and latitude70, "accurately shows the locations of Utsuryo Island [Ulleungdo] and Takeshima [Dokdo] at their current positions between the Korean Peninsula and the Oki Islands."
Upon closer examination, however, Nagakubo's first-edition71 map does not include Ulleungdo or Dokdo under Japanese territory - they are not colored72 [as the Japanese territory is] and are placed outside73 the latitudinal74 and longitudinal75 lines of the Japanese territorial boundary. This indicates that Ulleungdo and Dokdo were viewed as being76 foreign territory. Of course, the fact that Japan recognized Dokdo's existence from the mid-17th century can be verified by77 historical documents and old maps78. However, recognizing Dokdo's existence and having sovereignty over the islands are entirely different matters.
Did Japan have the intent to79 exercise sovereignty over80 Dokdo in the mid-17 century? The answer is no. This is supported by a look at Records on Observations in Oki Province (Inshu Shicho Gakki) written by Saito Toyonobu in 1667. Saito was a gundai (Magistrate of81 County Affairs) in charge of the local government of82 the Oki Islands on behalf of83 the shogunate84. Saito inspected85 the islands and recorded the details of his surveys in Records on Observations in Oki Province. This book directly reflects86 the territorial perception of Saito, as well as that of the local residents87. They recognized that Ulleungdo and Dokdo were islands outside Japanese territorial boundaries. Records on Observations in Oki Province states as follows:
Matsuhima [Dokdo] is located to the northwest and can be reached in two days and one night. Takeshima [Ulleungdo] can be reached in about a day from Matsuhima. [Omitted] The two islands [Ulleungdo and Dokdo] are located towards Goryeo [Korea] in the same way that Unshu [eastern part of today's Shimane prefecture] is located towards Inshu [Oki Islands]. Therefore, Inshu [Oki Isalnds] shall mark88 Japan's northwesternmost89 boundary.
Records on Observations in Oki Province indicated that "this prefecture," or "Inshu (Oki Islands)," was Japan's northwesternmost boundary. In other words, Ulleungdo and Dokdo were viewed not as part of the Oki Islands, but instead as islands that existed outside the limits of Japan's borders.
2) Is there any evidence indicating that Korea has long recognized the existence of Dokdo?
Japan claims that "there is no evidence that Korea has long recognized the existence of Dokdo," and that "Usan Island (Usando) is not the present-day90 Dokdo as claimed by Korea." In order to support such claims, Japan asserts that Usando, as illustrated in91 Map of the Eight Provinces of Korea (Paldo Chongdo) attached to Revised and Augmented Edition of the Survey of the Geography of Korea (Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam, 1531), is a non-existent92 island. The rationale93 is that because Dokdo is actually located southeast of Ulleungdo, Usando which is placed between Ulleungdo and the Korean Peninsula on the aforementioned map, is an island that does not exist.
However, a small island named Usan is marked to the east of Ulleungdo on multiple94 ancient maps95, including Complete Map of Korea (HaeJwa Jeondo, mid-18th century), General Map of Our Country (Aguk Chongdo, late 18th century), Great Map of Korea (Dongguk Jeondo, Jeong Sang-ki, late 18th century), and Comprehensive Map of96 Joseon (Joseon Jeondo, 1846). It seems clear that this island should be recognized as Dokdo. However, Japan contends that97 this island is Daeseom or Jukdo [both meaning bamboo island], which is located 2km away from Ulleungdo.
However, historical literature98 clearly distinguishes Usando and Jukdo99. Several small islands exist around Ulleungdo. The following is an inspection record of100 Ulleungdo by Han Chang-guk, a Garrison Commander in Wolsong (Wolsong-ri, Pyeonghae-eup, Uljin County, Gyeongsang Province) in 1794 (Annals of101 King Jeongjo's Reign(Jeongjo Sillok), Vol. 40, 18th year of King Jeongjo):
There are three islands in front [of Ulleungdo]. The northern island is Bangpaedo, the island in the middle is Jukdo, and the eastern island is Ongdo. The distance between the islands is merely102 100 bo²103 and the circumference of104 each island is several tens of pa³105. The rocky terrain106 was very harsh, which makes climbing difficult.
'Jukdo' mentioned in the above107 report, is the island now called "Jukdo" or "Daesom" located 2 km east of Ulleungdo. This clearly shows that a distinction108 was made between Usando and Jukdo in the 18th century. Usando is the present-day Dokdo, and Jukdo(Daeseom) is an island off the eastern coast of Ulleungdo which is still referred to as109 the same name of "Jukdo" today. In 1694, Samcheok Battalion Commander110, Jang Han-sang, surveyed Ulleungdo. In his book Ulleungdo History (Ulleungdo Sajeok), Jang recorded the following regarding Jukdo: "A small island is located about 5 ri111 to the east. The island itself is neither high in elevation112 nor very large, but tall marine bamboos grow abundantly113 on one side114." Jang made a clear distinction between Jukdo (Daeseom) and Usando (Dokdo), describing Dokdo as follows: "An island is visible to the east in the middle of the sea, far in the southeast direction115. Its size is less than 1/3 that of Ulleungdo, and the distance is approximately 300 ri away [from Ulleungdo]."
As Jang Han-sang described, Dokdo can be seen with the naked eye116 from Ulleungdo. This simple fact is empirical evidence that117 Koreans must have known of Dokdo since ancient times. More recently, the Northeast Asian History Foundation conducted research on Ulleungdo from 2008 to 2009, confirming that Dokdo can be seen with the naked eye. During that time, Dokdo was visually118 observed at least three to four times per month from the residential areas of119 Ulleungdo. Based on the fact that Dokdo is visible from Ulleungdo, Korea's awareness of120 the island has been evidenced in121 historical documents, including Geography Section of the Annals of King Sejong's Reign (Sejong-Sillok-Jiriji, 1454) and Ulleungdo History (1694)
3) Did Japan establish sovereignty over Dokdo by the mid-17th century?
Japan argues that "...... Takeshima [Dokdo], ... came to be used as a navigational122 port ...... and rich fishing ground123" and that it had "established sovereignty over Takeshima [Dokdo] by the mid-17th century at the latest." The basis for this assertion124 is that Japan had established sovereignty over Dokdo because two Japanese merchant families had "monopolized125 the management" of Utsuryo Island [Ulleungdo] after obtaining a passage permit to Ulleungdo from the Edo shogunate in the early 17th century.
Although Japan claims to have established sovereignty over Dokdo in the mid-17th century, no clear evidence has been provided. Upon closer126 analysis, there are two kinds of rationales given by Japan in order to support their claim. The first is the implication that a passage permit to Ulleungdo obtained from the shogunate applied not only to Ulleungdo, but to Dokdo as well. The second point is that Dokdo was "used as a navigational port, docking point for boats, and rich fishing ground for sea lions127 and abalone128."
When these points are examined from a slightly different perspective, it is clear that they are based on erroneous129 grounds. According to the pamphlet published by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it says "If the shogunate had considered Utsuryo Island [Ulleungdo] and Takeshima [Dokdo] to be foreign territories at the time, ..." and thus, argues that "not only Dokdo but also Ulleungdo was considered Japanese territory."
From 1693 to 1696, Japan fiercely130 claimed sovereignty over Ulleungdo. However, Japan's claims were eventually abandoned due to strong opposition from131 the Joseon government, and Japan ordered the Prohibition of132 Passage to Ulleungdo. Surprisingly133, however, Japan began claiming sovereignty over Ulleungdo about 250 years later in 1947. In the pamphlet made by the Japanese government in 1947, not only Dokdo, but Ulleungdo is also claimed to have been incorporated into Japanese territory. This pamphlet was made by Japanese government after World War II with the purpose of securing134 Ulleungdo and Dokdo as part of Japanese territory in the process of negotiating with the United States and the Allied Powers135. However, the fact that Ulleungdo and Dokdo were not historically considered Japanese territory, at least late in the 17th century, can be seen through disputes over Ulleungdo between Korea (Joseon) and Japan.
On December 24, 1695, the Tokugawa shogunate sent a written inquiry136 to Tottory-han (feudal137 clan of138 Tottori), asking when Ulleungdo came under139 Tottori-han's jurisdiction140 as if the island was a part of Japanese territory. On the following day141 (December 25, 1695), Tottori-han's Submission142 [response to the inquiry] was sent to the shogunate, clearly indicating that neither Ulleungdo nor Dokdo were under the jurisdiction of143 Tottori-han (State of Inaba and State of Hoki):
"Takeshima [Ulleungdo] is not an island that belongs to Inaba and Hoki [today's Tottori prefecture of Japan]. (Omitted) As for144 Takeshima [Ulleungdo] and Matsushima [Dokdo], neither belongs to the two states [Inaba and Hoki] nor are there any other islands belonging to these two states."
In January 1696, the Tokugawa shogunate [Edo shogunate], the absolute authority in145 Japan at the time146, ordered the prohibition of passage to Ulleungdo and Dokdo using the Tottori-han's Submission as a basis for its decision. Just as Ulleungdo was not considered Japanese territory, neither was Dokdo.
4) Did Japan prohibit passage to Ulleungdo (Utsuryo Island) while continuing to allow passage to Dokdo?
Japan claims that, when Korean-Japanese negotiations147 regarding sovereignty over Ulleungdo fell through148 in 1696, the shogunate paid regard to149 the friendly relations with Joseon [Korea] and banned passage to150 Ulleungdo, but not Dokdo. Unlike with the ban on151 passage to Ulleungdo, however, Japan has never provided a convincing152 explanation regarding the lack of a prohibition on passage to Dokdo. As previously mentioned, the Tokugawa[Edo] shogunate's ban on passage was instituted based on153 the Tottori-han's Submission from December 1695, which clearly excluded Ulleungdo and Dokdo from Japanese territory. The notion that Ulleungdo and Dokdo were considered to be a pair154 and part of Joseon's territory described in Confidential Inquiry into the Particulars155 of Relations with Joseon (Chosenkoku Kosai Simatsu naitansho, 1870) by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in the Dajokan Order (1877) by the Meiji government, the absolute authority in Japan at the time, was based on the aforementioned historical fact156.
- "Particulars of How Takeshima and Matsushima Became Joseon's Territory"
"(Confidential Inquiry into the Particulars of Relations with Joseon, 1870)
- "Regarding Takeshima [Ulleungdo] and one other island [Dokdo] on which an inquiry was submitted, bear in mind that157 our country [Japan] has nothing to do with them..."
(Dajokan Order, 1877)
Since the 17th century, the Japanese have treated Dokdo as an affiliate158 island to Ulleungdo or part of a set with Ulleungdo, using phrases such as "Matsushima [Dokdo] within Takeshima [Ulleungdo]" or "a small island near Takeshima [Ulleungdo]" to describe the island. As a possible illustration of159 this, two merchant families from Tottori-han, who had been fishing illegally around Ulleungdo, faced bankruptcy after the ban on passage to Ulleungdo was instituted in January 1696. This implies that, in the 17th century, Japanese fishermen's substantive160 target area of fishery was Ulleungdo and that there were no separate161 fishing voyages made heading solely162 for Dokdo. It is therefore only natural to assume that Dokdo was included in Japan's ban on passage to Ulleungdo in the 17th century. Just as smaller islands are generally considered part of a large neighboring163 island, Dokdo has always been tied to Ulleungdo, both historically and geographically.
5) Are An Yong-bok's statements all false?
Japan argues that "there are numerous inconsistencies with164 the facts in An Yong-bok's statements" including the statement to Korean officials with respect to Japan's recognition165 of Korean sovereignty over Ulleungdo and Dokdo, and that he witnessed several Japanese in Ulleungdo in 1696. Japan states that the false "statement made by An Yong-bok at that time is cited by Korea today as one of the foundations for166 its claim to sovereignty over Takeshima [Dokdo]."
Generally, the actions of a state are considered to be the basis for territorial claims, not the actions of ordinary civilians167. In other words, the expression of the will of state and the exercise of168 its national functions (legislative169, administrative170, and judicial171) are meaningful as evidences. Aside from172 special cases, the actions of ordinary civilians cannot be the basis for claims of sovereignty. Here, the actions of ordinary civilians taken under the laws enacted for173 a particular area by the nation concerned can be considered to be one of those special cases.
There is something to be noted174 before discussing whether An Yong-bok's activities can be regarded as national acts. Although An Yong-bok's actions became the trigger for175 the conflict surrounding Ulleungdo in the 17th century, the matter was concluded through bilateral176 negotiations between Korea and Japan. Japan's denial of the truth of An Yong-bok's statements is an indication that there is intent177 to gloss over178 the essence of179 the problem.
The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been completely silent about the official stand180 taken by Japan's central and local governments in the past regarding Ulleungdo and Dokdo being Korean territory, as evidenced by the Tottori-han's Submission (1695), Confidential Inquiry into the Particulars of Relations with Joseon (1870), and the Dajokan Order (1877) referred to in Section 4 above. None of these historical facts are referenced on181 the website of Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Nevertheless182, a very minor issue from An Yong-bok's activities has been greatly exaggerated to stir up the controversy183. That Japan would consider An Yong-bok to be a hindrance184 to their cause is somewhat understandable, since they missed a decisive opportunity to incorporate Ulleungdo and Dokdo in the 17th century due to An Yong-bok's activities.
However, it is not accurate to say that An Yong-bok's statements were all fake, as claimed by Japan. In 2005, a significant document known as Memorandum on185 the Arrival of a Boat from Joseon in 1696(Genroku Kyu Heishinen Chosenbune Chakugan Ikkan No Oboegaki, a report on An Yong-bok's visit to the Oki Islands drafted by an official of the island) was discovered in Japan's Oki Islands with information regarding An Yong-bok's activities. This document was a Japanese investigative186 report regarding An Yong-bok's visit to Japan in 1696, showing that An Yong-bok clearly recognized Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Joseon's territory, specifically part of Gangwon Province. In this report, An Yong-bok referred to Dokdo as 'Jasando' and described its geographical location187 very specifically.
At that time, An Yong-bok was holding a map of188 the eight provinces of Joseon, on which it describes that Ulleungdo and Dokdo belong to Gangwon Province. In 1696, details of An Yong bok's activities in Japan were also recorded in Volume 34 of Annals of King Sukjong's Reign (Sukjong Sillok), including the following remarks about189 the Japanese: "Matsushima is Jasando [Dokdo], which is Korean territory. How dare you live there?"
6) Was Japan's incorporation a reaffirmation of190 its sovereignty over Dokdo?
Japan states that, in 1905, "the Japanese Cabinet191 decided to incorporate Takeshima [Dokdo] into Shimane Prefecture and reaffirmed its sovereignty over Takeshima." Japan further states192 that "the Governor of Shimane Prefecture announced in February 1905 that Takeshima [Dokdo] was officially named "Takeshima" and that it was under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands branch of the Shimane Prefectural Government..."
Japan claims that its effective incorporation of Dokdo in 1905 was a reaffirmation of its sovereignty. However, prior to 1905, no records exist of193 the Japanese government ever indicating territorial intent regarding Dokdo. Rather, as previously explained, even the Meiji government, which incorporated Dokdo into its territory in 1905, made it clear that Dokdo was not originally considered Japanese territory.
Historically194, the Japanese government had treated Dokdo as Joseon's territory, as previously indicated in Confidential Inquiry into the Particulars of Relations with Joseon and the Dajokan Order. Furthermore, Dokdo was not marked as a Japanese territory on maps issued directly by the Japanese government, including Complete Map of Great Japan (Dai Nihon Zenzu) produced by the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff Office195 in 1877, as well as Map of Great Japan's Prefectural Jurisdictions (Dai Nihon Fuken Gankatsuzu) produced by the Japanese Ministry of Home Affairs' Bureau of Geography between 1879 and 1881 and Complete Map of the State of Great Japan (Dai Nihonkoku Zenzu) produced by the Bureau of Geography in the Japanese Ministry of Home Affairs in 1880. In fact, Joseon East Coast Map (Chosen Toukaiganzu) by the Japanese Navy Ministry in 1876 included Dokdo within Joseon's territorial boundaries. Thus, it is unreasonable for Japan to argue that it "reaffirmed its sovereignty" in 1905, because Japan had never actually indicated that it had any sovereignty over Dokdo prior to196 1905.
<The Dajokan Order (1877)>: "Regarding Takeshima [Ulleungdo] and one other island [Dokdo] about which an inquiry was submitted, bear in mind that our country [Japan] has nothing to do with them. 29th day of the 3rd month, 10th year of Meiji. (red letters)"
In fact, Japan had initially claimed its occupation of Dokdo as terra nullius197 (no one's land) on the basis of their 1905 incorporation measure. Since 1952, in the course of diplomatic arguments between Korea and Japan, however, Japan has changed its position after realizing that its claims are self-contradictory198 that it was asserting its rightful199 occupation of terra nullius while simultaneously200 claiming Dokdo has always been Japan's inherent territory. This aforesaid201 assertion of Japan claimed that the incorporation of Dokdo in 1905 was a modern administrative202 measure to reaffirm its intent to maintain its longtime203 sovereignty over Dokdo. This inconsistency in Japan's rationales is evidence that its claims based on largely unsubstantiated204 grounds.
Japan's Wavering Position on205 the Nature of Incorporation of Dokdo in 1905
Jan. 28, 1905 (Decision by a Japanese Cabinet meeting206)
- Occupation of terra nullius
- Territorial incorporation
Since Dokdo was uninhabited with207 no evidence of being incorporated by another country, Japan incorporated Dokdo as its territory, in accordance with208 international law, after recognizing that Japanese people occupied the island.
July 13, 1953 (MOFA Japan Oral Statement)
- Occupation of terra nullius
- Territorial incorporation
Claimed to have occupied Dokdo, citing "intent to acquire territory" and "exertion of209 effective control" in order to fulfill the requirements for210 acquisition of territory under international law.
Feb. 10, 1954 (MOFA Japan Oral Statement211)
- Occupation of terra nullius
- Territorial incorporation
Claimed Dokdo to be "part of Japanese territory since ancient times212" while simultaneously and contradictorily213 asserting that all requirements for the occupation of terra nullius had been met as stipulated under214 international law.
July 13, 1962 (MOFA Japan Oral Statement)
- Inherent territory
- Modern administrative measures215 (Reaffirmation of sovereignty)
Abandoned claims of occupation of terra nullius to focus only on the "inherent territory" claim.
June 2011 - Present day (MOFA Japan Website)
- Inherent territory
- Modern administrative measures (Reaffirmation of sovereignty)
To the present day216, Japan maintains its position that Dokdo is historically and legally its inherent territory.
Japan claims, "the incorporation of Dokdo was published in the newspapers of the day and were widely publicized217." However, Dokdo was incorporated by Japan in 1905 during the Russo-Japanese War. The First Korea-Japan Treaty of February 1904 was forcefully218 concluded by Japan, and Dokdo and the entire Korean Peninsula were being used as strategic points for warfare. In such a situation, it is highly219 wrongful for220 Japan to misleadingly221 interpret222 Korea's silence as "acquiescence" to223 such claims, all the more224 when the news had been published in a small local newspaper in Japan.
When officials from Shimane Prefecture surveyed Ulleungdo in March 1906, news of the incorporation of Dokdo by Japan reached Korean mainland225, and the Korean government reacted immediately. Sim Heung-taek, county magistrate of Uldo County, filed a report with226 the Gangwon Province Governor to be delivered to the central government. Upon receiving the report, State Council227 Deputy Prime Minister228 immediately rejected Japan's baseless229 claims over Dokdo and ordered an investigation of230 the facts. No diplomatic protest231 was possible, however, because the Korean government had already been deprived of232 right to exercise external sovereignty due to the Second Korea-Japan Treaty or the Eulsa Treaty (November 17, 1905). At the time, the press reported on the illegal incorporation of Dokdo and other relevant facts in Korea Daily News (Daehan Maeil Shinbo, May 1, 1906) and Capital Gazette (Hwangseong Shinmun, May 9, 1906) as follows:
Uldo Magistrate Sim Heung-taek reported to the Korean Ministry of Home Affairs that a group of Japanese officials had visited the county and claimed that Dokdo, which belongs to the county, was a Japanese territory and that they had been there and taken a census of the population233 and a survey of farmland234. The Ministry instructed that it would not be entirely unusual that they roamed235 the area and took a census as part of their sightseeing activities236, but it is entirely groundless237 for them to refer to Dokdo as a Japanese territory, and thereby238, the report left them shocked. - Korea Daily News (May 1, 1906)
Japan claims that after the incorporation of Dokdo in 1905, "[the governor of Shimane Prefecture] added Takeshima [Dokdo] to the State Land239 Register240, and introduced a license system241 for hunting sea lions, the hunting of which continued until 1941." However, it is not logical to use the fact that some Japanese fishermen hunted sea lions around Dokdo during Japan's occupation of the Korean Peninsula as any actual evidence of peaceful "effective control" over the island. The simple fact is that during the Japanese colonial period242, the Japanese had free reign to use243 any part of the Korean Peninsula or the Japanese archipelago244 at any time. Japanese fishermen hunted sea lions on Dokdo only temporarily during the Japanese colonial period. However, after Japan was defeated in World War II, Japanese fishermen were barred from accessing245 Dokdo owing to246 SCAPIN (Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Index Number) 677 and other actions of the post-war Allied Powers.
Japan's claim of effective control over Dokdo is only based on the activities during the Japanese colonial period from 1904, when the First Korea-Japan Treaty of 1904 was concluded, and to 1945, when the WWII ended. Since the Japanese government acknowledged Dokdo as not being their territory before 1905 when it incorporated Dokdo, all prior fishing activity conducted by the Japanese must be considered illegal and certainly not part of the valid "effective control" over Dokdo. Furthermore, Dokdo was excluded from Japanese territory after 1945 via measures247 taken by post-war Allied Powers, and thereafter248 only Koreans were able to access it for fishing activities.
7) Was the island referred to in Imperial Decree No. 41 of Korean Empire of 1900 not Dokdo, and has Korea never effectively controlled Dokdo?
Japan claims that if "Seokdo [meaning Rock island in Korean]" corresponds to249 the current "Takeshima [Dokdo]", then a number of questions arise250, such as why Imperial Decree No. 41 of 1900 did not use 'Dokdo' as the island's name, why it used "Seokdo", and why the name "Usan Island" (or another name), which Korea claims to be the former name of "Takeshima", was not used.
Announcement of Imperial Decree No. 41 of 1900 is not the first occasion which Korea established its sovereignty over Dokdo. Its sovereignty over Dokdo was already established far before the announcement of the Decree and has been maintained and never been abandoned ever since its establishment.
Notably251, in the early 20th century, the Japanese themselves testified to252 the fact that Ulleungdo residents were aware of the existence of Dokdo. The Black Dragon Society, a Japanese right-wing group, published Korean Sea Fishery Guidelines (Kankai tsugyo shishin) in January 1903. In Guidelines, Dokdo is described as an island in Gangwon Province of the Korean Empire and "visible from253 the high mountain peaks of254 Ulleungdo." Furthermore, the logbook of255 the Japanese battleship Niitaka on Sept. 9, 1904, states that "Koreans call the island Dokdo." Regarding the name of the island, at the time, the inhabitants of Ulleungdo referred to Dokdo as "dokseom" (Rock Island) It is surmised that the phonetic sound of "Dokseom" seems to have been taken from the writing of256 "Dokdo."257
The reason why "Seokdo" was used rather than "Usando" in Imperial Decree No. 41 of 1900 seems to be, in the process of rehabilitating the administrative district of258 Ulleungdo at the time, the island was newly-named as Seokdo in consideration of259 the residents who called the island Dokseom (Rock Island), based on a survey of Ulleungdo conducted by Wu Yong-jeong, an official of the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Korean Empire260, in May 1900.
The inhabitants of261 Ulleungdo have long recognized the existence of Dokdo as it is visible from their residential area. Notwithstanding what262 the name may have been at the time, it is clear that Dokdo belongs to Gangwon Province as an adjacent263 island to Ulleungdo.
Japan argues that "even if these questions are answered, there is still no evidence that Korea had control over Takeshima [Dokdo] when the imperial decree was promulgated. Therefore, it is considered that Korea has never established sovereignty over Takeshima [Dokdo]." However, effective control does not exclusively264 mean physical settlement265 or occupation. The exercise of national jurisdiction266 is restricted in267 small islands located far away at sea268. Furthermore, the need for effective control over Dokdo, which had long been uninhabited, can only be relatively low when compared to larger islands where people reside. This situation can be verified in269 other international cases related to sovereignty, such as the Eastern Greenland and Clipperton Island disputes.
Either in the late 19th century or by the time Japan had incorporated Dokdo in 1905, it was a common understanding for270 Ulleungdo residents that Dokdo is an affiliate island to Ulleungdo. This is backed up by a statement made in 1947 by an Ulleungdo resident (Hong Jae-hyeon) who began to live on the island in 1883 after the Ulleungdo Development Order (1882) was instituted by the Korean government. He said:
"The residents of the island have known that Dokdo had belonged to Ulleungdo all along since the human settlement on271 Ulleungdo. (Omitted) Dokdo can be clearly seen from Ulleungdo on fine days272 , and some of Ulleungdo's boats sailing the East Sea have drifted ashore on273 Dokdo. It is only natural for Ulleungdo residents to take a keen interest in274 Dokdo."
- Hong Jae-hyeon, 1947
8) In the process of drafting the San Francisco Peace Treaty, did the United States reject Korea's request to add Dokdo to the territories to be renounced by275 Japan?
In a letter sent to Dr. Yang Yu-Chan (Korean Ambassador to the U.S.) in August 1951 by David Dean Rusk, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of276 State for Far Eastern Affairs, Rusk stated,
'As regards to277 the island of Dokdo, this normally uninhabited rock formation was, according to our information, never regarded as part of Korea and, as of approximately 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of278 Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea'
and based on this correspondence279, Japan claims that "in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, it is obvious that Takeshima [Dokdo] was affirmed as280 a territory of Japan."
David bean Rusk's letter is founded on the premise281, "according to our information," which indicates that the conclusion was reached based on one-sided282 and misleading283 information provided by Japan. When looking at the drafting process for284 the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the United States initially recognized Dokdo as a territory of Korea. The temporary changes in attitude by285 the U.S. is attributed to286 Japan's active lobbying287 at the time. Later, however, the United States has recognized Korea's effective control over Dokdo.
Furthermore, Dokdo had always been seen as separate from Japanese territory under Allied occupation in accordance with post-war Allied policies, including the Cairo Declaration288, Potsdam Declaration289, and SCAPIN 677.
...... For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to include the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands north of 30˚ North Latitude (excluding Kuchinoshima Island); and excluding (a) Utsuryo (Ullung) Island, Liancourt Rocks (take Island) and Quelpart290 (Saishu or Cheju) Island......
- SCAPIN 677
As further evidenced in SCAPIN 1033 (June 22, 1946) and SCAPIN 2046 (Sept. 19, 1949), Dokdo has always been excluded from Japanese fishing areas291. It was excluded from Japanese territory in such decisions by the General Headquarters of292 the Allied Powers, from the Headquarters' establishment in 1945 until its inactivation in293 1952. Eventually, the San Francisco Peace Treaty only determined that the Korean mainland, Jejudo (Jeju Island), Ulleungdo, and other major islands were to be relinquished from294 Japanese control. This list of islands was clearly meant to be illustrative295, not exhaustive296. In addition, there is no sentence included indicating that Dokdo is excluded from Korean territory and has become part of Japanese territory.
After the conclusion of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs Kusaba Ryuen acknowledged that297 "Takeshima [Dokdo] is excluded from the administrative division of298 the present occupation" during the Special Committee of299 the House of Representatives of300 Japan on October 22, 1951. It is believed that Map of Japanese Territory (Nihon Ryoikizu, 1951; see map below), on which Dokdo is excluded from Japanese territory, served as a background to Kusaba's statement.
In the process of concluding the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which served to dispose301 Japanese post-war territories, no provisions302 were stipulated303 which go against304 SCAPIN 677. In other words, there were no provisions that would have terminated305 the effectiveness of306 the existing Allied policy that excluded Dokdo from Japanese territory. This continued through establishment of307 the Republic of Korea in 1948 until the San Francisco Peace Treaty went into effect in308 1952. The fact is that Korea maintained its effective control over Dokdo without any change in circumstances309.
<The Map of Japanese Territory - San Francisco Peace Treaty (Mainichi Daily News, 1952)
A border was drawn in a way to exclude Ulleungdo and Dokdo from Japanese territory>
9) Was the designation of310 Dokdo as a bombing range [in the mid-20th century] for the United States Forces in Japan in accordance with the Japan-U.S. Administrative Agreement311 a recognition of Japanese sovereignty over Dokdo?
Japan claims, "the fact that Takeshima [Dokdo] was discussed by the [Japan-U.S. Joint] Committee and the fact the island was designated as an area for use by the U.S. Forces stationed in312 Japan clearly indicate that Takeshima is part of the territory of Japan."
Two separate bombing incidents occurred on Dokdo: the first in June 1948 and the second in September 1952. At the time, those who suffered collateral damage313 were all Korean fishermen314 operating around Dokdo. The New York Times reported the incident on June 18, 1948, and described Dokdo as an island inherited from315 ancestral316 generations of centuries ago where Ulleungdo residents now earn their livelihood317.
Dokdo was not only under Koeran jurisdiction when it was designated as a bombing range for the U.S. Forces in 1947, but it was still under effective Korean control when the actual318 bombing took place. Furthermore, Dokdo was excluded from Japanese territory by SCAPIN 677 (Jan. 29, 1946), and Japanese fishing boats were prohibited from319 operating within 12 nautical miles of320 Dokdo by SCAPIN 1033 (June 22, 1946). In other words, while Japanese fishermen were prohibited from coming in and around Dokdo321, Korean fishermen were not. This shows that, since 1945, Korea has continued to exercise effective control over Dokdo.
Upon examination of the process by which Dokdo was later excluded from a bombing range, it is clear that the United States treated Dokdo as Korean territory. By request of322 the Korean government in November 1952, the U.S. took immediate action323 to release Dokdo from being designated as a bombing range for the U.S. Forces in December 1952, and officially notified the Korean government of this fact324 in February 1953. Prior to this, in 1951, the United Nations Command (UNC) and U.S. Air Force designated the airspace above Dokdo to be included in Korea Air Defense Identification Zone (KADIZ)325. Such actions are evidences that Dokdo is a territory under Korean sovereignty.
There was a hidden agenda326 in Japan's move in327 1952 when it induced328 the reassignment of329 Dokdo as a bombing range. Japan's motives330 were to leverage331 the Japan-U.S. Administrative Agreement and the United States' influence, to secure a superior position over Korea in the controversy surrounding the sovereignty over Dokdo. However, this idea was never realized and Dokdo remains under the Korean jurisdiction until today.
3. Conclusion
Japan has never established sovereignty over Dokdo at any point in history. Its claim to having established such sovereignty in the mid-17th century can be refuted through historical documents including Records on Observations in Oki Province (1667), the ban on passage to Ulleungdo (1696), Confidential Inquiry into the Particulars of Relations with Joseon (1870), and the Dajokan Order (1877). Furthermore, the validity of332 Japan's incorporation of Dokdo in 1905 during the Russo-Japanese War falls apart333 when the contradictory334 logic behind their "occupation"335 and reaffirmation of sovereignty" claims is exposed. In addition, Japan's "effective control" over Dokdo after the incorporation in 1905 was merely an act carried out under the occupation of the entire Korean Peninsula. After World War II, Dokdo was excluded from Japanese territory and placed under the jurisdiction of Korea during the course of the Allied Powers' occupation of Japan. Therefore, the claims that Japan controlled Dokdo peacefully and continuously is invalid336.
In contrast337, Korea had always recognized Dokdo as an affiliate island to Ulleungdo and exercised peaceful control over the island long before its sovereignty was challenged by Japan in 1905. Dokdo was visited upon by Ulleungdo residents even after 1905 and ever since the independence of338 Korea in 1945, Koreans have continued to engage in339 fishing operations340 around Dokdo.
To sum up341, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs' territorial claims over Dokdo lack any validity and cannot and will not be accepted.
출처: http://www.dokdohistory.com/kor/gnb02/sub08.do?mode=view&page=&cid=57378
- screening ; 2. [U , C] (질병・결격 사유 등을 찾기 위한) 검사[심사] [본문으로]
- civics ; [U] (특히 美) 공민학 ;; 국민들에게 공중의식을 갖게 하기 위한 교육, ethics 와 유사하고 초등학교에서 배우는 윤리과목 정도로 보면 됨 [본문으로]
- territorial claim (over) ; ~가 자기네 영토라는 주장 [본문으로]
- in detail ;상세하게 [본문으로]
- inherent ; [형용사] ~ (in sb/sth) 내재하는 ;; US [ɪn|hɪrənt] UK [ɪn|hɪərənt;-|her-] [본문으로]
- inherent territory ; 고유 영토 [본문으로]
- occupy ; 3. [타동사][VN] 점령[점거]하다 [본문으로]
- rationale ; [명사] ~ (behind/for/of sth) (격식) (특정한 결정・행동 방침・신조 등의) 이유[근거] ;; US [|rӕʃə|nӕl] UK [|rӕʃə|nɑ:l] [본문으로]
- cite ; [vn], (격식) 1. ~ sth (as sth) (이유・예를) 들다[끌어 대다] [본문으로]
- sovereignty ; [U], (격식) 1. ~ (over sth) 통치권, 자주권 [본문으로]
- establish sovereignty (over) ; ~에 대한 주권을 확립하다. [본문으로]
- incorporate ; 1. ~ sth (in/into/within sth) (일부로) 포함하다 [본문으로]
- in accordance with ; ~에 부합되게, (규칙·지시 등에) 따라, ~에 따라서 [본문으로]
- international law ; 국제법(law of nations) [본문으로]
- confirm ; 1. (특히 증거를 들어) 사실임을 보여주다[확인해 주다] [본문으로]
- pursuant to ; …에 의하여, ~에 따라 [본문으로]
- consistent ; 4. (주장이나 일련의 생각들이) 일관성 있는 [본문으로]
- position ; 5. OPINION | [C] ~ (on sth) (특정 주제에 대한) 입장[태도] [본문으로]
- set (sth) out ; 2. (말·글로 조리 있게) ~을 제시하다 [본문으로]
- stance ; 1. ~ (on sth) (어떤 일에 대한 공개적인) 입장[태도] [본문으로]
- indisputably ; 명백하게, 반박의 여지가 없게 [본문으로]
- in light of ; …에 비추어, …을 고려하여 [본문으로]
- basis ; (pl. bases / 'beIsiːz /) 1. [sing.] 근거, 이유 [본문으로]
- pamphlet ; [명사] (특정 주제에 관한) 팸플릿[소논문] ;; US·UK [|pӕmflət] [본문으로]
- remaining ; [형용사] (명사 앞에만 씀) 남아 있는, 남은 ;; 참고 remain [본문으로]
- current status ; 현황, 실태, 현재 상태 [본문으로]
- resolution ; 2. [U , sing.] (문제・불화 등의) 해결 ;; 사전의 설명과는 달리 복수로 활용한 것을 확인 [본문으로]
- assert ; 1. (사실임을 강하게) 주장하다 [본문으로]
- unlawful ; [형용사] (격식) 불법의 [본문으로]
- occupation ; 3. [U] 점령 (기간) [본문으로]
- refer ;3. <사건·문제 등을> 위탁[부탁]하다, 맡기다, 회부하다 ((to)) [본문으로]
- International Court of Justice ; [the ~] 국제 사법 재판소 ((World Court의 공식명; 略 ICJ)) [본문으로]
- organize ; 2. [타동사][VN] (특정한 순서・구조로) 정리하다, 체계화[구조화]하다 [본문으로]
- be divided into ; ~로 나누어지다, 분류되다, 분리되다. [본문으로]
- indicate ; 1. SHOW | (사실임・존재함을) 나타내다[보여 주다] [본문으로]
- at the latest ; (아무리) 늦어도 [본문으로]
- prohibited ; 2. 금지된 [본문으로]
- numerous ; [형용사] (격식) 많은 [본문으로]
- factual ; [형용사] 사실에 기반을 둔, 사실을 담은 [본문으로]
- inconsistency ; 3. (논리) 모순 [본문으로]
- reaffirm ; [타동사][VN] (무엇이 사실임을) 재차 확인[확언]하다 [본문으로]
- Cabinet decision ; 정부 내각의 결정 [본문으로]
- exert control (over) ; (…에) 지배력을 행사하다, (…을) 통제하다 [본문으로]
- draft ; (draught 특히 英) 1. 초안[원고]을 작성하다 [본문으로]
- designate ; [흔히 수동태로] 1. ~ sth (as) sth | ~ sth (as being sth) 지정[지적]하다 [본문으로]
- station ; [vn , + adv. / prep.] 1. ARMED FORCES | [흔히 수동태로] (특히 군인을) 배치하다[주둔시키다] [본문으로]
- refute ; [vn], (격식) 1. 논박[반박]하다 [본문으로]
- aforementioned ; [형용사] (명사 앞에만 씀) (또한 afore・said / ə|fɔːsed ; 美 ə|fɔːrsed / , said) (격식 또는 법률) 앞서 언급한, 전술한 [본문으로]
- respectively ; [부사] 각자, 각각, 제각기 [본문으로]
- repetition ; 2. [C] (비슷하거나 동일한 일의) 반복[되풀이] ;; US.UK [|repə|tɪʃn] [본문으로]
- presentation ; 2. [U] <제공・설명하거나 보여주는 방식> [본문으로]
- somewhat ; [부사] 어느 정도, 약간, 다소 [본문으로]
- for brevity ; 줄여서, 간결하게 하기 위해 [본문으로]
- furthermore ; [부사] (격식) 뿐만 아니라, 더욱이 [본문으로]
- peripheral ; 1. ~ (to sth) (격식) (중요하지 않은) 주변적인, 지엽적인 [본문으로]
- center around ; ~에 중점을 두다, …에 집중하다[시키다]. [본문으로]
- overly ; [부사] (형용사 앞에 쓰여) 너무; 몹시 [본문으로]
- partial ; 1. 부분적인, 불완전한 [본문으로]
- applicable ; [형용사] (대개 명사 앞에는 안 씀) ~ (to sb/sth) 해당[적용]되는 ;; US·UK [ə|plɪkəbl;|ӕplɪkəbl] [본문으로]
- in such cases ; 그런 경우에 [본문으로]
- one-to-one ; 2. 1 대 1로 상응하는 [본문으로]
- rebuttal ; [명사] [법] 원고의 반박; 반증(의 제출)(contradiction) ;; US·UK [ribʌ́tl] [본문으로]
- controversy ; [U , C] (pl. -ies) ~ (over/about/surrounding sb/sth) 논란 [본문으로]
- non-essential ; [형용사] (주로 명사 앞에 씀) 비본질적인, 꼭 필요하지는 않은 ;; 참고 essential [본문으로]
- herein ; [부사] (격식 또는 법률) 여기에(서); 이 문서[진술/사실]에(서) ;; US [|hɪr|ɪn] UK [|hɪər|ɪn] [본문으로]
- in consideration of ; …을 고려해 볼 때. [본문으로]
- overall perspective ; 전반적인 시각, 관점 [본문으로]
- present ; 2. STH TO BE CONSIDERED | ~ sth (for sth) | ~ sth (to sb) (사람들이 보거나 검토하도록) 제시[제출]하다 [본문으로]
- longitude ; [U] (약어:long.) 경도 ;; 참고 latitude [본문으로]
- latitude ; 1. [U] (약어:lat.) 위도 ;; 참고 longitude [본문으로]
- first-edition ; [명사] (책의) 초판 [본문으로]
- color ; 1. PUT COLOUR ON STH | …에 색칠[채색/염색]하다 [본문으로]
- place ; 1. IN POSITION | [타동사][VN + adv. / prep.] (조심스럽게) 놓다[두다], 설치[배치]하다 [본문으로]
- latitudinal ; [형용사] 위도의 ;; US [læ̀tətjú:dənl] UK [-tjú:-] [본문으로]
- longitudinal ; 3. 경도[경선]의 ;; US [|lɑ:ndƷə|tu:dnl] UK [|lɒŋgɪ|tju:dɪnl;|lɒndƷɪ-] [본문으로]
- view ; [vn] 1. THINK ABOUT STH | ~ sb/sth as sth | ~ sb/sth with sth (…라고) 여기다[보다/생각하다] [본문으로]
- verify ; 2. 입증하다, (진실이라고・정확하다고) 확인해[말해] 주다 [본문으로]
- old map ; (지리) 고지도 [본문으로]
- intent ; 1. [U] 의지, 의향(intention); 목적, 계획 [본문으로]
- exercise ; 1. USE POWER/RIGHT/QUALITY | [타동사][VN] (격식) (권력・권리・역량 등을) 행사[발휘]하다 [본문으로]
- magistrate ; [명사] 치안 판사 ;; US·UK [|mӕdƷɪstreɪt] [본문으로]
- local government ; 1. [U] (특히 英) 지방 자치 (체제) 2. [C] (美) 지방 정부 [본문으로]
- on behalf of ; [부사] …을 대신하여, …을 대표하여, …을 위해서. ;; 동의어 as a representative of. [본문으로]
- shogunate ; [명사] [U] 쇼군의 직위; 막부 (시대) [본문으로]
- inspect ; 2. (공식적으로 학교・공장 등을 방문하여) 사찰[순시]하다 [본문으로]
- reflect ; 3. [타동사][VN] (사물의 속성・사람의 태도・감정을) 나타내다[반영하다] [본문으로]
- local residents ; 거주민, 지역민, 지역사회주민 [본문으로]
- mark ; 3. SHOW POSITION | [타동사][VN] (위치를) 표시하다[나타내다] [본문으로]
- northwesternmost ; Farthest northwest. [본문으로]
- present-day ; [형용사] 현대의, 오늘날의 [본문으로]
- illustrate ; 1. [타동사][VN] [주로 수동태로] ~ sth (with sth) (책 등에) 삽화[도해]를 쓰다[넣다]; (설명을 위해 실례・도해 등을) 이용하다 [본문으로]
- non-existent ; [형용사] 존재하지 않는, 실제로 있지도 않은 ;; 참고 existent [본문으로]
- rationale ; [명사] ~ (behind/for/of sth) (격식) (특정한 결정・행동 방침・신조 등의) 이유[근거] US [|rӕʃə|nӕl] UK [|rӕʃə|nɑ:l] [본문으로]
- multiple ; [형용사] (명사 앞에만 씀) 많은, 다수[복수]의; 다양한, 복합적인 [본문으로]
- ancient map ; 고지도 [본문으로]
- comprehensive ; 1. 포괄적인, 종합적인 [본문으로]
- contend ; 1. (격식) (특히 언쟁 중에) 주장하다 [본문으로]
- historical literature ; 역사적 문헌 [본문으로]
- distinguish ; 1. ~ (between) A and B | ~ A from B 구별하다 ;; and와 함께 사용한것을 확인 [본문으로]
- record ; 4. OF SB/STH’S PAST | [sing.] ~ (on sth) (과거의 행동・공적 등을 보여주는) 기록, 경력, 전력 ;; 참고 track record [본문으로]
- annals ; [pl.] 1. 연대기 ;; US·UK [|ӕnlz] [본문으로]
- merely ; [부사] 한낱, 그저, 단지 [본문으로]
- 1 bo = 1.2 meters [본문으로]
- circumference ; [C , U] 원주, (구의) 둘레 ;; 참고 perimeter [본문으로]
- Pa is a measurement of area, where 1 pa =1.54m² [본문으로]
- rocky terrain ; 암석이 많은 지대 [본문으로]
- above ; [형용사] [명사 앞에만 씀] (편지・책 등에서) 위의[앞에 말한] [본문으로]
- distinction ; 1. [C] ~ (between A and B) (특히 비슷하거나 관련이 있는 것들 사이의 뚜렷한) 차이[대조] [본문으로]
- be referred to.as ; ~로 불리다 [본문으로]
- battalion commander ; 대대장 [본문으로]
- 1 Korean ri = approx. 400 meters [본문으로]
- elevation ; 2. [C] (주로 단수로 전문 용어) 해발 높이, 고도 [본문으로]
- abundantly ; 2. 풍부하게 [본문으로]
- on one side ; 한쪽에, 곁에 [본문으로]
- The original text states this as 'jin-bang[辰方]', which is one of traditional expressions to indicate bearings. [본문으로]
- naked eye ; [the ~] 육안, 나안(裸眼) [본문으로]
- empirical evidence ; 경험적 증거 [본문으로]
- visually ; 1. 시각적으로, 눈에 보이게 [본문으로]
- residential area ; 주택, 주거 지역 [본문으로]
- awareness ; [U , sing.] ~ (of sth) | ~ (that…) (무엇의 중요성에 대한) 의식[관심] [본문으로]
- evidence ; [타동사][VN] [주로 수동태로] (격식) 증언[입증]하다; 증거가 되다 [본문으로]
- navigational ; 4. 《美구어》 해운의, 운송의; 《 드물게 》 선박 여행의. [본문으로]
- fishing ground ; 어장 [본문으로]
- assertion ; 1. [C] (사실임을) 주장 [본문으로]
- monopolize ; [vn] 1. 독점하다 [본문으로]
- close ; 6. CAREFUL | [명사 앞에만 씀] 철저한, 면밀한 [본문으로]
- sea lion ; [명사] 바다사자 [본문으로]
- abalone ; [C , U] 전복 ;; US [|ӕbə|loʊni] UK [|ӕbə|ləʊni] [본문으로]
- erroneous ; [형용사] (격식) 잘못된 (정보에 의한) ;; US [ɪ|roʊniəs] UK [ɪ|rəʊniəs] [본문으로]
- fiercely ; [부사] 사납게, 맹렬하게; 지독하게 [본문으로]
- opposition ; 1. [U] ~ (to sb/sth) (~에 대한 강한) 반대[항의] [본문으로]
- prohibition ; 1. [U] (특히 법에 의한) 금지 [본문으로]
- surprisingly ; 2. [문장 전체를 수식하여] 놀랍게도 [본문으로]
- secure ; 1. GET STH | ~ sth (for sb/sth) | ~ sb sth (격식) (특히 힘들게) 얻어 내다, 획득[확보]하다 [본문으로]
- Allied Powers ; 연합국(聯合國). [본문으로]
- written inquiry ; 질의서, 질문서, 서면 질의 [본문으로]
- feudal ; [형용사] (주로 명사 앞에 씀) 봉건적인, 봉건 제도의 ;; US·UK [|fju:dl] [본문으로]
- clan ; 2. (비격식 때로 유머) (특정 이유로 관련을 갖는) 집단[무리] [본문으로]
- come under ;1. (특정 집단 속에) 포함되다[들어가다], …의 관할 하에 들어가게 되다(=fall), [본문으로]
- jurisdiction ; (격식) 1. [U , C] ~ (over sb/sth) | ~ (of sb/sth) (to do sth) 관할권; 사법권 2. [C] 관할 구역 [본문으로]
- on the following day ; 이튿날. [본문으로]
- submission ; 2. [U , C] (서류・제안서 등의) 제출; (의견의) 개진 [본문으로]
- be under the jurisdiction (of) ; …소관이다 [본문으로]
- as for ; ~에 대해서 말하자면, …에 관해 말하면. [본문으로]
- absolute authority ; 절대권(력) [본문으로]
- at the time ; 그 당시, 그 시기 ;; at a particular moment in the past; then [본문으로]
- negotiations ; [명사] 협상(복수형) [본문으로]
- fall through ; 완료[실현]되지 못하다 ;; [VERB] to miscarry or fail [본문으로]
- pay[have] regard to sth ; ~을 존중하다, 유념하다, 고려하다, 감안하다, 중시하다 [본문으로]
- passage ; 6. JOURNEY BY SHIP | [sing.] (배로 한 장소에서 다른 장소로 가는) 항해[뱃길] [본문으로]
- ban on ; ~에 대한 금지 [본문으로]
- convincing ; [형용사] 설득력 있는; (승리 등이) 확실한 [본문으로]
- institute ; [타동사][VN] (격식) (제도・정책 등을) 도입하다; (절차를) 시작하다 [본문으로]
- pair ; 2. TWO PARTS JOINED | [C] <두 부분이 함께 붙어 하나를 이루는 물건> [본문으로]
- particulars ; [명사] 상세, 명세 [본문으로]
- historical fact(s) ; 역사적 사실 [본문으로]
- bear in mind that ; ~을 명심, 유념하다 [본문으로]
- affiliate ; 부속, 계열 (회사) [본문으로]
- illustration ; 3. [C , U] (무엇에 대한 진실을 보여주는) 실례[예/보기] [본문으로]
- substantive ; [형용사] (격식) 실질적인 ;; US·UK [səb|stӕntɪv;|sʌbstəntɪv] [본문으로]
- separate ; [형용사] 1. ~ (from sth/sb) 분리된, 따로 떨어진, 독립된 [본문으로]
- solely ; [부사] 오로지, 단지; 단독으로 ;; US [|soʊlli] UK [|səʊlli] [본문으로]
- neighboring ; [형용사] [A] 이웃의, 근처[인근]의; 인접한(adjacent) [본문으로]
- inconsistencies ; 불일치, 모순, 무정견 [본문으로]
- recognition ; 2. [sing., U] ~ (that…) (존재・사실・공식성의) 인정[승인] [본문으로]
- foundation ; 2. [C , U] (일의 바탕이 되는) 토대[기반/근거] [본문으로]
- civilian ; [명사] 민간인 ;; 참고 military ;; US·UK [sə|vɪliən] [본문으로]
- exercise ; [명사] 4. USE OF POWER/RIGHT/QUALITY | [U] ~ of sth (권력・권리・역량 등의) 행사[발휘] [본문으로]
- legislative ; [형용사] (명사 앞에만 씀) (격식) 입법의, 입법부의 ;; US [|ledƷɪsleɪtɪv] UK [|ledƷɪslətɪv] [본문으로]
- administrative ; [형용사] 관리[행정]상의 ;; US [əd|mɪnɪstreɪtɪv] UK [əd|mɪnɪstrətɪv] [본문으로]
- judicial ; [형용사] (주로 명사 앞에 씀) 사법[재판]의 [본문으로]
- aside from ; [전치사] (특히 美) 2. …외에도[뿐만 아니라] ;; 동의어 apart from [본문으로]
- enact ; 1. [흔히 수동태로] (법률) (법을) 제정하다 [본문으로]
- note ; (비교적 격식) 1. …에 주목[주의]하다 [본문으로]
- trigger ; 2. ~ (for sth) | ~ (to sth/to do sth) (반응・사건을 유발한) 계기[도화선] [본문으로]
- bilateral ; (참고: multilateral , trilateral , unilateral) 1. 쌍방의, 쌍무적인 [본문으로]
- intent ; [U] ~ (to do sth) (격식 또는 법률) 의도 [본문으로]
- gloss over ; ~에 대해 얼버무리고 넘어가다, 용케 숨기다, 둘러대다, 속이다 [본문으로]
- essence ; 1. [U] ~ (of sth) 본질, 정수, 진수 [본문으로]
- stand ; 1. OPINION | [주로 단수로] ~ (on sth) (공개적으로 드러내는) 태도[의견] [본문으로]
- reference ; [타동사][VN] (격식) 참고[참조] 표시를 하다; 참조 문헌(목록)을 달다 [본문으로]
- nevertheless ; [부사] 그렇기는 하지만, 그럼에도 불구하고 [본문으로]
- stir up controversy ; 논란을 일으키다 [본문으로]
- hindrance ; 1. [C] [주로 단수로] ~ (to sth/sb) 방해[저해] (요인), 장애(물) [본문으로]
- memorandum ; 3. (특정 주제에 대한) 제안서[보고서] [본문으로]
- investigative ; [형용사] (주로 명사 앞에 씀) (또한 드물게 in・ves・ti・ga・tory / ɪn|vestɪgətəri ; 美 -gətɔːri /) 조사[수사]의 [본문으로]
- geographical location ; 지리적 위치. [본문으로]
- hold ; 13. OWN | [타동사][VN] 소유하다 [본문으로]
- remark ; 1. [C] (말이나 글로 의견・생각 등을 표하는) 발언[말/논평/언급] [본문으로]
- reaffirmation ; [명사] 재확인, 재다짐, 재확약 [본문으로]
- Cabinet ; 1. [C+sing./pl. v.] the Cabinet (정부의) 내각 [본문으로]
- further ; [형용사] [far의 비교급] 더 이상의, 추가의 [본문으로]
- no records exist of ; ...의 기록은 현존해있지 않다. [본문으로]
- historically ; [부사] 역사상(으로); 사학으로; 역사적으로. [본문으로]
- General Staff Office ; 참모 본부 ;; general staff ; [명사] the general staff (군사) 작전 참모 [본문으로]
- prior to ; ([전치사적으로]) …에 앞서, 먼저 [본문으로]
- terra nullius ; [라틴어] (외교통상) 무주지(無主地). Nobody's territory. [본문으로]
- self-contradictory ; [형용사] 자기 모순적인, 자가당착의 [본문으로]
- rightful ; [형용사] (명사 앞에만 씀) (격식) 합법적인, 적법한, 정당한 [본문으로]
- simultaneously ; [부사] 동시에 ((with)); 일제히 [본문으로]
- aforesaid ; [형용사, 명사] [명사 앞에만 씀] (격식 또는 법률) 앞서 언급한, 전술한 ;; 동의어 ; AFOREMENTIONED [본문으로]
- administrative ; [형용사] 관리[행정]상의 [본문으로]
- longtime ; [형용사] 여러 해의, 오랫동안의. [본문으로]
- unsubstantiated ; [형용사] (격식) 근거 없는, 입증되지 않은 ;; US·UK [|ʌnsəb|stӕnʃieɪtɪd] [본문으로]
- wavering ; 1. 흔들리는, 펄럭이는 2. 떨리는, 주저하는 ;; 흐름상 "자주 바뀌는, 변적이 심한" 정도의 의미 [본문으로]
- cabinet meeting ; [명사] 각료 회의, 국무회의 [본문으로]
- uninhabited ; [형용사] 사람이 살지 않는, 무인의 [본문으로]
- in accordance with ; ~에 부합되게, (규칙·지시 등에) 따라, ~에 따라서 [본문으로]
- exertion ; 2. [sing.] (권력・영향력의) 행사 [본문으로]
- requirement ; 2. 필요조건, 요건 [본문으로]
- oral statement ; (법률) 구술 [본문으로]
- ancient times ; 고대 [본문으로]
- contradictorily ; [부사] 모순되게 ; 반박하여. [본문으로]
- stipulate ; [동사] (격식) 규정[명기]하다 [본문으로]
- administrative measure ; 행정 처분, 행정 조치 [본문으로]
- to the present day ; 오늘날 [본문으로]
- publicize ; [타동사][VN] (일반 사람들에게) 알리다, 광고[홍보]하다 [본문으로]
- forceful ; 3. 강압적인 [본문으로]
- highly ; 1. 크게, 대단히, 매우 [본문으로]
- wrongful ; [형용사] (주로 명사 앞에 씀) (특히 법률) 부당한, 불법의 [본문으로]
- misleadingly ; [부사] 오해시킬 만큼 [본문으로]
- interpret ; 2. [타동사][VN] ~ sth (as sth) (특정한 뜻으로) 이해[해석]하다 ;; 참고 misinterpret ;; US [ɪn|t3:rprɪt] UK [ɪn|t3:prɪt] [본문으로]
- acquiescence ; [U] (격식) 묵인 [본문으로]
- all the more ; (그만큼) 더, 더욱더, 오히려 [본문으로]
- mainland ; [sing.] (한 나라의 영토 중 딸린 섬 등을 제외한) 본토 [본문으로]
- file a report ; 보고서를 제출하다 [본문으로]
- State Council ; [명사] 국무원, 중앙 정부의 내각(cabinet). [본문으로]
- deputy prime minister ; 부수상, 부총리 [본문으로]
- baseless ; [형용사] (격식) 근거 없는 [본문으로]
- order an investigation ; 수사를 시키다, 지시하다, 명령하다 [본문으로]
- diplomatic protest ; 외교적 항의 [본문으로]
- be deprived of ; …을 빼앗기다, 잃다 [본문으로]
- take a census (of the population) ; 호구 조사, 인구 조사를 하다 [본문으로]
- farmland ; [U , pl.] 농지, 경지 [본문으로]
- roam ; 1. (이리저리) 돌아다니다, 배회[방랑]하다 [본문으로]
- sightseeing ; [U] 관광 [본문으로]
- groundless ; [형용사] 근거 없는 [본문으로]
- thereby ; [부사] (격식) 그렇게 함으로써, 그것 때문에 [본문으로]
- state land ; 국유지 [본문으로]
- register ; 1. LIST OF NAMES | [C] (이름・항목 등을 적은 공식적인) 기록[등록/등기]부, 명부 [본문으로]
- introduce ; 6. START | (새로운 것을[의]) 시작하다[시작이 되다] [본문으로]
- colonial period ; [명사] 식민지 시대 [본문으로]
- free rein ; (행동·결정의) 무제한의 자유 ((to do)) ;; free reign ; (misconstruction of, free rein) [본문으로]
- archipelago ; [명사] pl. -os 또는 -oes 다도해; 군도 ;; US [|ɑ:rkɪ|peləgoʊ] UK [|ɑ:kɪ|peləgəʊ] [본문으로]
- access ; 2. (격식) 접근하다; 들어가다; 이용하다 [본문으로]
- owing to ; [전치사] … 때문에 [본문으로]
- via ; [전치사] 2. (특정한 사람・시스템 등을) 통하여 ;; US.UK [|vaɪə ; |vi:ə] [본문으로]
- thereafter ; [부사] (격식) 그 후에 ;; 참고 hereafter [본문으로]
- correspond to ; …에[와] 일치하다, 들어맞다 [본문으로]
- arise ; (arose / ə'rəUz ; 美 ə'roUz / , arisen / ə'rIzn /), [v] 1. (비교적 격식) (특히 문제나 곤란한 상황이) 생기다, 발생하다 [본문으로]
- notably ; 1. 특히 [본문으로]
- testify to ; ~을 증명하다[~의 증거가 되다] [본문으로]
- visible from ; …에서 보이는, …에서 보이다 [본문으로]
- mountain peak ; 산봉우리, 산꼭대기 [본문으로]
- log ; [명사]. (log・book) (특히 항해・운항・비행 등의) 일지[기록] [본문으로]
- writing ; 3. [U] (책・기사 등을 통칭하는) 글 [본문으로]
- 'Seok' and 'dok' were used to express Korean words in written Chinese characters. 'Seok' means 'rock/stone' and was used because it has the same definition in Chinese characters, while 'dok' was used because it is the Chinese character that has the same phonetic sound as Korean word for 'rock/stone' [본문으로]
- rehabilitate ; 3. (건물・지역을 원래의 좋은 상태로) 회복[복원]시키다 [본문으로]
- in consideration of ; …을 고려해 볼 때. [본문으로]
- the Korean Empire ; (역사) 대한제국 [본문으로]
- inhabitant ; [명사] (특정 지역의) 주민[서식 동물] [본문으로]
- notwithstanding ; [전치사] (관련된 명사 뒤에 쓰이기도 함) (격식) …에도 불구하고 [본문으로]
- adjacent ; [형용사] ~ (to sth) 지역・건물 등이 인접한, 가까운 [본문으로]
- exclusively ; [부사] 배타적으로; 독점적으로; 오로지, 오직 …뿐(solely) [본문으로]
- settlement ; 6. [U] 정착 (과정) [본문으로]
- national jurisdiction ; 국가 관할권 [본문으로]
- be restricted in ; ~에 제한되다, 한정되다, 묶이다, 한하다 [본문으로]
- at sea ; 바다에서 [본문으로]
- be verified in ; ~에서 확인되다 [본문으로]
- common understanding ; 공통된 이해 [본문으로]
- human settlement ; (건축용어) 거주지(居住地), 인간의 정착(활동) [본문으로]
- on a fine day ; 날씨가 좋은 날에는 [본문으로]
- ashore ; [부사] 해안[강안]으로[에], 물가로[에] [본문으로]
- take a interest ; ~에 대한 흥미를 가지다 [본문으로]
- renounce ; 2. (어떤 신조・행위 등을 공식적으로 선언하며) 버리다[그만두다] [본문으로]
- assistant secretary ; [명사] (연방 정부 부처의) 차관보; 서기관보. [본문으로]
- as regards (to) ; ~과 관련하여[~에 대하여] [본문으로]
- branch office ; [명사] 지점, 지사, 지국, 지부, 출장소. [본문으로]
- correspondence ; 3. [C , U] ~ (between A and B) (A와 B 사이의) 관련성[유사함] [본문으로]
- affirm ; [동사] (격식) 단언하다 [본문으로]
- on the premise ; …을 전제로 하고 [본문으로]
- one-sided ; 1. (못마땅함) (주장・의견 등이) 한쪽으로 치우친, 편파적인 [본문으로]
- misleading ; [형용사] 호도[오도]하는, 오해의 소지가 있는 [본문으로]
- drafting ; 1. [UC] 기안[기초] (방법) [본문으로]
- change in attitude ; 관점, 태도의 변화 ; 태도 개선 [본문으로]
- be attributed to ; …에 기인하다; …의 덕분으로 여겨지다 [본문으로]
- lobbying ; [명사] 로비 활동, 의안 통과[저지] 활동(운동); 청원[진정] 운동; 원외 활동. ;; 동의어 lobbyism. [본문으로]
- the Cairo Declaration ; [명사] (the를 붙여서) 카이로 선언: 제 2 차 세계 대전중인 1943년 11월, 미국·영국·중국의 수뇌가 카이로에서 전후의 일본 영토의 처리 문제에 관해 회담하고 발표한 선언; 한국의 독립에 관한 조항도 포함되어 있다. [본문으로]
- the Potsdam Declaration ; [the ~] 포츠담 선언 ((1945년 7월 26일, 일본에게 무조건 항복을 요구한 미·영·소·중국의 공동 선언)) [본문으로]
- Quelpart ; [명사] 퀠파트 ((대한민국 제주도의 별칭)) ;; US·UK [kwélpɑ̀:rt] [본문으로]
- fishing area ; 2. 어장(漁場) 3. 조업 구역(操業區域) [본문으로]
- General Headquarters ; [보통 복수 취급] 총사령부 ((略 G.H.Q., GHQ)) [본문으로]
- inactivation ; the process of rendering something inactive [본문으로]
- relinquish ; [타동사][VN] ~ sth (to sb) (격식) (특히 마지못해 소유권 등을) 포기하다[내주다] [본문으로]
- illustrative ; [형용사] (격식) 실례가 되는, 분명히 보여주는 [본문으로]
- exhaustive ; [형용사] (하나도 빠뜨리는 것 없이) 철저한[완전한] [본문으로]
- acknowledge ; 1. ADMIT | (사실로) 인정하다 [본문으로]
- administrative division ; (지명) 행정 구역 [본문으로]
- special committee ; [명사] 특별 위원회 [본문으로]
- House of Representatives ; [명사] (미국・호주의) 하원 ;; 참고 senate ( 1 ) [본문으로]
- dispose ; (격식) 1. [타동사][VN + adv. / prep.] (특정한 방식・위치에 물건이나 사람을) 배치하다 [본문으로]
- provision ; 4. [C] (법률 관련 문서의) 조항[규정/단서] [본문으로]
- stipulate ; [동사] (격식) 규정[명기]하다 [본문으로]
- go against ; ~에 위배되다[맞지 않다] [본문으로]
- terminate ; (격식) 1. 끝나다, 종료되다; 끝내다, 종료하다 [본문으로]
- effectiveness ; [U] 유효(성), 효과적임 [본문으로]
- establishment ; 3. [U] 설립, 수립, 확립 [본문으로]
- go into effect ; [동사] 효력이 발생되다, 발효하다, 실시되다, 시행[발효]되다 ;; 동의어 come into force. [본문으로]
- in circumstances ; …의 상황 하에서. [본문으로]
- designation ; (격식) 1. [U] ~ (as sth) 지정, 지명 [본문으로]
- administrative agreement ; 행정 협정 [본문으로]
- station ; [vn , + adv. / prep.] 1. ARMED FORCES | [흔히 수동태로] (특히 군인을) 배치하다[주둔시키다] [본문으로]
- collateral damage ; (군사) 부수적 피해 ((군사 행동으로 인한 민간인의 인적·물적 피해)) [본문으로]
- fisherman ; [명사] pl. -men / -mən / 어부; 낚시꾼 ;; 참고 angler [본문으로]
- inherit ;[타동사] [~ (sth) (from sb)] 1. 상속받다, 물려받다 ;; 참고 disinherit [본문으로]
- ancestral ; 1. 조상의, 조상 전래의 [본문으로]
- earn[gain, get, make] a[one's] livelihood (by) ; ~로 생계를 꾸리다, ~에 의해 살아가다 [본문으로]
- actual ; [명사 앞에만 씀] 1. (사실임을 강조하여) 실제의 [본문으로]
- be prohibited from ; ~을 금지하다 [본문으로]
- nautical mile ; [명사] 해리(바닷길의 거리 단위. 1,852미터) [본문으로]
- in and around ; ~주변에 [본문으로]
- by[at] request ; 요구에 따라, 요청[의뢰]에 의해[of] [본문으로]
- immediate action ; (군사) 응급조치 ▶화기 기능 고장시, 응급조치 ▶부상자, 즉각조치 [본문으로]
- notify ... of ..; ~에게 ~을 (공식적으로) 알리다[통고/통지하다] [본문으로]
- Korea Air Defense Identification Zone ; 한국방공 식별구역 : 대한민국의 국가안보상 항공기의 식별, 위치결정 및 관제를 실시하기 위해 설정한 방공구역. [본문으로]
- hidden agenda ; [명사] (못마땅함) 숨은 의도, 비밀 의제(=a secret plan). [본문으로]
- move ; 1. ACTION | ~ (towards/to sth) | ~ (to do sth) 조치, 행동 ;; 참고 false move [본문으로]
- induce ; 1. [타동사][VN to inf] (격식) 설득하다, 유도하다 [본문으로]
- reassignment ; [명사] 재할당, 재지정; 재양도. [본문으로]
- motive ; [명사] ~ (for sth) 동기, 이유 [본문으로]
- leverage ; [VERB] to use something that you already have in order to achieve something new or better ;; leverage는 보통 사전에 동사형은 잘나와 있지 않지만 경제적인 부분에서 동사로 상당히 많이 사용되는 단어 ; 1. FINANCE to use borrowed money to buy an investment or a company ; 2. to use money to get more money [본문으로]
- validity ; [U] 1. 유효함 2. 타당성 [본문으로]
- fall apart ; 2. 결딴나다 [본문으로]
- contradictory ; [형용사] 모순되는 [본문으로]
- logic behind ; ~를 뒷받침해주는, 정황을 설명해주는 논거, 논리 [본문으로]
- invalid ; 1. (법적・공식적으로) 효력 없는[무효한] 2. 근거 없는 [본문으로]
- in contrast ; 그에 반해서 [본문으로]
- ever since ; ~이후로 줄곧[계속] [본문으로]
- engage in ; ~에 관여[참여]하다/~를 ~에 관여[참여]하게 하다, …에 종사하다. [본문으로]
- fishing operation ; [명사] (해양학) 조업(操業), 어로작업 [본문으로]
- to sum up ; 요컨대, 요약해서 말하면 [본문으로]
'References' 카테고리의 다른 글
| The natural wildness of the English language (0) | 2018.09.23 |
|---|---|
| Shareholders vs stakeholder capitalism (0) | 2017.12.05 |
| What is an asset heavy business model? What are the advantages and disadvantages? (0) | 2017.12.01 |
| KSAT Q.31 (even) (0) | 2016.01.27 |