1970年代 ‘北部 大陸棚協定’에 관한 日本國會의 論爭-日本國會 議事錄을 통한 檢證-

최장근 한일민족문제학회 2013 한일민족문제연구 Vol.25 No.-

After the 1965 agreement between South Korea and Japan was signed, the Continental Shelf Agreement between Korea and Japan was signed in 1974. However, the Japanese government was not active on Dokdo policy. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to investigate Japanese Dokdo policy and its influence on the Continental Shelf Agreement. First, Japan did not give up Dokdo territorial sovereignty. The agreement between Korea and Japan was beneficial to Korea. In the 1965 agreement between South Korea and Japan, Japan recognized Korea’s Dokdo occupation indirectly. Second, Japan has hoped the support of the United States in solving the Dokdo issue. During the cold war, there was the confrontation between liberalism and communism. U.S.A wanted Korea and Japan to restore their diplomatic relations. According to SCAPIN 677, U.S.A declared that Dokdo belonged to Korea. The United States supported Japan in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Therefore, the treaty did not contain the status of Dokdo as the Korean territory. It also did not conclude the status of Dokdo as the Japanese territory. Finally, the UN did not define the status of Dokdo. After that, Japan has wanted the support of the United States, but U.S.A has supported the position of Korea. Third, South Korea has stationed the police on Dokdo. The Japanese government has acknowledged this situation. Opposition lawmakers attacked the Japanese government because they did not say anything about the situation to Korean government. The Japanese government repeatedly has answered that if good atmosphere between two countries for the conversation takes place, the Japanese government will resolve territorial disputes peacefully. In Korea-Japan Agreement, the Japanese government admitted Korea’s occupation of Dokdo indirectly. Fourth, the Korea-Japan Agreement was signed during the Sato government in 1965. Since Sato government, both Miki government and Tanaka government have not been active about Dokdo policy because Sato government recognized Dokdo as the Korean territory indirectly. However, the Japanese government has recently claimed that Dokdo is the Japanese territory because the Japanese government does not understand the above fact. Or even though he Japanese government knows the above fact, Japan may intentionally insist that Dokdo is the Japanese territory. 本研究は韓日協定が締結された直後、韓日間に大陸棚協定が締結されたが、当時の日本政府の消極的な独島政策が大陸棚協約に影響を及ぼしたことを考察した。それを要約すると以下のようである。第一に、日本は独島に対する領有権を放棄していなかったが、韓日間の大陸棚協定の締結にあたって韓国に有利になった。その理由は大陸棚協定締結の前に行われた韓日協定において日本が独島に対する韓国の実効的な占有を黙認していたからであった。第二に、日本は独島問題を解決するために米国の支持を希望していた。アメリカは冷戦秩序の中で韓国と日本が国交を回復し、自由陣営の一員として結束を望んだ。米国はSCAPIN677号で独島を韓国領土として処理し、また対日平和条約では日本のロビーを拒否せず、韓国領土として規定されるのを妨害した。それによって最終的に連合国は独島の地位を規定しなかった。韓日協定では米国は韓国の立場を支持した。それで日本は韓国の実効的支配を黙認した。このように独島問題において日本は米国の支持を希望したが、事実上米国は韓国の立場を支持した。第三に、日本政府は野党委員から韓国が独島に警察を駐留させて実効的に管理している状況について非難された。それに対して日本政府は平和的な解決に向けた雰囲気が造成されれば、議論するとの繰り返し答弁だけで、実際に韓国政府に対して独島問題の解決のための協議を要求しなかった。これは、日本政府が事実上韓日協定で韓国の実効的な占有を認めていたからだった。第四に、韓日協定は1965年佐藤内閣で締結されたが、その次の政権だった田中内閣も三木内閣も独島の領有権を主張する韓国の立場を防ぐことができなかった。それは佐藤内閣のことをよく知っていたため、独島政策に対して消極的だった。要するに、日本政府が当時対日平和条約で独島が日本の領土として決定されたと主張していたが、事実上連合国の政策によって韓国が独島を実効的に占有したし、その後の韓日協定でも韓国の立場を貫徹させ、今日まで韓国領土として管理してきている。たが、最近、日本政府が独島の領有権を主張することは、こうした事実をきちんと理解しなかったか、それとも知っていながらも無理して領有権を主張しているかだと思う。

일본의 독도 영토에 대한 한국 관할권의 인정

최장근(崔長根) 한국일본문화학회 2016 日本文化學報 Vol.0 No.70

This study analyzed "Japan"s recognition of Korea"s Dokdo territorial jurisdiction - From "Korea-Japan Treaty" to "New-Japan Fisheries Agreement" - " First, the Allies determined Dokdo as Korean territory in the final battle of World War Ⅱ and Dokdo were treated as Korea"s territory in the peace treaty with Japan. Second, Korea"s position of "Dokdo issue does not exist" in the "Korea-Japan Treaty" had penetrated, but Japan has proposed a private secret agreement to South Korea for maintaining the current status of Dokdo and yet Japan has claimed territorial sovereignty but recognized the jurisdiction rights to Korea. Third, in the continental shelf agreements Japan has not denied Korea"s Dokdo territorial jurisdiction and Japan gave up "the Dokdo as a reference point". Fourth, Japan abandoned the fisheries agreement of 1965 in 1997 unilaterally and required. to determine the new fisheries agreement after one-year Japan has admitted. korea"s Dokdo territorial jurisdiction.

해방 직후부터 평화선 선언까지 ‘경계수역 변경’에 따른 독 도 ‘영유권’에 미친 영향

최장근 대한일어일문학회 2020 일어일문학 Vol.85 No.-

South Korea was recognized by the Allies in 1946 as SCAPIN 677, with jurisdiction and sovereignty over Dokdo. In addition, international maritime law at the time recognized the three nautical miles Territorial sea. In 1946,SCAPIN 1033 established the 12-Harry Fishery Boundary Line from Dokdo. In 1949, Korea's fishing zone was reduced to 3 nautical miles from Dokdo. This is called MacArthur Line. The sovereignty of Dokdo was not determined in the 1951 Peace Treaty of Japan. MacArthur Line was withdrawn. However, Scaffin 677 remained intact because it was not abolished. Three nautical miles from Dokdo became the ocean of Korea. In 1952, five nautical miles from Dokdo became the Korean maritime territory. The ocean range is wider than the MacArthur line. In 1965, the Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement was signed. On land, three nautical miles are recognized. In addition, it was recognized as the 12 nautical mile water area starting from Dokdo. Other areas have become co-regulated waters. In 1974, the Korea-Japan Continental Treaty was signed. Dokdo was included in Korean territory. In 1998, the Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement was signed. The two countries set an intermediate zone. Dokdo was contained in the middle water. Dokdo's sovereignty and exclusive economic zone were not decided. It was just an accord on fishing. Korea and Japan determined exclusive economic zones and temporarily created intermediate zones where they could not determine exclusive economic zones because of the Dokdo issue. Intermediate waters were jointly managed by both countries.

국제법과 한국: 과거, 현재 그리고 미래- 해양/영토문제와 한국

박배근 대한국제법학회 2013 國際法學會論叢 Vol.58 No.3

Since the establishment of the Korean Society of International Law in 1953, international legal issues faced with by Korea have always been the main objects of study for the Korean scholars of international law. In the field of the law of the sea, a few examples of such issues are as follows: determination of the baseline for the measuring of territorial sea and other sea areas; adopting Exclusive Economic Zone and arranging domestic legal system for the EEZ and continental shelf; delimiting maritime boundary with Japan and China; regulation of fishery around Korean peninsular; protection of maritime environment; development of deep seabed resources. Among them, the problem of delimiting EEZ with Japan is a issue closely related with the Dokdo problem. With the conclusion of the so-called 1998 New Fisheries Agreement between Korea and Japan, this issue attracted great attention of Korean scholars of international law, and brought about lots of controversies among them. In addition, the issues caused by the 1952 proclamation of the Peace-Line and the problem of delimitation the boundary of continental shelf between Korea and Japan, which had been a important diplomatic question between the two states around late 1960's and early 1970's, had been prominent objects of study for Korean scholars of international law. When we review the many articles and books about these issues authored by Korean scholars of international law, we can know that they have made sincere and earnest efforts to find out and suggest proper answers to them. In the field of the international legal problem with regard to Korean territory, it is beyond any doubt that the Dokdo problem is the most important and the most serious matter. Besides this, a territorial matter with China known as Kando problem, another such matter with Russia known as Nokdundo problem and territorial boundary between North Korea and China may be included in the international legal problems concerning Korean territory. Concerning the Dokdo problem, there really are vast literatures in various academic fields and international law is not an exception. The studies of Korean scholars of international law are focused on every aspect of the problem and they seem to be aiming at refuting arguments submitted by Japanese government and scholars. The problem of Kando is not a pending issue between Korea and China. However, there are scholars in the Korean Society of International Law who continuously show interest about the matter. The materials written by them point out that the territorial belonging of Kando must not have been determined by the so-called 1909 Agreement between China and Japan and this matter must be resolved by the negotiation between Korea and China on the basis of the state of the matter existed before 1909. 이 글은 대한국제법학회가 창립된 이래 한국이 직면한 해양 문제와 영토 문제에 관하여 한국의 국제법학자들이 거둔 연구 성과와 활동 성과를 간략히 살펴보고자 하는 것이다. 먼저 해양문제에 관하여 보면, 한국은 다양한 해양활동을 펼쳐온 국가로서 해양법상의 거의 모든 문제가 직간접적으로 한국이 당면한 국제법적 문제에 해당한다. 그 예로는 기선의 획정, 영해와 접속수역의 결정과 법제화, 배타적 경제수역 및 대륙붕 제도의 확정과 주변국들과의 경계 획정, 어업과 해양환경의 규율, 심해저 개발과 관련된 문제 등을 들 수 있다. 그 중에서도 일본과 배타적 경제수역을 획정하는 문제는 독도 문제와 깊은 관련을 가지는 것으로서 1998년 신한일어업협정의 체결을 계기로 한국의 국제법학계의 지대한 관심을 끌었으며 많은 논쟁을 불러일으킨 문제이기도 하다. 그 밖에 해양에 관한 국제법적 문제로서 한국의 국제법학자들이 특별한 관심의 대상이 되었던 것들로는 1952년의 평화선 선언의 국제법적 성질과 문제점, 일본과의 대륙붕 경계획정 문제 등을 들 수 있을 것이다. 이들 해양문제에 관한 한국 국제법학자들의 연구 경향과 성과를 살펴보면, 한국에서 국제법학회가 창립된 이래 한국의 해양법 문제에 대한 적절한 해답을 제공하기 위하여 성실하고 진지하게 노력한 모습을 찾아 볼 수 있다. 한국이 안고 있는 영토 문제의 중심은 말할 것도 없이 독도 문제이다. 그 밖에도 간도 문제, 녹둔도 문제, 북한과 중국의 국경 문제 등도 한국의 영토 문제에 포함시킬 수 있는 문제들이다. 독도 문제에 관해서는 문제의 중요성에 걸맞게 여러 학문 분야에서 다양하고 방대한 분량의 논고들이 생산되고 있으며 국제법학도 예외가 아니다. 이 문제에 대한 한국 국제법학계의 연구는 일본의 독도 영유권 주장을 논박하기 위하여 독도 문제와 관련된 모든 쟁점들에 관하여 광범위한 연구와 고찰을 계속해 오고 있다. 간도 문제는 한국과 중국 사이에서 실제로 표면화된 현안 문제는 아니지만, 이 문제를 꾸준하게 천착하고 있는 국제법학자들의 연구 성과가 보인다. 간도의 귀속을 일본과 중국이 결정한 것의 부당성을 지적하고 1909년의 중일간의 간도협약 이전의 상태로 돌아가 한국과 중국이 이 문제를 결정하여야 한다는 주장을 담은 연구가 많다.

東シナ海における「海」の境界畵定問題の解決に向けて: 日韓大陸棚協定を手掛かりに

( Ando Junko ) 현대일본학회 2016 日本硏究論叢 Vol.43 No.-

昨今,東シナ海をめぐって樣樣な問題が生じているが,その要因の一つは,同海域において境界が設定されていない点にある。國連海洋法條約では,向かい合う海域が400キロ未滿の場合,交涉によって境界を畵定すると定めている。しかし,東シナ海においては,それぞれが主張する境界が異なっている上,領土や資源といった問題も絡んでいることから境界の畵定が難しい狀況にある。そのような中で,唯一,境界を「畵定」させたのが日韓大陸棚協定である。同協定では,東シナ海の大陸棚に關して,境界畵定を棚上げして共同開發すると規定している。しかし,いずれは大陸棚の境界畵定について交涉が行われる可能性もあり,また,日韓間ではEEZの境界畵定もなされていない。そして,日韓間にとどまらず,日中·韓中間でも未畵定のままである。國連海洋法條約による境界畵定基準は,抽象的·あいまいなものとなっており,それが境界畵定基準で論爭を引き起こす原因にもなっている。境界畵定の合意は非常に難しいことが予想されるため,日韓大陸棚協定を先例として,最近の硏究でも指摘されているように,境界を畵定せずに,共同で開發·管理することが最も現實的な解決方法になるだろう。 Recently, there are)a variety of problems over the East China Sea, one of the reason is that not demarcate the boundaries in the East China Sea. The delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, in order to achieve an equitable solution by The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, the contents of this article are very vague.It is difficult to define the boundaries of the continental shelf in the negotiations because of the resources and territory. The only example the demarcated border in the East China Sea is the Agreement between Japan and Korea on the Continental Shelf. Without defining the boundary in the East China Sea, it should be developed and managed jointly as Japan and South Korea continental shelf agreement.