논문(論文) : 근대 일본의 수로지에 나타난 울릉도,독도 인식

송휘영 ( Hwi Young Song ) 대구사학회 2012 대구사학 Vol.106 No.-

The Japanese Recognition on Ulleungdo?Dokdo in Modern Pilot Song, Hwi-young [Abstract] Geographical recognition is very important for Dokdo sovereignty dispute. This is related to the recognition on Ulleungdo?Dokdo which reveals in every geographical records. This paper will review the Japanese Ulleungdo?Dokdo recognition after Meiji(1868) until Japanese coercive merge of Korea in modern geography records. Especially this paper focused on 『pilot』 which was published by Japan Ministry of Marine Department of Marine Sea etc. Because those facts could suggest a logical base if the foundation of Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs for Dokdo sovereignty by ``historical recognition`` and ``Terra Nulius`` would establish. We can point out three issues in the analysis for the pilot. First, the Japanese fisherman around Sanin(山陰) shore and Japanese Dajokan(太政官) and Ministry of Foreign Affairs consistently have recognised ?Ulleungdo=Takeshima, Dokdo=Matsushima? until late of 19C but Japan navy have recognised ?Ulleungdo=Matsushima, Dokdo=Liancourt? as different island. This kind of false recognition have induced the intentional annexation of Dokdo as Liancourt to Japan. This could be a same context with the past intention of Ulleungdo annexation by Tsushima province and the Takeshima one event. Second, the pilot read Ulleungdo and Dokdo as one set of geographical item in Ulleungdo until 1905 Dokdo annexation by Japan and from 1910 coercive merge of Korean peninsular by Japan to Korean liberation year. This view proves Japan have recognized Dokdo(Matsushima) as one of attached island of Ulleungdo (Takeshima) or neighbor island from Bafuku era. Third, modern Japan navy publish pilot shows obvious differentiation of territory. After 1895, Taiwan was included in Japanese territory in the 『Japan Pilot』 but others were included in 『Choseon Pilot』, which showed obvious view of the pilot recognizing the territorial sea and land in unit. So, the fact Dokdo?Ulleungdo was included in 『Choseon Pilot』 obviously proved the islands were belong to Choseon territory.

독도 관련 일본 고문서의 연구동향과 자료 검토

송휘영(Song, Hwi Young) 동아시아일본학회 2014 일본문화연구 Vol.0 No.50

The recent result of Japanese research on Dokdo by paleography mostly negates the Inherent Territory Theory. However, the PR site of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and textbook inspected by the Japanese Ministry of Education clarified Inherent Territory Theory to teach to students. A brief review of this study is as follows. First, the northwest border of Japan recorded in Insyushicogoki (records of Eun province events) is Oki island. In 1625 the Takeshima-tokai-menkyo (License to cross the sea to Takeshima) was issued, a license to permit crossing to Matsushima-tokai-menkyo (License to cross the sea to Matsushima) did not exist, according to research by Ikeuch. Second, a reexamination of the materials on Ahn Yong-bok’s statement is needed because Japanese research is suspicious about the credibility of the statement. Third, Dajyokan-Shirei (Order of the Governor) recorded Takeshima-hokaitto (Jukdo Island and one other island), in which Ulleungdo and Dokdo are the islands being referred to, but the contemporary Japanese Meiji government recognized that Dokdo was outside Japanese territory. Fourth, The Korean Imperial Ordinance No. 41 does not prove Seokdo (石島) as present Dokdo. Shimane Announcement No. 40 is effective if there is no evidence to prove practical domination by the Korean government before 1905. It is important to recognize the Dokdo research as a historic issue to protest Japanese inherent territory theory though Japanese studies turn focus to terra nullius theory, which would be the right way to justify Korean inherent territorial claims on Dokdo.

독도 「고유영토론」에 관한 일본의 국제법적 연구 논거 비판

송휘영 ( Song Hwi-young ) 한국일본근대학회 2021 일본근대학연구 Vol.0 No.71

일본 외무성의 주장을 보면, ⓐ 예로부터 일본은 독도를 인식하고 있었으나 한국은 인식하지 못하였다. ⓑ 일본은 17세기 중반에 독도의 영유권을 확립하였다. 그리고 ⓒ 1905년 각의결정을 통해 독도의 영유 의사를 재확인하였다. ⓓ 한국은 ‘이승만 라인’(평화선)에 의해 독도를 불법점거하고 있으며 일본은 이를 국제사법재판소에 부탁할 것을 제안하고 있으나 한국이 거부하고 있다는 것이다. 이와 같은 논리는 일본의 초중고 사회과 교과서에 그대로 반영되어 ‘다케시마는 17세기에 영유권이 확립된 일본 고유의 영토’이며, ‘한국이 불법점거’하고 있고, 이에 일본은 ‘평화적 해결을 위해 노력하고 있다’는 독도 영유권 주장의 기본 프레임을 구성하고 있다. 이러한 일본 주장의 논리는 ‘고유의 영토’인 독도를 1905년에 일본영토로 편입하여 이 고유영토를 ‘재확인’하였다는 것이다. 이는 과거 「무주지선점」의 논리를 앞세우던 것에서 ‘권원의 대체’라고 말을 바꾸어 새롭게 「고유영토론」의 논리를 재포장한 것에 불과한 것이다. 이와 관련한 츠카모토 다카시(塚本孝)의 주장에 대한 비판적 검토를 한 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 나카이가 “리양코섬=독도를 조선영토라고 사고하고 있었다”는 것을 착각 또는 오해라고 하고 있으나, 해도와 수로지를 통해 나카이는 정확히 판단하고 있었다. 둘째, 1905년 이전 메이지 일본 정부는 태정관지령을 통해 울릉도와 독도가 일본의 판도 밖이며 조선의 영토로 간주하고 있었다는 한국 정부의 주장에 대해 여전히 「죽도외일도」가 울릉도와 또하나의 울릉도라는 ‘1도설’을 주장하고 있다. 그러나 이것은 명백한 사료의 왜곡해석이다. 셋째, 당시 외교권이 박탈되어 군사적 강압 하에서 한국정부에 의한 어떤 반응이 없었다는 것으로 ‘무주지’를 합법적으로 편입하여 ‘평온하고도 계속적인 행정권을 행사’했다고도 말할 수 없다는 것이다. 또한 1905년 이전 관찬문서, 해도 및 수로지 등에서는 독도를 일본영토에서 취급하지 않고 있으므로 ‘고유영토’를 근대국제법 논리에 의해 영토편입을 하여 영유의사를 ‘재확인’했다는 것은 성립될 수 없다. According to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ claim, ⓐ Japan recognized Dokdo from history but Korea did not recognize it. ⓑ Japan established the sovereignty of Dokdo in the mid-17th century. And, ⓒ through the decision of Japan Cabinet in 1905, the intention of Dokdo territorial right was reaffirmed. ⓓ Korea is illegally occupying Dokdo by Lee Seung-man Line [Peace Line], and Japan is proposing to ask the International Court of Justice, but Korea refuses it. This logic is reflected in the textbooks of elementary, middle and high schools in Japan, and Takeshima is a territory unique to Japan where sovereignty was established in the 17th century. It is composed of the basic frame of the claim that Korea is illegally occupying the island, and Japan is trying to solve in the peaceful solution. The logic of this Japanese claim is that Dokdo, the ‘Inherent territory’, was incorporated into the Japanese territory in 1905 and ‘reconfirmed’ this unique territory. This is just a repackaging of the logic of the ‘Inherent Territory’ by changing the word ‘substitution of title’ from the logic of ‘Terra Nulius’ in the past. The results of a critical review of Takashi Tsukamoto’s claim related to this are as follows. First, although Nakai was mistaken or misunderstood that “Liancourt Rocks = Dokdo was thought of as the Korea territory,” but Nakai was accurately judging the fact through the marine and waterways maps. Second, the Japanese government of Meiji before 1905 still claims that Ulleungdo and Dokdo were outside the Japanese territory and considered the territory of Joseon through the Dajokan Order by Japan. But Japan still claims “Takeshima-hoka-itto[Takeshima and one island] was Ulleungdo and another Ulleungdo. However, this is a distorted interpretation of clear historical materials. Third, it is that Korean government under military coercion because the diplomatic power was deprived at the time, and that it was not exercised in ‘peaceful and continuous administrative power” and the insistence Japan government legally incorporated the ‘Terra Nulius island’ was not meet to any of the fact. In addition, since Dokdo is not treated in the Japanese territory in the official documents, maps, and waterways before 1905, which can not be established that the ‘inherent territory’ was incorporated to the territory by the logic of modern international law.

울릉도쟁계(竹島一件)의 결착과 스야마 쇼에몽(陶山庄右衛門)

송휘영(Song Hwi-Young) 한국일본문화학회 2011 日本文化學報 Vol.0 No.49

일본 독도 교육의 현황과 방향성 검토

송휘영(Song, Hwi-Young) 한국일본문화학회 2015 日本文化學報 Vol.0 No.64

The purpose of this paper is to check the present condition of Japan’s Dokdo education and to examine the directionality of the movement of intensified Takesima/Dokdo Education by focusing on The Final Report(2012.3), from which the implications for our Dokdo education will be deduced. The Final Report mentioned above decided to use social studies textbooks in each subject in the field. In addition, for each course ‘Exercise’, and ‘Guideline for Map’, ‘Data /Historical Materials’ including glossary are specifically presented. In addition, Takesima/Dokdo Education of Shimane Prefecture will be good example for others, and increasingly will be used in the field of school education. It is clear that the guideline of Shimane Prefecture is sure to be spread throughout the country and the number of textbooks which defines Takesima/Dokdo belonged to Japan will increase. Qualitatively and quantitatively, this trend will be reinforced in various social studies textbooks. In our side, to respond to these Japanese education based on new teaching guideline, the contents of present auxiliary textbook including description of Dokdo in social studies textbooks need to be reorganized. Reform of Dokdo education appropriate to the student’s eye-level will be made in the manner of which students at each level can easily understand and be interested in Dokdo.

일제강점기 울릉도 거주 일본인들의 울릉도·독도 인식

송휘영(Song, Hwi Young) 동아시아일본학회 2013 일본문화연구 Vol.46 No.-

This paper purposed to reveal Japanese socio-economic way of living who had lived in last Ulleungdo and organizing a club name ‘Utsuryotoyu-kai’, and examined the recognition of Japanese on Ulleungdo and Dokdo through the newsletter of ?Utsuryotoyu-kaiho? during Japanese ruling of Korean peninsular. The result of the analysis is abstracted as follows. First, when we review the characteristics of the founding Utsuryotoyukai (Friendship Association of the Island) as friendship club which was mediated by politician Hayama Toiichi and publishing newsletter ?Utsuryotoyu-kaiho? there should have revealed a political purpose to organize the club. Second, the hometown of the most of Japanese who have resided in Ulleungdo before Korean liberation from Japanese colonial rule was Sanin region(Dottoriken, Shimaneken) and they involved in similar job at Ulleungdo on the bases of their experience after their return to hometown. Third, the characteristics and foundation starting period which had begun just before one year before the signing Korea-Japan Diplomatic Normalization Agreement, and judging from their vivid activity for Takeshima belong to Japan territory campaign explain the purpose of the organization Utsuryotoyukai was motivated by Japanese central or Shimaneken’s governmental influence.

「죽도외일도」의 해석과 메이지 정부의 울릉도·독도 인식

송휘영(Song, Hwi Young) 동아시아일본학회 2014 일본문화연구 Vol.0 No.52

This paper reviews the recognition of the Ulleungdo-Dokdo islands by the Japanese government during the Meiji era through an analysis of the meaning of the term “Takeshima and one island” in the Dajokan Order, which was written by the Takeshima Study Group in Shimane-ken. The results of the analysis were as follows. First, the term “one island” was insisted upon by the Takeshima Study Group, and it was based on Kawakami Kenzo’s confused theory about the name “Dokdo.” However, the term does not actually include Ulleungdo, which has been called both Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo), but rather refers only to the island of Dokdo. This interpretation is clear in the phrase Takeshima-gai-itto, meaning “Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and one island,” which traditionally refers to Takeshima or Matsushima (Dokdo). Second, another phrase found in the Daijokan Order, Iso-takeshima-Ryakuzu, obviously refers to Takeshima-gai-itto. It specifically includes Iso Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo), which clearly shows that it is the “one island” of Matsushima (Dokdo). Third, Shimane-ken mentioned the “one island” of Songdo (Dokdo) when the Japanese Ministry of Domestic Affairs first sent them a letter to inquire about a map published by the local government. In this letter, the documentation of Takeshima-Kankeishiryo by Shimane-ken clearly recorded Matsushima (Dokdo) as the “one island.” Fourth, analysis of the names used for the Ulleungdo-Dokdo islands during the Meiji era by each Japanese ministry and council, especially by the Ministries of Domestic Affairs and Foreign Affairs and the Daijokan, shows that they recognized Ulleungdo as Takeshima and Dokdo as Matsushima without any confusion. This paper shows that the various Japanese ministries used these different names for the islands with no confusion.

독도에 대한 일본의 「고유영토론」과 독도 인식

송휘영(Song, Hwi Young) 한국동양정치사상사학회 2018 한국동양정치사상사연구 Vol.17 No.2

일본 정부는 2008년 이후 ‘다케시마(독도)는 역사적 국제법상으로 일본 고유의 영토’라는 주장을 견지하고 있다. 본고의 목적은 일본 주장의 근간을 이루는 ‘고유영토론’의 타당성을 검토하기 위해 일본 측 관찬사료의 분석을 통해 역사적으로 일본의 독도인식이 어떠했는가를 밝히는 것이다. 우선 17세기에 울릉도 도해를 하였던 오야 · 무라카와 양가의 기록과 메이지 시기의 문서들을 보면 독도는 울릉도의 부속섬으로 인식되고 있었다. 이는 요시다 쇼인의 문서에서도 나타나는데 죽도(울릉도), 대판도(댓섬), 송도(독도)를 합하여 죽도(울릉도)라고 인식하고 있었다. 또한 해도, 수로지, 수로잡지 등 해군성 사료와 『죽도고증』, 「일본외교문서」, 「조선국교제시말내탐서」 등 외무성 사료에서도 송도(독도)와 죽도(울릉도)는 겐로쿠 시기 ‘죽도일건’에 의해 이미 일본의 판도 밖으로 인식하고 있었다. 「내탐서」에서 ‘죽도와 송도가 조선의 부속이 되어있는 경위’를 조사하여 보고한 것도 겐로쿠 시기 쓰시마번의 대조선 관계 문서를 검토한 결과 이루어진 것임을 알 수 있다. 다시 말해 근세 및 근대 일본 측의 사료를 통해 보면 독도는 일본 판도의 밖으로 조선의 영토로 인식하고 있음이 명확하다고 할 것이다. 따라서 일본의 독도에 대한 고유영토론은 성립될 수 없다. Japan government persists the view on Dokdo after 2008 as ‘Takeshima (Dokdo) is Japanese inherent territory by historical international law.’ The purpose of this paper is to reveal the recognition of modern Japanese on Dokdo in the record of Japanese MOFA and Department of Navy to analyse the base of ‘Theory of Inherent Territory.’ To review the historical materials from Oya-Murakawa family who had crossed the sea to Ulleungdo in 17th century and those documents during Meiji emperor periods, Dokdo was recognised as an annexed island to Ulleungdo. This fact was also revealed in Yoshida Shoin"s document, which Takeshima(Ulleungdo), Osakajima(Daetseom), Matsushima(Dokdo) as a whole was recognized as one Takeshima(Ulleungdo). Also, many materials from hydrographical chart, coast pilot, and coastal magazine from Department of Navy, Takeshima-kosyo, ‘Japan Mofa Document’, Chosenkoku-kosaishimatu-naitansyo from Japan Mofa recognized Matsushima (Dokdo) and Takeshima(Ulleungdo) was already out of Japan territory by ‘Takeshima-Ikken’ during Kenroku period. 「Internal Inspection Report」also construed after the review on documents about relationship between Choseon and Tsushima Bun during the Kenroku period on the topic of ‘The Sequence of Takeshima and Matsushima belong to Choseon’. In another word, the materials from modern Japan Mofa and Department of Navy proved Dokdo was Japanese territory. Therefore, Japanese logic of inherent territory on Dokdo sovereignty can not be established.