RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    독도문제에 대한 일본의 국제법적 연구 -‘실효적 지배’를 중심으로- = Dokdo Issues, and Japanese academics’ International Law Studies : Focused on Research on Effective Control

    한글로보기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    In the discussion of Dokdo issues, Japanese academics in the area of international law emphasize the relative superiority of the effective control presented in the judgments of the Minquiers and Ecrehos case. In particular, they highlight Japan’s effective control over Dokdo after 1905. However, such a contention would be established not only when the legitimacy of Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo is proven, but also when it is proved that Japan’s effective control over the island thereafter was stable and continuous enough to establish a new title.
    In this study, based on Ahn Yong-bok's actions at the end of the 17<sup>th</sup> century, the agreement between Korea and Japan in the Diplomatic Agreement on the Territorial Dispute over Ulleungdo in 1699, and the Dajokan Directive of 1877 which Japan succeeded to as its modern domestic law, it was clarified that Japan's incorporation of Dokdo was not established, as Korea had the title to Dokdo before 1905 and Japan also recognized this. In addition, Japan’ effective control after 1905 was examined in terms of conflict of titles between Korea and Japan. It was also pointed out that Japan's effective control over the island for about four years after 1905 was not sufficient to establish a new title to the island.
    Furthermore, in terms of the theory of effective control, how should the weight between Japan's effective control over Dokdo after 1905 and Korea's effective control over Dokdo after 1945 be evaluated? It was also suggested that the special nature of modern Korea-Japan relations and the controversy over Japan’s annexation of Dokdo in 1905 should be regarded as “special circumstances” by citing the fact that the judgment of the Minquiers and Ecrehos case stated that, under special circumstances, actions after the decisive date should also be considered. It was further highlighted that there is a need to discuss whether there is any room for Korea's current effective control over Dokdo to be evaluated under international law.
    번역하기

    In the discussion of Dokdo issues, Japanese academics in the area of international law emphasize the relative superiority of the effective control presented in the judgments of the Minquiers and Ecrehos case. In particular, they highlight Japan’s ef...

    In the discussion of Dokdo issues, Japanese academics in the area of international law emphasize the relative superiority of the effective control presented in the judgments of the Minquiers and Ecrehos case. In particular, they highlight Japan’s effective control over Dokdo after 1905. However, such a contention would be established not only when the legitimacy of Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo is proven, but also when it is proved that Japan’s effective control over the island thereafter was stable and continuous enough to establish a new title.
    In this study, based on Ahn Yong-bok's actions at the end of the 17<sup>th</sup> century, the agreement between Korea and Japan in the Diplomatic Agreement on the Territorial Dispute over Ulleungdo in 1699, and the Dajokan Directive of 1877 which Japan succeeded to as its modern domestic law, it was clarified that Japan's incorporation of Dokdo was not established, as Korea had the title to Dokdo before 1905 and Japan also recognized this. In addition, Japan’ effective control after 1905 was examined in terms of conflict of titles between Korea and Japan. It was also pointed out that Japan's effective control over the island for about four years after 1905 was not sufficient to establish a new title to the island.
    Furthermore, in terms of the theory of effective control, how should the weight between Japan's effective control over Dokdo after 1905 and Korea's effective control over Dokdo after 1945 be evaluated? It was also suggested that the special nature of modern Korea-Japan relations and the controversy over Japan’s annexation of Dokdo in 1905 should be regarded as “special circumstances” by citing the fact that the judgment of the Minquiers and Ecrehos case stated that, under special circumstances, actions after the decisive date should also be considered. It was further highlighted that there is a need to discuss whether there is any room for Korea's current effective control over Dokdo to be evaluated under international law.

    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼