Why does Japan always invade Korea?
Q1 According to international law, does the proximity of an island to the territory of a state influence the territorial claims on that island?
The Republic of Korea claims that "Takeshima is geographically a part of Utsuryo Island" due to Takeshima’s geographical proximity to Utsuryo Island. According to international law, however, territorial claims are not based solely on geographical proximity. There are numerous international precedents for this.
For example, the International Court of Justice ruled in the 1920s in the dispute over the “Island of Palma” between the USA and the Netherlands, “that a legal title based on proximity does not constitute a basis for territorial claims under international law (“ no foundation ”). More recently, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its ruling on the territorial dispute between Honduras and Nicaragua in the Caribbean did not recognize the geographical proximity of Nicaragua as the basis for its territorial claims. In addition, in the 2002 dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia over the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan, he rejected Indonesia's claim that these two islands, located 40 nautical miles from an island of undisputed sovereignty, belonged to that island.
Q2Is Takeshima recorded in ancient Korean documents and maps?
No. The Republic of Korea claims that the "Usan Island" mentioned in ancient Korean documents and maps is today's Takeshima, but there is no evidence of this.
Old Korean documents citing the Republic of Korea as "evidence"
Based on records in old Korean documents, the Republic of Korea claims that Korea had long known the existence of the two islands "Utsuryo Island" and "Usan Island" and that this Usan Island is today's Takeshima. However, there is no evidence in the old Korean documents that Usan Island is actually today's Takeshima.
For example, the Republic of Korea claims that “Sejong Sillok Jiriji (Geographical Appendix to the Truthful Records of King Sejong)” of 1454 and “Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam (Revised and Expanded Edition of the Survey of the Geography of Korea)” of 1531 that Utsuryo Island and Usan Island are located in the sea east of Uljin Province, and that Usan Island is today's Takeshima. In “Sejong Sillok Jiriji”, however, it says: “In the Shilla era, the name“ Province of Usan ”was used as well as Utsuryo Island. The land is about 100 square ri (新 羅 時 称 于 山 国 一 云 欝 陵 島 地方 百里). ”In“ Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam ”it says“ Another view is that Usan and Utsuryo are one and same island. The land is 100 square ri in size (一 説 于 山 欝 陵 本 一 島 地方 百里). ”These documents contain nothing specific about the“ Usan Island ”, only Utsuryo Island is described. There are also old Korean documents that clearly show that Usan Island is not today's Takeshima. Volume 33 of the Annals of King Taejong in February of his 17th year of reign (1417) contains the statement that “the royal inspector In-u Kim returned from Usan Island and brought long bamboo as gifts. He also brought 3 islanders with him. There are about fifteen families on the island and a total of 86 men and women (按 撫 使 金 麟 雨 還 自 于 山 島 獻 土産 大竹 水 牛皮 生 苧 綿 子 子 撿 撲 木 等 物 且 率 居 人 三名 以来 其 島 戸 凡 十五 口 男女 并 八十 六). ”However, no bamboo grows on Takeshima and 86 people cannot live there either.
The Republic of Korea claims that e.g. B. In "Dongguk Munheonbigo (Study of Korean Documents)" of 1770 it is written that "Utsuryo and Usan are territories of Usan Province". However, the information in documents from the 18th century is based on the unreliable statements of a person named Yong-Bok Ahn, who secretly entered Japan in 1696 (see F & A3). Even if it says in records published in the 18th or 19th century: “Usan is called Matsushima in Japan”, that in no way means that “Usan”, that in “Sejong Sillok Jiriji (Geographical Appendix of the True Records of King Sejong) ”from the 15th century and“ Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam (Revised and expanded edition of the survey of the geography of Korea) ”from the 16th century is actually the island of“ Takeshima ”.
Old Maps Citing the Republic of Korea as "Evidence" *
The Republic of Korea claims that Takeshima is depicted as Usan Island on 16th century maps. However, none of the Usan Islands shown on the Korean maps are actually Takeshima.
* Note: According to international law, cards not related to contracts are not considered a basis for territorial claims; and even cards associated with contracts are only used to confirm what the signatories agree to in the contract.
Utsuryo Island and Usan Island are shown as two separate islands on the map in the annex to "Revised Edition of an Extended Survey of the Geography of Korea". If, as the Republic of Korea claims, Usan Island is today's Takeshima, it should have been drawn as a much smaller island than Utsuryo Island east of Utsuryo Island. In this map, however, Usan Island is roughly the same size as Utsuryo Island and is located between the Korean Peninsula and Utsuryo Island. The Usan Island in the "Map of the Eight Provinces of Korea" is therefore either Utsuryo Island, which was drawn in as two islands, or an imaginary island. In any case, it is not about Takeshima Island, which is much further east of Utsuryo Island.
▲ "Map of the eight provinces of Korea", contained in "Revised and expanded edition of the overview of the geography of Korea" (copy)
In Korean maps from the 18th century onwards, Usan Island appears east of Utsuryo Island. But even this Usan island is not today's Takeshima.
For example, Usan Island is shown in the "Map of Utsuryo Island" in connection with the inspection of Utsuryo Island by Seok-chang Bak in 1711 east of Utsuryo Island. However, there is the note: “So-called Usan Island, fields with Haejang bamboo”. "Haejang bamboo" is a dwarf bamboo (a type of bamboo grass). However, since plants of this kind do not grow on the rocky island of Takeshima, this Usan island is in fact not Takeshima. By contrast, dwarf bamboo grows on Jukdo Island *, which is about 2 km east of Utsuryo Island. It is therefore conceivable that the “Usan Island” in the “Map of Utsuryo Island” is actually Jukdo Island.
* Jukdo Island: Small island about 2 km east of Utsuryo Island
▲ Utsuryo Island survey map, Imperial Navy Hydrographic Division
Also in the “Map of Utsuryo Island” in the map made by the well-known Korean cartographer Jeong-ho Kim with the name “Cheonggudo” from 1834, an elongated island called “Usan” is drawn east of Utsuryo Island is.
Since all four sides of the map contain a division (1 unit corresponds to 10 Korean Ri, approx. 4 km), the distances are clear. Based on the distance of 2 to 3 km between Utsuryo Island and Usan Island and because of the shape of the island, this Usan Island clearly shows the island of Jukdo (and not Takeshima, the from Utsuryo Island is about 90 km away).
This means that it is conceivable that Usan in Korean maps from the 18th century onwards is "Jukdo".
▲ ”Map of Utsuryo Island” from ”Cheonggudo” from 1834 (Copyright Tenri Library of Tenri University ”
Maps showing Jukdo about 2 km east of Utsuryo Island as Usan are from modern times. The "Daehan Jeondo", published in 1899 by the Scientific Editorial Office of the Korean Empire, is a modern map with latitude and longitude and shows "Usan" right next to Utsuryo Island. This "Usan" is also Jukdo and not today's Takeshima.
▲ ”Daehan Jeondo” (owned by Toyo Bunko Publishing)
Q3Who was “Yong-bok Ahn”?
In 1693 Yong-bok Ahn went fishing to Utsuryo Island (which was then called "Takeshima" in Japan) and met the Ohya family there, who took him to Japan. In 1696 he went to Japan again, this time of his own accord, to sue the Tottori clan. However, he was subsequently arrested and interrogated by the Korean authorities for leaving Korea without permission. During the interrogation, Yong-bok Ahn testified that he had met several Japanese on Utsuryo Island, whom he accused of violating borders. After hearing that Matsushima was home to Japanese, he thought that Matsushima was Jasan Island, which is also part of Korea. From this, the connection between Usan Island and today's Takeshima arose later in Korean records.
The Republic of Korea cites statements made by Yong-bok Ahn during his interrogation as evidence of its claim to Takeshima.
These statements by Yong-bok Ahn are recorded in the "Annals of King Sukjong" in the 9th month of the 22nd year of King Sukjong's reign (1696). However, in the same document (in the 2nd month of the 23rd year of the reign of King Sukjong) it is also recorded that the Korean government rejects the actions of Yong-bok Ahn, from which it can be seen that he did not act as a representative of Korea (cf. Addendum 1). In addition, his statement contains aspects that do not correspond to reality, so that its credibility is doubtful (see Addendum 2).
◎ Addition 1: Yong-bok Ahn is not a representative of Korea
The following points indicate that Yong-bok Ahn did not act as the agent of Korea.
In the "Annals of King Sukjong" the following is stated about the journey from Yong-bok Ahn to Japan:
"Official Yi [Sejae 世 載] conveyed to the king a request from an envoy from Tsushima whether" the man from Korea who brought a lawsuit last year had done so on behalf of Korea "(去 秋 貴 国人 有 呈 単事 出於 über 令 耶). In response, Yi transmitted: “In the event that clarification is required, we will send an official interpreter to Edo and not a foolish fisherman as if we had something to fear” (若有 可 弁送 一 訳 於 江 戸 顧 何 所 憚 而 乃 送 狂 蠢 浦 民 耶). […] The Joseon Border Defense Officer said, “The Korean government has nothing to do with what ignorant people say as the wind blows. (… 至於 漂 風 愚民 設 有所作為 亦非 朝 家 所知). This answer to the envoy from Tsushima was discussed and the king gave his consent (請 以此 言及 館 倭 允 之). ”(From: Sukjong, 23rd year)
In a letter to the feudal lords of Tsushima, Seon-bak Yi, Vice Minister for Negotiations, conveyed the rejection from the Korean side: “The man who washed up last year is one of those who live by the sea and go to sea , and if they get caught in a storm, they are immediately carried to your land by the waves (昨 年 漂 氓 事 濱海 之 率 率 以 舟楫 為 業 颿 風 焱 焱 忽 易 及 飄盪 以至 冒 越 重 溟 轉入 貴 国). [...] If he has brought a lawsuit, it is a criminal forgery (… 若 其 呈 書 誠 有 妄作 之 罪). He was therefore banished by us according to the law (故 已 施 幽 殛 之 典 以為 懲 戢 之 地). ”
(Note: The feudal lord of Tsushima was the official contact with the Korean government during the Edo period)
On the ship with which Yong-bok Ahn was sailing, a banner was waving that read, “Tax officer of the two islands of Utsuryo Island, Joseon. On board: Vassal Ahn ”, and he described himself as the“ tax controller of the two islands of Utsuryo and Usan ”. He made up this title himself, which he admitted. “Tax Controller” or “Tax Auditor” refers to a tax collector for the islands of Utsuryo and Usan. Apparently, Yong-bok Ahn believed that Usan Island was a large inhabited island.
◎ Addition 2: Credibility of Yong-bok Ahn's statements
There are numerous contradictions in Yong-bok Ahn's testimony that make it unbelievable.
Yong-bok Ahn has been to Japan twice. The first time in 1693, when he was brought to Japan to prove that he did not have to fish on Utsuryo Island (called "Takeshima" in Japan at the time). The second time in 1696, when he secretly went to Japan to file a lawsuit with the Tottori clan and was expelled from the Tottori clan. Yong-bok Ahn's testimony, recorded in the "Annals of King Sukjong," comes from his interrogation by the Joseon Border Defense Officer upon his return. As a result, when Yong-bok Ahn was in Japan for the first time, he received a letter from the Edo Shogunate stating that Utsuryo Island and Usan Island are Korean territory. However, this letter would have been taken from him by the Tsushima clan. In any case, negotiations between Japan and Korea over fishing around Utsuryo Island began after Yong-bok Ahn was brought to Japan and sent back to Korea via the Tsushima clan. A letter stating that Utsuryo Island and Usan Island are Korean territory was not given to him by the Edo shogunate at the time of his trip to Japan in 1693, i.e. before the negotiations began.
Yong-bok Ahn also testified that there were many Japanese on Utsuryo Island when he crossed in May 1696. In January, however, the Ohya and Murakawa families had already given back their license to sail, as the Edo shogunate had decided to ban the crossing to Utsuryo Island. This instruction had been passed on to the Tottori clan. The Republic of Korea argues, based on the statement by Yong-bok Ahn, that the Edo shogunate decided on the occasion of the crossing of Yong-bok Ahn in 1696 to forbid the Japanese from crossing to Utsuryo Island, but Yong-bok actually drove Ahn did not enter Japan until four months after the Edo shogunate had banned the passage to Utsuryo Island.
After returning to Korea, Yong-bok Ahn was interrogated. He testified that he had said the following to the Japanese: “Matsushima, i. H. Jasan (Usan Island), is my country's territory, how did you come to live here? (松 島 即 子 山 島 、 此亦 我国 地 、 汝 敢 住 此 耶) “. Since no Japanese went to Utsuryo Island this year, this statement is not true. Yong-bok Ahn apparently believed that Usan Island could be inhabited by humans. While fishing on Utsuryo Island in 1693, he learned from his companions that Usan Island (Takeshimakiji) is to the northeast of Utsuryo Island, and when he was brought to Japan, he testified that he had one "Saw big island, much bigger than Utsuryo island" (Byeonrye Jibyo). It can be assumed that Yong-bok Ahn said: "Matsushima is the Jasan (Usan) island", since he had heard of the name "Matsushima" (today's Takeshima) during his stay in Japan in 1693, and he learned about it Name associated with Usan Island, which Korea was traditionally aware of. The statement "Matsushima is the Jasan Island" does not mean with regard to the names, however, that today's "Takeshima" is meant.
Q4Is there any evidence that Takeshima was owned by Korea before the Japanese government incorporated Takeshima into the territory of Japan in 1905?
No. The Republic of Korea has not provided any specific evidence that Korean-owned Takeshima was in possession.
The Republic of Korea claims that Usan or Usan Island, which is mentioned in old Korean documents, e.g. B. "Sejong Sillok Jiriji (Geographical Appendix to the Truthful Records of King Sejong)" from 1454 and "Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam (Revised and Expanded Edition of the Survey of the Geography of Korea)" from 1531 is about Takeshima and therefore already has been in their possession from ancient times.
"Usan" or "Usan Island" in old documents and maps of Korea is either another name for Utsuryo Island, or another, smaller island next to Utsuryo Island (Jukdo), but not Takeshima.
The Republic of Korea further claims that “Utsuryo Island was formed by Imperial Korean Ordinance No. 41 (1900) * and that this area was placed under the administration of Utsu Island County, which covers the entire island of Utsuryo and the islands of Jukdo and Sokdo (Ishi-jima) includes ”and that the island of Sokdo is the island of Dokdo (Korean name for Takeshima).
However, the Republic of Korea has so far not provided any clear proof that Takeshima is "Ishi-jima". Even if Ishi-jima in the Imperial Decree meant Takeshima, at the time of that decree Korea never actually exercised control over Takeshima, so it cannot be said that this established the Republic of Korea's claims to territory.
(* Note: In 1882, the Korean government ended its 470 year "Empty Island Policy" regarding Utsuryo Island and began to develop it. Since many Japanese lived on Utsuryo Island, a joint one followed later in June 1900 Investigation by Korea and Japan. The "Korean Empire" (in October 1897, Korea changed its name from Joseon to "Daehan Jeguk, the" Great Han Empire ") issued" Imperial Decree No. 41 for the renaming of the Utsuryo "in October 1900. Island in "Utsu Island" and taking over the supervision of the island by a land magistrate "based on the report on this joint investigation (" Uldo-gi "by Yong-jeong U), as an exchange with foreign travelers and traders was deemed important In paragraph 2 of this regulation, the area under the jurisdiction of the “Utsuryo District” is defined as “all of Ulleungdo (Utsuryo Island), Jukdo (Takeshima) and Sokdo (Ishi-jima)” specifies where this abruptly listed island of Sokdo (Ishi-jima) is located.
In the report of the joint investigation that preceded this regulation, the length of Utsuryo Island is given as 70 ri (approx. 28 km), its width as 40 ri (about 16 km) and its circumference as 145 ri (… 全島 長可 為 七十里 廣 可 為 四十里 周 廻 亦可 為 一百 四十 五里). In the report by Foreign Minister Kon-ha Yi (1900) regarding the request for a cabinet resolution to change the name of Utsuryo Island to Utsu Island and to place the island under a land magistrate, it says: “The area of the island in question comprises 80 Ri in length (approx. 32 km) and 50 Ri in width (approx. 20 km). ”From this it is clear that Takeshima, which is 90 km away from Utsuryo Island, is outside this range and that it is Sokdo Island (Ishi-jima) is not Takeshima. There are two relatively large islands near Utsuryo Island (a few kilometers from this island), Jukdo and Gwannumdo, so one of these two islands may be referred to as "Sokdo (Ishi-jima)".
1 Ri (Japan) = approx. 10 Ri (Korea) = approx. 4 km
Q5Is Takeshima one of the areas according to the Cairo Declaration "which Japan has annexed by violence and greed"?
No. That's not correct.
The Republic of Korea claims that, according to the Cairo Declaration, Takeshima falls under the "territories that Japan has inculcated by violence and greed" promulgated by the US, UK and China leaders during World War II. However, Takeshima never belonged to Korean territory. Japan had held sovereignty over this island by the middle of the 17th century at the latest, confirmed this when Takeshima was incorporated into Shimane Prefecture by a cabinet decision in 1905, and exercised its sovereignty peacefully and continuously. This clearly shows that Takeshima is not an area that has been taken from Korea by Japan.
The final division of territory after a war is based on an international treaty, e.g. B. a peace treaty. After the Second World War, the national territory of Japan was legally established in the Peace Treaty of San Francisco. The Cairo Declaration has no final influence on the definition of Japanese territory. The San Francisco peace treaty confirms that Takeshima is part of Japanese territory.
Q6 Was Takeshima separated from Japanese territory by SCAP after World War II?
No, SCAP (the commander in chief for the Allied Powers) was not responsible for the division of the territory.
The Republic of Korea claims that SCAPIN (Instructions of the Commander-in-Chief for Allied Powers) No. 677 (see Addendum 1) and No. 1033 (see Addendum 2) separate Takeshima from the territory of Japan. However, the Republic of Korea explanation does not mention that both of the regulations on which the Republic of Korea's claims are based expressly state: "Nothing in this directive shall be construed as the final determination of territorial affiliations by the Allied Powers." The Republic of Korea's claim is therefore not tenable.
The territory of Japan was legally established in the Peace Treaty of San Francisco (1952) after the Second World War. Both factually and under international law, SCAP's treatment of Takeshima prior to the entry into force of this treaty has no effect on sovereignty over Takeshima.
◎ Addition 1: SCAPIN No. 677
In January 1946, in the course of SCAPIN No. 677, the Commander-in-Chief for the Allied Powers demanded that the Japanese government should cease the exercise of political or administrative sovereignty over part of its territory or the intention to do so. In Paragraph 3 it says: "For the purposes of this instruction, Japan is defined in such a way that the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku) and the approx. 1000 smaller adjacent islands including the Tsushima Islands and Ryukyu (Nansei) - Islands north of the 30th degree of longitude (excluding Kuchinoshima Island) are included. ”As islands that are not included, Takeshima is listed along with Utsuryu Island, Cheju-do, Izu Islands and Ogasawara Islands.
However, paragraph 6 of this directive clearly states: “Nothing in this directive may be construed as indicating an Allied policy with regard to the final determination of the smaller islands listed in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration (Potsdam Declaration, Article 8: “The Japanese sovereignty is to be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and smaller islands that are determined by us.” The Korean side does not mention this point at all.
◎ Addition 2: SCAPIN No. 1033
In June 1946, with SCAPIN No. 1033, the Allied Powers expanded the area in which Japan was allowed to fish and whaling (so-called “MacArthur Line”). Paragraph 3 states: "To approach Takeshima closer than twelve (12) miles and any contact with this island is prohibited to Japanese ships and their crew."
Paragraph 5 of this ordinance expressly states, however: "This permission is not an expression of any action by the Allied Powers with regard to this or any other area regarding a final decision on state sovereignty, state borders or fishing rights." This point is also made by the Korean Republic not mentioned.
The "MacArthur Line" was abolished on April 25, 1952. Three days later, on April 28, the directive of the abolition of executive power inevitably lost its effectiveness with the entry into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
- Which months are hot in your country?
- Why should a dictator have a legislature
- What are the isomers of witches
- Why isn't aluminum foil shiny?
- What things, if anything, do you recycle
- Is Russia responsible for the hacking or not
- Who was Napoleon's best general?
- How do I apply an APPSC group
- What are system requirements
- Where can I buy VHS tapes?
- How BookMyShow sends WhatsApp messages
- What is the best thermodynamics book
- What are the main tools of historians
- Can Viagra and similar drugs trigger psychoses?
- How many tens are there in 56
- How to use Bleedstop
- What is 55 out of 100
- Is there any software for generating SEO leads
- How is IKEA expanding its business
- Why is static memory allocation bad
- Will a narcissist ever work?
- How is Apache NiFi different from Talend
- The memory is impaired by light cannabis use
- How do I patent a structural design