지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이 논문의 연구 히스토리 (5)
2022
- 이 논문의 후속연구가 궁금하신가요?
- 연관 학술논문 또는 학술발표를 통해 보다 발전된 연구결과를 확인하실 수 있습니다.
- 이 논문의 연구 히스토리 확인하기
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This study sheds light on the fabrication of Japan’s Jukdo native English debate. First, Dokdo is appropriate to be called Korea’s own territory if you look at the ancient documents of both Korea and Japan. Looking at this, Dokdo is not Japan’s own territory. Japan began claiming Dokdo as its own territory around 1956. In the 1956 Japan claimed that the northern territories were its own territory in the 1956 Japan-Soviet Joint Declaration, and then applied them to Dokdo Island. During the 1962 Korea-Japan talks, the Japanese government insisted that Dokdo be given its own territory in earnest. This is because South Korea opposed the Japanese government’s claim to resolve the sovereignty of Dokdo in the Korea-Japan agreement.
Second, the Japanese government proposed to the Korean government to entrust the International Court of Justice to solve the Dokdo issue because Dokdo is Japan’s own territory. The Korean government rejected Japan’s request. On the contrary, the Korean government was in a tough position that it could never give up its sovereignty to Japan because Dokdo is Korea’s own territory. Therefore, the Japanese government insisted that the two countries should solve the problem by sharing the sovereignty of Dokdo. This, of course, was unacceptable to the Korean government. However, in particular, Japanese opposition party members strongly criticized the Japanese government’s claim to share. Finally, the theory of Dokdo sharing disappeared, and the International Court of Justice did not resolve the Dokdo issue. In the end, the two countries stated in the Korea-Japan agreement that they would solve the pending issues peacefully without specifying the name of Dokdo in the memorandum of exchange between them. Instead, the Dokdo issue was resolved by acknowledging the actual situation in which Korea effectively controls Dokdo. In addition, instead of abolishing the peace line in the Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement signed at the same time as the Korea-Japan Agreement, Japan recognized Korea’s entire waters of 12 nautical miles around Dokdo.
Third, immediately after the 1965 Korea-Japan Agreement, the Japanese government criticized the 12-nautical zone measures recognized by Korea. It was argued that the Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement should be revised to secure 12 nautical miles of territorial waters because Dokdo is Japan’s own territory.
Second, the Japanese government proposed to the Korean government to entrust the International Court of Justice to solve the Dokdo issue because Dokdo is Japan’s own territory. The Korean government rejected Japan’s request. On the contrary, the Korean government was in a tough position that it could never give up its sovereignty to Japan because Dokdo is Korea’s own territory. Therefore, the Japanese government insisted that the two countries should solve the problem by sharing the sovereignty of Dokdo. This, of course, was unacceptable to the Korean government. However, in particular, Japanese opposition party members strongly criticized the Japanese government’s claim to share. Finally, the theory of Dokdo sharing disappeared, and the International Court of Justice did not resolve the Dokdo issue. In the end, the two countries stated in the Korea-Japan agreement that they would solve the pending issues peacefully without specifying the name of Dokdo in the memorandum of exchange between them. Instead, the Dokdo issue was resolved by acknowledging the actual situation in which Korea effectively controls Dokdo. In addition, instead of abolishing the peace line in the Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement signed at the same time as the Korea-Japan Agreement, Japan recognized Korea’s entire waters of 12 nautical miles around Dokdo.
Third, immediately after the 1965 Korea-Japan Agreement, the Japanese government criticized the 12-nautical zone measures recognized by Korea. It was argued that the Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement should be revised to secure 12 nautical miles of territorial waters because Dokdo is Japan’s own territory.
목차
1. 들어가면서
2. 일본의 죽도 고유영토론 등장 배경
3. 한일회담에서 ‘죽도 고유영토’론 대두
4. 맺으면서
참고문헌
要旨
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
독도 영유권에 대한 전후 연합국의 영토처리
일본문화학보
2020 .05
-
언론을 통해 본 한일협정 인식 50년
역사비평
2015 .05
-
한일관계, 무엇을 할 것인가?
한국여성신학
2019 .06
-
「かもしれない」の語用論的用法の考察 : 韓国人日本語学習者の習得現状を中心に
일본문화학보
2016 .02
-
이병주의 대일인식과 한일협정의 기록
국제언어문학
2019 .12
-
韓・日關係의 問題와 對應方法
日本語敎育
2019 .01
-
일치 부재 언어에서의 일치 현상
언어학 연구
2016 .04
-
한일대학생의 상대국가·상대문화에 대한 관심도에 관한 연구(2) -일본대학생을 중심으로-
일본문화학보
2023 .05
-
요동하는 ‘65년 체제’: 한일협정의 당대적 한계와 공생의 미래 - 하근찬의 ‘65년 체제’ 소설을 중심으로 -
한국문학과 예술
2023 .03
-
신한일어업협정의 체결과정에 대한 연구
독도연구
2020 .01
-
The Gap Enlargement Mechanism between Korean-Japanese Perceptions: Focusing on the Comfort Women Agreement (2015.12.28)
Korea Observer
2017 .09
-
韓国人の年代ごとの日本イメージとその関連要因 -国民意識と日本への関心を中心に-
일어일문학연구
2015 .08
-
The Shift of the International System and Japan-Korea Relations
Journal of Contemporary Korean Studies
2015 .12
-
소프트파워 자원에 대한 상호 평가와 한일관계
일본연구
2015 .01
-
1959년 이승만 정부의 대일통상중단조치와 미국
역사비평
2016 .05
-
일본의 독도 영토에 대한 한국 관할권의 인정 : ‘한일협정’에서 ‘한일신어업협정’까지
일본문화학보
2016 .08
-
재일사회와 유교문화의 공과(功過) - 가부장적 유교문화에 대한 재일여성의 비판과 극복 담론을 중심으로 -
일본어문학
2022 .08
-
1960년대 중반~1970년대 초, 서울 소재 일본인 유골 송환
역사비평
2021 .11
-
異文化間コミュニケーション能力を高める外国語教室づくり －ICTを活用した日韓交流授業を事例に－
일본문화연구
2020 .01
-
한국 고등학교 일본어학습자의 대일(對日) 인식
일본어문학
2023 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0