Subscribe
E-Paper
 |
Since the Japanese government declared Takeshima Day through Shimane Prefecture in 2005 and commemorated the history of the invasion of Dokdo sovereignty in Korea, the territorial sovereignty exhibition hall, which was reopened in 2020, is notable, in that it emphasizes legal control of Dokdo by Japan and illegal occupation of Korea under international law since 1905.
It should be reviewed again as the historical task given to us today, since the history of Japan's continued claims of sovereignty on the territory based on Japanese colonialism, the basis of the Japanese imperialist invasion, which is still ongoing.
Despite Dokdo being a symbol of Korean territorial sovereignty and inherently Korean territory, Japan's provocations continue. In particular, the Japanese government recognized Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo through the Edo Shogunate's prohibition of the crossing the seas of 1696 and the Dajokan directive of state in 1877.
Nevertheless, there is a seriousness of the problem in that it not only intentionally conceals it but also converts it into a policy to strengthen international legal titles. The title under international law is a concept that includes all forms of evidence and sources of rights that can establish the existence of rights beyond documentary evidence in relation to territorial sovereignty. Japan's claim to Dokdo itself is an illegal encroachment of Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo because it cannot establish a legitimate title and holds no legitimate rights.
On this premise, as a policy basis for Japan's claim to Dokdo based on Japanese colonialism, I traced the genealogy of the research on international legal titles and examined the legal problems behind her claims. The genealogy of the claim of title to Dokdo in Japanese society of international law is based on 'The Theory of Historical Title Claims' by Takeshi Minagawa, 'The Theory of Nascent Claims' by Toshio Ueda, 'The Theory of Substitutional Claims' by Kanae Daijudo, 'The Theory of Common Occupancy' by Gentaro Serita and at the peak of the genealogy of the title of Dokdo's sovereignty, there is 'The Theory of Inherent Territory Based on the View of History on International Law' by Yoshio Hirose.
Yoshio Hirose, the epitome of Japan's genealogy of legal scholars based on international law on Dokdo, analyzes the issue of colonial rule and Dokdo sovereignty by differentiating 'colonization' and 'non-colonization' with the context of World War I. Non-colonialization is the formation a new colony or the forced protection of a foreign country or an illegal incorporation of territory that is completely illegal due to the establishment of the International League Law.
However, the essence of non-colonialization is a claim of legality concerning Japan's formation of a protection and the forced annexation of Korea by Japan, prior to World War I under international law and segregates the issue of Dokdo sovereignty to secure Japan's title as follows.
First, Japan took measures to incorporate Dokdo in 1905 after the declaration of Dokdo sovereignty of the Korean Empire. Japan's validity of the claim of sovereignty following the continuous development of national activities, power relations based on comparative military strengths of the two were generally approved by contemporary international law.
Second, 'effective occupancy' refers to the social occupation or control over the area rather than the actual use of land or physical occupation of a territory, and the situation of Japanese occupation attributable to the final legal effect against the background of national power.
Third, small-scale fishing was carried out by the Japanese in 1904-05 when it took measures to incorporate the territory, and the fact Joseon did not effectively protest or take additional measures served as evidence that the Japanese government had effective management of Dokdo.
However, international law during the early 20th century is becoming more normative by appealing to universal international norms rather than Japanese legal positivism, in the process of codification of the treaty law convention of the U.N. International Law Commission in 1963.
The problem of the protection treaty of 1905, which is a representative case of the invalid treaty due to the coercion of a representative of a state in the 'Harvard draft in 1935,' is overlooked.
Moreover, Japan's claims to Dokdo exposed the fact that Japan had occupied it by force and out of greed. In short, the "theory of Dokdo's title" from the perspective of history on international law on the premise of "legitimate theory of colonial rule" is a serious legal violation of Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo. Therefore, Japan ought to fulfill her genuine international legal obligations toward building a peaceful global community in the 21st century.
Doh See-hwan (drdoh@naver.com) is a senior research fellow at the Northeast Asian History Foundation.
