쑥쑥몰
> 
자료만 보세요. 찾다가...보게 된 건데...(wikipedia)
올라온 자료만도 어마어마 합니다.
나쁜 XX 들...말귀를 못 알아들어요...
References
1^ Charles Scanlon "South Koreans vent fury at Japan" BBC Online, 18 March 2005
2^ "Liancourt Rocks / Takeshima / Dokdo / Tokto", Globalsecurity
3^ Kirk, Donald (2008-07-26). "Seoul has desert island dreams", Asia Times Online.
4^ Staff Seoul and Tokyo hold island talks BBC, 20 April 2006
5^ a b c d e f g h Korea.net (1999–2006). Dokdo: A Profile. Retrieved 9 January 2006.
6^ a b c d Korea.net (1999–2006). Dokdo: Inhabitants and Visitors. Retrieved 9 January 2006.
7^ Island row hits Japanese condoms
8^ a b c d e f Gyongsangbuk-do (2001). Cyber Dokdo. Retrieved 9 January 2006.
9^ a b Geography of Dokdo truthofdokdo.or.kr, retrieved 2007-08-21, 'Dokdo is composed of alkaline effusive rocks which erupted during the Cenozoic Era. Dokdo began to form about 4.6 million years ago'
10^ "독도, 일본보다 빠른 속도로 침몰하고 있다", The Korea Times, 2006/12/01. 손영관교수 `독도ㆍ울릉도 `침몰하고 있다``, JoongAng Ilbo, 2006/12/01.
11^ a b c d e f Truth of Dokdo. Story of Dokdo. Retrieved 9 January 2006.
12^ The History of Dokdo (pdf)(English) (Japanese) North Asian History Foundation; direct link to texts provided separately as finding it is problematic although the following government page refers to the NAHF home page.
13^ Dokdo Issues The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Korea; mostly visuals and multimedia with scanty text information if any
14^ The Issue of Takeshima The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan
15^ "10 Issues of Takeshima, MOFA, Feb 2008". p. 4; Article 2, para. 2: "Such description... rather reminds us of Utsuryo Island." para. 3: "A study... criticizes... that Usan Island and Utsuryo Island are two names for one island." para. 4: "that island does not exist at all in reality."
16^ Shin, Yong-Ha, in "Disputes over Ullungdo and Tokdo at the End of the 17th Century"., says, "An Yong-bok's activity proved highly successful, because the lord of Tsushima sent Judge Tairano Naritsune to Korea in January 1697 to notify the Korean government of the Kanpaku's decision. By 1699 the diplomatic notes had been exchanged and all the formalities had been cleard to recognize Korea's title to Ullungdo and Dokdo. After the An Yong-bok incident and the Kanpaku's reconfirmation of Korea's title to Ullungdo and Tokdo around the end of the 17th century, no documentary records of the period showed Japan's claim to these two islands."
17^ "1696 Ahn Yong-bok's second visit to Japan: Part I". Naito Seichu 內藤正中 raises doubts as to the accuracy of An's testimony regarding the kanpaku document. He denies the existence of the kanpaku document claimed by An. 'When An Yong-bok was transferred to Tottori, the feudal lord could not have met An because he had gone to Edo. There was initially no such document as given An, stating Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks are Korean terrotiry. To the contrary, An Yong-bok and Park Eo-Dun were forcefully taken because they had trespassed Takeshima considered Japanese territory. It is impossible that the Tottori hanshu could have issued papers stating territorial title to Koreans who had been arrested.' (Dokdo and Takeshima, pp. 101, 147)
18^ "안용복이 돗토리번에서 받은 '울릉도는 일본령이 아니다'라는 서계의 존재여부 (Whether the so-called kanpaku document An received in Tottori existed)". "안용복이 일본에서 받았다는 서계의 존재 (The existence of the so-called kanpaku document An received in Tottori)". On his first trip to Japan in 1693, An Yong-Bok stayed in Tottori from June 1 to June 7; he met with four officers of the Tottori feudal government. On his second trip to Japan in 1696, An again stayed in Tottori from June 21 to some time before August 6; the Tottori hanshu was away from Tottori to Edo from June 23 to July 19.' Contacts between Tottori officers and An clearly existed, and the Tottori feudal lord was not away for the whole preiod of An's stay in Tottori.
19^ Shin, Yong-Ha. "Disputes over Ullungdo and Tokdo at the End of the 17th Century".
20^ "1696년, 安龍福의 제2차 渡日 공술자료 -『元祿九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一卷之覺書』에 대하여 (The second public statement of An Yong Bok's migration to Japan in 1696)".
21^ "[숙종실록 비변사에서 안용복 등을 추문하다]". The primary source of the An Yong-bok statement is The Annals of King Sukjong, 22nd reign year (1696), 9th moon, 25th. "以鬱陵子山等島 定以朝鮮地界 至有關白書契"
22^ "竹島領有紛争の焦点 国際法の見地から(Focus of Takeshima dispute from the viewpoint of International Law) p.5".
23^ ":::::조선왕조실록의 홈페이지에 오신 것을 환영합니다.:::::" (in Korean). Retrieved on 2008-09-06.
24^ "竹嶋紀事五巻(Record of Takeshima VOL5) p.201".若其呈書誠有妄作之罪故已施幽極之典
25^ Kim Hak-Jun 김학준. "Dokdo'nun u'ri'd'ang 독도는 우리땅 (서울, 한중가, 1996)".
26^ Shin, Yong-Ha. "Disputes over Ullungdo and Tokdo at the End of the 17th Century".
27^ 竹島紀事５巻: "永不許入往漁採"
28^ "Daijō-kan shirei 太政官指令". Japanese Wikipedia article on 太政官指令 of Mar 20, 1877
29^ "Meiji Government's Reconfirmation of Korea's Title to Tokdo". Shin, Yong Ha, describes the nature of the 1877 Supreme Council (Daijō-kan) Directive
30^ "image of Daijō-kan Directive of Mar 20, 1877 明治十年三月二十日 太政官指令文". image is a faithful reproduction by author himself, Shin, Yong Ha; "A Study of Korea's Territorial Rights to Tokdo (Liancourt Rocks) and the Japanese Invasion", Journal of Korean Independence Movement Studies, Vol. 3, Nov 1989. (http://i815.or.kr/media_data/thesis/1989/198902.html)
31^ "image of document appended to Daijō-kan Directive of Mar 20, 1877 明治十年三月二十日 太政官指令文 附屬文書". Shin, Yong Ha, op. cit. "磯竹島一ニ竹島ト稱ス. 隱岐國ノ乾位一百二拾里許ニ在ス. 周回凡九(sic.)十里許山峻嶮ニシテ平地少シ. 川三條アリ. 又瀑布アリ. 然レトモ深谷幽邃樹竹稠密其源ヲ知ル能ハス...動物ニハ 海鹿 ...就中海鹿鮑ヲ物産ノ最トス. ...又海鹿一頭能ク數斗ノ油ヲ得ヘシ. 次ニ一島アリ松島ト呼フ. 周回三十町許竹島ト同一線路ニ在リ. 隱岐ヲ距ル八拾里許 樹竹稀ナリ. 亦魚獸ヲ産ス." "Isotakeshima is also called 'Takeshima' (modern Matsushima, Ulleung Island). It is located 120 ri (里 here is kairi 浬/海里 or nautical mile of 1.852km; 120 x 1.852km = 222.24 km) to the north of Okikuni. Its circumference is around 10 ri (里 here is unit of distance 3.927km; 10 x 3.927 = 39.27 km); its slopes are steep, and flatlands few. There are three streams and even a waterfall. The bamboos and trees are dense in the deep ravines, and where they begin is unknowable...(Among the catch,) the most abundant are sea lions and abalones... Furthermore, several tomasu (斗 is measure word of volume roughly equiv. to 5 gallons) of oil is to be got from one head of sea lion. Next is an island called 'Matsushima 松島' (modern Takeshima, Dokdo or Liancourt Rocks). Its circumference is roughly 30 chou (町 109m; 30 chou is ca 3.27 km), which is on the same sea route as 'Takeshima 竹島' (modern Matsushima or Ulleung Island). It is roughly 80 ri (80 x 1.852km = 148.16 km) from Oki. Trees and bamboos are rare, but it also produces fish and (other) sea animals." p. 167, Tokto ui minjok yongtosa yongu, Chisik Sanopsa; 1st edition (1996) ISBN-10: 8942310362; passage a faithful translation from Shin Yong Ha's transliteration (except for 凡九十里 which is corrected to 凡十里 after collation with two images reproduced by Shin) and translation from Japanese original text to Korean, retranslated to English; in notes not part of original text or Shin's but provided by contributor for readers' convenience
32^ "'Takeshima' and Another Island in Japan's Daijō-kan Directive 일본 태정관 지령문의 죽도외 1도". Transcribes and tranlates two letters exchanged between Shimane Prefecture and the Internal Ministry in 1876 that lead to the 1877 decision in the Daijō-kan Directive; In summary, it says, "In the year 1876 when Japan was conducting a nationwide land registry and mapping project, the Internal Ministry requested Shimane Prefecture of information regarding Ulleung-do (then 'Takeshima 竹島') on Oct 5 (明治九年十月五日). On Oct 16, same year (明治九年十月十六日), Shimane Prefecture submitted relevant documents including a map inquring after guidelines on dealing with two islands instead (竹島外一島). The map called A Rough Map of Isotakeshima 磯竹島略圖 (http://hanmaum.web-bi.net/dokdo/DocuPic/T22.jpg), which came from the Otani (大谷) clan of Shimane, shows Isotakeshima (磯竹島; today's Ulleung Island) and Matsushima (松島; today's Dokdo or Liancourt Rocks) exclusively in addition to the northern tip of Okishima. This map shared by Shimane Prefecture, the Internal Minstry, and the Supreme Council (Daijō-kan) can mean only that they were in an unambiguous agreement on which island they meant by 'another island 外一島': 'Matsushima 松島', which has since been renamed Takeshima 竹島 also known as Liancourt Rocks and Dokdo."
33^ "Myung Chul Hyun, Korean Observer, Spring Edition 1998.". Translation of the annexed text: "Isonotakeshima (Ulleungdo) is also called Takeshima. It is 120 ri (222km) northwest of Oki. The island is about 10 ri (40km) around....Next there is another island which is called Matsushima (Dokdo). The area of this island is approximately 30 chongbo (73 acres) and is on the same straight latitude as Ulleungdo. It is 80 ri (148km) from Oki. Trees and bamboo are scarce, sea lions live there." The distance given here is in ri (里) There were two forms of ri used at this time in Japan. One was a standard ri of 4km (Used for land measurements). It was used in the circumference of Ulleungdo in this document (10 里 = 40km). The other was a nautical ri or nautical mile which equaled 1.852 meters. Nautical 里 or miles are/were used in international law and treaties especially regarding the limit of territorial waters. There can be no doubt given the location, name, and description the island referred to in this document was today´s Dokdo. The ratio of the real distances in kilometers and the distances in 里 on the 1877 document are about the same. 120里:80里 (distance on 1877 document ratio=.66) 240km:157km (actual distance ratio in km =.65)
34^ "Prof. Shimojo Masao:The 8th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts”".Japanese(http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04-2/takeshima04-o.html)
35^ >"Shimane Prefecture document sent to the Meiji governemnt regarding "Takeshima and another island."". Prof. Shimojo Masao's reference to the 1881 survey is out of context as the designation of the two islands are quite different: "As a matter of fact, Matsushima as 'another island' in Dajoukan order turned out to be today's Ulleundo three years later (1880), and 'Takeshima' in the order was identified as today's Jukdo which locates 2km east of Ulleundo until 1881." The 1876-1877 documents of Dajoukan and the Ministry of Home Affairs clearly demonstrate that, at the time of the investigation of the islands based on historical documents, "Takeshima" refers to modern Ulleung-do and "Matsushima", modern Liancourt Rocks.
36^ "Chosun Dynasty's Re-development of Ullungdo and Tokdo and Imperial Ordinance No.41". Shin, Yong Ha, describes the circumstances that culminated in the 1900 Imperial Decree No. 41. Also makes a brief reference to a 1904 account of Liancourt Rocks by Japanese warship Niitakago crew during the Russo-Japanese War.
37^ "image of Imperial Decree No. 41 of Oct 25, 1900, as published in Official Gazette No. 1716 (관보 제1716호) on Oct 27".
38^ Shin Yong-Ha. "1900년 대한제국칙령41호 독도영유권 국제적 재선언". "대한제국이 1900년 칙령 제41호로 독도(石島, 獨島)의 울도군수 행정관리를 통한 영유를 중앙정부의 관보에 게재한 것은 ‘국제적 고시’의 성격을 갖는다. 왜냐하면 중앙정부 관보는 의무적으로 대한제국의 체약국 공사관에 발송되고, 각국 공사관도 이 중앙정부의 관보를 반드시 보기 때문이다. 따라서 대한제국의 1900년 칙령 제41호의 관보 고시는 대한제국이 울릉도와 독도의 영유를 재선언한 것이었다. ‘재선언’이라고 한 것은 이미 15세기에 ‘동국여지승람’에서 우산도(독도)의 조선 영유가 당시 조선의 교역국가에 선언됐기 때문이다."
39^ These islands are being transfered from Uljin County to Uldo County (mod. Ulleung County). According to Geographical Treatise, Annals of King Sejong, Gangwon Province, Uljin Prefecture, two islands of Usan and Mulung are in the Eastern Sea; they are close enough to be visible from each other on a clear day. During the Shilla period, they were called Usan'gug or Ulleungdo.
40^ "Facts on Arrangement of Uldo County". Jul 13, 1906, edition of the daily, Hwang Seong Shinmun, reported: "The [Japanese] Resident-General sent an official letter to the [Korean] Ministry of the Interior asking for a clarification as to which islands belonged to Ulleung (sic.) Island, which was (sic.) under the administration of Samcheok County (sic) in Gangwon Province, and which year and month the County Office was established. The response was that the post of Ulleungdo Directorate was established on May 20, 1898, and that the County Magistrate was stationed on October 25, 1900, as a result of the government's decision. The County seat is at Taehadong (台霞洞), with islands of Jukdo (竹島) and Sokdo (石島). [The Island of Uldo] measures sixty ri from east to west and forty ri from north to south with a circumference of 200 ri in total."
41^ "MOFA: Incorporation of Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture".See 2. Background (5) and (6). Note the misrepresentation of Sokdo (石島 석도) as "Ishi-jima"; as a credible governmental document offered to English speakers, the island should have been referred to as "Seokdo" in the current standard of romanisation of a Korean place name. This error, however, is corrected, on page 9 in the Feb 2008 MOFA document, "10 Issues of Takeshima". ([1])
42^ "Prof. Shimojo Masao:The 10th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts”".Japanese(http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04-2/takeshima04_q.html) Shimojo Masao claims it is impossible for "Seokdo" 石島 to be Liancourt Rocks because the figures given for Uldo Island in the 1906 Hwangseong Shinmun report is only 200 ri in circumference, which can not cover the distance to "Sokdo", 87 to 92 km away from Uldo Island depending on tide levels.
43^ The truth of Dokdo: Comments by the Northeast Asian History Foundation
44^ Shin Yong-Ha. "1900년 대한제국칙령41호 독도영유권 국제적 재선언". "대한제국 정부는 칙령 제41호에서 울릉도 주민들의 호칭인 ‘독섬’을 의역하여 ‘石島’라 한 것이다. ‘독섬’을 뜻을 취해 한자 표기하면 ‘石島’가 되고, 발음을 취해 한자 표기하면 ‘獨島’가 되는 것이다." "대한제국 정부가 칙령 제41조를 발표할 때 각 섬의 명칭을 약간씩 수정했는데, 울릉도를 울도라 개칭하고, 죽서도를 죽도라고 했으며, 우산도에 대한 어민들의 명칭인 ‘독섬’ ‘독도’를 의역해 한자로 ‘石島’로 번역 표기했다."
45^ 국민일보 (Gookmin Daily). "독도‘실효적 지배’새 근거 (New Evidence of effective control), 1890년 이전부터 독도서 강치잡이 (Sea lion hunting before 1890) [2006-07-26]". retrieved Aug 31, 2008
46^ Kazuo Hori, "Japan's Incorporation of Takeshima into Its Territory in 1905", Korea Observer Vol XXVII, No 3, Autumn 1997, p. 509, quotes Hong Chae-hyon (홍재현; born 1862) who moved to this island in 1883, who recalled [in 1947], "at the time of the development [in the 1880's], the people on Ulleungdo discovered Tokdo immediately, and went to Tokdo many times to harvest kelp (konbu) and abalone and to catch sea lions. I myself went there several doezens of times." Taehan Gongnonsa (Korean Public Information Service), ed., Tokdo (Seoul: 1965), p. 30
47^ Gookmin Daily, op. cit.
48^ Kazuo Hori, "Japan's Incorporation of Takeshima into Its Territory in 1905", Korea Observer Vol XXVII, No 3, Autumn 1997, p. 511: "The Japanese government ... made the Korean government ackowledge in the Korea-Japan protocol that Japan would temporarily expropriate the places needed for military purposes."
49^ Tanaka Kunitaka 竹島の島根県編入 in 1905, "確かに竹島の編入は日韓議定書からの連続した侵略過程とも採らえることが出来る。"
50^ Lee Han-Key. "Korea's Territorial Rights to Tokdo in History and International Law". p. 19, "Korea was forced to sign a treaty of protocol which provided, among other things: "Japan shall temporarily expropriate places considered necessary for military purposes." After all, this clause applied to the lease of fishing grounds to Nakai, a fisherman from Shimane prefecture. Tokdo, thus leased, was finally incorporated into Okinoshima in Shimane prefec ture on February 22, 1905, when Japan's victory became decisive after the sea battle of Port Arthur on February 8."
51^ Asia Today, Aug 13, 2008. "“한일의정서에 대한제국 영토 보증”". "한일의정서는 대한제국의 독립을 박탈하려는 데는 이르지 못했다. 실제로 한일의정서 제 3조에도 “대일본제국정부는 대한제국의 독립과 영토보전을 확실히 보증할 것”이라고 명확히 명기했다. 하지만 일본은 다음해인 1905년 2월 22일 독도를 일본령으로 편입 결정하는 조치를 단행함으로써 스스로 명기한 대한제국의 영토보전 약속을 어겼다. 대다수 전문가들은 여기에 일본의 독도 영유권 주장의 가장 큰 허점이 있다고 주장한다. 고려대 한국사학과 정태헌 교수는 “독립국 대한제국 영토를 일본이 자국령으로 편입시켰다면 이는 독립국의 영토를 조약도 없이 강제로 약탈한 것으로 당연히 국제법 위반”이라고 지적했다."
52^ Article 4 of the Japan-Korea Protocol was to continue in force even after the signining of the Eulsa Treaty of Nov 17, 1905, which states in Article 4: "The stipulations of all treaties existing between Japan and Korea not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement shall continue in force." The text of the Eulsa Treaty can be found below in full."The 1905 Agreement (Korean-Japanese Agreement, Nov 17, 1905)".
53^ Lee Han-Key. "Korea's Territorial Rights to Tokdo in History and International Law". p. 27, "[Japan's] Foreign Ministry states: " Article 4 of the Korean-Japanese Protocol originally provided for temporary expropriation of places strategically deemed necessary for the preservation of Korea's territorial integrity during the Russo-Japanese War and had nothing to do with the incorporation of Tokdo." end note 95: Japan Foreign Ministry, Kaigai chosa geppo (Overseas Research Monthly), Nov. 1954.
54^ Lee Han-Key. "Korea's Territorial Rights to Tokdo in History and International Law". p. 37, "So far as the "incorporation" or "prior occupation" of Tokdo by Japan is presumed to have been an act of seizure or aggression against Korea's title, Japan should prove this prima facie evidence that the act was not committed by "violence and greed." Unless this burden of proof is removed, Japan should find itself bound by the "restrictive character" under international agreements (Cairo Declatation-Postam Declaration-Surrender instruments) as shown in the Frontier case. Here, the relative strength of evidence, seen in the Minquiers and Ecrehos case, to contradistinguish evidence does not apply."
55^ "Sanin Chuo Shimpo,(発信竹島～真の日韓親善に向けて～:第２部「勅令ＶＳ閣議決定」－明治時代－（６）無主先占), Aug 28, 2005". Aug 28, 2005 article from interview with Shimojo Masao.
56^ "Sankei Shimbun, "Beyond the crest of waves: Takeshima Report Part 1 (1) The Challege of a Fishery Investor" (【波頭を越えて 竹島リポート 第１部】（１）水産家の挑戦)". Mar 7, 2007 article.
57^ "Okuhara Hekiun, Takeshima Executive Nakai Yosaburo's Biography, 1906. manuscript『竹島経営者中井養三郎氏立志伝』明治39(1906)年(奥原碧雲)(pdf)". Codified from manuscript by Takeshima Institute of Shimane Prefecture.
58^ "Shimane-ken Education Board, "Chapter 4. Shimane Prefecture's Takeshima" in A Treatise on Shimane Prefecture, 1923; 島根県誌 in 1923".Photographic reproduction of the 1923 publication.
59^ "Petition to Incorporate Liancourt Rocks (リャンコ島領土編入並二貸下願 )".A draft translation.
60^ "Who was Nakai Yozaburo?". Compiled by Mark Lovmo; see bibliography for sources.
61^ "Nakai Yozaburo and The Shimane Prefecture Inclusion". The text has been identified as that of Kazuo Hori's from "Japan's Incorporation of Takeshima into Its Territory in 1905", Korea Observer Vol XXVII, No 3, Autumn 1997, conveyed by Steve Barber.
62^ "Japan's Annexation of Tokdo".Shin, Yong Ha, describes the circumstances of the 1905 Cabinet Decision
63^ "Image of Japan's Cabinet decision of Jan 28, 1905 明治三十八年一月二十八日閣議決定".
64^ "Aug 28, 2005, Sanin Chuo article 發信竹島-眞の日韓親善に向けて 第２部 勅令ＶＳ閣議決定 - 明治時代 - (6) 無主先占". 下條正男・拓殖大教授「ポイントは二つある。まず、竹島を他国が占領したと認められる形跡がないことを確認した。さらに、中井の漁業会社が小屋を構えていることを、国際法上の占領の事実とした。これらのことから、竹島を『無主先占』の地であると判断した」 Prof. Shimojo Masao of Takushoku Universuty said, "There are only two points. First, it has been confirmed there is no evidence to recognise the occupation of Takeshima by any other country. Second, Nakai's fishing company has constructed a shed there; this is a fact of occupation under international law . From these facts, [the Japanese government] determined Takeshima is to have been subject to prior occupation of a terra nullius (無主先占)."
65^ "Sean Fern, Tokdo or Takeshima? The International Law of Territorial Acquisition in the Japan-Korea Island Dispute" in Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs, Vol. 5, No. 1, Winter 2005, p. 84". "The Japanese claim to have incorporated Liancourt - land they considered to be terra nullius - into Shimane Prefecture on February 22, 1905."
66^ "search key Kim, Myung-Ki, A Study of Legal Aspects of Japan's Claim to Tokdo, Korea Observer, Autumn 1997, pp. 365-366". Professor Kim Myung-Ki summarises: "The Japanese government stated on Feb 10, 1954, that Japan['s] announcing [of] prior occupation of territory ... has satisfied the requisite conditions under international law," MOFA of Korea, Tokdo kwan'gye charyojip (Collection of Data on Tokdo) (I) Wangbok oegyio munso (Diplomatic Correspondence Exchanged); Chipmu charyo (Reference Material for Staff), (Seoul: MFA, 1997), p. 55
67^ "search key 隠岐島ヲ距ル西北八十五哩ニ在ル無人島ヲ竹島ト名ヶ島根県所属隠岐島司ノ所管ト為ス pp. 1-3 (on images 1 and 2) in '公文類聚' Vol. 29, 1905(明治三十八年) book 1". "明治三十八年一月二十八日閣議決定 ... 無人島ハ他國ニ於テ之ヲ占領シタリト認ムヘキ形迹ナク、... 依テ審査スルニ明治三十六年以來中井養三郞ナル者該島ニ移住シ漁業ニ從事セルコトハ關係書類ニ依リ明ナル所ナルハ國際法上占領ノ事實アルモノト認メ."
68^ MFA, op. cit., pp. 234, 236, 250 via Kim, Myung-Ki, A Study of Legal Aspects of Japan's Claim to Tokdo, Korea Observer, Autumn 1997, p. 361, MOFA of Japan stated in a memoramdum of Jul 3, 1962, "The Japanese government has made clear the postition of its claim that Takeshima is Japan's inherent territory from olden times and is now reconfirming repeatedly that position."
69^ "image of Map appended to a 1696 manuscript 元祿九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一卷之覺書".
70^ "元祿九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一卷之覺書 transcribed by 半月城通信 (in Japanese; pdf)".
71^ "元祿九丙子年朝鮮舟着岸一卷之覺書 transcribed by Takeshima Institute (竹島硏究會) (in Japanese; pdf)".
72^ "Japan's Annexation of Tokdo".
73^ "Image of Shimane Prefectural Notice No. 40 of Feb 22, 1905 島根縣告示第40號".
74^ "Image of Shimane Prefectural Notice No. 40 of Feb 22, 1905 島根縣告示第40號(PDF)". Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. a cleaned-up text lacking the various seals and handwritten figures
75^ "Minuscule Image of Feb 24, 1905, Sanin Shimbun report on Shimane Notice". Shimane Prefecture.
76^ "Full-page image of Feb 24, 1905, Sanin Shimbun report on Shimane Notice".
77^ "Cropped-up Image of Feb 24, 1905, Sanin Shimbun report on Shimane Notice".
78^ "Korean and Japanese POV's regarding the Sea surrounding Dokdo Is. 독도를 둘러싼 바다에 대한 韓日간의 시각 (in Korean only; HWP viewer required)". In Chapter 2, Lee, Jong Hak discusses the historical verity of the 1905 Shiname Noitce No. 40 in detail
79^ This San-in Shimbun newspaper notice size is a almost 3.4cm(1단크기)
80^ 신용하/ 日 독도 침탈 기도 사죄해야, Prof. Shin, Dong-a Ilbo(Korean) 시마네 현이 ‘산음(山陰) 신문’이라는 지방지에 눈에 잘 띄지도 않는 1단 크기(3.4 cm)로 ‘관내 고시’한 날이 바로 100년 전의 오늘이다.
81^ "The Shimane Notice that Never Was 시마네현 고시는 존재하지 않았다". Part 2 summarises Lee, Jong Hak's study of the historicity of the Shimane Notice
82^ 독도연구보전協 학술토론회, 2008.05.29(Korean) “일본의 독도영유권 주장은 1905년 2월 22일 시마네 현 고지 제40호에 근거하고 있다”며 “그러나 국제고시가 아닌 은밀한 ‘지방고시’에 의한 독도 편입은 서류점령에 불과하지 형식이나 절차면에서 국제법적 영토 취득의 요건에 맞지 않는다”(It was not reported by public Gazette. it was a ""document occupation" secretly. This secrect "document occupation" was not a fulfil the necessary conditions by international law.
83^ Dokdomuseum(Korean)일본 시마네현 측에 확인한 결과, 1905년 2월 22일 '시마네현고시 40호'는 내부 회람용이란 도장이 찍혀 있고 관보 게시 사실이 없는 것으로 밝혀졌다.(According to Shimane Prefecture, 'Shimane Notice 40' was not announced outside. it imprinted a stamp of 'circulation for inner memebers', it was not a announced to public)
84^ "Japan’s Meiji Government affirmed that Dokdo was Korean territory. Cyber Dokdo History Hall".
85^ Emperor Gojong's letter to German Kaiser discovered
86^ Painful, significant landmark, Joongangdaily, June 23, 2008
87^ The interpretation of this report has ignited some controversy, the published articles of the participants of which are listed in the following, arranged in chronological order."Feb 2, 2008, 杉野洋明(Sugino Youmei)'s interpretation of Hwangsoeng Shinmun article of Jul 13, 1906".
88^ "Feb 22, Sanin chuou shimpo, local newspaper article reporting on Mr Sugino's claim".
89^ "Apr 3, 2008, Yoo, Mirim, Korea Maritime Institute, "Analysis of Hwangsoeng Shinmun article of Jul 13, 1906"".
90^ "Jun 30, 2008, Yoo, Mirim, Korea Maritime Institute, "Critical Review of Japanese Seokdo Denial" (pdf)".
91^ Yoo, Mirim, op. cit. Apr 3, 2008.
92^ Yoo, Mirim, op. cit. Jun 30, 2008.
93^ Japan's Incorporation of Takeshima into Its Territory in 1905, by Kazuo Hori "It is certain that many Korean people learned through this newspaper coverage of the Japanese move to incorporate Takeshima/Tokdo into its territory and must have read it as an aggression into Korean territory. For example, Hwang Hyon who lived in Kurye, Chollado, at that time writes in a note that "the Japanese are making a false statement that Tokdo belongs to Japan while it is our own territory."
94^ Dokdo: Korean Territory Since the Sixth Century, koreaembassy.org
95^ "Dokdo yoksa munhwa hwangyong archive 독도 역사문화환경 아카이브".
96^ "Letter from Office of Northeast Asian Affairs To E. Allan Lightner American Embassy, Pusan Korea".
97^ "The Territory under Japanese Sovereignty as Defined in Art. 1 of the Peace Treaty" (JPG) (in Korean). Retrieved on 2008-09-06.
98^ Hara Kimie. "New Light on the Russo-Japanese Territorial Dispute"., p. 9: "The Canberra Conference was held among the Commonwealth countries in August 1947 to discuss a peace treaty with Japan. Before signing a peace treaty which would determine the final position of territories as a result of the war, Japan had to appeal to the nations concerned." UK National Archives Memorandum. "Canberra Conference, 1947". "At the suggestion of the United Kingdom and Australian Governments, a meeting of British Commonwealth countries was held at Canberra at the end of August 1947 in order to exchange views as a preliminary to an international conference about the peace settlement with Japan. The meeting was attended by delegations from Australia, the UK, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan and Burma."
99^ ""Commentary on Draft Treaty by the Department of State on June 1, 1951"". In the discussions at Washington the British agreed to drop this proposal when the U.S. pointed to the psychological disadvantages of seeming to fence Japan in by a continuous line around Japan. The Japanese had objected to the British proposal when it was discussed with them in Tokyo. U.S. willingness to specify in the treaty that Korean territory included Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet also helped to persuade the British.
100^ Shin Yong-Ha. "SCAPIN NO.677 and Reversion of Tokdo"."On June 22, 1946 SCAPIN No. 1033 was issued in which Clause 5 set up the fishing and whaling areas permitted for Japanese fishermen and prohibited Japanese ships and crews from entering the 12-nautical mile seas off the Liancourt Rocks at 37°15" N. latitude and 131°53"E. longitude and approaching the island."
101^ ibid. "Clause 5 of the instruction provides that 'the definition of the Japan contained in the directive shall also apply to all future directives, memoranda and orders from the Headquarters unless otherwise specified therein.' Therefore, without another specific instruction by SCAP this definition could not be changed and would continue to be binding."
102^ ibid. "In accordance with this instruction, SCAP transferred the jurisdiction over Tokdo to the U.S. Army Military Government in Korea on January 29, 1946. When the Republic of Korea was proclaimed on August 15, 1948, all the territories of Korea, including Tokdo, automatically reverted to the Korean government."
103^ ""U.S. – U.K. Meeting"".The Americans would prefer a wording which emphasized the full sovereignty of Japan such territory as we should leave her and, exclude by name from her sovereignty and only such territory and islands as might be necessary to avoid confusion.
104^ 1947/6 [USNARA/894.014/9-2347]
105^ ""日정부, 울릉도도 일본땅 로비" ("Japanese government lobbies for Ulleung Is. as well as Liancourt Rocks")". Yonhap News, Feb 8, 2005
106^ ""A news of Dokdo (Tokdo)"". Korea Times, Feb 27, 2005
107^ ""William J Sebald and the Dokdo Territorial Dispute (html)"". Jung Byung-Joon, Korea Focus, 13:4 July-August 2005, pp 55-81, gives a detailed account of the comprehensive efforts of the Japanese Foreign Office Treaty Department and the Executive Committee for Research on the Peace Treaty and William Sebald's role in the exchange of national needs of Japan and the US in the negotiating process. Originally published in Yukbi, Critical Review of History, Vol 71, Summer 2005. (Minor textual corruption exists; see the pdf version below for accurate text.)
108^ ""William J Sebald and the Dokdo Territorial Dispute (pdf)"". pdf version of above essay by Jung Byung-Joon
109^ Jung Byung-Joon, op. cit. p. 68
110^ Lee Seok-Woo, The San Francisco Peace Treaty, North-east Asian History Foundation, Seoul 2006, ISBN 89-91448-68-2-93910. pp.56-60
111^ long passage of three paragraphs summarised from Lee, Seok-Woo, op. cit. p. 58
112^ Lee Seok-Woo, in "The Resolution of the Dispute over the Liancourt Rocks", p. 12, quotes an excerpt from a USNARA document wihtout a classification number, USDOS 1954b, "Conflicting Korean-Japanese Claims to Dokdo Island (Otherwised Known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks)", 1954/8/26, "[I]f one were to assess the merits of these claims, without reference to the peace treaty, a more thorough study, with the guidance of experts in Oriental history, would have to be made."
113^ Jung Byubg-Joon, op. cit. p. 73
114^ In contrast, the corresponding Korean claims made in Aug 5, 1948, had a relatively low impact, according to which, many of the Japanese claims are proven selective, manipulative or inaccurate.
115^ 竹島の歴史地理学的研究, 川上 健三, ISBN 4772218564, May 1966, 古今書院; 復刻新装版版
116^ Usan-guk was annexed in 512 CE.
117^ "MBC Pohang 29th anniversary special documentary Usan-guk "우산국 보기" (movie file)". "Petroglyphs depicting whaling expeditions discovered in Uljin, South Gyungsang Province, Korea, attest to the antiquity of Korean navigation skills in the Sea of Japan not later than early bronze age Korea. Proto-Shilla Koreans built ships strong enough to withstand whaling expeditions and long-range navigation. Due to the diffusion of naval technology, ships in east coast Shilla and west coast Japan shared an essentially identical design." Bangudae Petroglyphs: "Other depictions of whales show it carrying calves... This type of stone-working technique suggests that the engravings were made towards the end of the Neolithic or the start of the Bronze Age."
118^ "반구대 바위그림에는 어떤 고래가 있을까?". "반구대에는 고래와 관련된 다양한 바위그림이 등장한다. 귀신고래, 혹등고래, 범고래, 긴 수염고래 등 종류별 고래의 특징이 사실적으로 새겨져 있다. 뿐만 아니라 투창이나 투망을 이용해 고래를 잡았던 당시의 생활상이 확인되고 고래의 해체 단면도까지 확인된다."
119^ Archeological evidence shows haniwa clay models of Gaya ships. Historical records the Baekje Ajikki's transmission of Bakje shipbuilding to Japan, while Shilla technicians were invited to Japan to assist in advanced ship building. Korean naval superiority before Japanese modernization was proven during the Seven-Year War.
120^ Lee Han-Key. "Korea's Territorial Rights to Tokdo in History and International Law". pp, 3-4
121^ Wada Haruki 和田春樹. "鬱陵島(ウルルン島-ウルルンド)から竹島(独島-トクド)はどのように見えるか計算で推定（シミュレーション）".
122^ Gyungbuk Daily (경북일보). "Dokdo Visible to the Unaided Eye (경북도 파견 김철환씨 사진 공개 울릉도서 독도 모습 뚜렷이 보여)". "울릉군청에 근무하다가 현재 경상북도 환경해양산림국에 파견근무중인 김철환(43)씨... 는 지난 2004년과 2007년에 울릉도에서 촬영된 독도사진 2점과 지난 2006년 독도에서 촬영한 울릉도 사진을 공개했다... 김 씨는 1968년 일본의 국토지리원이 "울릉도에서 독도는 보이지않는다"는 주장을 반박하기 위해 지난1999년에도 수개월간의 시도 끝에 북면 천부리 석포마을(해발360m)에서 사진촬영을 성공 일본국토지리원의 허구성을 알렸다. 김씨는 맑은 날이면 울릉도에서 87.4km 떨어진 독도를 육안으로 볼 수 있는 날은 1년중 30~40일 정도이며 해발100m 이상 동쪽고지에서 어디서나 육안 조망이 가능하다고 설명했다."
123^ The absence of the identification as the Korean Government in Exile or the Interim Korean Government is due to that the United States Army Military Government in Korea had decalred itself the only legitimate government on the Korean peninsula, rendering illegal any other existing government claiming soverignty over Korea.
124^ HAM Sok Hon[2][3]. "1.3. A Corrupt Christian Regime and Inefficient Government". "In south Korea numerous political parties sprang up. As early as August 16, 1945, some Koreans formed a Committee for the Preparation of Korean Independence, and [s:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuh_Woon-Hyung|Yo Unhyong] (Lyuh Woonhyung: 1885-1947) organised the left-wing Korean People's Republic (KPR). But on entering south Korea, the American commander [s:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Hodge|Lt. Gen. Hodge] declined to acknowledge any sort of political organisation, stressing that USAMGIK was the 'only' government. USAMGIK suppressed any kind of political movement from above, disbanded the People's Committees, ordered the KPR dissolved, and annulled the [s:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Government_of_the_Republic_of_Korea|Provisional Government], headed by the nationalist leader Kim Ku."
125^ Bryan Robert Gibby,. "Fighting in a Korean War: The American Advisory Missions from 1946-1953". pp. 23-24: "To be fair to the Americans, Hodge's task to maintain order was vague: 'suppress activities of individuals and organizations which may be inimical to the operations of the occupation force.' Hodge also had the military task to receive the surrender of Japanese forces, disarm them, and repatriate them as soon as possible. Beyond that, his mandate for political, social, or economic reconstruction was ambiguous.17 As a result, circumstances forced Hodge to play for time, which had nearly catastrophic results. Immediately upon Japan's capitulation, fearful colonial officials in Korea had attempted strike a deal with prominent Koreans. They convinced a moderate Korean, Yo Un-hyong, to accept responsibility for maintaining order while awaiting the tardy Americans. Yo agreed, but only under conditions that would exclude any Japanese or pro-Japanese Korean from exercising influence or power.18 From Liberation Day (15 August) to 8 September, Yo and his left-leaning organization, the Committee for the Preparation of Korean Independence, effectively governed Korea and managed to control violence while planting the seeds of national feeling. On 6 September, Yo's partisans even declared the birth of the Korean People’s Republic.19 This act unsettled Hodge's sense of good order, particularly as military, quasi-military, youth group organizations that answered to no central authority proliferated. In any event, the United States Army Forces in Korea (USAFIK), which included both the XXIV Corps and the military government, was supposed to be the central authority, and Hodge wanted to make sure there was little doubt of that. To erase any doubts, Hodge unceremoniously dumped Yo, explaining 'There is only one government in South Korea – the United States Army Military Government.'20"
126^ 1948/9 [USNARA/894.014/9-1648]
127^ ""Request for Arrangement of Lands Between Korea and Japan," by the Patriotic Old Men's Association, Seoul, Korea, August 5, 1948". A reproduction of a verbatim copy made by the Office of POLAD (Political Advisor of Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers). The title page properly identifies the nature of the document as formally unofficial yet reflecting the dominant Korean view.
128^ cf. Minquiers and Ecrehos Case: "[T]he occupation of the principal islands of an archipelago must also be deemed to include the occupation of islets and rocks in the same archipelago, which have not been actually occupied by another State."
129^ Lee Seok-Woo, op. cit. p. 13, quotes the Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration: "[T]he unity theory might find a modest and suitable place, for the Mohabbakahs have always been considered as one group, sharing the same legal destiny."
130^ ""The June 8, 1948 Bombing of Dokdo Island"". also published in Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society - Korea Branch, Vol. 78 (2003), pp. 21-33. International Journal of Korean History, Vol. 4, (August 2003), pp. 261-278.
131^ "독도 폭격 사건: 공두업옹의 증언 (현 83세)". "옹의 증언에 의하면 서도 쪽에서 조업을 하던 배들은 모조리 가라앉았으며 어부들은 태극기를 흔들고 폭격을 중지시키려 하며, 도주를 시도했으나 역부족이었다. 생존한 배는 강원도 소속의 배 1척과 공옹의 배였으며 그나마 폭파된 파편과 충격으로 인해 성치 못한 상태였다 한다.지금까지 희생자의 수는 30여명으로 알려졌으나 증언자의 말에 따르면 당시 서도 부근에서 격침된 배에 승선한 인원들은 1척당 5-8명이어야만 조업이 가능한 배들이었기에 최소한 150 ~320명 정도의 인원이 이때 희생된 것으로 파악된다."
132^ ""1948년 6월 독도폭격사건" (The Bombing Incident of June, 1948)". Ju Ganghyeon, Director of Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute and visiting scholar with Jeju University, quotes a survey conducted by international jurist Hong, Sung-geun.
133^ Hong Sung-Geun 홍성근. "진상규명과 주요쟁점_홍성근.hwp&sFname=독도폭격사건의 진상규명과 주요쟁점_홍성근.hwp 독도폭격사건의 진상규명과 주요쟁점 (hwp reader required)". 2001 study reported before the National Assembly, Republic of Korea
134^ "8. Concerning the designation of Dokdo as a bombing range for the US Forces in Japan". When Yamamoto asked, "As for the designation of the military practice area for the Occupation Forces, I think that if the vicinity of Takeshima is designated as a practice area, it would help Japan get confirmation of its territorial sovereignty over the island. Please tell me if that is what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs intends," Ishihara replied, "It seems that things are sought after in various ways, largely from such an idea."
135^ "John M. Steeves, Despatch No. 659, "Koreans on Liancourt Rocks"". Historical context, summary, and source documents offered by Mark Lovmo. See the declassified despatch in para. 1952; 10/3/52.
136^ ibid.
137^ Mark Lovmo. "The United States' Involvement with Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks):".
138^ "The Historical Facts of the Dokdo Takeshima Island Dispute:".
139^ Mark Lovmo. "The United States' Involvement with Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks):".
140^ Mark Lovmo op. cit.
141^ "South Korea to recall Japan envoy". BBC (2008-07-14). Retrieved on 2008-07-14.
142^ 日韩国内问题引爆岛屿纷争 (in Chinese) Phoenix TV Hong Kong 2008年07月16日
143^ "South Korea Beefs Up Patrols Near Disputed Isles", REUTERS (2008-07-15).
144^ a b "Japan-S Korea island row escalates", Al Jazeera (2008-07-18).
145^ 또 쇠파이프… 물대포… 폭력시위 재연 (in Korean) 18 July 2008
146^ Jung, Sung-ki (2008-07-20). "Seoul May Take Hardline Steps on East Sea Islets", The Korea Times.
147^ a b Jung, Sung-ki (2008-07-20). "Dokdo to Become Inhabited Islets", The Korea Times.
148^ a b "S Korea rejects talks over islands", Al Jazeera (2008-07-23).
149^ "Daily Press Briefing, Gonzalo R. Gallegos, Acting Deputy Spokesman, Washington, DC, July 28, 2008". Bureau of Public Affairs, U.S. State Department. Retrieved on 2008-07-29.
150^ "US restores Korean status of islets at center of Japan-SKorea row", AFP (2008-07-30).
151^ Klug, Foster (2008-07-30). "US backtracks on name of disputed Asian islands", Associated Press.
152^ "Japan tries to confirm Bush's Dokdo orders", KBS (2008-07-31).
153^ Pelofsky, Jeremy (2008-07-30). "U.S. backs away from S.Korea-Japan island dispute", Reuters.
154^ Hans, Holly, Nichols, Rosenkrantz (2008-07-30). "Bush orders reversal of map change after South Korean protest", Bloomberg.com.
155^ "Uri d'ang Dokdo, Daemado nun Joson d'ang Jung(guk) 15 segi jido balgyon". Dong'A Daily (2005-03-16). Retrieved on 2008-08-06.
Coordinates: 37°14′30″N, 131°52′″E
채영맘 
싸워도 싸워도 끝이 없는 문제(독도)
최신
이전
