獨島에 대한 法制間 融合的 硏究 (Study by Fusing of Domestic & International Legal Systems for Dok-Do)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한양대학교 법학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 법학논총 / 27권 / 2호 / 101 ~ 132페이지
· 저자명 : 이상천

초록

Superficially, It was the fundamental basic theory of Kim Dae Joong’s government that the excessive strong doctrine for Dok-Do would hurt Korea’s interest in the disfutes surrounding the islands on WesternㆍSouthern Seas and result in damage of Korea in general. Korean government is still unwilling to argue for the positive policy for Dok-Do.
The above reason can’t be answered for having rushed ‘New Agreement on Fisheries between the Republic of Korea and Japan’ through National Parliament.
Would it have been the compensation for Japan’s support in the time of so-called Korea’s IMF situation? I don’t know the true reason of it.
It is true that we have given way to Japan too much through ‘New Agreement on Fisheries between the Republic of Korea and Japan’, and the economic distribution criteria in ‘medium waters’ surrounding Dok-Do by the above agreement would be fixed forever.
Nevertheless, Japan will never give up the argument of Japan’ legal right for Dok-Do. If once the argument is transferred to the international judicial court in some balance of international powers and is sentenced to the advantage of Japan, we could lose even the control of medium waters. By this reason, we would know the accurate reason of the motive of ‘New Agreement on Fisheries between the Republic of Korea and Japan’.
Japan would get more and more from Korea by only arguing for Dok-Do. As time goes by, Japan would try to get more from Korea in concern with Dok-Do. We could perceive Japan’s purpose toward Dok-Do during IMF situation. Even though they don’t succeed in getting Dok-Do, it wouldn't hurt their interests. For they have no legal position about Dok-Do originally.
We need the positive confrontation for Dok-Do against Japan. ‘New Agreement on Fisheries between the Republic of Korea and Japan’ should be abolished gradually and nullified entirely at last. We should preserve the positive insistence that Dok-Do belongs to Korea, and it can command its own continental shelves and EEZ. The above insistence would never result in the damage of Korea’ side even in consideration of the islands on WesternㆍSouthern Seas. Dok-Do is quite different from the other islands on WesternㆍSouthern Seas in size and purpose and so on. Thus Dok-Do takes quite different legal position in United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We shouldn’t disregard Dok-Do as only simple ‘rocks’. The thought of getting interests from doing so is so naive one. Japan reconstructed Okinodorisima which is just only small ‘rocks’, and insists its continental shelves and EEZ. The low attitude about Dok-Do doesn’t suits to Dok-Do, and it is not reasonable. We need strong and positive policy about Dok-Do.
To achieve the above goal, we should achieve the effective control over Dok-Do and need the small, but strong, efficient, professional governmental organ which is based on law of Parliament.

영어초록

Superficially, It was the fundamental basic theory of Kim Dae Joong’s government that the excessive strong doctrine for Dok-Do would hurt Korea’s interest in the disfutes surrounding the islands on WesternㆍSouthern Seas and result in damage of Korea in general. Korean government is still unwilling to argue for the positive policy for Dok-Do.
The above reason can’t be answered for having rushed ‘New Agreement on Fisheries between the Republic of Korea and Japan’ through National Parliament.
Would it have been the compensation for Japan’s support in the time of so-called Korea’s IMF situation? I don’t know the true reason of it.
It is true that we have given way to Japan too much through ‘New Agreement on Fisheries between the Republic of Korea and Japan’, and the economic distribution criteria in ‘medium waters’ surrounding Dok-Do by the above agreement would be fixed forever.
Nevertheless, Japan will never give up the argument of Japan’ legal right for Dok-Do. If once the argument is transferred to the international judicial court in some balance of international powers and is sentenced to the advantage of Japan, we could lose even the control of medium waters. By this reason, we would know the accurate reason of the motive of ‘New Agreement on Fisheries between the Republic of Korea and Japan’.
Japan would get more and more from Korea by only arguing for Dok-Do. As time goes by, Japan would try to get more from Korea in concern with Dok-Do. We could perceive Japan’s purpose toward Dok-Do during IMF situation. Even though they don’t succeed in getting Dok-Do, it wouldn't hurt their interests. For they have no legal position about Dok-Do originally.
We need the positive confrontation for Dok-Do against Japan. ‘New Agreement on Fisheries between the Republic of Korea and Japan’ should be abolished gradually and nullified entirely at last. We should preserve the positive insistence that Dok-Do belongs to Korea, and it can command its own continental shelves and EEZ. The above insistence would never result in the damage of Korea’ side even in consideration of the islands on WesternㆍSouthern Seas. Dok-Do is quite different from the other islands on WesternㆍSouthern Seas in size and purpose and so on. Thus Dok-Do takes quite different legal position in United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We shouldn’t disregard Dok-Do as only simple ‘rocks’. The thought of getting interests from doing so is so naive one. Japan reconstructed Okinodorisima which is just only small ‘rocks’, and insists its continental shelves and EEZ. The low attitude about Dok-Do doesn’t suits to Dok-Do, and it is not reasonable. We need strong and positive policy about Dok-Do.
To achieve the above goal, we should achieve the effective control over Dok-Do and need the small, but strong, efficient, professional governmental organ which is based on law of Parliament.

참고자료

· 없음