17세기 말 울릉도쟁계 관련 한·일 ‘교환공문’의 증명력: 거리관습에 따른 조약상 울릉·독도 권원 확립·해상국경 묵시 합의 (The Evidentiary Value of the 17th Century Korean-Japanese Exchange of Letters Agreeing Tacitly on the Former's Title to Dokdo and on the Maritime Frontier Based on the Special Custom of Distance Crite)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 대한국제법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 국제법학회논총 / 58권 / 3호 / 131 ~ 168페이지
· 저자명 : 박현진

초록

17세기말 동래어부 안용복 등의 2차에 걸친 도일활동(1693-1696)과 대마도주의 울릉도에 대한 야심으로 촉발된 소위 ‘울릉도쟁계’ 사건으로 양국은 당시 한·일간 외교 관행에 따라 대마도주를 교섭창구로 외교교섭 과정에서 왕복 외교문서를 교환하였다. 특히 조선 조정의 1694년 8월 서한과 1697년 2월 대마도주를 통한 막부의 서한은 영토·해양경계 분쟁 관련 현대 국제판례가 확립하고 있는 ‘교환공문’으로서, 현대 외교관행·국제법상 ‘약식조약’에 해당한다(이어 조선의 1698년 회답서한과 막부의 1699년 확인서한은 교환공문상의 합의를 재확인한 것이다). 우선 이 교환공문은 양국간 특수관습(거리관습)에 입각, 울릉도에 대한 조선의 원시적·본원적 권원을 조약상의 권원으로 대체한 국제협정으로 해석·간주된다.
또 동 교환공문으로 울릉도의 부속도서인 독도에 대한 조선의 영유권에 묵시적으로 동의·승인하고 아울러 양국 간 해상국경 역시 독도 남쪽의 해양경계에 묵시적으로 합의한 것으로 해석된다. 이러한 추론은 막부의 1696년 울릉도 도해면허 취소 및 독도도해 금지 조치와 함께, 일본 어부가문의 울릉도도해 신청서와 1870년 명치정부 외무성 및 1877년 최고행정기관인 태정관의 내부문서 등 1905년까지 200년 이상 독도를 울릉도 부속도서로 인정하고, 조선의 독도영유권 및 독도남부의 해상국경에 묵종한 일본의 일관된 국가실행에서도 확인된다. 도해면허란 본질적으로 외국해역 방문허가 또는 해양자원이용에 관한 것으로서 국제판례상 영유권 관련 증거능력이 인정되지 않는다.
따라서 한·일 간 소위 독도영유권 문제는 교환공문과 함께 울릉도쟁계가 외교적으로 마무리된 1699년 이미 법적으로 완전히 종결된 것이며, 양국 간 해양경계 역시 묵시적으로 독도 남부로 합의된 것이다. 일본이 주장하는 바와 같이 만일 일본이 『은주시청합기』(1667) 이전부터 독도의 위치·거리에 관한 인식과 영유의사를 가지고 있었다면, 울릉도쟁계 당시 막부가 이를 교환공문 등에서 명시적으로 독도영유권은 합의에 포함되지 않는다는 취지의 이의·유보 등을 조선에 통보했어야 한다. 독도문제에 대한 막부의 침묵은 국제판례 상 조선의 독도영유권에 대한 묵인으로 간주된다. 조약상의 영토·해상국경의 합의는 확정성, 안정성을 도모하기 위한 것으로서, "오랜 기간 지속된 현상은 그 변경을 최소화해야 한다"는 것이 국제법의 확립된 원칙이다(1962년 ICJ의 프레아 비헤어 영유권 분쟁사건 판결 및 1909년 그리스바다르나 사건 중재판정). 따라서 일제가 러일전쟁의 와중에서 1905년 행한 소위 비밀 ‘독도편입’은 당시 독도가 무주지가 아님을 알고서도 행한 조선의 영토에 대한 불법침략행위의 시발점으로서, 그 불법행위 시에 소급하여 당연히 원천 무효이다.

영어초록

The Korean-Japanese Insular and Maritime Frontier Skirmish of the late 17th century was touched off by the kidnapping of Mr Ahn Yong-bok and other Korean fishermen in the waters off Ulleungdo in spring 1693 by the Japanese fishermen having sailed from Yonago, Houki, Tottori Prefecture. The diplomatic skirmish, referred to as Ulleungdo Jaenggye(鬱陵島爭界: 1693-1699) in Korean official historical records, suffered twists and turns because of the territorial ambitions of Tsushima Island‘s governor acting as the agent of the Shogunate in Tokyo. Mr Ahn and others were taken to the Oki Islands and thence to Houki on the mainland for further questioning. During his “custody” in Japan, Mr Ahn challenged the Tottori Prefecture's permission allowing its fishermen to navigate to Ulleungdo and Dokdo and demanded its prohibition.
Mr Ahn was given a letter from the Shogunate confirming Korean title to Ulleungdo, but was, on his way back home via Nagasaki, deprived of it by the Tsushima governor harboring ambitions on Ulleungdo. Japan repatriated Mr Ahn via Busan(Dongrae) in September the same year. Negotiations failed to progress smoothly due to Tsushima's own ulterior motives distinct from those of Edo(Tokyo). Tsushima attempted to beguile Joseon into believing that there existed ‘Takeshima’ distinct from Ulleungdo. The Joseon Court dispatched a revised letter via Tsushima in August 1694, rebutting the latter's ploy and stating bluntly that Ulleungdo was in fact identical with ‘Takeshimka’ and that it constituted part of Joseon's territory.
In spring 1696, apparently disappointed with the stalled diplomatic negotiation process, Mr Ahn went out to the sea to encounter Japanese fishermen again near Ulleungdo. He shouted, “Do you (Japanese fishermen) not know Ulleungdo and Jasando(Dokdo) were within the Korean frontier?” to chase and drive them out of the area. Mr Ahn and others then sailed along to Houki again, this time of his own volition. Mr Ahn's second campaign helped bring the deadlocked diplomatic parleys to a belated settlement in February 1697 when in its reply the Shogunate, accepting Joseon's demands, notified her of its decision reaffirming Korean title to Ulleungdo and acquiescing in the Korean dominium of Dokdo. There followed Joseon's 1698 acknowledgement and the Shogunate's 1699 confirmation letter.
In arriving at agreement, both the Joseon Court and the Shogunate demonstrated their common legal conviction on the distance criteria as a special custom binding upon both parties. A bilateral treaty was thus concluded in simplified form through the Exchange of Letters, i.e. Joseon's August 1694 letter and the Shogunate's February 1697 reply. The international agreement has thus replaced Joseon's original, historical title with the treaty-based definitive title. The primacy of a special custom or particular practice over general custom has been given its legal expression in the ICJ's Right of Passage over Indian Territory case: “Where therefore the Court finds a practice clearly established between two States which was accepted by the Parties as governing the relations between them, the Court must attribute decisive effect to that practice for the purpose of determining their specific rights and obligations. Such a particular practice must prevail over any general rules”(Merits, 1960, p.44, italics added).
In determining the ownership of Ulleungdo in Tokyo in 1696, the Shogunate's chief executive officer(執政) was quoted as saying that “It was not a good policy to compromise good neighborly relations for “the useless small island””. A fortiori, it is reasonably presumed, the Shogunate must not have allowed even a smaller island such as Dokdo to prejudice bilateral relations. This fact and inference unequivocally evidence the Japanese lack of animus occupandi and her relinquishment of any claim. Express objection or reservation should have been tabled and communicated to Joseon in the Exchange of Letters, if Japan should ever be entitled to a claim, if any. "The absence of reaction may well amount to acquiescence. The concept of acquiescence is equivalent to tacit recognition manifested by unilateral conduct which the other party may interpret as consent."[The ICJ's Gulf of Maine case, 1984, para.130 & Malaysia/Singapore case, 2008, para.121].
Japan invokes the Shogunate-issued licence for navigating to Ulleungdo and even to Dokdo as the evidence of a title or right. International jurisprudence, however, has consistently declined to recognize such water-related licensing activities as proof of manifestations of state authority[Eritrea/Yemen Arbitral Award, 1998, paras.263 & 334; Nicaragua/Honduras case, 2007, para.195]. And illegal navigation or navigation without licence may not be adduced as the ground for a valid claim, territorial or otherwise. And the Shogunate's 1696 revocation of the licence for sailing up to Ulleungdo and its prohibition of navigation to Dokdo attest to the Shogunate's tacit consent to the maritime boundary down below Dokdo.
Relying on the Shogunate's Exchange of Letter of February 1697 and its tacit recognition of Joseon's title to Dokdo, the Joseon Court decided to dispatch to both islands the public inspection official accompanied by his entourage every three years. This practice was manifested regularly until 1900 when Emperor Kojong proclaimed an Edict instituting the Uldo County comprised of Ulleungdo and Dokdo. The actual, peaceful and continuous display of state authority testifies the Joseon government's unswerving intention and will to act as the sovereign over Dokdo. The Japanese acquiescence in Korean title to both islands was confirmed again in the Meiji government's 1870 and 1877 official documents, appended with an Ulleungdo-Dokdo sketch map and compiled, after a meticulous field study and in-depth research, by the Foreign Ministry and the Prime Minister's Office, respectively. Indeed, Japan had recognized Dokdo as appurtenant to and dependent upon Ulleungdo for more than 200 years up to 1905.
The ICJ in the 2007 Nicaragua/Honduras case noted Nicaraguan failure to elicit any protest against Honduran activities qualifying as effectivité despite the former's knowledge that could be fairly assumed(para.208) to accord a legally binding effect on the reticence. In a similar vein, the ICJ held in the 1992 El Salvador/Honduras case that Honduran protest against El Salvador's long history of acts of sovereignty came too late to affect the presumption of acquiescence, admission, recognition or tacit consent to the situation(para.364). And in the 1962 Temple of Preah Vihear case, the ICJ had this to say: “…when two countries establish a frontier between them, one of the primary objects is to achieve stability and finality”[p.34]. “It is a well established principle of the law of nations that the state of things which actually exists and has existed for a long time should be changed as little as possible” [Grisbadarna case, Norway/Sweden, PCA, 1909, p.6].
Indeed, the treaty regime agreed upon in the Korean-Japanese Exchange of Letters of the late 17th century was meant to terminate, and did, de facto and de jure, terminate the diplomatic dispute over any territorial sovereignty and the maritime frontier in the East Sea once and for all. It is all too clear by now from relevant Japanese historical records that Imperial Japan allegedly "incorporated" Dokdo in 1905 during the Russo-Japanese War and just before depriving Joseon of her diplomatic power, knowing that it was not terra nullius. Japan's beleaguered argument of “inherent territory” or of the alleged “incorporation” is thus neither well founded on historical facts and geographical grounds, nor validly established in international law.

참고자료

· 없음