총 44페이지
16페이지 본문시작
Diachrony
the U.S. has maintained that the Dokdo issue is a matter for South Korea and Japan to resolve. However, there are
interpretationsthattheambiguousstanceoftheU.S.aftertheendofWorldWarIIhascontributedtothedisputeover
thedominiumofDokdo.
AftertheendofWorldWarII,theTreatyofSanFranciscounderwentmultiple
Dispute
revisions, with the U.S. playing a pivotal role. The initial wording of the draft
Rocks
regarding the status of Dokdo explicitly stated, “Japan must return Dokdo to
Korea.” The first draft, written in 1947, stated, “Japan renounces all rights
Liancourt
and titles over South Korea, and also renounces all Korean coastal islands,
Takeshima
including Ulleung Island, Dokdo, Geomun Island, etc.” At that time, the draft
evenincludedamapshowingDokdoasKoreanterritory.However,inthesixth
ⓒDokdo
draft written in 1949, Dokdo was suddenly declared as Japanese territory. It
read,“Japan’sterritoryconsistsoffourmajorislands:Honshu,Kyushu,Shikoku
and Hokkaido, also including Tsushiman, Takeshima, Okirito and Sado.” The
dominiumofDokdowassuddenlytransferredtoJapan.Inthefinaltreatysigned
afterwards,Dokdowasnotstatedclearly.Itstated,“JapanshalldeclareKorea’s
independence, and renounce all rights, titles and territorial claims to Korea,
including Jeju Island, Geoje Island and Ulleng Island,” omitting any mention
of whether Dokdo was a Korean or Japanese territory. Japan claimed that it
recognized Dokdo as Japanese territory since it was not explicitly designated
asapartofKoreanterritory,andlaterusedthisastheprimaryrationaleinthe
territorialdisputeoverDokdo.
While the draft of the treaty has been overturned on several occasions, the
▲ The previous drafts of the Treaty of San
position on Dokdo’s territorial rights has also been mixed within the U.S.
Francisco dealt with the disposition of
former Japanese territories. There was also
Department of State. Some officials objected to including Dokdo as Japanese
an attached map to show the boundary
territory,expressingconcernsthatitcouldpotentiallyleadtofuturedisputes.The
between Japan and Korea.
question arises: why were the initially clear territorial rights over Dokdo be expressed differently, ultimately leading to
territorialdisputes?UnderlyingthiswastheColdWarrivalrybetweentheU.S.andtheSovietUnion,whichcontributed
tothepoliticizationoftheterritorialissue.AftertheendofWorldWarII,thepositionsoftheU.S.andEngland,which
playedaleadingroleintreatynegotiations,wererelativelyclear.WiththeaimofforcingJapantoreturntheterritoriesit
hadseized,theyspecifiedtheterritoriallimitsofJapan.However,whentheTreatyofSanFranciscowasbeingdrafted,
the mood was quite different. At that time, the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union was intensifying, and
communistregimesinthenorthoftheKoreanPeninsulaandChinabegantoriseinpower.Especiallyaftertheoutbreak
of the Korean War* in 1950, anti-communist movements by the allied powers continued, which also influenced the
signing of the treaty afterwards. The Treaty of San Francisco was also strengthened in its anti-communist orientation,
omittingterritorialrestrictions,reparations,andotherpunitivemeasuresagainstJapan.Duringthetreaty-signingprocess,
the U.S., viewing Japan as a strategic ally against the communist bloc, came to regard Japan as a bulwark and partner
intheanti-communistfront.Asaresult,theterritorialissue,whichwasoriginallytheessenceofthetreaty,wasblurred
andbecameentangledinpoliticalideologies.WooJunHee,avisitingprofessoratHankukUniversityofForeignStudies,
says,“SincetheColdWar,theU.S.hasbeenalliedwithbothJapanandSouthKorea.Thisisbecause,giventheissuesof
securitycooperationandtrustbetweentheallies,itismorepracticaltotakeasomewhatambiguouspositionandclaimto
*KoreanWar:ThewarontheKoreanPeninsulabetweenNorthandSouthKorea,lastingfromJune25,1950,toJuly27,1953.
14
www.theargus.org
the U.S. has maintained that the Dokdo issue is a matter for South Korea and Japan to resolve. However, there are
interpretationsthattheambiguousstanceoftheU.S.aftertheendofWorldWarIIhascontributedtothedisputeover
thedominiumofDokdo.
AftertheendofWorldWarII,theTreatyofSanFranciscounderwentmultiple
Dispute
revisions, with the U.S. playing a pivotal role. The initial wording of the draft
Rocks
regarding the status of Dokdo explicitly stated, “Japan must return Dokdo to
Korea.” The first draft, written in 1947, stated, “Japan renounces all rights
Liancourt
and titles over South Korea, and also renounces all Korean coastal islands,
Takeshima
including Ulleung Island, Dokdo, Geomun Island, etc.” At that time, the draft
evenincludedamapshowingDokdoasKoreanterritory.However,inthesixth
ⓒDokdo
draft written in 1949, Dokdo was suddenly declared as Japanese territory. It
read,“Japan’sterritoryconsistsoffourmajorislands:Honshu,Kyushu,Shikoku
and Hokkaido, also including Tsushiman, Takeshima, Okirito and Sado.” The
dominiumofDokdowassuddenlytransferredtoJapan.Inthefinaltreatysigned
afterwards,Dokdowasnotstatedclearly.Itstated,“JapanshalldeclareKorea’s
independence, and renounce all rights, titles and territorial claims to Korea,
including Jeju Island, Geoje Island and Ulleng Island,” omitting any mention
of whether Dokdo was a Korean or Japanese territory. Japan claimed that it
recognized Dokdo as Japanese territory since it was not explicitly designated
asapartofKoreanterritory,andlaterusedthisastheprimaryrationaleinthe
territorialdisputeoverDokdo.
While the draft of the treaty has been overturned on several occasions, the
▲ The previous drafts of the Treaty of San
position on Dokdo’s territorial rights has also been mixed within the U.S.
Francisco dealt with the disposition of
former Japanese territories. There was also
Department of State. Some officials objected to including Dokdo as Japanese
an attached map to show the boundary
territory,expressingconcernsthatitcouldpotentiallyleadtofuturedisputes.The
between Japan and Korea.
question arises: why were the initially clear territorial rights over Dokdo be expressed differently, ultimately leading to
territorialdisputes?UnderlyingthiswastheColdWarrivalrybetweentheU.S.andtheSovietUnion,whichcontributed
tothepoliticizationoftheterritorialissue.AftertheendofWorldWarII,thepositionsoftheU.S.andEngland,which
playedaleadingroleintreatynegotiations,wererelativelyclear.WiththeaimofforcingJapantoreturntheterritoriesit
hadseized,theyspecifiedtheterritoriallimitsofJapan.However,whentheTreatyofSanFranciscowasbeingdrafted,
the mood was quite different. At that time, the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union was intensifying, and
communistregimesinthenorthoftheKoreanPeninsulaandChinabegantoriseinpower.Especiallyaftertheoutbreak
of the Korean War* in 1950, anti-communist movements by the allied powers continued, which also influenced the
signing of the treaty afterwards. The Treaty of San Francisco was also strengthened in its anti-communist orientation,
omittingterritorialrestrictions,reparations,andotherpunitivemeasuresagainstJapan.Duringthetreaty-signingprocess,
the U.S., viewing Japan as a strategic ally against the communist bloc, came to regard Japan as a bulwark and partner
intheanti-communistfront.Asaresult,theterritorialissue,whichwasoriginallytheessenceofthetreaty,wasblurred
andbecameentangledinpoliticalideologies.WooJunHee,avisitingprofessoratHankukUniversityofForeignStudies,
says,“SincetheColdWar,theU.S.hasbeenalliedwithbothJapanandSouthKorea.Thisisbecause,giventheissuesof
securitycooperationandtrustbetweentheallies,itismorepracticaltotakeasomewhatambiguouspositionandclaimto
*KoreanWar:ThewarontheKoreanPeninsulabetweenNorthandSouthKorea,lastingfromJune25,1950,toJuly27,1953.
14
www.theargus.org
16페이지 본문끝
메뉴
현재 포커스의 아래내용들은 동일한 컨텐츠를 가지고 페이지넘김 효과및 시각적 효과를 제공하는 페이지이므로 스크린리더 사용자는 여기까지만 낭독하시고 위의 페이지이동 링크를 사용하여 다음페이지로 이동하시기 바랍니다.