제10부 韓·日間 獨島領有權論爭 관계 자료

제21장 韓·日間 獨島領有權論爭 자료(Ⅱ)

Ⅰ. □日本政府見解②□와 往復文書

(443) 1953. 10. 3 일본측 口述書(No. 243/A2)

(□日本政府見解②□ 통보 예정)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Korean Mission in Japan and, referring to the latter's note verbale of September 9, 1953, has the honor to make the following representation:

Irrespective of the claim contained in the aforementioned note verbale, the Japanese Government consistently maintains, as heretofore, its views that the Take-shima is a part of the Japanese territory clear beyond and dispute from whatever points of view, history, geography or international law, the question is considered.

As regards the particulars set forth in the same note, the matter is now under study and the Mission will be informed of the Japanese Government's views in due course.

Tokyo, October 3, 1953.

(444) 1954. 2. 10 □일본정부견해②□ 수록 口述書

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Korean Mission in Japan and has the honor to refer to the latter's note verbale of September 9, 1953, on Take-shima, and to state as follows :

1. The Japanese Government has carefully studied the enclosure of the above note of the Mission, "The Korean Government's refutation of the Japanese Government's view concerning Dokdo("Takeshima"), and has found that the Korean Government's assertion in the present case derives from gross misunderstandings of historical facts, literature, etc., and, as such, fails to justify the Korean Government's claim to the possession of Takeshima.

2. In the course of review, the Japanese Government has again confirmed that Japan's possession of Takeshima is complete, not only satisfying sufficiently all the necessary requirements of modern international law for territorial possession, but also because of the fact that Takeshima has been known to the Japanese since ancient times, considered as an integral part of the Japanese territory and utilized by them accordingly, while on the Korean part there are no comparable facts; and that Japan's possession of Takeshima has never been disputed by Korea.

3. Accordingly, in order to remove the erroneous concept entertained by the Korean Government regarding the indisputable fact that Takeshima is a Japanese possession, there is enclosed herewith a statement setting forth the views of the Japanese Government in rebuttal of "The Korean Government's views concerning Dokdo("Takeshima"), dated September 9, 1953.

Tokyo, February 10, 1954.

VIEWS OF THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT IN REFUTATION OF THE POSITION TAKEN BY THE KOREAN GOVERNMENT IN THE NOTE VERBALE OF THE KOREAN MISSION IN JAPAN. SEPTEMBER 9, 1953, CONCERNING TERRITORIALITY OVER TAKESHIMA

(日本政府見解 2)

1. The Japanese Government has carefully examined the views of the Korean Government on the subject at issue. The Japanese Government welcomes the fact that the Korean Government is attempting to establish its position on the basis of various data, and believes that if the question could be studied openmindedly by the two governments with such an attitude a just conclusion would be reached in due course,

2. However, it is to be regretted that the grounds cited by the Korean Government to substantiate its arguments are by no means compatible with its supposedly conscientious attitude. Quotations from literature and reference to events are inaccurate and misleading, and do not serve the purpose of establishing the position of the Korean Government, some outstanding examples of which are cited below :

(1) As evidence of the alleged fact that Takeshima was known in Korea in ancient times, the Korean Government claims that both Woosando mentioned in "Tongkuk Yoji Seungnam" as having been explored by Kim Jaju are identical with the present Takeshima. But it fails to offer of the alleged identity. Besides, the reference to Kim Jaju as having been mentioned in "Tongkuk Yoji Seungnam" is erroneous. Kim Jaju is mentioned only in "Seijong Shillok".

On the other hand, the Japanese Government may point out passages in Korean literature which regarded Sambongdo or Woosando as none other than Ulneungdo.

In the description of Woosan and Munung in the above-mentioned "Seijong Shillok", there is a passage, next to the one referred to by the Korean Government, which reads : "At the time of Shilla the island was called Woosankuk and also was known as Ulneungdo." Also in the description of Woosando and Ulneungdo in "Tongkuk Yoji Seungnam", it is stated: "According to another version Woosan and Ulneung have been the names of the one and the same island". As for "Munhunchwalrok", it clearly explains the identity of the three, Sambongdo, Woosando and Ulneungdo, in the following words:

"Ulneungdo is situated in the seas due east of Uljin. When the weather is fine, the peaks and hilly range on the island can be clearly seen. On the island the land is spacious and fertile. Because bamboo grows there, the island is called Chuto, and because the island has three high peaks it is also called Sambongdo. As for Woosan, Urung, Ulrung, Murung and Kijuk, they are corruptions."

With regard to the alleged fact that Takeshima has been known among the Koreans as Dokdo, no reference to such a name can be found in the old literature or old maps of Korea.

(2) It is alleged by the Korean Government that "according to Seijong Shillok, in 1695 Korean nationals including Mr. Ahn Yong Bok had been to Ulneungdo and Dokdo and they energetically warned Japanese vessels not to approach these two island," and that thus, "The Korean kept Japanese nationals from infringing the waters of Ulneungdo and Dokdo, which are integral parts of the Korean territory." However, the above mentioned description in "Shillok" is based on statement made by Ahn Yong Bok on being investigated upon his return by the Korean defence authorities and is largely fictitious. In particular, his statement that he met Japanese fishing craft in Ulneungdo and warned them to stay away from Ulneungdo and Dokdo is utterly groundless. In that year no Japanese fishermen proceeded to Ulneungdo. On the other hand, the Korean Government arrested and exiled Ahn on the charge of having made an unlawful exit. It can easily be seen from the above fact that the Korean argument based on the Ahn Yong Bok case is not a well-founded one.

(3) As evidence that Takeshima has been owned and effectively administered by Korea, the Korean Government enumerates the following:

(a) Shim Heung Taik, the county master of Ulneungdo, reported in 1906, that "Dokdo which is an island attached to this county … "

(b) Yosaburo Nakai, believing the island to be a part of the territory of Korea, requested the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce to obtaining permission for him from the then Korean Government to lease the island.

(c) In an articles by Hibata Sekko, Takeshima is described as the most eastern border of the territory of Korea.

(d) In the "Hydrographic Directory of Korean Coastal Waters", Taksshima is regarded as an island attached to Ulneungdo.

(e) In November 1904, the Japanese man-of-war Tsushima  reported that scores of residents of Ulneungdo landed on Takeshima every summer and engaged in fishing near the island.

(f) A survey conducted by a Japanese national on fisheries in Korea referred to Takeshima as belonging to Korea.

However, in all cases the quotations from literature and the references to facts are inaccurate and none of them serves to substantiate the Korean argument, Japanese counter-arguments in refutation of the respective allegations follow:

(a) As the authentic original text is not cited, there is no way to present the views of the Japanese Government. But it should be noted that in March of the same year(1906) a team of more than forty persons headed by Yoshitaro Kanda, a secretary of Shimane Prefectural Government, conducted an on-the-spot survey of Takeshima, which had been incorporated as a part of the prefecture the previous

year, and on their way home visited Ulneungdo and saw county master, Shim Heung Taik, Kanda presented the county master with a sea-lion which had been caught at Takeshima, and the latter thanked Kanda for coming and for the present. If the county master had regarded Takeshima as belonging to Ulneungdo at that time, he would not have received Kanda in this way.

(b) The Korean Government's argument may have been based on the "History of Shimane Prefecture", compiled and published by the Educational Association of Shimane Prefecture in June 1923(though the Korean Government refers to it as having been published in July). In this book it is stated: "Nakai submitted a request to the Home, Foreign and Agriculture and Commerce Ministries for incorporating Takeshima into the territory of Japan and for a lease of the island, and thereupon, at a cabinet meeting the three Ministries decided, in the light of the views of the Shimane Prefectural Government, to incorporate the island into the territory of Japan. "There is no passage in the book, as alleged by the Korean Government, stating that Nakai requested the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce to obtain permission from the then Korean Government for him to lease the island. Certainly, there is a passage reading: "Believing that Takeshima was Korean territory, Nakai intended to go to Tokyo and prevail upon the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce to allow him to apply for the lease of the island from the Korean Government." However, according to an account submitted to the Government of Oki Islands concerning Takeshima, Nakai believed that the present Takeshima  had long been recognized and managed by the Japanese people. Therefore, the passage quoted above may bo the result of some misunderstanding on the part of the compiler.

(c) In 1950 when the article in question was published Takeshima belonged to Shimane Prefecture, and not to Kang-Won Do of Korea. So the author was clearly in the wrong. The error of the author, as demonstrably shown in the manner of his treatment of the literature quoted in the article, arose from his ignorance of the fact that the island known as "Takeshima" in olden times was Ulneungdo and not the present Takeshima.

(d) A hydrographic directory is compiled for the convenience of its users and has nothing to do with the territorial jurisdiction over an island. Because Takeshima is an island having an bearing on navigation in the neighbourhood of Ulneungdo, the island was mentioned together with Ulneungdo. And then because Takeshima

has a bearing also on navigation in the vicinity of the Oki Islands, it is mentioned in, "Southeast Part of Northwest Coast of Mainland", Book 2, Vol. Ⅱ of the Hydrographic Directory of Coastal Waters of Mainland, under the heading "Oki Islands and Takeshima." Thus, it is clear that the hydrographic Agency did not treat Takeshima as an island attached to Ulneungdo.

(e) According to the "Hydrographic Directory of Korean Coastal Waters", the HIJMS Tsushima reported only that : " … they were found on the eastern island thatched cottages of fishermen, which, however, had been shattered by rough weather." The passage quoted by the Korean Government, reading : "scores of residents of Ulneungdo land at this island every summer, … and engage in fishing activities near the island," is an addition made by the compilers of the directory on the basis of hearsay, referring to conditions on the island in later years, and is not a report from the Tsushima. Besides the original reads: "those coming from Ulneungdo," instead of "residents of Ulneungdo" as erroneously quoted by the Korean Government. It is understood that they were Japanese and their Korean employees who later came from bases in Ulneungdo to Takeshima to catch abalone and gather wakame(sea-weed).

(f) While the source of this allegation is not indicated, it is presumed that the Korean Government refers to "Korean Fisheries(Hankuk Soosanji), compiled by the Fisheries Bureau, the Department of Agriculture, Commerce and Industry, of Korea, and issued in May 1910.

However, in Book 2 concerning fisheries on the east coast of Korea, the name of Dokdo is not found anywhere. In view of their locations, none of the so-called "Takeshima" mentioned there can be identified with the island of Takeshima now in question.

(4) It is stated in the note verbale that, under the terms of the Japan-Korea Protocol and Japan-Korea Agreement, dated, respectively, February 23 and August 22, 1904, Japan made Korea "secure the services of Japanese diplomatic advisors to the Korean Government" and also could "occupy any part of Korean territory, if necessary, from strategic viewpoints." But, it should be noted that, of the two quotations, the former should read: "The Korean Government shall engage as diplomatic advisor to the Department of Foreign Affairs a foreigner recommended by the Japanese Government … "(Section Ⅱ of Japan-Korea Agreement), and, as a

matter of fact, Mr. Stevenson an American, was engaged. It should also be noted, with regard to the latter, that, apart from the inaccuracy of quotation, the provision in question merely amounted to an arrangement to enable Japan to occupy temporarily such strategical places as might be required for attaining purpose of safeguarding the territorial integrity of Korea, during the Russo-Japanese war, and had nothing to do with any measure to incorporate Takeshima into Japanese territory.

(5) It is argued by the Korean Government that the territorial provisions in the Peace Treaty merely confirm, without making any substantial change, the cessation of Governmental or administrative authority of Japan as directed by SCAP Memorandum SCAPIN No. 677 dated January 29, 1946.

However, it should be noted that, of the Nansei islands south of 30°N over which Japanese authority was suspended by the abovementioned Memorandum, those north of 29°N were restored to the administrative of the Japanese Government by the SCAP Memorandum of December 5, 1951, and the Amami Islands were also returned to Japanese jurisdiction in December 1953. It has further been ascertained that Japan still possesses "residual sovereignty" over the other islands of the Nansei Islands, Nampo Shoto south of Sofu Gan, Parace Vela and Marcus. At the San Francisco Conference, the United States delegate John Foster Dullles made it clear that the Habomai Islands which Japanese authority had been suspended by the aforesaid SCAP Memorandum were not to be included in the Kurile Islands to which, under the terms of the Peace Treaty, Japan had to renounce all right, title, and claim.

Even from the standpoint of actual steps taken, the abovementioned facts demonstrate that there is no relationship between the aforesaid SCAP Memorandum and the Peace Treaty.

3. The following are requisite, under modern international law, to the acquisition of territory:

1) Intention of State to acquire territory;

2) Public announcement of the intention; and

3) establishment of adequate power to control the territory.

As international law, however, had no application to Japan before the opening of the country to foreign intercourse, it can be considered that Japan has sufficient grounds for possession of the territory if Japan regarded and treated it as her own territory and if this was not disputed by any other country.

In olden times Takeshima was known to the Japanese by the name of "Matsushima" and regarded by them as a part of the territory of Japan and utilized by them in navigation and fishery. At the time of the Third Shogun Iyemitsu of the Tokigawa line, the Shogunate Government permitted two merchant families of Yonago, the Otanis and the Murakawas to control over Takeshima, and the island was used as an intermediate anchorage for voyage to Ulneungdo. Furthermore fishing and hunting were engaged in by the Japanese on and around Takeshima.

The following are literature showing what has been stated above:

"Inshu Shicho Gakki" [A record of what has been seen and heard of inshu by

Izumo Clansman Saito - The 7th Year of Kammon(1667)]

"Otani Kyuuyemon Shuki" [A Sketch by Otani Kyuuyemon Katsunobu

- The 9th Year of 'Enpo '1st year of Tanwa, 1681']

A verbale note addressed to the Nagasaki Magistrate's office by Otani Kyuuyemon                              Katsufusa - The 1st Year of Kampo(1741)

"Takeshima Zusetsu" [A map with remarks by Tokugan Tsusn

- Horeki Era(1750-63)]

"Chosei Takeshima Ki" [A note on Takeshima by Tada Takesama

- The 1st Year of Kyowa(1801)]

In addition, there are many old maps, made around the middle of the Edo Era and after, which show the island as a part of the territory of Japan, for instance, the maps mentioned below:

"Takeshima Zu" [(A map of Takeshima) which has long been in the possession of                     the family Feudal Lord Ikeda of the Tottori Clan made in the

Horeki Era(1720s)]

"Nihon Yochi Rotei Zenzu"[(A complete map of Japan) by Nakakubo Sekisui

- The 4th Year of Anyei(1775)]

Of the above maps, the one possessed by the Ikeda family is a copy of a map made by order of Shogunate Government and submitted to them, and therefore it is

a map with an official character and shows that people in those days had a very accurate geographical knowledge of the island now known by the name of Takeshima.

On the other hand, what has been mentioned by the Korean side offers nothing to confirm that Korea recognized Takeshima as a part of her territory and utilized it in olden days.

When viewed from the historical facts, there is, in the light of the fact that the Korean authorities had followed the "policy of non-inhabited island" for a long period since the begining of the Li Dynasty in respect to Ulneungdo, no reason to think that Korea extended her control administratively or otherwise to an isolated island further out than Ulneungdo.

As can be seen from the foregoing, since olden times Takeshima had been known to the Japanese, considered as a part of the territory of Japan and utilized by the Japanese whereas there has been no such facts on the part of Korea. Moreover, the territorial rights to the island have never been disputed between Japan and Korea. Therefore it may be concluded that Takeshima has been a part of the Japanese territory since olden days.

4. With regard to the requirements for acquisition of territory under modern international law, it should be mentioned that the intention of the State to acquire the territory was confirmed as a result of the decision made at a Cabinet meeting on January 28, 1905, for the adding of Takeshima to the territory of Japan and that on February 22, 1905, a public announcement of the intention of the State to acquire the territory was made by a notification issued by Shimane Prefectural Government.

As this was in accordance with the practice followed by Japan at that time in announcing her occupancy of territory, the above measure taken for the public announcement of the intention of the State has satisfied the requirement under international law in this respect.

In addition to the above, it is theoretically necessary to establish adequate power to control the territory in order to complete its possession. It may be stated, in this regard, that on-the-spot surveys were made in respect to Takeshima by Governor Takekichi MATSUNAGA of Shimane Prefecture in August 1905 and by a party of more than 40 persons headed by Yoshitaro KANDA, Chief of the 3rd Division of the Shimane Prefectural Government, in March the following year, and that the area of Takeshima was entered in the terrier as Government-owned land on May 17, 1905, on the basis of a report submitted by the Governor of Iki Island.

With regard to sea lion hunting around Takeshima, the fishery control regulations applicable to this industry were amended on April 14, 1905 by Shimane Prefectural Order No. 18, whereby a license system was adopted for sea-lion hunting, and on June 5 the same year, licenses were issued formally to four Japanese including a certain Nakai. Since then there had been ups and downs pertaining to the industry, but it was carried on until its discontinuation in 1941 owing to war developments, and licenses annually paid in fees to the national treasury for use of the Government-owned land. It may be added that the said fishery control regulations governing the operations around Takeshima have been amended several times in the past.

On August 17, 1940, Takeshima was taken over by the Kure Naval Station as naval property and Choshiro YAHATA was had the right to hunt sea lion there was granted permission to use the naval property with a written order containing directions for its use issued by the Commander-in-Chief of the Naval Station.

The above-mentioned facts show that Japan continuously exercised control over Takeshima. Thus it can be seen that Japan has fully satisfied the conditions under modern international law for the possession of Takeshima.

5. Although the Korean side has recently taken up the question of ownership of Takeshima, it may be proved by the following facts that Korea did not consider the island as her possession before and long after the placing of Takeshima under the jurisdiction of Shimane Prefecture 1n 1905.

(1) In the edition of the 5th year of Kwang Moo(the 34th year of Meiji; 1901) of "Tai Han Chiji"(a geographical description of Korea: its second edition in two volumes was printed in the 9th year of Kwang Moo) by Hyun Byun the eastern limits of Korea are shown as extending to long. 130°35″. and Takeshima is not included in the territory of Korea. As the author was on the staff of the Education Department of the Korean Government and the book has a preface by the Director of Compilation Bureau, Mr. Hyun is considered to have been an authoritative writer in his time.

(2) According to a book by Taipaik Kwangno entitled "Hankuk Tongsa"(History of Korea) printed in the 4th year of Chinese Republic(the 4th year of Taisho, 1915), the eastern limits of Korea are situated at long. 130°50′E, without Takeshima being included in the Korean territory.

This book was written by one of the Koreans who planned the independence of Korea in opposition to Japanese rule in Korea. He, therefore, ought to have taken up Takeshima if he had any concern about it.

6. In short, nothing can be found from the explanations of the Korean side and from the results of our investigations to prove that Korea has had possession of Takeshima since olden days or that she had administered the island effectively.

On the other, Japan's ownership of Takeshima is entirely beyond doubt from the viewpoints of historical facts and also of requirements under international law for the acquisition of territory.

[해설]

이 자료는 일본정부가 한국의 독도영유에 더욱 거칠게 도전해 오면서 □일본정부견해②□를 보내온 내용이다.

일본정부는 □한국정부 견해 ①□의 반박 구술서를 받은 이후에도 독도에 일본 관리들을 계속 파견하였다. 예컨대, 1953년 9월 17일 오전 9시 30분경 일본 수산시험청 소속 선박 1척이 독도 수역에 침입하였고, 같은 날 12시 30분경 어업 시험관을 포함한 일본 관리들이 독도에 상륙하였다.

일본정부는 1953년 10월 3일자의 구술서에서 역사적 사실, 지리적 사실, 국제법 이론 등에 비추어 보아 竹島가 논쟁의 여지없는 일본영토라고 거듭 주장하면서, □한국정부 견해①□에 대한 일본정부의 반박 답변을 추후에 보내겠다고 통고해왔다. 이 일본정부의 반박 답변(□일본정부 견해 ②□)로 표시함)은 이듬해인 1954년 2월 10일에야 발송되어 왔는데, 앞서의 □일본정부 견해 ①□과 중복되는 부분이 상당히 있었다. 이 점을 고려하면서 □일본정부견해 ②□를 간단히 요약하면 다음과 같다.

일본정부는 한국정부가 그의 주장을 뒷받침하기 위해 인용한 문헌과 인용구가 부정확하고 오류가 있으며 한국정부의 주장의 증거가 되지 못함을 다음과 같이 지적하였다.

① 한국정부가 옛날에 한국에서 竹島를 알았다는 증거로서《동국여지승람》에 기록된바, 金自周가 탐험한 于山島가 현재의 竹島라고 주장한 것은 오류이며, 두 섬은 동일하지 않다. 그 위에 金自周에 대한 문헌이《동국여지승람》에서 언급되었다고 한 것도 오류이다. 金自周는 오직《세종실록》에만 언급되어 있다.

일본정부는 한국문헌《세종실록》,《동국여지승람》,《文獻撮錄》 등에 나오는 三峰島와 于山島는 다른 섬이 아니라 바로 울릉도를 가리킨 것임을 지적하고자 한다고 하였다.

또한 일본정부는 竹島가 심흥택 보고서 이전에 한국인들 사이에서 독도로 알려져왔다는 주장에 대해서 한국의 옛 문헌이나 지도에는 그러한 이름이 발견되지 않음을 지적하고자 한다고 하였다.

②《숙종실록》의 1695년 기사에서 安龍福의 활동에 대한 기록은 그가 돌아와 備邊司에서 조사받을 때 본인의 진술에 기초한 것이며, 가공적인 것이다. 특히 안용복이 울릉도에서 일본 어선을 만났고, 그들에게 울릉도[竹島]와 독도[松島]에서 나가라고 경고했다는 진술은 근거가 없다. 이 해에는 어떠한 일본 어부도 울릉도에 출어하지 않았기 때문이다. 반면에 당시의 한국정부는 안용복이 불법적으로 외국에 나간 죄를 물어 그를 체포하고 유배형에 처하였다. 위의 사실에서 보아도 안용복의 진술에 기초한 한국정부의 주장은 근거가 없다고 하였다.

③ 竹島[독도]가 한국에 의해 영유되고 실효적으로 통치되었다는 증거로서 한국정부가 열거한 다음의 ㉠㉡㉢㉣㉤㉥ 등은 모든 경우에 인용과 참고문헌이 부정확하며 어떠한 것도 한국측 주장을 증명해주지 못한다고 하였다.

㉠ 1906년 울도군수 심흥택 보고서의 원본이 인용되고 있지 않으므로 일본측 견해를 표시할 방법이 없다. 그러나 그 해 3월 島根縣廳 서기 神田 일행 40여 명이 竹島를 현지답사하고 귀국하는 길에 울릉도를 방문하여 군수 심흥택에게 竹島에서 잡은 海驢 하나를 선물했는데, 군수는 神田 일행의 방문과 선물에 감사했다. 만일 당시에 군수 심흥택이 竹島가 울릉도에 속했다고 간주했다면 神田 일행을 이와 같이 후대하지 않았을 것이다.

㉡《島根縣誌》에는 □竹島를 한국영토라고 믿고……한국정부에 그 섬의 貸下를 청원하려고 하였다□는 구절이 분명히 있기는 하다. 그러나 中井養三郞이 그 후에 隱岐島 사무소에 제출한 설명에 의하면, 中井養三郞은 현재의 竹島가 오랫동안 일본인들에 의해 인지되고 경영되었다고 믿었다. 그러므로 위의 인용된 구절은 편찬자의 오해의 결과일 것이다.

㉢ 桶畑雪湖의 논문의 경우는 竹島가 옛날에는 울릉도이고 현재의 竹島가 아니라는 사실을 알지 못한 데서 나온 저자의 오류라고 본다.

㉣《조선수로지》 등 수로지는 사용자의 편의를 위하여 편찬한 것이며 섬의 영유권과는 하등 관계가 없다. 竹島가 항해상 울릉도의 이웃에 위치하고 있으므로 竹島가 울릉도와 함께 언급된 것이다. 또한 竹島는 항해상 隱岐島 부근에 위치하고 있으므로《日本本州沿岸水路誌》의 제 2 권 제 2 부〈本州의 北西海岸의 南東部〉에도 □隱岐와 竹島□라는 제목으로 역시 언급되어 있다.

㉤ 군함 對馬號의 보고에는 □이 섬의 東島에는 갈대로 만든 어부의 假小屋이 있었는데, 거친 기후 때문에 부서져 있었다□고 되어 있다. 한국정부의 인용문에는 □일단의 울릉도 주민들이 매해 여름 이 섬에 상륙해서……섬 근처에서 어로에 종사한다□고 되어 있는데, 이것은 수로지의 편찬자가 후에 섬의 조건에 비추어서 풍문에 기초하여 부가한 것이며, 對馬號의 보고가 아니다. 뿐만 아니라 원문에는 □울릉도 주민□(residents of Ulneungdo) 대신에 □을릉도에서 오는 사람들□(those coming from Ulneungdo)로 되어 있다. 그것은 후에 울릉도의 기지로부터 竹島에 해산물을 채취하러 온 일본인들과 그의 피고용자들이라고 이해된다.

㉥ 한국정부는 또한 1910년 5월 대한제국 농상공부 수산국이 편찬한《한국수산지》를 자료로 지적했는데, 이 책의 한국 동해안 수산에 대한 제 2 권에 현재 문제가 되는 竹島와 동일할 가능성이 있는 독도의 이름은 어디에서도 발견되지 않는다.

④ 1904년 2월 23일과 8월 22일의 한일 양국 간의 조약에 대한 한국정부의 해석은 정확치 않다. 전자에서는 일본인이 아니라 일본정부가 추천한 기타 외국인을 외부에 고문으로 고용할 것을 규정한 것이었고, 후자는 러일전쟁 기간에 일본이 한국영토 보전의 목적으로 전략적 지역을 일시 수용할 수 있도록 한 것으로서, 竹島를 일본영토로 편입하는 방책과는 하등 관계가 없다.

⑤ 한국정부는 대일강화조약의 영토 조항이 SCAPIN 제677호 명령의 일본의 정치적 행정적 권리 행사의 정지 조치를 중요하게 변경시키지 않은 것이라고 해석했다. 그러나 SCAPIN 제677호에서 일본의 행정권이 정지되었던 북위 30도 이남, 29도 이북의 南西島가 1951년 9월 5일의 SCAP 각서에 의하여, 일본정부의 통치 하에 복구되었다. 또한 1953년 12월에는 □庵美□(Amami)島가 일본 통치권으로 반환되었다. 일본은 그 밖의 섬들인 南西諸島 등에 □殘存主權□(residual sovereignty)을 아직도 소유하고 있음이 확인되었다.

⑥ 일본은 德川幕府의 제 3 대 장군 때 米子의 두 상인 가문인 大谷 가문과 村川 가문에게 竹島를 지배(control)하도록 허가했으며, 그리고 그 섬 竹島는 울릉도로 항해하는 중간 정박지로 활용되었다.(이에 대한 일본측 자료 5점 이름 지적)

또한 일본에는 江戶時代 중기 竹島가 일본영토임을 나타내는 다수의 고지도가 있다.(이러한 일본 고지도 이름 2점 지적) 위의 지도 가운데서 池田 가문이 가진 지도는 당시의 사람들로서는 竹島에 대한 매우 정확한 지식을 갖고 있었음을 나타내주고 있다.

반면에 한국측에 의해 언급된 자료들에는 한국이 옛날에 竹島를 자기 영토의 일부로 인지했고, 그 섬을 활용했다는 것을 확인해주는 어떠한 것도 없다. 조선이 개국이래 울릉도에 대해 오랫동안 空島政策을 실시해온 사실로 보아서, 울릉도 밖에 더 멀리 떨어져 있는 고립된 섬(독도)에 대해 한국이 행정적으로나 또는 어떤 다른 지배력을 뻗쳤으리라고 생각할 하등의 이유가 없다.

옛날부터 竹島는 일본인들에게 알려지고, 일본영토로 간주되어, 일본인들에 의해 활용된(utilized) 반면에 한국측에는 이러한 사실이 없다. 더구나 이 섬(독도)에 대해서는 고대이래 지금까지 일본과 한국 사이에 영토분쟁이 없었다. 그러므로 竹島는 옛날부터 일본영토의 일부라고 결론을 내릴 수 있다.

⑦ 현대 국제법의 영토 취득 필요조건과 관련해서 국가의 영토 획득 의사에 대해서는, 竹島를 일본영토에 편입한 1905년 1월 28일 내각회의의 결정 결과와, 1905년 2월 22일 島根縣廳에서 낸 고시에 의해서 충족됨이 확인된다. 또 그 영유의 완결을 위해 그 영토의 지배를 위한 권력 설정의 필요조건에 대해서는 1905년 8월 島根縣 지사에 의해 竹島의 현지답사가 시행되었으며, 다음해에는 島根縣 관리 神田의 인솔 하에 40여 명이 竹島를 현지답사했고, 竹島는 1905년 5월 17일자로 隱岐島司가 제출한 보고에 기초하여 국유지로 편입되었다.

竹島 부근의 海驢의 포획에 대해서는, 島根縣이 1905년 4월 14일 현령 제18호로 어업 통제규칙을 제정하여 이 업종에 대한 허가제를 채택했고, 1905년 6월 5일 4개 가문에게 海驢잡이를 허가해주었다. 그 후 竹島는 1940년 8월 17일 쿠레 해군기지 사령부에 의해 해군 소유지로 접수되었으며, 종래 海驢 포획권을 갖고 있던 어업가에게는 해군기지 사령관에 의해 해군 소유지의 사용 허가가 인정되었다.

위의 사실들은 일본이 계속해서 竹島를 지배해왔다는 것을 나타낸다. 그리하여 일본은 竹島를 영유하기 위한 현대 국제법의 모든 조건들을 충분히 충족했음을 알 수 있다.

⑧ 한국측이 최근에 일본의 독도 영유에 대한 의문을 제기했지만, 竹島가 島根縣의 통치 하에 두어지기 이전과 이후는 竹島를 한국영토로 간주하지 않았다는 다음과 같은 증거자료가 있다.

㉠ 光武 5년(1901)판인 玄采의《大韓地誌》(재판은 光武 9년에 2권으로 간행)는 한국의 東端을 동경 130도 35분까지로 하여, 竹島는 포함하지 않았다. 저자가 한국정부 학부의 간부였기 때문에 학부 편찬국의 서문이 있으며, 현재는 당시 권위 있는 저술가로 간주되었다.

㉡ 太白狂奴의《韓國痛史》(1915년 간행)에도 한국의 東端은 동경 130도 50분이라고 하여, 竹島는 포함시키지 않았다. 이 책은 일본의 한국 통치에 반대한 독립운동가에 의해 씌어졌다고 하는데, 그가 만일 竹島에 관심이 있었다면 竹島를 한국영토에 포함시켜야 했을 것이다.

요컨대 한국은 竹島를 소유했거나 이 섬을 실효적으로 통치했다는 증거를 어디에서도 발견할 수 없는 반면에, 일본의 竹島영유는 역사적 사실에서나 국제법의 영토 획득의 필요조건 충족에서나 전혀 의문의 여지가 없다고 주장한 것이었다.

그러나 일본측의 이러한 주장은 사실과 크게 다른 것이며, 일본 고문헌과 한국 고문헌의 다음에서 보는 바와 같이 獨島가 한국영토라는 수많은 증명자료들을 고의로 외면한 것이었다.

Ⅱ. □日本公船 領海 侵犯 抗議□ 등과 往復文書

(445) 1954. 6. 14 일본측 口述書(No. 95/A5)

(韓國船 領海 侵犯에 대한 항의)

1954. 6. 14 일본측 口述書(No. 95/A5)(韓國船 領海 侵犯에 대한 항의)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliment to the Korean Mission in Japan, and, with reference to the unlawful landing on the Takeshima, a part of Japanese territory, and the unlawful fishing activities committed on the part of Korean nationals, and the planting of a landmark by Korean officials in the same islands, has the honour to notify the letter as follows :

1. According to investigations conducted by the Japanese Government the following facts have been disclosed:

(1) On May 23, 1954, the □Tsugaru,□ a patrol boat of the Maritime Safety Agency, of Japan, while proceeding to the Takeshima Islands so as to make a field investigation there, witnessed more than thirty fisherman, apparently Korean nationals, who used three motor-driven boats all of about five tons, and one under the Korean flag, and also four barges, unlawfully landing on the islands and engaging in fishing operations in the waters proximate to the islands.

Further it was observed that the landmark previously planted by the Japanese Government had been removed and that instead on a steep face of rock on the slope in the islets had been carved in white certain Korean letters and a figure representing the Korean flag.

(2) On May 29, the □Daisen,□ an experiment ship of Tottori Prefectural Fisheries Experiment Stations, of Japan, while going to step at the Takeshima so as to make a survey of fishing grounds, discovered a group of about fifty Korean fishermen apparently from Ulneungdo, aboard a motor-driven boat of some ten tons and three barges, gathering sea-weeds on the seashore of the islets.

(3) In the above connection, it has to be noted that the May 23 issue of □the KUKJE SHIBO□, a Korean paper, gives a news, illustrated with a picture, that some Korean officials arrived at the islets on May 18 and had Korean letters running □Dokdo, Nammyon, Ulneungdo, Kyongsangpukdo, Korea□ and beside them a figure representing the Korean flag, carved by stonemasons on the mic-slope in the southeastern part of the islets.

2. As has been clearly stated by the Japanese Government to the Korean Government on several occasions and also in great detail especially in the Ministry's Note Verbales, addressed to the Korean Mission, No. 186/A2 dated July 13, 1953 and No. 15/A2 dated February 10, 1954 respectively, it is an indisputable fact that Takeshima is a part of Japanese territory.

3. The Japanese Government, viewing with serious concern the situation in which, as referred to above, the unlawful invasion into part of Japanese territory as well as the unlawful fishing operations in the territorial waters of Japan were committed by Korean nationals and an illegitimate landmark was planted by Korean officials, hereby files a most energetic protest with the Korean Government take prompt and effective measures in order to prohibit the above-mentioned unlawful fishing activities and remove the unlawfully planted landmark and further to prevent a recurrence of a similar case in future.

Tokyo, June 14, 1954.

(446) 1954. 6. 14 한국측 口述書(日本公船 領海 侵犯에 대한 抗議)

1954. 6. 14 한국측 口述書(日本公船 領海 侵犯에 대한 抗議)

The Korean Mission in Japan presents its compliment to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, with regard to the violation of the Korean territorial waters surrounding Dokdo, part of the Korean territory, by Japanese vessels and illegal landing on the same island by a Japanese nationals, has the honour to notify the latter as follows :

According to investigations conducted by the Korean Government, the following facts have been revealed:

1. About 10:00 a.m., May 23, a Japanese vessel of about 1,000 gross-tonnage armed with guns, intruded into the territorial waters surrounding the Dokdo island which is part of the Korean territory, and lay at anchor at a point about 250 meters off the coast of the island and remained for about two hours, making observation of the island.

2. About 3:00 p.m., May 28, 1954, another Japanese vessel of about 450 gross-tonnage entered the same waters without authorization. One of the crew-members totalling 13 aboard the said vessel came ashore the island, photographed a Korea land-mark and left there about 10 minutes later.

In this connection, it has to be concluded that the above acts of the respective Japanese vessels and the crewman in question constitute infringement of the Korean territorial waters and illegal entry into the Korean territorial waters constitutes a serious menace to the security of the Republic of Korea.

Accordingly, the Mission informs the Ministry that the Government of the Republic of Korea has to view the situation with the Ministry against the unlawful and threatening acts by the Japanese vessels and the unlawful landing by the said Japanese nationals on the Korean territory, requesting the Ministry to guarantee that there will be no recurrence of similar case for the future.

Tokyo, June 14, 1954.

(447) 1954. 8. 26 일본측 口述書(日本巡視船 被擊에 대한 抗議)

1954. 8. 26 일본측 口述書(日本巡視船 被擊에 대한 抗議)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Korean Mission in Japan, and, in regard to the intrusion into Takeshinam, territory of Japan, and unlawful firing upon a patrol ship of the Maritime Safety Agency, which have been perpetrated by the Korean authorities, has the honour to make the following representations:

1. Tke □Oki□, a patrol ship of the Maritime Safety Agency arriving in the neighborhood of Takeshima on August 23, 1954 for investigations, and cruising the water 700 meters to the north-west of Nishijima of the said Takema, was, at 8:40 A. M., suddenly fired upon from the caves on the shore of Nishijima. The firing lasted for about 10 minutes and 600 rounds of shot were fired during the time. One of the bullets passed through the starboard battery room of the ship's bridge.

2. The Japanese Government has repeatedly made clear to the Korean Government that Takeshima is part of Japanese territory. As was stated in detail specially in th Ministry's Note Verbale No. 15/A2 dated February 10, 1954, addressed to the Korean Mission in Japan, the fact has been proved beyond doubt.

3. Having grave concern with the unlawful attact on a Japanese Government vessel by the Korean authorities mentioned above, the Japanese Government hereby lodges a most energetic protest with the Korean Government against the case, demands the formal apology of the latter as well as the instant withrawal of the Koren authorities on Takeshima, and requests that the Korean Government will, without delay, take effective and appropriate steps including the punishment of the persons responsible for the case, with a view to forestalling the repetition of a similar case.

It is added that the Japanese Government reserves the right to claim proper indemnity for damage sustained by the Japanese patrol ship above referred to.

Tokyo, August 26, 1954.

(448) 1954. 8. 27 일본측 口述書(No. 144/A5)

(韓國國旗 게양 및 燈臺건립에 항의)

1954. 8. 27 일본측 口述書(No. 144/A5)

(韓國國旗 게양 및 燈臺건립에 항의)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Korean Mission in Japan, and, in regard to the intrusion into Takeshinam, territory of Japan, fishing in the Japanese territorial waters around the island, and planting of landmarks and a lignthouse committed by the Korean Authorities and nationals, has the honour to the following representations:

1. Upon investigation made by the Japanese Government, the following facts have been revealed:

(1) The 'Tsugaru', a patrol ship of the Maritime Safety Agency arriving at Takeshima for investigation on June 16, 1954, found out about 25 Korea nationals fishing at and around Takeshima aboard 3 motor-driven boats and 3 barges about 5 tons each.

(2) The "Nagara" and "Kuzuryu", Japanese patrol ships reaching Takeshima on July 28, 1954, discovered a barge and about 6 Korean nationals, who seemed to be those connected with the Korean Guard Force, erecting tents at the front of the caves in the north-western part of Nishijima.

Further, the reef in the north-west of the said island Korean letters were observed, which read "※      ":

and letters denoting that Takeshima is a Korean territory, and the national flag of Korea, were at several other places in the island.

(3) The patrol ship, "Oki", arriving naer Takeshima on August 23, 1954, confirmed that a white lighthouse of about 6 meters high had been erected on the northern point of Higashijima.

2. The Japanese Government, having grave concern with unlawful intrusion into the territory of Japan, illegal fishing operations in its territorial waters, and illicit planting of land marks and a lighthouse, hereby again lodges a strongest protest with the Korean Government against the case, demands the discontinuance of intrusion into Japanese territory by the Korean authorities and nationals and the removal of the unlawfully erected landmarks and lighthouse above referred to, and requests that the Korean Government will, without delay, take effective and appropriate measures to forestall the recurrence of similar cases.

Tokyo, August 27, 1954.

(449) 1954. 8. 30. 字 한국측 口述書(日本公船 領海侵犯에 항의)

The Mission in Japan presents its compliments to the Japanese Ministry of foreign Affairs and, eith reference to the latter's Note Verbale No. 140/A5 of August 26, 1954 regarding the so-called intrusion into the waters of "Takeshima" by the Korean authorities, has the honour to make the following representations:

1. At about 8 a.m. of August 23, 1954, an iron vessel approached Dokdo, a part of the Korean territory. The vessel was equipped with two guns and there were about 30 persons on the deck of vessel.

2. The Korean officials there dispatched by the Korean CoastGuard Police, seeing the said vessel (later identified as Japanese patrol boat named Oki) intrude to a point within 500 meters of-shore of the said island, issued the customary "stop-orders". The Japanese chose to ignore them and tried to approach the island with an obvious intention of unlawful landing on the island.

3. Under the circumstances, in order to enforce their entirely legal challenge, a warning had to be fires by the Korean officials there whose duties are to protect the said island of the Republic of Korea from any intrusion.

As repeatedly notified to the Japanese Government on many occasions, Dokdo is an integral part of the Korean territory. Irrespective of the Mission's request frequently made to the Ministry that the Japanese Government take appropriate measures for preventing of the recurrence of intrusion into Dokdo by Japanese Maritime Safety Agency,  equipped with arms, approached the said island in an attempt to make an illegal landing on the island, thus giving a serious threat to the Republic of Korea in her safeguarding of territory.

Circumstances being as such, the Mission hereby informs the Ministry that the Government of the Republic of Korea is not in a position to receive any protest from the Japanese Government in this regard. On the contrary, the Mission wishes to inform the Ministry that the Government of the Republic of Korea, having grave concern with the repeated intrusion into a part of the Korean territory by the Japanese officials and nationals aboard iron vessels equipped with arms, hereby files a most energetic protest with the Japanese Government against the unlawful act committed by the Japanese patrol boat.

The Mission further requests that the Ministry see to it that the Japanese Government take appropriate measure for prevention of recurrence of similar cases in future, taking it into consideration that such unlawful activities on the part of the Japanese side will create an adverse effect on the relations between the tow countries.

Tokyo, August 30, 1954.

(450) 1954. 9. 1. 한국측 口述書(일본측 54. 8. 27.字 口述書에 대한 반박)

The Korean Mission in Japan Presents its compliments to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, in reply to the latter's note verbale of August 27, 1954 concerning the so-called intrusion into Takeshima, fishing in the waters around the island and planting of landmarks and a lighthouse by the korean authorities and nationals, has the honor to state as follows:

The Ministry states in the note under reference as if the Korean authorities and nationals had committed unlawful acts. However, as repeatedly notified to the Ministry on many occasioned, Dokdo is an intergral part of Korean Territory. And the Government of the Republic of Korea has the due right to exercise her territorial jurisdiction over the island and deems it quite legal and proper that Korean nationals engage in fishing in the Korean territorial waters around the island.

Accordingly, the Mission considers that the Japanese Government is by no means in a position to file any protest with the Korean Government against the activities on the part of the Korean authorities and national. On the contrary, the Mission must state that the Government of the Republic of Korea has a serious concern over a series of intrusion deep into the Korean territorial waters around Dokdo committed by armed patrol boats of the Japanese Government such as "Tsugaru", "Nagara", "Kuzuryu" and "Oki", for such unlawful acts constitute a serious menace to the security of the Republic of Korea.

Under the circumstances, the Ministry notified that the Government of the Republic of Korea hereby again lodges a most energetic protest with the Japanese Government against a series of the unlawful acts as mentioned above and further requests that the the Japanese Government immediately take most effective and appropriate measures for forestalling the recurrence of similar cases in future.

Tokyo, September 1, 1954.

(451) 1954. 9. 15字 한국측 口述書(燈臺 설치 사실 日本政府에 通告)

獨島에 燈臺設置 事實을 일본측에 通告 (본문 생략)

(452) 1954. 9. 24字 일본측 口述書 (No. 157/A5)

(한국의 燈臺설치에 항의)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Korean Mission in Japan, and with reference to the latter's Note Verbale dated September 15, 1954 informing the Ministry that a light-house has been established by the Korean Government on Takeshima, a Japanese territory, has the honour to make the following representations:

The Japanese Government has already filed in the Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated August 27, 1954 the most energetic protest with the Korean Government against the unlawful erection of a light-house on Takeshima, a Japanese territory.

Viewing with serious concern the fact that the Korean Government has dared to inform the erection of a light-house in spite of the above protest, the Japanese Government hereby again draws the serious attention of the Korean Government to the fact that the erection of a light-house on Takeshima, a Japanese territory constitutes an unlawful act, and also explicitly informs the Korean Government that the Japanese Government cannot accept the communication concerning the planting of a light-house which has been made on the basis of the afore-mentioned  unlawful act.

Tokyo, September 24, 1954.

[해설]

이 자료는 한국정부가 □일본정부견해②□에 대한 반박문을 준비하는 동안에 일본 公船의 영해 침범과 한국등대 설치에 대한 일본측의 항의를 받고 반박 항의하는 왕복문서를 수록한 것이다.

한국정부는 □한국정부견해②□를 준비하면서, 1954년 5월 18일 관리들과 石工을 파견하여 일본 관리들이 만든 標識板을 철거하고 이 섬의 남동쪽 절벽 바위에 □韓國領□(慶尙北道 鬱陵郡 南面 獨島)이라는 문자와 태극기를 조각해 넣어 독도가 대한민국의 영토임을 명확히 표시하였다.

일본정부는 1954년 5월 23일 해상보안청 소속 순시선 츠루가호를 독도에 파견하여 이 사실을 확인하고, 1954년 6월 14일자로 이것과 독도에서의 한국 어부들의 어로활동에 대해 항의 구술서를 보내왔다. 한국정부도 같은 날짜에 구술서를 보내 5월 23일 일본 순시선 츠루가호의 독도수역 침입과, 5월 28일의 다른 선박 1척의 독도 침입 및 승무원의 상륙, 한국측이 만든 표지물의 사진 촬영 사실에 대해 항의하였다.

일본정부는 계속해서 해상보안청 순시선들을 독도에 파견하였다. 1954년 6월 16일 순시선 츠루가호를 파견하였고, 7월 28일에는 나가라호와 쿠주류호를 파견하여 한국 어부들의 어로작업과 한국측이 세운 영토 표지판 및 태극기를 관찰하고 사진을 찍었다. 8월 23일에는 오키호를 독도에 파견했는데, 오키호가 西島 북서쪽 해안에 접근하다가 西島 해안의 한국 해안경찰경비대로부터 약 10분간 600발의 경고 사격을 받았다. 일본정부는 이튿날인 8월 24일에도 오키호를 독도에 파견하여 섬 주위를 순회케 하다가 한국측이 건립한 등대를 발견하고 이의 철거를 요구해왔다.

한국정부는 이에 대하여, 8월 23일 두 개의 총포로 무장한 일본 순시선 오키호가 명백히 독도에 불법 상륙할 의도를 갖고 독도 해안으로부터 500미터 이내까지 침입해 들어오므로 □정지명령□을 발했으나 이를 무시하고 계속 해안으로 접근해왔기 때문에 불법적 도전을 저지하기 위해 경고 사격을 하게 되었다고 응답하였다.

한국정부는 또한 일본측의 8월 27일자 구술서에 대해서도, 독도는 한국영토의 일부이므로 한국영토에서 한국 어부들이 어로작업을 하고 한국정부가 통치권을 행사하는 데 대해 일본정부는 항의할 위치에 있지 않음을 지적하고, 독도 수역에서 일어난 일본 순시선 나가라·츠루가·쿠주류·오키호의 연이은 침입에 강경하게 항의하는 구술서를 9월 1일자로 발송하였다. 이어서 한국정부는 9월 15일자의 구술서에서 독도에 새로이 □등대□를 설치한 사실을 일본측에 통고하였다.

그러나 일본정부는 9월 24일자 구술서에서 일본영토인 竹島에 한국정부가 불법적으로 등대를 설치했다고 항의하고, 등대 설치에 대한 한국측의 통고문을 접수할 수 없다고 응답해왔다.

Ⅲ. □韓國政府見解②□와 往復文書

(453) 1954. 9. 25 □韓國政府見解②□ 수록 口述書(□韓國政府見解②□ 표명)

The Korean Mission in Japan presents its compliments to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, with reference to the Ministry's Note Verbale No. 15/A2 of February 10, 1954 concerning territoriality over Dokdo (Takeshima), has the honor to state as follows:

1. The Government of the Republic of Korea has carefully studied the enclosure of the above note verbale, "Views of the Japanese Government in Refutation of the Position Taken by the Korean Government in the Note verbale of the Korean Mission in japan, September 9, 1953, concerning Territoriality over Takeshima," and has found what the Japanese Government quoted from various literatures and books as historical facts, were all inaccurate and also that the application of the so-called "occupancy," on which a title of  acquisition of the territorial sovereignty is based, to the island of Dokdo was entirely inappropriate.

2. In the course of the review, the Korean Government has again confirmed that the above reviews of Japanese Government on territoriality over Dokdo failed to make any substantial refutation against the korean Government's views sent to the Ministry with the Korean Mission's Note Verbale dated September 9, 1953. Further, the said Japanese Government's views failed to prove the japanese ownership over the said island in the light of historical facts and of modern International law.

3. On the other hand, the above views of the Korean Government, with various evidences, sufficiently proved the Korean ownership over Dokdo from the olden times and Korea's effective management of the said island.

4. Accordingly, in order to remove the erroneous concept entertained by the Japanese Government regarding the indisputable fact that Dokdo is a part of the Korean territory, there is enclosed herewith a statement setting forth the views of the Korean Government in refutation of the position taken by the Japanese Government concerning Territoriality over Dokdo in the Note Verbale of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated February 10, 1954.

Enclosure: The Korean Government's View Refuting the Japanese Government's View of the Territorial Ownership of Dokdo(Takeshima), as Taken in the Note Verbale No.15/A2 of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Dated February 10, 1954

Tokyo, September 25, 1954.

獨島(竹島)領有에 關한 一九五四年 二月 十日字 亞二第五十號 日本外務省의 覺書로서 日本政府가 取한 見解를 反駁하는 大韓民國政府의 見解 (韓國政府見解2)

一. 大韓民國政府는 標題件에 關한 日本政府의 見解를 愼重히 檢討하였다.

그러나 日本政府가 歷史的 事實로서 各種文獻과 史蹟을 引用한 것은 다 不正確하고 또 獨島領有에 대한 國際法上의 諸條件을 充足시켰다는 日本政府의 主張도 亦是 全然 根據가 없다. 大韓民國政府는 다음의 歷史的 事實을 列據하므로써 日本政府가 取한 見解를 反駁하려고 한다.

(1) 韓國政府가 歷史的 文獻上에 나타나는 于山島와 獨島(日本의 所謂 竹島)와의 同一性을 主張한데 對하여 日本政府는 韓國이 이 主張을 支持할만한  □據書類는 提出치 못하였다고 非難하였다. 그러나 이러한 □據는 이미 日本側에 提示되어 있다. 韓國政府는 日本政府가 提示한 反對意見이 그 論據가 虛心坦懷하게 解釋하지 않고 專斷的인 臆測에 基礎를 두고 있다는 것에 疑心할 餘地가 없다는 것을 再言하고저 한다.

이제 韓國政府는 文獻上의 于山島가 現在의 獨島(日本의 所謂 竹島)를 가리키는 것이 더 疑心할 餘地가 없음을 다시 한번 指摘하지 않을 수 없다. 따라서 于山島, 三峰島, 그리고 鬱陵島의 各名稱이 同一한 섬(島)을 指稱한 異稱에 不過하다는 日本政府의 見解는 何等 根據가 있는 것이 아니라고 말하지 않을 수 없다.

于山島와 鬱陵島가 두 개의 別島라는 것을 區區히 說明할 必要가 없다. 그러나 다시 한번 誤解가 없도록 明確을 期하기 爲하여 이에 □世宗實錄地理志□와 □新增東國與地勝覽□에서 다음의 記事를 引用하고저 한다.

□于山과 武陵의 두섬(島)이 蔚珍縣의 正東쪽 海中에 位置되고 또 이 두섬의 距離가 그리 遠隔이 아니기 때문에 日氣가 晴明한때에는 이 두섬이 서로가 望見할 수 있다.□(□世宗實錄地理志□)

□于山島와 鬱陵島 이 두섬(島)는 蔚珍縣의 正東쪽 海中에 位置되며 云云□(□新增東國與地勝覽□)

上記 引用文과 같이 于山島와 武陵島(鬱陵島)의 두섬(島)은 蔚珍縣의 正東쪽 海中에 位置된 別島이다. 더욱 이 두섬(島)은 서로 떨어져 있으나 過히 멀지 않기 때문에 日氣가 晴明할때는 서로가 望見할 수 있다고 添記되어 있다. 上記의 說明한 證據로서 이 于山과 鬱陵의 두섬(島)는 決코 同一한 섬(島)을 가리키는 것이 아니고 明確히 두 개의 分離된 섬(島)으로서 認定하지 않을 수 없다. 日本政府는 이같이 明確히 認定된 事實을 率直하게 認定하지 않고 도리어 이 事實을 否認할 企圖下에 上記 本文에 添記되고 있는 다음의 句節만을 盲目的으로 引用하고 있다. 卽 □世宗實錄□ 前記本文에 添記되여 있는 □新羅時 稱于山國, 一云 鬱陵島□라고 한 것과 □新增東國與地勝覽□ 前記本文에 添記되어 있는 □一說 于山鬱陵本一島□라고 한 것을 引用 提示하였다.

그러나 이것은 이 記事가 表示하는 바와 같이 그 前者에 있어서는 新羅時代에 있어서의 □于山國□을 말하는 것이지 □于山島□(與地志에 于山島를 于山國의 一部이라는 것을 表示)를 말한 것은 아니다. 그리고 그 後者에 있어서는 漠然한 □一說□에 지나지 않는다. 따라서 이 引用文은 □世宗實錄

地理志□와 □新增東國與地勝覽□에 編纂된 當時 二島 二名으로 確認된 事實에 決코 影響을 미치지는 못한다. 더욱이 地理的 知識이 發達되지 않았던 時代에 있어서는 同一地域에 異稱이 생기고 이것이 原名과 混用하여 오다가 二島 二名으로 分析되는 實例는 一一이 每擧키 어려우나 特히 日本學者 田保僑潔氏의 松島竹島에 關한 學究的인 論□에서도 그 좋은 實例를 찾아볼 수 있는 바이다. 卽 田保僑潔氏는 日本이 該地域에 關하여 地理的 知識이 缺乏되어 있던 明治初期에 있어서 松島, 竹島라는 名稱이 鬱陵島一島를 指稱하였고 그것이 다시 鬱陵島와 獨島(日本 所謂 現在의 竹島)를 各各 指稱하게 되었다. 同時에 鬱陵島를 가리키든 竹島라는 名稱이 獨島(鬱陵島의 附屬島)의 名稱으로 指稱되었다는 事實을 學究的으로 論□한 바 있다.

日本政府가 □世宗實錄□과 □新增東國與地勝覽□에 明確히 나타나 있는 于山, 鬱陵 二島認知의 事實을 認定하여야 할 本文의 記事를 故意로 無視하고 다만 無根據한 說을 引用 提示하거나 또는 于山國을 故意로 于山島로看做하려는 그 態度는 日本政府의 所期의 目的에 何等의 도움이 되지 않을 뿐 아니라 도리어 日本政府가 이 문제를 公正無私하게 取扱하려는 意思가 無하다는 것을 明白하게 나타내는 것에 不過하다.

日本政府는 또한 □文獻撮錄□의 記事를 들어 于山島, 三峰島, 鬱陵島의 三島가 同一의 섬(島)라는 論據를 삼고 있으나 그것은 □文獻撮錄□ 自□가 李朝末葉에 있어서의 單純한 個人隨錄에 지나지 않는 것이며 또 世宗實錄과 같이 歷史的 地理的 事實과 그 變遷를 밝히는데 도움이 되는 文獻的 價値는 全無한 것이라는 것을 指摘해 둔다. 이같은 論據의 提示로서 日本政府가 내리는 그 結論이야말로 牽强附會의 理論에 不過하다.

(2) 日本政府는 安龍福에 關한 □肅宗實錄□의 記事를 安龍福이가 □京時 韓國防圍當國에 依하여 調査當할 時의 陳述한 것에 基礎를 두고 있는 것으로서 매우 假想的인 것이라고 主張하고 있으나 □肅宗實錄□에서의 記事는 安龍福事件의 顚末을 提示하여 주는 歷史的 事實로서 하나의 聲明이거나 假想的인 것이 아니다. 韓國政府는 이 歷史的 事實을 明確히 하기 爲하여 本件에 關하여 거듭 다음과 같이 說明하고저 한다.

□肅宗實錄□(卷三○) 二十二年 九月 戊寅條에는 틀림없이 다음과 같은 記事가 적혀 있다.

□備邊司(當時의 特殊國務委員會) 安龍福等에게 묻기를 … 本島(鬱陵島)에 이르러 … 倭船이 또한 많이 來泊하여 있음으로 船人이 다 놀래서 소리를 질러 鬱陵島가 本來 우리나라 땅이다. 倭人이 어찌 우리나라땅에 넘어와서 侵略을 하느냐고 船頭에 나서 크게 꾸짖으니 倭가 말을 하되 우리는 本來 松島로 가니 偶然히 고기를 잡으러 왔다가 이번에 마땅히 本所로 돌아가는 바이다. 이에 松島는 卽 于山島라 또한 우리나라의 땅이라 네 敢히 여기에 갈 수 있는냐고 꾸짖다 뒷날 아침이 되매 배를 저어 于山島에 이르니 倭等이 바야흐로 솥을 벌려 놓고 기름고기를 지지는 지라. 이레 솥을 깨틀고 배를 뚜두리며 큰 소리로 꾸짖으니 倭等이 거둬서 모아 배에 싣고 돛대를 올려 돌아가다.□

다시 □增補文獻備考□(卷三十一) 蔚珍, 于山島, 鬱陵島條에도 다음과 같은 記事가 있다.

□섬은 蔚珍縣의 正東海中에 있고 … 成宗二年에는 따로 三峰島를 告하는 者가 있어 이에 朴宗元을 시켜 가서 보게 하였다. 風濤로 因하여 다다르지 못하고 돌아왔다. 同行은 鬱陵島에서 하룻밤을 자고 單只 큰 竹과 큰 全鰒을 가지고 돌아와 아뢰되 섬 가운데 사는 사람을 없더라(與地志에 이르되 鬱陵島와 于山은 다 于山國地이다. 于山은 所謂 倭가 이르는 松島이다.) 東萊 安龍福은 倭말을 잘하는데 … 돗을 달고 三晝夜를 걸려서 鬱陵島에 다다를 때 倭船이 東쪽으로부터 오거늘 龍福이 여러사람에게 눈짓하여 倭를 결박하게 하였드니 船人이 겁을 내서 덤비지 못하도다. 龍福이 혼자 앞에 나서 크게 꾸짖어 가로되 何故로 我境을 犯하였느냐 倭가 對答해 가로되 本來 松島를 向하는 바이니 마땅히 가겠노라고 龍福이 追擊하여 또 꾸짖어 가로되 宋島는 卽 芋山島라 네가 芋山이 我境인줄 또한 듣지 못하였느냐며 그 솥을 부신 즉 倭가 大驚해서 돌아갔다.□

卽 이때 安龍福等이 鬱陵島에서 日本人을 發見하고 不法犯境을 責하며 于山(芋山)島(송도, 松島)까지 追徒하여 日本에서 말하는 松島는 곧 我國의 于山島이라는 것을 論駁하여 日本人들로 하여금 撤去케 하였다. 安龍福等은 이보다 三年前인 肅宗 十九年(一六九三)에도 鬱陵島에 出漁하여 不法犯境한 日本人들에게 强制로 逮捕되었다가 그해에 送還된 일이 있었다. 이때부터 韓日間에는 鬱陵島(日本人의 所謂 竹島) 附近의 漁業問題를 介在하고 三年間 紛糾를 거듭한 끝에 肅宗二十二年 二月(一六九六)에 이르러 日本政府는 鬱陵島(竹島)와 鬱陵島로 부터 單只 四十九海里의 距離에 있고 또 島根縣隱岐島로 부터 約 八十六海里의 海中에 있는 그 附屬島(獨島)가 韓國의 領有라는 것을 再確定하고 以後 日本人들의 이 地域으로의 出漁를 禁止케 하였다. 그러나 그後로 日本人의 不法犯境이 있었음으로 上記한 바와 같이 安龍福等은 肅宗二十二年 가을에 再次로 이섬에 渡航하여 不法出漁한 日本人들을 追擊하고 日本에서 부르는 松島가 곧 我國의 于山(芋山)島(獨島)라는 것을 말하여 그들로 하여금 이 地域을 撤去케 하였다. 이때 安龍福 等 十一名은 다시 日本漁船을 追擊하여 玉岐島(隱岐島)를 거쳐 伯耆州에 까지 이르러 韓國의 領域인 鬱陵 芋山 兩島에 侵犯한 島主를 問責하고 그 罪狀을 直接 江戶城의 關白(將軍)에게 傳達하겠다고 主張하였다.

上記의 한 添記事實이 있은 後 日本政府는 鬱陵島와 于山島(日本人의 所謂 竹島)가 韓國의 領土라는 것을 確認하고 이 두섬(島)이 古代부터 于山國의 領土로서 韓國에 歸屬한다는 것이 確認되어 以後 韓國政府에서는 三年에 一次씩 搜討使를 이 地域에 보내어 日本人의 犯境有無를 調査하게 하기로 하였다. 이 事實以後 百四十年되는 憲宗 三年(日本 天保八年 一八三七)에는 日本政府는 □韓國의 竹島□(鬱陵島)에 密貿易한 □石見國浜田藩八右衛門□을 死刑에 處하여 韓國政府에 대한 約束을 지키는 한편 兩島에 대한 韓國의 主張을 尊重한다는 約束을 지켰다.

이러한 奄然한 歷史的 事實이 있음에도 不拘하고 □肅宗實錄□에 나타나는 安龍福의 記事를 假想的 無根據 云云이라고 말하는 日本政府의 論調는 歷史的 文獻의 價値를 一方的으로 抹殺하려는 故意的인 態度라고 볼 수밖에 없다.

韓國政府가 安龍福을 追放한 것은 國法으로 出入을 禁止하고 있던 遠洋水域에 出漁한 그의 違法行爲에 대한 措置인 것이요 決코 國土의 主權問題와는 관계가 없는 것이다. 安龍福은 드디어 鬱陵 于山 兩島에 대한 韓國의 主權을 日本國 政府에 再認시키는데 赫赫한 功績이 있었다는데 비추어 死刑에서 減刑되어 流配된 것에 不過한 것임을 알아야 한다.

日本에서 말하는 竹島의 地域이 日本의 主權 下에 있었던 것이 아니라는 것을 日本政府側에서 公認한 事實로서는 다음과 같은 것을 들 수 있다.

江戶幕府의 樹立을 前後하여 伯耆州의 漁民들이 竹島渡航의 許可를 爲政當局에 請願하자 特히 日本 元和四年(一六一八)에는 江戶城으로 부터 伯耆州主인 松平新八郞에게 □朱印□을 下賜하여 이것을 所持한 漁民들로하여금 每年 竹島地域을 出漁케 하였다. 朱印이라는 것이 그때 日本政府에서 外國과의 貿易을 公認한 船員에 限하여 下級된 證明인 것임을 日本史料에서도 明白히 나타나 있는 바이다. 이 事實 만으로도 竹島 地域이 當時 韓國의 主權下에 있었음을 日本의 上下各界가 自認하고 있었음을 歷歷히 알 수 있다.

獨島가 韓國에 所屬하고 韓國人에 依하여 利用되었다는 證據로서 提示한 事實에 關한 韓國政府의 見解를 日本政府는 文獻의 引用에 誤釋이 있었다는 것과 事實의 證據가 不正確하다고 反對理論을 提示하였으나 日本의 反駁이야말로 다음의 理論으로 根據가 없다.

a. 獨島를 鬱陵島의 屬島라 한 鬱陵郡守 沈興澤의 報告書에 對하여 日本政府는 韓國側에서 確實한 引用의 出典을 提示하지 아니 하였다라고 하여 이에 對한 見解를 回避하였으나 그 原本은 現在 我國政府의 公文書?中에 保管하고 있다. 大韓民國政府는 一九五四年 九月 九日字 大韓民國政府의 見解에 指摘한 바와 같이 獨島는 鬱陵島郡守의 管轄下에 있었다는 것을 되풀이 하려 한다.

이제 一九○五年 三月 鬱陵島를 訪問한 神田一行에 言及하여 日本國 政府는 郡守 沈興澤에게 海驢一頭를 進貢하였다 말하나 이러한 事實이 없을 뿐더러 □郡守는 이와같이 神田을 迎接하지 아니 하였었을 것이다□ 云云이라고 하는 日本政府의 主張은 造作에 지나지 않는다.

이에 關聯하여 大韓民國 政府로서는 그 당시 日人들은 帝國主義 日本이 韓國에 强要하였기 때문에 韓國政府가 이를 無效로 認定하고 있는 所謂 모든 關係條約과 協定 等을 口實로 하여 不法的으로 韓國領土에 上陸하여 調査 等을 恣行할 수 있었다는 事實을 日本政府에게 想起시키고저 한다.

日本政府는 帝國日本이 一九○四年 二月에 所謂 韓日議定書를 韓國에 强要한 것과 神田一行이 鬱陵島에 訪問하기 一個月前 一九○六年 二月에 所謂 統監府를 設置하였다는 것을 喚起하여야 한다.

b. 島根縣誌에 나타난 中井養三郞의 件에 對하여 日本政府는 □이 冊에는 大韓民國政府가 主張하는 바와 같이 中井에 農商省에 對하여 當時의 韓國政府로부터 獨島를 貸與받는 許可를 獲得하고저 出願하였다고 말한 句節은 없다□하고 繼續하여 確實히 다음과 같은 句節이 있다고 말하였다. □竹島를 韓國領土라고 믿었기에 中井은 東京에 가서 韓國政府로부터 그 島嶼의 貸與를 申請할 것을 그에게 許可하도록 農商省에 說伏하려고 하였다.□

그러면 日本政府가 提示한 이 句節은 大韓民國政府가 主張한 意味와 무엇이 다른가? 다만 農商省에 □出願하였다□는 것과 □說伏하려고 하였다□는 것이 다를 뿐이다. 中井이 獨島를 韓國領土로 믿기 때문에 東京에 와서 韓國政府로부터 貸與받을 것을 運動한 것은 事實이다. 日本政府는 中井이 隱岐島廳에 提示한 獨島에 關한 理由書에 依하여 □위에 引用한 句節은 編纂者側에서 어떤 誤解한 結果일 것이다□라고 말하였다.

이 点에 있어서 日本政府는 引用된 句節이 全然 著者側에서 어떤 誤解를 한 結果이다라고 言明하나 韓國政府는 日本에 不利하게 引用된 句節이 모두 著者나 編纂者側의 誤解로서 일어난 것이라고 하는 日本政府의 主張은 諒解하기에 大端히 困難하다.

요컨대 中井이 韓國政府로부터 獨島를 貸與받을 것을 運動한(或은 運動하려고 한)것은 一九○四年 日本이 自稱 獨島를 島根縣에 編入하였다고 하는 一年前의 일이고 이때 日本人이 獨島를 韓國領土라고 믿었던 것은 숨길 수 없는 事實이며 또 實際로 獨島는 韓國領土이었던 것이 事實이다. 이것으로써 獨島가 本來 韓國領土라는 것을 證明하고도 오히려 남음이 있다.

c. 桶田雪湖의 論說속에 있는 □竹島와 鬱陵島는 日本海 最東端에 있는 朝鮮領土이다 云云□한 말에 對하여 日本政府는 □著者의 誤解이고… 事實의 無知에서 일어났다 云云□라고 말하나 著者는 自己의 知識대로 獨島는 韓國領土라고 明記하였던 것이다. 著者와 日本人 學者는 島根縣聽의 所謂 獨島編入後 二十五年이 지나도 이 섬(島)을 韓國의 領土로 看做하였다.

d. 日本海軍省에서 發行한 水路誌에 대하여 日本政府는 □水路誌는 使用者의 便宜에 依하여 編纂되었고 그 섬(島)의 領土管轄을 處理하기 爲한 것은 아니다□라고 主張하고 또 日本政府는 □竹島가 鬱陵島 近傍의 航海에 關係되는 까닭에 鬱陵島와 같이 言及된 것이며 또 竹島가 隱岐島 近傍의 航海에도 關係됨으로써 日本本州 沿岸 水路誌二卷第2編 □隱岐島와 竹島□라는 標題下에 日本本州 西北海岸 東南方編에서 言及되어 있다□라고 말하고 또 水路部 當局이 竹島를 鬱陵島의 屬島로 取扱하지 아니 하였다는 것을 말하고 있다.

이에 試驗삼아 一九三三年에 發行한 朝鮮沿岸 水路誌와 日本本州 沿岸 水路誌와를 가지고 竹島에 關한 記事의 詳略과 輕重을 比較하여 보면 朝鮮沿岸 水路法 第三編 朝鮮東海岸 □鬱陵島와 竹島□條에 竹島의 位置 地勢 産物과 其他事項을 자세히 記述한데 比하여 日本本主沿岸 水路法 第二編 日本沿岸 □隱岐島와 竹島□條에는 다만 竹島의 이름만 記載하였을 뿐이다. (萬一 竹島가 本來부터 日本의 屬島이었다면 日本本州 沿岸 水路誌에서 그 位置 地勢 産物 등을 詳細히 記述하였을 것이다) 이는 獨島가 本來부터 鬱陵島에 속한 섬(島)이며 또 地理的으로 鬱陵島에 屬하는 것이 가장 合理的인 까닭이고 또 上記事實로 判斷하야 日本 水路當局이 獨島는 韓國領土로 取扱한 것은 明白한 事實이다.

e. 朝鮮沿岸 水路誌에 記載한 日本戰艦 對馬의 報告事項에 있어서 竹島에 對한 記事에 關하여 日本政府는 어느 部分은 戰艦의 報告에 根據를 두고 또 어느 部分은 水路誌의 編纂者가 傳問에 依하여 後에 添加하였다고 主張하고 있으나 그렇게 分析하여 볼 何等의 理由를 우리로서는 發見할 수 없으며 設使 그렇게 分析한다 하더라도 日本海軍省이 水路誌를 公刊誌로서 編一畢한 것인 故로 水路誌 編纂者가 任意로 虛構한 事實을 記載한

것은 決코 아니고 確實한 資料에 依據하여 記載한 것으로 보지 않으면 안되겠다. 記事의 原文을 다음에 引用하여 檢討하면

□島上에는 家屋을 建築할만한 極히 적고 一九○四年 十一月에 軍艦對馬가 이섬을 實測할 때에는 東方島에 漁夫用의 菰草小屋이 있었으나 風浪 때문에 甚히 破壞되었다 한다. 每年 여름이 되면 海驢를 잡기 爲하여 鬱陵島로부터 이 섬에 오는 者 數十名의 多數에 達할 때가 있다. 그들은 島上에 小屋을 짓고 每回 數十日間 假居한다고 한다□(朝鮮水路誌 第三編 □鬱陵島와 獨島□)

前後의 文勢로 보아 對馬艦이 獨島를 實測할 때에 發見한 菰草小屋은 鬱陵島의 住民들이 夏季의 漁獵을 위하여 지은 小屋이라는 것은 否認할 수 없는 事實이다. 따라서 이섬은 前부터 鬱陵島 住民이 恒常 利用하였다는 것이 確實하다. 그리고 大韓民國 政府는 □前記記事 中에 鬱陵島로부터 獨島에 온 사람은 日本人과 그들에 雇傭된 韓國人이다□라고 하는 日本政府의 斷言은 全然 根據가 없는 말이라고 認定하는 바이다.

4. 第一次 韓日協約 第二項은 □韓國政府는 日本政府가 推薦하는 外國人 一名을 外務部의 外交顧問으로 雇傭하여야 한다 云云□라고 되어 있었더라고 하고 □事實上 美國人□스티분스□가 雇傭되었다□라고 日本政府는 論하였으나 實地로 日帝는 韓國의 外交權을 奪取하기 爲하여 스氏를 앞잡이로서 韓國의 外交顧問으로 採用하도록 强要한 것은 歷史가 □明하는 바이다.

日本侵略을 美國人 스氏가 責任을 져야 하고 日本帝國主義는 責任이 없다는 바와 같은 論調를 日本政府는 使用하였으나 이것은 理致에 닿지 않을뿐더러 言語道斷이다. 또한 日帝의 侵略은 韓國의 全域을 對象으로 하였고 韓國領土에 對한 奪取을 꾀하였든 것이다. 日本政府가 主張하는 바와 같이 □다만 露日戰爭 期間 韓國政府의 領土保全을 保護할 目的을 遂行하기 爲하여 必要한 戰略上의 場所를 暫時 占領할 수 있도록 하는 協定과 같다.□는 日本政府의 論調는 首肯할 수 없다. 그 理由는 日本政府가 □暫時□라는 用語를 使用하고 있으나 實相은 當時 日帝政府는 永久的으로 根本的인 侵略 計劃下에 모든 것을 遂行하였던 것이다. 大韓民國이 이 두 協定의 無效를 主張하는 理由의 하나이다.

5. 講和條約의 領土條項은 □一九四六年 一月 二十九日字 □스갶인□ 第六七七號의 □스갶□ 覺書에 依하여 이루어진 日本의 政治上 또는 行政上 權能의 停止措置를 實質的 變化를 加함이 없이 確認한 것이었다□고 韓國政府가 主張한데 對하여 日本政府는 □그러나 … 日本의 權能이 上記 覺書에 依하여 停止된 北緯三十度 以南의 南西諸島에 對하여는 北緯二十九度 以北의 諸島는 一九五一年 十二月 五日字 □스캪□覺書로서 日本政府가 行政管理를 回復하였으며□라고 主張한다. 日本政府는 日本의 行政權이 停止된 地域의 一部分을 日本에 返還하는 一九五一年 九月 對日講和條約 調印 以後 □스캪□ 또는 美國政府가 取한 措置를 列記하고 있는 것이다. 그러나 一九五一年 十二月 五日字 □스캪□覺書 또는 美國政府에 依하여 日本政府의 行政管理權 回復하였다고 日本政府가 主張하는 이들 섬(島)은 이 美國을 唯一한 管理權者로 指定한 國聯의 信託統治下에 있었던 섬에 지나지 않는다.

이미 日本政府에 指摘한 바와 같이 □스캪인□ 第六七七號에나 또는 對日講和條約에도 獨島領有에 對한 大韓民國 政府의 正當한 主張이 矛盾되는 條文은 없다. 그리고 이 條約 第一章 第二條 a項에 關하여 大韓民國政府는 □三個의 重要島嶼의 列記는 決코 獨島를 韓國領有에서 除外하려 하는 것은 아니다□라는 見解를 가진다. 또 鬱陵島의 一屬島로서 獨島가 이 平和條約에 依하여 鬱陵島와 같이 韓國領域으로서 承認되어 있다고 하는 意味로서도 解析된다.

日本政府로부터의 □德川三代將軍 家光時代 幕府로부터 米子城(町)人 大谷村川 兩家에 對하여 竹島의 支配가 許可되고 鬱陵島에 渡航할 때에는 恒常 이 섬이 中間 碇泊所로 利用되고□ 또 □竹島周邊에서 日本人이 漁獵에 從事하였다□고 하는 論據에 對하여 大韓民國政府는 決코 坐視치 않은 바이며 米子의 大谷村川 兩家는 鬱陵島(日本에서는 當時 所謂 竹島) 方面에 遠洋 出漁하는데 許可를 얻은 것 뿐이지 日本政府가 主張하는 바와 같은 □竹島를 支配하도록□ 하게 된 것이 아님을 指摘하지 않을 수 없다. 이 問題에 對하여 韓國政府가 前項의 第二節에 仔細히 論한 바 있음으로 여기에는 더 敷衍할 必要가 없다고 生覺한다.

日本政府가 □隱州視聽合紀□(隱州見問錄, 一六六七年)와 □大谷九右衛問手記□(一六八二年)의 兩者를 □據文獻으로서 提示하고 있으나 이들 文獻은 日本의 鬱陵島方面 侵略時代(一六一四年으로부터 一六九七年까지)에 著作된 것으로 大韓民國政府는 이를 證據로서 無效라고 할 뿐 아니라 이에 關聯하여 韓國政府는 日本國民의 鬱陵島方面 出漁를 禁止한다는 日本側의 決定이 一六九七年에 韓國政府에 通告되었다는 点을 指摘하여 둔다.

日本政府는 數個의 古地圖를 들어 獨島가 中間碇泊地로서 使用되고 또 當時의 人民들이 이 섬에 對하여 正確한 地理的 知識을 가지고 있었다고 主張하고 있으나 大韓民國政府는 日本政府의 右主張이 獨島領有問題와 何等關係가 없다 하는 見解를 가진다. 地圖의 價値에 對하여 原圖가 없음으로 韓國政府의 見解를 提示할 方法이 없다.

前述된 바와 같이 鬱陵島에 對한 所謂 □空□策□은 鬱陵島와 그 屬島인 獨島에 對한 領有權의 抛棄를 意味하는 것이 아니다. 그러므로 第六版圖에는 漢字 竹島의 音表로서 □다게시마□의 代身으로 로-마字로 □CHUKDO□, 日本 가나로 (□□□□, CH-YU KU DO)로만 써있다는 것을 日本政府에 想起시키고저 한다.

이와같이 이섬의 이름이 韓國語의 發音으로 되어 있므며 이는 이 地圖의 序言에 特히 指摘된 바와같이 이섬에 對한 韓國의 主權이 承認되었다는 것을 意味한다. 또 한便으로 보아 獨島가 鬱陵島의 屬島이었다는 것은 日本이 獨島를 島根縣에 編入하였다고 稱하는 當時의 文書에 完全히 記錄되어 있다. 이것은 □韓國新地理□를 編纂한 日本學者 田淵友彦이가 明白히 言明하였다. 同書(帝國百科辭典 一三四卷 一九O六年 第三版) 三O八貢와 이 책에 添附된 □韓國全圖□에도 竹島(리양고)를 韓國屬領으로 記述하였다. 이 事實로서도 日本이 이 섬을 韓國領土의 一部로서 看做하고 있었다는 것을  알 수 있으며 또 田淵氏는 當時 獨島領有權에 對하여 事實 그대로를 記載하였다.

또 日本海軍省 編纂의 韓國沿岸水路誌(四五一貢로부터 四五二貢까지 明治四十年 發刊 改訂 第二版)에는 □韓國人은 □松島□라고 書하고 日本漁民은 □리앙고島□라고 呼稱하고 있다□고 記載하여 있다. 이 事實로서만 보드라도 韓國人은 □獨島(돌섬)□라고 하는 매우 適當한 이름을 使用하고 日本人은 □리앙꿀럭스□라는 外來의 이름만을 使用하였다는 것을 日本政府(海軍省)가 認定하였다는 것을 充分히 表示하고 있다. 이 섬에 關한 歷史的 現實的 背景으로부터 判斷하여 大韓民國政府는 □竹島가 옛적부터 日本領土의 一部이다□라는 日本政府의 결론이 無根이라고 確信하고 있다.

日本歷史辭典(第一卷 六六二貢 c項 十六-十七行 參照)에는 現在의 竹島라는 이름이 鬱陵島의 一屬島의 呼稱으로서 使用되게 되고 그 外國名 □리앙크-르□云云으로 □記되어 있다.

이와같이 日本人이 普通 □리앙고島□라고 呼稱한 竹島가 鬱陵島의 屬島라는 사실은 이 辭典에 依하여 確認되어 있다.

5. 要컨대 前述한 바와 같이 日本政府가 所謂 歷史的 事實에 依據하여 獨島에 關하여 言明한 獨島가 韓國領土의 完全한 一部分이라는 確固한 事實에 何等 影響을 주지 않는다. 이제 獨島에 對한 韓國의 領有權 主張은 數次反復說明한 바와같이 地理的으로나 法律的으로도 正當하고 適切하다는 것이 明白히 되었다. 이로써 大韓民國政府는 矛盾과 臆測에 充滿한 □一九五四年二月十日字 亞二 第十五號 外務省覺書로서 獨島領有權에 關하여 日本政府가 取한 見解□를 容認할 수는 없다.

끝으로 大韓民國政府는 獨島가 韓國領土의 完全한 一部分이라는 것에 全然 疑心할 바 없음을 再次 明言하여 둔다.

一九五四年 九月 二十五日

東 京 에 서

THE KOREAN GOVERNMENT'S VIEW REFUTING THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT'S VIEW OF THE TERRITORIAL OWNERSHIP OF DOKDO(TAKESHIMA) TAKEN IN THE NOTE VERBALE NO. 15/A2 OF THE JAPANESE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS DATED FEBRUARY 10, 1954

(韓國政府見解2)

Ⅰ. The Korean Government has carefully examined the Japanese Government's view of this case. However, what the Japanese Government quoted from various literatures and books as historical facts were all inaccurate. And the Japanese Government's allegation that is satisfied the conditions for the possession of Dokdo under international law, is also totally unfounded. By enumerating the historical facts below, the Korean Government wishes to refute the view taken by the Japanese Government.

1. The Japanese Government charged that the Korean Government failed to produce evidence to support its insistence that Woosando was anther designation of Dokdo(so-called Takeshima) according to historical documents. Such evidence has already been presented to the Japanese side. The Korean Government wishes to restate that there is no doubt that opinions raised by the Japanese Government are based on self-assured illogical contention rather than open-minded interpretation.

Now, it must be repeatedly pointed out that there is no room for doubt as to the fact that Woosando specified in old literatures is Dokdo at present (which Japan calls Takeshima). Therefore, is must be said that the Japanese contention that Woosando, Sambongdo and Ulneungdo all were designations of the one and same island cannot be founded.

It goes without saying that Woosando and Ulneungdo are two different islands. However, just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, the following quotations are hereby made from the books "seijong Shillok" and "Shinjung Tongkuk Yoji Seungnam":

"The two islands of Woosan and Mooneung are located in the midst of the sea just in the eastern direction of this Prefecture and the distance of the two islands are not so far, and so when the weather is fine, these two islands can be seen from each other".… (Geographical Chapter of Seijong Shillok)

"Woosando and Ulneungdo … the two islands are located in the midst of the sea just in the eastern direction of this Prefecture …"(Shinjung Tongkuk Yoji Seungnam)

As quoted above, the two islands of Woosando and Mooneung(Ulneungdo) are different ones located in the sea just in the eastern direction of Oolchin Prefecture. And furthermore, there is also annotation that the two islands are apart from each other, but are not so far from each other that when the weather is fine, they are visible from each other. As evident in the aforementioned explanation, the two islands of Woosan and Ulneung are by no means the same island but distinctly two separate islands. The Japanese Government made no attempt to recognize this fact. Instead, is, in an attempt to deny this fact, made a blind quotation of some of the passages in "Seijong Shillok" and "Shinjung Tongkuk Yoji Seungnam" which respectively read: "During the Silla era, Woosan State was also called Ulneungdo" and "there was a story that Woosan and Ulneung were the same island originally."

As specified clearly in the passages, the former indicates that the term "Woosankuk" was in reference to "Woosan State" in the Silla era and no to "Woosan Island"(Yojiji shows that Woosan island was a part of "Woosan State", along with Ulneungdo.) and the latter was nothing but and ambiguous "story". And therefore, these quotations can affect by no means the fact that the names of Woosan island and Ulneung island were for two separate islands which were affirmed at the time when "Seijong Shillok" and Shinjung Tongkuk Yoji Seungnam" were complied. When geographical study was still in primitive stage; there were quite a number of instance in which the same place was called by two or more names and later, distinction was made between those names, This is exemplified by a study on Songdo and Chukdo islands by a Japanese scholar, Kiyoshi Tabohashi. According to this theory, early in Meiji era when geography was still in primitive stage, the designations of both "Songdo" and "Chukdo" were given to the island of Ulneungdo. And later, these designations were used in referring to Ulneungdo and Dokdo(Takeshima) respectively. At the same time the designation of "Chukdo" used in referring to Ulneungdo became that of Dokdo (attached islets of Ulneungdo).

The attitude of the Japanese Government to purposely ignore such fact appearing in "Seijong Shillok" and "Shinjung Tongkuk Yoji Seungnam" that Woosando and Ulneungdo were confirmed as two separate islands and to quote only unauthentic stories or to wilfully take Woosan State for Woosan Island, clearly shows that the Japanese Government has no intention of studying this question in a fair manner, far from serving its original purpose of supporting the Japanese contention.

The Japanese Government has quoted a passage from the book "Moonhun Challok" in an attempt to prove that the three islands of Woosando, Sambongdo and Ulneungdo were the one and the same island. However, the book "Moonhun Challok" itself is nothing but an individual essay written late in the Li dynasty. It has no value as literatures which serve to find out historical and geographical facts and their transition like Seijong Shillok. The conclusion drawn by the Japanese Government on the basis of such materials is simply a far-fetched theory.

2. With regard to the case Ahn, Yong Bok written in the book, "Sukjong Shillok", the Japanese Government maintains that "the abovementioned descriptions in "Sukjong Shillok" is based on statements made by Ahn Yong Bok on being investigated, upon his return, by the Korean defense authorities and is largely fictitious." However, the fact is that the said book tells a fact concerning the Ahn, Yong Bok case and is neither mere statement nor fictitious story. In order to leave no room for doubt on this matter the Korean Government wishes to explain again on this case as follows:

Part Mooin of september, 22nd year of Sukjong, Volume 30 of "Sukjong Shillok" clearly shows:

"Bibyonsa(then special State Council) asked Ahn, Yong Bok and others … arrived at the said island(Ulneungdo) … Frightened at huge number of Japanese boats lying at anchor near this island(Ulneungdo), crewmen yelled: 'Ulneungdo is our territory from the beginning. How dare you Japanese come to our land and commit such invasion acts?' So they scolded, approaching the bows of vessels. The Japanese replied: 'We were originally going to Songdo, but while fishing, we happened to be here and we are now going back.' Koreans said, 'Songdo, in other words, is Woosando and also our territory and how dare you intend to go there?' The next morning, when Koreans went to Woosando, they saw Japanese cooking some fish there. The Koreans destroyed their cooking pans and yelled at them. It was only after this that the Japanese packed up and left, hoisting their sails … "

Volume 31 of the Book "jungbo Moonhun Biko" has a part concerning Oolchin, Woosando and Ulneungdo which reads as follows:

"The island is located in the sea just in the eastern direction of Oolchin Prefecture. In the second year of Sungjong there was a person who reported of another name of Sambongdo. So, Pak Jong Won was sent to conduct investigation on is, but could not reach the island due to stormy weather and came back. Some members of his party stayed one night as Ulneungdo. They came back, getting just big bamboo and fish, and reported that there was no one on the island. (In the book "Yojiji" it is

stated that both Ulneung and Woosan are territory of Woosan State and that Woosan is what the Japanese call Songdo.) Ahn Yong Bok of Tongnae was good in Japanese … and sailed for three days and nights to Ulneungdo. At that time he saw a Japanese boat coming from the east and signed to his companions to bind up the Japanese. However, they were too scared to do so. Yong Bok alone was brave enough to scold the Japanese, asking of the reason why they infringed Korean territory. The Japanese replied that the truth was that they were on the way Songdo and so they were about to leave there. Yong Bok pursued them and said to them in anger: "Songdo is Woosando. Have you not heard that Woosando is also our territory?" Saying this, he smashed the cooking pans and the Japanese were all frightened and fled."

When Ahn Yong Bok and others at that time found Japanese at Ulneungdo, they reprehended the Japanese for their violation of Korean territory and, stating that the island known as Songdo to the Japanese was actually Woosando of Korea, gave chase to them as far as Woosando(Dokdo or Songdo) and forced them to withdraw from the island.

Speaking of Ahn Yong Bok and others, when they went to Ulneungdo for fishing in the 19th year of king Sukjong(1693 A.D.), in other words, three years before this case, they were captured and forcibly taken away by the Japanese who made illegal entries into the island, but were returned later in the same year. Since then , the disputes between Korea and Japan over fishing around Ulneungdo (Takeshima as called by the Japanese) lasted three years until February of the 22en year of King Sukjong (1696 A.D.), when the then Japanese Government reconfirmed the ownership of Korea over Ulneungdo (Chukdo) and its attached island(Dokdo) which is located in the distance of only 49 sea miles from Ulneungdo and in the sea some 86 miles from Okishima of Shimane Prefecture, and prohibited Japanese from entering the area for fishing thereafter. Japanese nationals, however, did not stop infringing the zone and thus necessitated the said Ahn Yong Bok and others to go over to the island in fall of the 22nd year of King Sukjong, giving chase to the Japanese illegal fishermen. They told the Japanese that "Songdo" as called by Japanese was "Woosando" (Dokdo) of Korea, and had them evacuate the area. In this instance, Ahn Yong Bok and ten other Koreans went as far as Hokinokuni via Okkido(Okinoshima), pursuing the Japanese fishing boats and, accusing the Head of the island of Having allowed the Japanese to violate the Korean territories of Ulneung and Woosan islands, declared that they would send a note on this matter to the then Kampaku(Shogun) in Edo.

After a series of the abovementioned incidents, the then Japanese Government firmly confirmed Korea's ownership of Ulneung and Woosando(called "Songdo" by Japanese), both of which had belonged to Korea as territory of Woosan State from olden times, and henceforth the Korean Government made it a rule to dispatch Korean inspectors (Sootokwan) to the area every three years to examine whether there had been any violation by Japanese. One hundred and forty years after this case, in the 3rd year of Heunjong(the 8th year of Temp of Japan, 1837 A.D.), the Japanese Government kept its commitment to respect Korea's territorial ownership by executing "Iwaminokuni Hamadahan Hachiuemon" who was engaged in illegal trades with "Chukdo of Korea" (Ulneungdo).

In view of the indisputable historical facts enumerated above, the Japanese Government's attitude to ignore the facts about Ahn Yong Bok appearing in the "Sukjong Shillok", regarding them as mere fictitious products without any factual ground, cannot but be considered as its deliberate attempt to brush aside the value of historical documents.

Ahn Yong bok was exiled by the Korean Government solely because of his having violated the Korean laws prohibiting fishing in the distant seas, and his exile had nothing to do with the matters of sovereignty over the territory. It must be noted, instead, that the original death sentence to Ahn Yong Bok was later commuted to a banishment in consideration of his meritorious contribution to having the Japanese confirm the ownership of Korea over Ulneung and Woosan islands.

The following fact may be cited as evidence of Japan's having publicly admitted the fact that the island which she calls Takeshima was not under the sovereignty of Japan:

At about the time of the establishment of the Edo Shogunate, fishermen from Hoki Province petitioned for permission to go fishing to "Chukdo" area. In the fourth year of Genwa (1618 A.D.) the Edo Shogunate, through Shintaro Matsudaira, Head of Hokinokuni, issued to Japanese fishermen the "Shu-in" only with which they were permitted to go out for fishing every year in the "Chukdo" area. It is a lear fact in the Japanese history that the "Shu-in" is a certificate of identity normally issued by the Shogunate to those crews of authorized foreign trade vessels. This fact alone will show that the Japanese of all ranks at that time were fully aware that "Chukdo" was under the Korean sovereignty.

3. The Japanese Government refuted the Korean Government's views in regard to the fact that Dokdo, belonging to Korea, was administered by Koreans, stating as

if the quotations by the Korean Government of the historical documents had been insufficient. However, the Japanese refutation is unfounded for the following reasons:

a. With respect to the report by Shim Heung Taik, County Master of Ulneungdo, to the effect that Dokdo is and island attached to Ulneungdo, the Japanese Government declined making any comment on the matter, stating that the Korean side failed to give definite source of the quotation, but the original of the said report is presently in custody of the Government of the Republic of Korea in its files of official documents. And the Korean Government wishes to repeat that Dokdo was under administrative control of the county master of Ulneungdo, as was pointed out in the Korean Government's view dated September 9, 1953.

Now, in reference to the visit of Kanda's party to Ulneungdo in March 1906, the Japanese Government says that a sea-lion was presented to County Master Shim Heung Taik, but there was no such fact. And therefore, such assertion of the Japanese Government that "the county master would have not received Kanda in this way, etc" is a mere fabrication.

In this connection, the Korean Government wishes to remind the Japanese Government that Japanese nationals is those days could unlawfully land Korean territories and conduct survey on the pretext of the relevant treaties and agreements which had been forced upon Korea by Imperial Japan and the Republic of Korea, therefore, asserts as null and void. And the Japanese Government should recall that Imperial Japan forced upon Korea the so-called Korea-japan Protocol in February, 1904 and that is was one month before the visit of Kanda's party to Ulneungdo that the Japanese Resident-General was installed in February,1906.

b. With regard to the item of Yozaburo Nakai as recorded in the history of Shimane Prefecture, the Japanese Government stated that "There is no passage in the book, as alleged by the Korean Government stating that Nakai requested the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce to obtain permission from the Korean Government for him to lease the island." It went on th state that there certainly is a passage reading: "Believing that Takeshima was Korean territory, Nakai intended to go to Tokyo and prevail upon the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce to allow him to apply for th lease of the island from the Korean Government."

Then, what is the difference in substance between the Korean Government's assertion and the Japanese Government's? The only difference which can be detected is the difference between the words of "requested" (applied) and those of "intended

to .... prevail upon" the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce to allow him to apply for …

It is evident that Nakai went to Tokyo to commence his campaign for the lease of the island from the Korean Government because he believed Dokdo was Korean territory. And as to the account concerning Takeshima submitted by Mr.Nakai to the Government of Oki Island, the Japanese Government says that "the passage quoted above may be the result of some misunderstanding on the part of the compiler."

In this regard the Japanese Government states that the passages quoted are entirely the result of some misunderstanding on the part of the author. However, the Korean Government finds it hard to understand the Japanese Government's insistence that all the passages quoted to the disadvantage of Japan are the products of misunderstandings on the part of the authors or compilers.

In short, it was in 1904 (one year before the Shimane Prefectural Government's alleged incorporation of Korea's Dokdo into its territory) that Nakai started (or intended to start) campaign for the lease of the island from the Korean Government. This fact will eloquently show that the Japanese believed Dokdo to be a part of the Korean territory and it was also true that the island, in fact, belonged to Korea. This alone will effectively prove that Dokdo is a part of the Korean territory from the beginning.

c. Referring to Hibata Sekko's article stating that "Takeshima and Ulneungdo are the eastern most territory of Korea lying in the Japan Sea...," the Japanese Government says that "error of author.... arose from his ignorance of the fact … ." However, the author expressly specified Dokdo as a part of the Korean territory on the basis of his knowledge of the island. The author, a Japanese scholar, did regard Dokdo as a part of the Korean territory even 25 years after the Shimane Prefectural Government's alleged incorporation of the island into its territory.

d. In regard to the Surveys on the Waterway published by the Japanese Ministry of Navy, the Japanese Government insists that "a hydro graphic directory is compiled for the convenience of its users and has nothing to do with the territorial jurisdiction over an island." And the Japanese Government further states that "because Takeshima is an island having a bearing on navigation in the neighborhood of Ulneungdo, the island was mentioned together with Ulneungdo and then, because Takeshima has a bearing also on navigation in the vicinity of the Oki Islands, it is

mentioned in Southeast Part of Northwest Coast of Mainland, Book 2, Volume Ⅱ of the Hydrographic Directory of Coastal Waters of Mainland under the heading 'Oki Islands and Takeshima' and that "the Hydrographic Agency did not treat Takeshima as an island attached to Ulneungdo."

Then, compare the Survey of the Waterway of the Korean Coast published in 1933 with that of the Japanese Mainland Coast, from the viewpoint of the detailedness and gravity of article on Takeshima. Whereas the former, in Volume 3, Section Ulneungdo and Takeshima of Korean East Coast, describes in detail such matters as the position, geographical features and products of Dokdo, the latter, in Book 2, Section Okishima and Takeshima of Japan Coast, mentions only the name of the island, (If Takeshima had originally been a part of the Japanese territory, the position, geographical features and products of the island would have been mentioned in detail in the Survey of the Waterway of the Coast of the Japanese Mainland.) This is because Dokdo is and island attached to Ulneungdo and also because it is most reasonable from geographical point of view that the island should be put under the latter's administrative jurisdiction. Judging from the above-mentioned fact, it is apparent that the Hydrographic Agency treated the island as a part of the Korean territory.

e. As regards an article on Takeshima in connection with the report made by a Japanese man-of-war "Tsushima" in the Survey of the Waterway of Korean Coast, the Japanese Government insists that some part of the article was based on the report by the Japanese war-vessel, while the other part was added later by the compiler of the Survey hardly find any reason to make analysis of the article as such. Even if such an analysis be made, the Korean Government cannot but regard that the article was not fabricated, but written by the compiler on reliable data, since the Survey is and official one compiled by the Japanese Ministry of Navy. A passage of the article is quoted below for examination:

"… : On the island is found little place on which to build houses. When a Japanese war-vessel "Tsushima" conducted an on-the-spot survey of the island in November of 1904, there existed thatched cottages on the eastern part of the islets and they have been damaged to a great extent due to wind and wave. And at times the number of those who come to this island from Ulneungdo every summer to catch sea-lions reached several tens. It is said they built cottages on the island to live temporarily for ten days or so each time." (Ulneungdo and Takeshima, Volume 3, the Survey of the Waterway of the Korean Coast.)

From the context of this article, it is judged that those cottages found by the Japanese man-of-war were indisputably ones built by the islanders of Ulneungdo for fishing in summer. Hence, it is quite sure that this island had been continuously utilized by the natives of Ulneungdo. Furthermore, the Korean Government regards as groundless the Japanese Government's understanding that "those people from Ulneungdo appearing in the said article were Japanese and their Korean employees."

4. The Japanese Government, saying that Section Ⅱ of the First Japan-Korea Agreement only provides that "The Korean Government shall engage as diplomatic adviser to the Department of Foreign Affairs a foreigner recommended by the Japanese Government … .", insists that "as a matter of fact, Mr. Stevens, an American was engaged." In reality, as is proved by history, Imperial Japan forced Korea to hire Mr.Stevens as its diplomatic adviser who was virtually Japan's agent, with a view to depriving Korea of its diplomatic rights.

Now, the Japanese Government makes as insistence giving an impression that responsible for the Japanese aggression upon Korea were not Japanese imperialists, but an American called Stevens. Such and attitude of the Japanese Government is quit unreasonable. The aggression by the Japanese imperialists was directed toward the whole land of Korea and was conducted to occupy it. The Japanese Government insists that "the provision in question merely amounted to an arrangement to enable Japan to occupy temporarily such strategical places as might be required for attaining the purpose of safeguarding the territorial integrity of Korea during the Russo-Japanese War." Such and insistence of the Japanese Government uses the term "temporarily" in its self-taught interpretation of the provision, the Government of Imperial Japan carried out its aggressive plans on a permanent and fundamental footing. That is one of the reasons why the Republic of Korea asserts the two agreements as null and void.

5. Referring to the Korean Government's contention that "the territorial provisions in the Japanese Peace Treaty confirm, without making substantial change, the cessation of governmental or administrative authority of Japan as directed by SCAP Memorandum, SCAPIN No.677, dated January 29, 1946, the Japanese Government insists that "however, … of the Nansei Islands south of 30。N.L. over which Japanese authority was suspended by the abovementioned memorandum, those north of 29°N.L. were restored to the administrative jurisdiction of the Japanese Government by the SCAP Memorandum dated December 5, 1951". That is to say,

the Japanese Government enumerate some steps taken by the SCAP or the U.S. Government after singing of the Peace Treaty with Japan in September, 1951, to return to Japan some parts of her former territory over which the Japanese administrative jurisdiction had been suspended. However, those islands which the Japanese Government insists were restored to the administrative jurisdiction of the Japanese Government by SCAP Memorandum dated December 5, 1951, or by the U.S. Government are only those which were under trusteeship of the United Nations which designated the United States as the sole administering authority.

As was already pointed out to the Japanese Government, neither SCAPIN No.677 nor the Peace Treaty with Japan provided any article contradictory to the Korean Government's insistence upon due territorial ownership of Dokdo. And with regard to Article 2 a of Chapter I of the said treaty, the Korean Government takes the view that the enumeration of three major islands is by, no means intended to exclude Dokdo from Korean possession. It is further construed as meaning that Dokdo as an attached island of Ulneungdo has been given recognition as Korean territory along with Ulneungdo proper by the said peace treaty.

Ⅱ. To the contention of the Japanese Government that "at the time of the third Shogun Iemitsu of the Tokugawa line, the Shogunate Government permitted two merchant families of Yonago, the Otanis and the Murakawas, to exercise control over Takeshima, and the island was used as an intermediate anchorage for voyages to Ulneungdo" and that "furthermore fishing and hunting were engaged in by the Japanese on and around Takeshima," the Korean Government takes exception, and is compelled to point out that the said two families were permitted only to go out fishing in the distant sea in the direction of the Ulneungdo  area (known as Takeshima in Japan in those days), and was not authorized to "exercise control over Takeshima," as contended by Japanese Government. As to this problem, the Korean Government stated in detail in Sub-paragraph 2 and therefore, does not deem it necessary to repeat it.

The Japanese Government presents "Inshu Shicho Gakki" (A Record of What Has Been Seen and Heard of Inshu, 1667) and "Otani Kyuyemon Shuki"(1681) as documentary evidences concerning the ownership of Dokdo but the Korean Government regards them as invalid as evidences since they were written in the days of Japanese aggression upon Ulneungdo districts (from 1614 to 1697). In this connection, the Korean Government points out a fact that the decision of the Japanese side to prohibit its nationals from going out to the Ulneungdo area was notified to the Korean Government in 1697.

The Japanese Government, by citing some old maps, insists that Dokdo was used as an intermediate anchorage and that people in those days had very accurate geographical knowledge of the island. However, the Korean Government takes the view that the above assertion of the Japanese Government does not have any bearing on the question of the ownership of the island. On the value of th maps there is no way to present the Korean Government's view, since the original maps are not available.

As was referred to in the foregoing paragraphs, the so-called "policy of non-inhabited island" toward Ulneungdo does not mean the reunification of its territorial right to Ulneungdo and its attached island, Dokdo. Therefore, the Korean Government that "there is, in the light of the fact that the Korean Government authorities had followed the 'policy of non-inhabited island' for a long period since the beginning of Li Dynasty in respect to Ulneungdo, no reason to think that Korea extended her control administrative or otherwise to an isolated island further out than Ulneungdo." It is apparent in the light of "non-cultivation policy toward four counties" in the northern borderland taken by Korean since King "Sejo" of the Li Dynasty that the so-called "policy of non-inhabited island" does not mean the reunification of the administrative jurisdiction over territory. Though the Japanese Government argues on the so-called non-inhibited policy, it must be reminded that Korean inspectors were dispatched to the area of Ulneungdo and Dokdo every three years.

Ⅲ. The Japanese Government enumerated as requirements for acquisition of territory under modern international law the following three points:

(1) The intention of the State to acquire the territory,

(2) the public announcement of the intention of the State and

(3) the establishment of adequate power to control the territory.

However, such view of the Japanese Government that "Japan has fully satisfied the conditions under modern international law for the possession of Takeshima" is hereby refuted as follows:

1. Pointing out the alleged decision made at a Cabinet meeting on January 28, 1905, for the adding of Takeshima to the territory of Japan with the intention to

acquire Dokdo as a part of Japan's territory, the Japanese Government insists that Japan has satisfied one of the requirements for occupancy, the condition of "the intention of the State to acquire the territory." But, as repeatedly mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, Dokdo, being a part of the Korean territory, can by no means be the object of occupancy under international law. Thus, it is entirely a nonsense that the Japanese Government developed its own argument on the assumption that Dokdo, which is doubtless a part of the Korean territory, was an ownerless island. And it must be concluded that the alleged decision made at a Japanese Cabinet meeting on January 28, 1905 on Korea's Dokdo was totally attributed to the then Imperial Japan's aggressive-minded policy.

2. With regard to requirement No. 2, the Korean Government cannot recognize the propriety of the Japanese Government's argument that Japan has satisfied "the condition of the public announcement of the intention of the state "under international law regarding occupancy." The alleged notification by the Shimane Prefectural Government was so stealthily made that it was not known even by the general public of Japan, not to speak of foreign countries. Therefore, it can by no means be considered as a public announcement of the intention of one country. It is entirely impossible for Japan to add to a part of her territory Dokdo which is not an ownerless island but a part of the territory of Korea.

3. Lastly, with regard to the so-called establishment of adequate power to control the territory, the territory, the Japanese Government says that on-the-spot surveys were made in respect to Takeshima by Japanese officials and a license system was adopted for sea-lion hunting in the Takeshima area. However, especially since 1904 Imperial Japan openly attempted to invade Korea under pretext of surveys or other with a view to compulsory occupation of the whole Korea. The so-called survey or sea-lion hunting was nothing but one of Japan's aggressive acts and therefore had nothing to do with "the continuous exercise of control over territory" under international law.

Since Korea was liberated on August 9, 1945, Korea has come to be entirely independent. Since then and during the period of the U.S. Military Government's control over Korea, Korea has never ceded the said island to Japan, and consequently, Dokdo has been maintained by the Republic of Korea as an integral part of her territory.

Ⅳ. The Japanese Government, mentioning about two Korean books, tries to state as if Korea did not consider the island as her possession before and long after the alleged placing of Takeshima under the jurisdiction of Shimane Prefecture in 1905. However, this argument is hereby refuted as follows:

Referring to "Tai Han Chiji"(Hyun Chai) and "Hankuk Tongsa"(Park Eun Sik), the Japanese Government states that the authors ought to have taken up Dokdo if they had any concern about it .  But the reason why they did not refer to Dokdo was that they did not feel it necessary to insert the name of an isolated island in such a book for general description of Korea and that the books were purported to serve other purposes. In this connection, the Korean Government wishes to remind the Japanese Government that no modern maps approved by the Japanese Ministry of Education for the use of Japanese schools did ever treat Dokdo as a part of the Japanese territory and that only Romaji's "Chukdo" and Kana's "Chi Yu Ku Do" instead of "Takeshima" are given as phonetic  signs for Chinese characters 竹島 in Plate No. 6, the Standard Atlas of the World published on June 10, 1952 by the Whole Nation's Educational Books Company Ltd. of Japan. Thus, the name of the island was made to be pronounced in Korean way, which means that Korea's sovereignty over the island was recognized, as was specifically pointed out in the preface of the said atlas.

On the other hand, it was perfectly recorded in documents at the time of the alleged incorporation by Shimane Prefecture of Dokdo into its territory, that Dokdo was an island attached to Ulneungdo. This  was specifically stated by Mr. Tomhiko Tabuchi,a Japanese scholar, who wrote "Kankoku Shinchiri"(New Korean Geography). At page 308 of the book (2nd edition, 1906, Volume 134, Imperial Encyclopaedia) and in "Kankoku Zenzu"(Map of Korea) attached thereto, it is stated that Takeshiama (Rianko Shima) belongs to Korea. This fact shows that Japan considered the island as a part of Korea's territory. And Mr. Tabuchi recorded what was really true about the ownership of Dokdo at that time.

It is also stated in the Survey of the Waterway of Korean Coast compiled by the Japanese Ministry of Nay (from page 451 to page 452, the second revised edition, 40th year of Meiji) that "Koreans use "Dokdo" in writing and Japanese fishermen call it 'Riyanko island'". This fact alone will eloquently show that the Japanese Government (Navy Ministry) recognized that Koreans used a very suitable name of 'Dokdo'(stone island) and Japanese used only a foreign name of 'Liancourt Rocks'. Judging from the historical and realistic background regarding this island, the Korean Government believes that the Japanese Government's conclusion that "Takeshima has been a part of the Japanese territory since olden days" is groundless.

It is noted in the Japanese History Dictionary (See: Line 16-17, Column C. page 662, Book I) that the present name of "Takeshima" came to be used in calling an island attached to Ulneungdo and its foreign name "Liancourt", etc. … And thus, the fact that Takeshima which Japanese commonly called 'Riyako Shima' is an island attached to Ulneungdo was confirmed by the Dictionary.

Ⅴ. In short, as can be seen above, what the Japanese Government stated on Dokdo on the basis of the so-called historical facts does not affect the solid fact that Dokdo is an integral part of the Korean territory. Now, it came to be evident that Korea's claim to the territorial ownership over Dokdo is rightful and proper, geographically, the Korean Government cannot recognize "the Japanese Government's view of the ownership over Dokdo (Takeshima) as conveyed in the Japanese Foreign Ministry's Note Verbale No.15/A2 of February 10, 1954" which is full of paradoxes and conjectures.

In conclusion, the Korean Government wishes to make it clear again that it is beyond any doubt is an integral part of the Korean territory.

[해설]

이 자료는 한국정부가 □일본정부견해②□를 조목별로 비판하면서 獨島가 한국영토임을 논증한 □한국정부견해②□의 내용이다.

일본정부는 이어 1954년 9월 25일자 구술서에서 독도[竹島] 문제는 국제법의 기본적 원리 해석을 포함한 영유권 분쟁이므로 분쟁의 평화적 해결을 위해 가장 공정하고 권위 있는 기관인 국제사법재판소에 그 최종결정을 위임하자고 한국정부에 제의하였다.

한국정부는 일본정부의 이 제의를 아직 모르는 상태에서 같은 일자인 1954년 9월 25일에 □일본정부 견해 ②□(1954년 2월 10일자 일본측 구술서 No. 15/A2)를 반박하고 독도가 한국영토임을 논증하는 □한국정부 견해②□를 일본측에 발송하였다. 그 요지는 다음과 같다.

① 우산도와 울릉도가 두 개의 別島라는 사실은《세종실록》 지리지,《신증동국여지승람》에 □우산도와 울릉도[武陵]의 두 섬은 울진현의 정동쪽 해중에 위치하며□ 운운하여 □두 개의 섬□임을 명백히 기록하고 있으니 더 이상 논쟁의 여지가 없다. 일본정부는《文獻撮錄》의 기사를 들어서 于山島·三峰島·鬱陵島가 동일의 섬이었다고 주장하고 있으나,《文獻撮錄》 자체가 조선 말엽 단순한 개인 隨錄에 불과한 것이며,《세종실록》과 같은 문헌적 가치는 전무한 것이기 때문에 이를 논거로 하여 일본정부가 내리는 결론은 견강부회의 이론에 불과하다.

② 일본정부는 안용복에 관한《숙종실록》의 기록을 가상적인 것이라고 주장하고 있으나,《숙종실록》(권 30) 22년 9월 戊寅조에는 다음과 같은 기사가 적혀 있다.

備邊司가 안용복에게 묻기를……本島(鬱陵島)에 이르러……倭船이 또한 많이 來泊하여 있으므로 船人이 다 놀라서 소리를 질러 □울릉도가 본래 우리나라 땅이다, 倭人이 어찌 우리나라 땅에 넘어와서 침략을 하느냐□고 선두에 나서 크게 꾸짖으니 倭가 □우리는 본래 松島로 가니 우연히 고기를 잡으러 왔다가 本所로 돌아가는 바이다□ 하였다. 이에 □松島는 즉 于山島라, 또한 우리나라 땅이니 네 감히 갈 수 있느냐□고 꾸짖었다. 뒷날 아침이 되매 배를 저어 于山島에 이르니 倭等이 바야흐로 솥을 벌려놓고 기름 고기를 지지는지라. 솥을 깨뜨리고 배를 두드리며 큰소리로 꾸짖으니 倭等이 거둬서 모아 배에 싣고 돛대를 올려 돌아갔다.

다시《증보문헌비고》(권 31) 蔚珍·于山島·鬱陵島조에는 다음과 같은 기사가 있다.

섬은 울진현의 正東 海中에 있고……成宗二年에는 三峰島를 고하는 자가 있어 이에 朴宗元을 시켜 가서 보게 하였다. 風濤로 인하여 다다르지 못하고 돌아왔다(〈輿地志〉에 이르기를 鬱陵島와 于山은 다 于山國地이다. 于山은 소위 倭가 말하는 松島이다). 동래 安龍福은 倭말을 잘하는데……돛을 달고 3주야를 걸려서 鬱陵島에 다다를 때 倭船이 동쪽으로부터 오거늘 龍福이 여러 사람에게 눈짓하여 왜를 결박하게 하였으니 船人이 겁을 내서 덤비지 못하도다. 龍福이 혼자 앞에 나서 꾸짖어 가로되 □何故로 我境을 犯하였느냐.□ 倭가 대답해 가로되 □본래 松島로 향하는 바이니 마땅히 가겠노라□ 하니, 龍福이 추격하여 松島에 이르되 또 꾸짖어 가로되 □松島는 卽 芋山島라, 네가 芋山이 我境인 줄 또한 듣지 못하였느냐□ 하고 그 솥을 부순즉 倭가 大驚해서 돌아갔다.

위의 기록은 일본에서 호칭하는 松島가 곧 우리나라의 于山島(芋山島, 獨島)이고, 고대부터 우산국의 영토로서 한국영토임을 확인시켜준다.

일본정부는 숙종 22년(1696) 2월, 3년에 걸친 울릉도에 관한 분규를 종결하고, 울릉도와 그 부속도(독도)가 한국의 영유임을 재확인했으며, 이후 일본인의 이 지역 출어를 금지하게 했다. 이 일 이후 140년이 되는 헌종 3년(일본 天保 8, 1837) 일본정부는 □한국의 竹島□[울릉도]에 밀무역한 □石見國 浜田藩 八右衛門□을 사형에 처하여 한국정부에 대한 약속을 지키는 한편, 두 섬에 대한 한국의 주권을 존중했다.

한국정부가 안용복을 귀양보낸 것은 국법으로 출입을 금지하고 있던 遠洋水域에 출어한 위법행위에 대한 조치이지, 국토의 주권 문제와는 관계가 없다. 안용복은 나중에 鬱陵·于山 두 섬에 대한 한국의 주권을 일본정부에게 再認시키는 데 혁혁한 공적이 있음이 인정되어 사형에서 유배형으로 감형되었음을 알아야 한다.

일본에서 말하는 竹島 지역이 일본의 주권 하에 있지 않았음을 일본정부측에서 공인한 사실로는 다음과 같은 것을 들 수 있다.

德川幕府 수립을 전후하여 伯耆州의 어민들이 竹島 渡航허가를 당국에 청원하자, 元和 4년(1618)에 江戶城에서 伯耆州主 松平新八郞에게 □朱印□을 하사하여 이것을 소지한 어민들만 竹島 지역에 출어케 하였다. 朱印이 당시 일본정부로부터 외국과의 무역을 공인받은 선원에게 주어졌던 것임은 일본 사료에도 명백히 나타나 있다. 이 사실은 竹島 지역이 당시 한국의 주권 하에 있었고 이를 일본의 상하 각계가 인정하고 있었음을 알게 한다.

일본정부는 한국정부가 제시한 자료가 부정확하고 해석에 오류가 있다고 했으나, 일본의 반박이야말로 다음과 같이 근거가 없다.

㉠ 독도를 울릉도의 속도라고 한 울릉도 군수 沈興澤의 보고서 원본은 현재 한국정부의 공문서철에 보관되어 있다.

㉡《島根縣誌》에 기록된 中井養三郞의 건에 대하여 일본정부가 정확한 인용이라고 제시한 구절은 □竹島를 한국영토라고 믿었기에 中井養三郞은 東京에 가서 한국정부로부터 그 島嶼의 貸與를 신청할 것을 그에게 허가하도록 農商省에 說伏하려고 하였다□이다. 일본정부가 제시한 이 구절은 대한민국정부가 주장한 의미와 무엇이 다른가 ? 다만 농상무성에 □出願하였다□는 것과 □說伏하려고 하였다□는 것이 다를 뿐이다. 中井養三郞이 독도를 한국영토로 믿었다는 것과 東京에 나와서 한국정부로부터 貸與받을 것을 운동한 것은 동일하지 않은가 ? 이것은 독도가 본래 한국영토라는 것을 증명하고도 오히려 남음이 있다.

㉢ 桶畑雪湖의 논문 속에 있는 □竹島와 울릉도는 일본해 最東端에 있는 조선영토다.……□ 한 말에 대하여 일본정부는 □저자의 오해이고 사실의 무지에서 일어났다.……□ 고 말하나, 저자는 자기의 지식대로 독도는 한국영토라고 명기하였던 것이다. 저자와 일본인 학자는 島根縣廳의 소위 편입 후 25년이 지나도 이 섬을 한국영토로 간주하였다.

㉣ 일본정부는 □水路誌는 사용자의 편의에 따라 편찬되었고 그 섬의 영토 관할을 처리하기 위한 것이 아니다□고 주장하고,《日本本州沿岸水路誌》 2권 제 2 편에도〈隱岐島와 竹島〉라는 표제에 일본 本州 서북해안 동남방편에서 언급되어 있다고 했다. 이에 1933년에 발행한 《朝鮮沿岸水路誌》와 《日本本州沿岸水路誌》를 가지고 비교해보면, 전자의 조선 동해안〈울릉도와 竹島〉조에는 竹島의 위치·지세·산물과 기타 사항을 자세히 기술되어 있는 데 비하여, 후자의〈隱岐島와 竹島〉조에는 竹島의 이름만 기재되었을 뿐이다. 만일 竹島가 본래부터 일본영토였다면《日本本州沿岸水路誌》에서 그 위치·지세·산물 등을 자세히 기술했을 것이다.

㉤ 일본 군함 對馬號의 보고와 관련하여 원문을 보면, □島上에는 가옥을 건축할 만한 곳이 극히 적고 1904년 11월에 군함 對馬號가 이 섬을 실측할 때는 東島에 어부 등의 菰草小屋이 있었으나 풍랑 때문에 심히 파괴되었다고 한다. 매년 여름이 되면 海驢를 잡기 위하여 울릉도로부터 이 섬에 오는 자가 수십 명에 달할 때가 있다. 그들은 島上에 小屋을 짓고 매회 수십 일간 假居한다고 한다□(《朝鮮水路誌》 제 3 편,〈鬱陵島와 竹島〉)로 되어 있다. 따라서 이 섬은 전부터 울릉도 주민이 이용했다는 것이 확실하다. 그리고 대한민국정부는 일본정부가 □위 기사 가운데 울릉도로부터 독도에 온 사람은 일본인과 그들에 고용된 한국인이다□고 한 것은 전혀 근거가 없는 억설이라고 생각하는 바이다.

③ 일본정부는 제 1 차 한일협약 제 2 항에서 □한국정부는 일본정부가 추천하는 외국인 1명을 외부의 외교고문으로 고용하여야 한다.……□고 되어 있었으며, □사실상 미국인 스티븐스가 고용되었다□고 논했다. 그러나 실제로 일본이 한국의 외교권을 탈취하기 위해 스티븐스를 앞잡이로 삼고, 외교고문으로 채용하도록 강요한 것은 역사가 증명하고 있다. 일본정부는 일제침략을 미국인 스티븐스가 책임져야 하고 일본은 책임이 없다는 식의 논조를 사용했으나, 이것은 이치에 닿지 않을 뿐더러 언어도단이다.

④ 한국정부가 대일강화조약은 1946년 1월 29일자 SCAPIN 제677호에 의해 이루어진 일본의 정치상 또는 행정상 권리의 정립 조치를 실질적 변화를 가함이 없이 확인한 것이었다고 주장한 데 대하여, 일본정부는 □그러나……일본의 권능이 상기 각서에 의하여 정지된 북위 30도 이남의 南西諸島에 대하여는 북위 29도 이북의 諸島는 1951년 12월 5일자 SCAP 각서로서 일본정부가 행정 관리를 회복하였으며□라고 주장하였다. 그러나 1951년 12월 5일자 SCAP 각서 또는 일본정부가 주장하는 이들 섬은 미국을 유일한 管理權者로 지칭한 국제연합의 신탁통치 하에 있던 섬에 지나지 않는다.

한국정부가 일본정부에게 이미 지적한 바와 같이, SCAPIN 제677호에나 대일강화조약에는 대한민국정부의 독도 영유에 대한 주장과 모순되는 조문이 없다. 그리고 대일강화조약 제 1 장 제 2 조 a항에 관하여, 대한민국정부는 □3개의 중요 도서의 列記는 결코 독도를 한국영유에서 제외하는 것이 아니다□는 견해를 가진다. 또 울릉도의 속도로서 독도가 이 평화조약에 의해 울릉도와 같이 한국영역으로 승인되었다는 의미로도 해석된다.

일본정부가 제시한 □德川 三代將軍 家光時代 幕府가 米子의 町人 大谷·村川의 두 가문에게 竹島의 支配를 허가했으며, 울릉도에 渡航할 때는 항상 이 섬이 중간 碇泊所로 이용되었고□ 또 □竹島 주변에서 일본인이 어로에 종사하였다□고 하는 논거에 대하여 대한민국정부는 결코 좌시하지 않으며, 大谷·村川 양가는 울릉도(일본에서는 당시 소위 竹島) 방면에 遠洋出漁하는 데 허가를 얻은 것뿐이지 일본정부가 주장하는 바와 같이 □竹島를 지배□하게 된 것이 아님을 거듭 지적한다.

일본정부가《隱州視廳合記》(1667)와《大谷九右衛門手記》(1682)를 증거문헌으로 제시하고 있으나, 이들 문헌은 일본의 울릉도 침략 시대(1614∼1697)의 것으로, 대한민국정부는 이를 증거로서 무효하다고 간주할 뿐 아니라, 이와 관련하여 일본국민의 울릉도 방면 출어를 금지한다는 일본측의 결정이 1697년에 한국정부에 통고되었다는 점을 지적해둔다.

일본정부는 몇 개의 古地圖 이름을 들어 독도가 일본인의 중간 정박지로 사용되었고, 당시 일본인들이 이 섬에 대한 정확한 지리적 지식을 가지고 있었다고 주장하고 있으나, 대한민국정부는 일본정부의 위의 주장이 독도 영유 문제와 하등 관계가 없다는 견해를 가진다. 지도의 가치에 대하여 原圖가 없으므로 한국정부의 견해를 제시할 방법이 없다.

울릉도에 대한 공도정책은 울릉도와 그 속도인 독도에 대한 영유권의 포기를 의미하는 것이 아니다. 이것도 정책의 하나로서 3년에 한 번씩 울릉도와 독도 지역에 韓國搜討官이 파견되었다. 따라서 대한민국정부는 □한국정부 당국이 울릉도에 관하여 조선 초기 이래 장기간 공도정책을 계승하였다는 사실로, 한국이 울릉도보다 더 떨어진 孤島에 행정적 또는 기타의 지배를 확충하였다고 생각할 이유가 없다□는 일본정부의 논조를 용납할 수 없다.

일본정부는 현대 국제법하의 영토취득 요건으로 첫째, 영토를 획득하는 국가의 의사, 둘째, 국가 의사의 공적 공표, 셋째, 영토를 지배하는 적당한 세력의 수립을 들고 있다. 그러나 □일본이 竹島에 대하여 현대 국제법에 의한 영유 요건을 전부 충족시켰다□는 견해는 다음과 같이 반박된다.

① 일본정부는 1905년 1월 28일의 내각회의에서 독도를 일본영토의 일부로 획득하려는 의사를 가지고 竹島를 일본영토에 편입하기로 결정한 사실을 지적하고, 일본이 영토선점 요건의 하나인 □영토를 획득하려는 국가의 의사□라는 것을 충족시켰다고 주장하지만, 이전에 누차 논술한 바와 같이 독도는 한국영토의 일부였으며, 국제법상 선점의 대상이 될 수 없다. 따라서 의심할 수 없는 한국영토의 일부인 독도가 마치 無主島라는 전제하에 이론을 전개한 것은 어불성설이다.

② 제 2 요건에 대하여 한국정부는 일본이 □영토선점에 관한 국제법하의 취득요건으로 국가 의사의 법적 공표라는 요건□을 충족시켰다는 일본정부의 의론을 타당하다고 인정할 수 없다. 島根縣廳의 고시라는 것은 암암리에 시행된 것으로, 외국에는 물론 일본의 일반 국민에게도 알려져 있지 않았다. 그러므로 이를 한 국가의 의사 공표라고 간주할 수 없다.

③ 끝으로 소위 영토를 지배하는 적당한 세력의 수립에 관해서는, 일본정부는 竹島를 일본 관리가 측량하였고, 竹島水域 海驢포획에 허가제가 채용되었다고 말하고 있다. 그러나 특히 1904년이래 일본제국은 한국 전 영토의 강제점령을 목적으로 측량, 기타의 명목 하에 공공연히 침략을 기도하였다. 소위 측량 또는 海驢포획은 일본의 침략행위의 하나에 불과하고 국제법상의 □영토지배권의 계속적 행사□와는 관계가 없다.

④ 일본정부는《大韓地誌》(玄采)와《韓國痛史》(朴殷植) 두 책을 언급하면서 저자들이 독도에 대해 관심을 가지고 있었다면 독도를 취급했을 것이라고 주장하고 있으나, 두 저자가 독도를 논급하지 않은 이유는 한국을 槪說하기 위한 책에서 無人孤島까지 기입할 필요가 없었고, 두 책의 서술 목적이 다른 데 있었기 때문이다.

이와 관련하여 대한민국정부는 일본 문부성이 학교용으로 인가한 현대지도가 독도를 일본영토의 일부로 취급하고 있지 않다는 것과, 日本全國敎育圖書株式會社가 1952년 6월 10일에 발행한《標準世界地圖》의 제 6 판도에 竹島의 음표로 □다케시마□ 대신 로마자로 □Chukdo□, 일본 가나로 □□□□□(Chyu Ku Do)□만 써 있다는 것을 일본정부에 상기시키고자 한다. 이와 같이 섬 이름이 한국어 발음으로 되어 있다는 것은 이 지도의 서언에 지적된 바와 같이 이 섬에 대한 한국의 주권이 승인되었다는 것을 의미한다.

또한 독도가 울릉도의 속도였음은 일본이 독도를 島根縣에 편입했다고 칭하는 당시의 문서에 그대로 기록되어 있다. 이것은《新韓國地理》를 편찬한 일본 학자 田淵友彦이 명백히 언명하였다. 이 책(≪帝國百科事典》 134권, 1906년 제 2 판) 308쪽과 이 책에 첨부된〈韓國全圖〉에도 竹島[리앙꼬島]를 韓國屬領으로 기술하였다. 이 사실로도 일본이 이 섬을 한국영토로 간주하고 있었음을 알 수 있으며, 田淵씨는 독도 영유권에 대한 사실 그대로를 기재한 것이다.

《日本歷史辭典》(제 1 권, p. 662, C항 16∼17행)에는 현재의 竹島라는 이름이 울릉도의 一屬島에 대한 호칭으로 사용되고, 그 외국명이 □리앙꼬島□로 註記되어 있다. 이를 통해 일본인이 보통 □리앙꾸르島□라고 호칭한 竹島가 울릉도의 屬島임을 확인할 수 있다.

이상과 같이 대한민국정부는 모순과 억측으로 충만한 □일본정부 견해 ⑵□를 용인할 수 없다. 독도에 대한 한국영유권 주장은 역사적으로나 지리적으로나 법률적으로나 정당하고 적절한 것이다.

위의 □한국정부 견해②□는 몇 가지 사실과 사료만 더 보충하면 매우 적절하고 잘 된 것이라고 평가된다. 특히 德川幕府가 1617년경에 米子의 大谷·村川 두 가문에게 허가를 내준 것이 竹島에 대한 □지배□(control)권이 아니라 □朱印□이라는 외국에의 渡航허가였음을 지적 논증한 것은 일본정부 주장의 허구성을 적절히 밝히기 시작한 중요한 부분이었다. 이 □한국정부 견해②□에서 보완해야 할 것으로는 적어도 세 가지 사실을 들 수 있다.

첫째는, 일본정부가 한국에서는 1906년 3월 심흥택의 보고에서 처음으로 독도 운운한 것 이외에 그 이전에 竹島를 독도로 불렀다는 증거자료가 없다고 주장한 데 대해 한국정부가 반박하지 못한 것이다. 그러한 증거자료가 있기 때문이다. 일본 해군이 독도침탈에 욕심을 내기 시작하여 군함 新高號를 울릉도에 파견해서 처음으로 독도에 대한 탐문조사를 했을 때인 1904년 9월 25일조의《軍艦新高行動日誌》에 □리앙꾸르岩은 韓人은 이를 獨島라고 書하고□라는 기록이 있다.

松島(울릉도１인용자)에서 리앙꾸르岩 實見者로부터 청취한 정보. 리앙꾸르岩은 韓人은 이를 獨島라고 書하고 本邦 漁夫들은 □리앙꼬르島□라고 호칭한다.

더구나 이는 日本防衛廳戰史部가 소장하고 있는 일본 군함의 1904년 당시의 보고이니 일본측이 도저히 부정할 수 없을 것이다. 1906년 3월에 일제가 독도를 침탈했다는 보고를 듣고 울도군수 심흥택이 올린 긴급보고는 □本郡所屬 獨島가 在於本部外洋 百餘里許이옵드니□라고 하여 □本郡(울도군１인용자)所屬 獨島□임을 명확히 기록하고 있으니 일본정부가 현대 국제법의 영토취득 요건 충족 운운한 것은 모두 허구임이 증명된다.

둘째는, 울릉도와 于山島가 모두 于山國地이며 于山島는 일본인들이 말하는 松島(지금의 독도１인용자)라는 기록을 한국정부가 1908년 간행의《增補文獻備考》를 인용하여 제시한 것이다. 이것은 중요한 자료이지만 1906년 이후여서 좀 뒤늦은 것이다. 이보다 100년 전인 1808년에 편찬된《萬機要覽》 軍政篇의 다음 자료가 제시되었어야 했다.

輿地志에 이르기를 鬱陵과 于山은 모두 于山國地이며, 于山은 곧 倭가 말하는 松島이다.

즉 于山島Ａ松島(德川幕府 시대)Ａ獨島Ａ리앙꾸르岩인데, 울릉도와 于山島[獨島]가 모두 于山國地이므로, 獨島[于山島]가 한국영토로 편입된 것은 우산국이 신라에 편입된 512년부터인 것이다. 일본에는 이러한 기록이 없으므로 독도는 512년부터 한국 고유영토가 되었음이 증명된다.

셋째, 일본정부가《숙종실록》 1695년의 安龍福의 于山島기사가 일본측 자료에는 없다고 했는데 이것은 1696년의 기사이니, 일본측은 1696년의 기록을 찾아보아야 할 것이다.

한국정부는 이 밖에 일본측이 제시한《隱州視聽合記》(1667)를 적절히 반박하지 못했으나, 다음 번 □한국정부 견해 ③□에서 적절하게 반박하였다.

Ⅳ. 韓國政府의 日本側 國際司法裁判所行 제의에 대한 拒絶

(454) □1954. 9. 25 일본측口述書(No. 158/A5)□

(한국등대설치에 대한 항의 및 國際司法裁判所 提訴를 提議)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Korean Mission in Japan, and, in regard to the problem of the possession of Takeshima, has the honour to state as follows:

1. The Japanese Government, being firmly convinced that Takeshima constitutes an integral part of Japanese territory, has refuted on several occasions in its official notes, especially in the Ministry's Note Verbale No. 15/A2 dated February 10, 1954, the Korean Government's contention that the said island should belong to Korea. However, the Korean Government utterly ignored the position of the Japanese Government. Despite repeated representations and serious protests of the Japanese Government, illegal acts have been frequently committed by Korean authorities and nationals, such as invasion of Takeshima, fishing in the Japanese territorial waters around Takeshima, and the planting of Korean landmarks and a light-house in the said island. Moreover, a Japanese patrol ship recently dispatched to investigate the situation of the island was suddenly fired upon from the island and suffered damage.

2. In as much as the issue is a dispute on territorial rights, involving interpretation of the fundamental principles of international law, the only equitable solution would be to refer the dispute to an peaceful solution of the dispute, the Japanese Government hereby proposes that the dispute be submitted to the International Court of Justice by mutual agreement of the Japanese and Korean Governments.

3. The Japanese Government is confident that the Korean Government, on its part, would also be agreeable to entrusting the final decision of this dispute to the most fair and authoritative organization, the International Court of Justice, and, therefore, expects to receive a favourable reply shortly.

The Japanese Government hereby pledges itself to comply in good faith with whatever decision the Court may reach.

4. The most desirable course to be adopted pending the decision of the Court would be for both Governments to seek all possible means to avoid further complications. Accordingly, the Ministry wishes to advise the Mission that the Japanese Government is prepared to confer with the Korean Government concerning joint interim measures to be taken for prevention of the occurrence of untoward incidents in and around Takeshima.

The Ministry request the Mission that the latter convey the above proposals to the Korean Government and inform the Ministry of the Korean Government's views on them.

Tokyo, September 25, 1954.

(455) □1954. 10. 21 일본측 口述書(No. 185/A5)□(大砲설치에 대한 항의)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to its the Korean Mission in Japan and, in reference to the unlawful acts perpetrated by the Korean Government such as the stationing of the Korean authorities in Takeshima, territory of Japan, the making of threats against Japanese Government vessels and the establishing of some facilities in the islands, has the honor to state as follows:

1. On the morning of October 2, 1954, the "Oki"and "Nagara", two patrol ships of the Maritime Safety Agency of Japan were approaching Takeshima from the southwest so as to make a field investigation there and, after making a circuit of the island, they were coming near a point 1.5 miles to the southwest thereof, when about 7 Korean Government officials suddenly took up their posts at a gun newly installed on a point of Higashijima, removing the cover off the gum and directing its muzzle at the ships.

2. The following facts were disclosed by the investigation as referred to above:

(1) Near the summit of Higashijima of Takeshima Islands there were erected, at a distance of 40 meters from each other, two poles approximately 10 meters high and apparently intended for wireless broadcasting.

(2) There were two houses built beside the poles.

3. The Japanese Government is firmly convinced that Takeshima constitutes an integral part of the Japanese territory. However, in an earnest desire to arrive at a final settlement by peaceful means of the dispute as to the territorial rights over Takeshima, the Japanese Government, by the Ministry's Note Verbale No.158/A5 dated September 25, 1954, proposed that the dispute be referred to the Japanese and Korean Governments.

4. The Japanese Government cannot but entertain serious concern about the fact that, in spite of the Government's proposal for a peaceful solution of the question, the Korean Government has continuously stationed its officials on Takeshima, made threats against the Japanese Government vessels by use of the newly installed gun, and erected 송 polds and houses which may be regarded as intended for wireless broadcasting. The Japanese Government, therefore, not only lodges a most energetic protest with the Korean Government against the case, But also demands a formal apology of the latter for the unlawful threats against the Japanese Government vessels, the instant withdrawal of the Korean authorities from Takeshima as well as the removal of the gun, poles and houses which have unlawfully been erected; and requests that effective and appropriate steps be promptly taken by the Korean Government with a view to preventing a recurrence of unlawful acts of a similar nature.

Tokyo, October 21, 1954.

(456) □1954. 10. 28 한국측의 일본측 國際司法裁判所行에 의한 분쟁지화

시도 거부 구술서 口述書□(일본측의 國際司法裁判所 提訴 提議 一蹴)

The Korean Mission in Japan presents its compliments to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, with reference to the latter's Note Verbale of September 25, 1954 concerning problem of the possession of Dokdo, has the honor to transmit to the Ministry the view and decision of the Government of the Republic of Korea as follows :

1. As the Korean Government has clarified on many occasions, Dokdo was and is Korean territory from time immemorial. Thus, the Korean Government has refuted all kinds of Japanese allegations claiming territorial rights over Dokdo as not only groundless but also unjust.

In as much as the representations set forth in paragraph 1 of the aforementioned Note Verbale are merely a repetition of old ones and based on the utterly groundless assumption, unsupported by facts, that Japan has any territorial rights over Dokdo, the Korean Government refutes it for the same and obvious reasons and grounds as given before.

2. The proposal of the Japanese Government that the dispute be submitted to the International Court of Justice is nothing but another attempt at the false claim in judicial disguise. Korea has the territorial rights ab initio over Dokdo and sees no reason why she should seek the verification of her rights before any international court of justice. It is Japan who conjures up a quasi territorial dispute where none should exist. By proposing to submit the Dokdo problem to the International Court of Justice, Japan is attempting to place herself on the equal footing, even provisionally, with Korea in relation to the so-called Dokdo territorial dispute, thus establishing quasi claims for Japan where were none at the compromise of the complete and indisputable territorial rights of Korea over Dokdo.

3. Furthermore, the Japanese Government is reminded of the fact that Korea had been deprived of her sovereignty for over years by the imperial Japanese aggression. As the Japanese Government is no doubt well aware, the aggression took place by steps, culminating in the annexation of whole Korea into Japan in 1910. For all practical purposes, however, Japan had seized the power to control Korea in 1904 when Japan had forced upon Korea the so-called Korea-Japan Protocol and the First Agreement between Korea and Japan It was one year after these agreements that the Shimane Prefectural Government allegedly incorporated Dokdo into the jurisdiction. Thus, Dokdo was the first Korea territory which had been made a victim of the Japanese aggression. Now, in view of the unreasonable but persistent claim of the Japanese Government over Dokdo the Korean people is in serious doubt if Japan is repeating the same course of aggression.

4. The surrounding facts being such, to the Korean people Dokdo is not merely a tiny island off the Eastern Sea. It is indeed the symbol of Korean sovereignty vis a vis Japan and the test case of the integrity of Korean sovereignty. Korean people is determined to protect Dokdo and thereby the integrity of Korean sovereignty. The Korean Government, therefore, can not let the Korean sovereignty over Dokdo be open to question, if temporarily and even before the International Court of Justice.

5. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Korea regrets to refuse the proposal of the Japanese Government that the Dokdo problem be submitted to the International Court of Justice. The Government of the Republic of Korea, however, will remain always ready to answer any questions relating to Dokdo, which the Japanese Government may have, until such time as the Japanese Government is convinced that Dokdo is an integral part of the Korean territory.

The Mission avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Ministry the assurances of its high consideration.

Tokyo, October 28, 1954

[해설]

이 자료는 일본정부가 1954년 9월 25일 獨島문제를 國際司法裁判所에 가져가 판결을 받자고 제의한 것에 대해 한국정부가 이것은 독도에 대해 하등의 권리가 없는 일본이 독도영유권을 국제법상 소유한 한국과 대등한 위치에 서려는 책략이라고 반박하고 거절한 자료이다.

일본정부는 이어 1945년 9월 25일자 구술서에서 □2. 문제가 國際法의 기초적 원리의 해석을 포함한 所有權紛爭(a dispute on territorial rights)에 관한 것인 한, 유일한 공정한 문제해결은 紛爭을 국제재판소의 결정에 맡기는 일이 될 것이다. 분쟁의 평화적 해결을 보기 위한 간절한 희망에서, 이에 일본정부는 일본정부와 한국정부의 상호 합의에 의하여 紛爭을 國際司法裁判所에 제출하여 그 처리에 순종하도록 절차를 밟기로 한다□라고 하여 독도[竹島] 문제는 국제법의 기본적 원리 해석을 포함한 영유권 분쟁이므로 분쟁의 평화적 해결을 위한 가장 공정하고 권위 있는 기관인 국제사법재판소에 그 최종결정을 위임하자고 한국정부에 제의하였다.

한국정부는 이에 대해 1954년 10월 28일 일본정부에 구술서를 보내, □2. 분쟁을 國際司法裁判所에 제출해야 한다는 일본정부의 제안은 法律的 僞裝을 하여 허구의 주장을 하려는 또 하나의 다른 시도에 불과한 것이다. 한국은 처음부터 獨島에 대한 固有의 영유권을 갖고 있으며, 따라서 어떠한 國際司法裁判所에도 독도에 대한 한국의 영유권의 증명을 추구해야 할 어떠한 이유도 발견되지 않는다. 존재하지도 않는 하나의 □類似領土紛爭□을 상상으로 그려내려 하고 있는 것은 바로 일본이다. 일본은 獨島문제를 국제사법재판소에 제소할 것을 제안함으로써, 일본은 소위 □독도영토분쟁□과 관련하여 일시적으로라도 한국과 대등한 입지에 설려고 시도하고 있는 것이다. 그리하여, 협상할 여지가 전혀 없는, 완전하고 분쟁의 여지없는 한국의 독도영유권에 대해서 일본이 유사한 주장을 정립하려 하고 있는 것이다□라고 하여, 한국이 독도영유권을 갖고 있음은 논란의 여지도 없는 것이라고 하면서 일본의 제의를 단호하게 거부했다. 한국 정부는 일본정부가 마치 독도에 대한 영유권을 가진 것처럼 전제하면서 존재하지도 않는 □독도영토분쟁□을 만들어내 비록 일시적일지라도 한국과 대등한 입지에 서려고 하는 것이라고 비판하였다.

한국정부의 입장은 獨島는 아득한 고대이래 한국의 고유영토인 것이 명백하므로 완전하고 분쟁의 여지없는 한국의 獨島領有權을 마치 문제가 있는 것처럼 국제사법재판소의 심의에 부칠 필요가 없음을 명백하게 밝힌 것이었다. 한국정부의 입장은 독도 영유권은 고대이래 명백하게 한국에게 있으므로 □독도영토분쟁□을 인정하지 않는 것이다. 그리고 일본정부가 독도문제를 국제사법재판소에 가져가려 획책하는 것은 □영토분쟁□이 존재하지 않는 독도의 문제를 마치 □독도의 영유권에 대한 영토분쟁□이 존재하는 것처럼 만들어 독도를 □紛爭地化□하고 獨島領有權에 대하여 일본이 한국과 對等한 地位에 있도록 만들려고 시도하고 있는 것이라고 일본 정책의 본질을 간파하고 있는 것이다.

Ⅴ. 韓國獨島郵票발행·燈臺설치 등에 관한 往復文書

(457) 1954. 11. 29. 일본측口述書(No. 214/A5)(韓國獨島郵票발행에 항의)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Korean Mission in Japan, and with reference to the postage stamps, which are being issued by the government of the Republic of Korea and which show the island of Takeshima, a territory of Japan, has the honour to make the following representation:

1. Mail matters recently arriving in Japan from the Republic of Korea bear three kinds of postage stamps, all of which show unmistakably the island of Takeshima which belongs to Japan. Words in Korean letters, meaning "Republic of Korea Post" and "Dokdo" are printed on these stamps.

2. The Japanese Government has frequently protested to the Korean Government against the illegal occupation of Takeshima by the Republic of Korea, by making it clear that the island is an integral part of Japanese territory.

3. The Korean Government, while continuing to ignore the protests of the Japanese Government, is now issuing postage stamps picturing Takeshima, which cannot but be considered a piece of propaganda on the part of Korean Government to foist upon the world its spurious claim to ownership of a Japanese possession. The Japanese Government does hereby lodge with the Korean Government a solem protest against its unfriendly act and request rectification.

4. Furthermore, the Korean Government is hereby notified that the Japanese Government reserves all measures it may take with respect to Korean postage stamps showing the Japanese island of Takeshima.

Tokyo, November 29, 1954.

(458) 1954. 11. 30. 일본측口述書(No. 215/A5)(日本巡視艦 被擊에 항의)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Korean Mission in Japan, and has the honour to make the following representation with reference to the illegal bombardment on a patrol ship for the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency by the Korean authorities unlawfully occupying Takeshima, Japanese territory:

1. The "Oki" and "Hekura", two patrol ships of the Maritime Safety Agency, arrived in the waters adjacent to Takeshima on the morning of November 21, 1954, for investigation. When "Hekura" came to a point about three miles northwest of Nishijima, the Korean authorities unlawfully occupying the said island bombarded the ship with five cannon shells between 6:58 a.m. and 7 a.m.

2. With a view to settling the dispute concerning the ownership of Takeshima in a peaceful and final form, the Japanese Government to refer the case to the International Court of Justice. The Korean Government, however, has not only refused the proposal, but kept its authorities stationed in Takeshima, Japanese territory, in spite of the reiterated protests of the Japanese Government. The Korean Government, still continuing its unlawful occupation of the island, has further allowed its authorities to open fire upon a Japanese Government vessel.

3. The Japanese Government cannot but have serious concern about the continuance on the part of the Korean Government of such attitude as has been mentioned above regarding it as an act to endanger maintenance of international peace and security. While lodging a strong protest with the Korean Government against such unlawfulness, the Japanese Government demands immediate withdrawal of the Korean authorities from the island in question, removal of all the equipment including the guns, and a formal apology of the Korean Government, and requests that effective and adequate measures, including the punishment of those who are responsible for the incident, be promptly taken in order to prevent the recurrence of committal of an illegal act of similar nature in future.

4. The Japanese Government hereby declares that the Korean Government, so long as it continues to refuse the request, should be responsible for all complications arising from the Takeshima issues.

Tokyo, November 30, 1954.

(459) 1954. 12. 13. 한국측口述書(獨島武裝, 郵票발행의 合法性 천명)

The Korean Mission in Japan presents its compliments to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, in reply to the latter's Note Verbale of November 29, 1954 regarding the issuance by the former's Government of postage stamps which show the island of Dokdo, has the honour to state as follows:

1. The Ministry stated in its note under reference that the Korean Government has continuously ignored the protests which the Japanese Government filed against the occupation of Dokdo by the Korean Government. However, in this regard, the Japanese Government is reminded that the Korean Government has repeatedly clarified its view that the said island is an integral part of the Korean territory. And it is firmly believed that the Korean Government's view taken especially in the Mission' Note dated September 25, 1954, has sufficiently proved the Korean ownership of Dokdo from the standpoint of historical facts and modern international law. Thus, there can be no doubt that the Government of the Republic of Korea has due right to exercise her territorial jurisdiction over the island.

Accordingly, it must be concluded that the Ministry's contention that the Republic of Korea illegally occupied Dokdo, etc. is based on the utterly groundless assumption, unsupported by facts.

2. In connection with the issuance by the Korean Government of postage stamps picturing Dokdo, the Ministry said in the note as if the Korean Government had attempted to foist upon the world some spurious claim to the island by issuing such Korean postage stamps. However, as pointed out in the foregoing paragraph, since Dokdo is indisputably a part of the Korean territory, the issuance of postage stamps picturing the island is well within the jurisdiction of the Government of the Republic of Korea. Therefore, such exception to the issuance of Korean postage stamps as taken by the Japanese Government is tantamount to the Japanese Government's undue act of interfering in an internal affair of the Republic of Korea.

In view of the abovementioned facts, the Mission considers that the Japanese Government is by no means in a position to protest to the Korean Government against its issuance of postage stamps showing Dokdo which is doubtless an integral part of the Korean territory.

Tokyo, December 13, 1954.

(460) 1954. 12. 30. 한국측口述書(日本漁船 領海侵犯에 항의)

The Korean Mission in Japan presents its compliments to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, with reference to the latter's Note Verbale of November 30, 1954 regarding the so-called bombardment on Japanese patrol ships by the Korean authorities, has the honor to make the following representations:

I. a) About 5 a.m., November 21, 1954 two Japanese iron vessels intruded in the territorial waters around Dokdo Island, a part of the Korean territory. One of the vessels which was identified as PM-14 was equipped with two guns, and four or five persons were seen standing on the deck of both vessels.

Korean officials on duty on the island, sighting the vessels, PM-14 at anchor at a point, some 1,500 yards off Seudo (West Island), and another unidentified vessel at anchor at a point, some 1,500 yards off Tongdo (East Island), signalled the Japanese vessels to withdraw from the area, which however, was ignored by the Japanese.

b) Further, the Korean officials ordered the Japanese vessels to withdraw by smoke-screen. The said two Japanese vessels, in total disregard of these orders, dared to come closer to the respective islands.

c) Under these circumstances the Korean officials were obliged to fire a few warning shots in order to carry out their duties of protecting these islands from any intrusion and threat.

II. The Ministry's charge that the Korean Government not only refused the Japanese proposal for a peaceful settlement of the Dokdo dispute by referring it to the International Court of Justice but also illegally occupied the islands, is quite without foundation. In this connection, the Ministry is reminded that the Mission already clarified by its Note dated October 22, 1954 that the Korean ownership of Dokdo Island is so complete and indisputable that the assignment of the Korean officials to duties on the said island, therefore, is well within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea. Thus, it is self-evident that the Korean officials were obliged to take and will continue to take any action necessary to safeguard the island against any unlawful acts.

Referring to the actions taken by the Korean officials on duty on Dokdo the Ministry charged in the Note Verbale under reference that the Korean Government had menaced the maintenance of international peace and security. However, it is the Japanese Government that is responsible for the failure in taking appropriate measures for preventing of recurrence of intrusion by Japanese vessels into Korean  territorial waters in the vicinity of Dokdo, and for allowing even some armed vessels to infringe the said waters with obvious intent of making illegal landing on the Korean island, particularly on May 23 and August 23, 1954. And this time again, patrol boats of the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency, one of which was armed, approached the same island, thus giving serious threats the safeguarding of the territory of the Republic of Korea.

From the above viewpoint it can be concluded that a series of cases of intrusion by armed Japanese vessels into Korean territorial waters doubtless constitute serious menace to the security of the Republic of Korea. Therefore, the above-mentioned charge by the Ministry is entirely groundless.

III. Such being the case, the Mission hereby informs the Ministry that the Japanese Government is not in a position to lodge any protest with the Korean Government in connection with this case. On the contrary, the Mission wishes to inform the Ministry that the Korean Government, having a serious concern in such repeated intrusion by armed Japanese vessels into Korean territorial waters as causes threats to the security of the Republic of Korea, hereby files a most energetic protest with the Japanese Government against such unlawful acts committed by the Japanese patrol boats.

The Mission further requests that the Japanese Government take effective and adequate measures for prevention of recurrence of similar cases in future, including the punishment of those who are responsible for this incident. It is added that the Japanese Government should be held responsible for all complications arising from such unlawful acts as long as it has kept ignoring due and proper requests repeatedly made by the Korean Government in this regard.

December 30, 1954.

(461) 1955. 8. 8. 한국측口述書(新燈臺 설치 통보)

The Korean Mission in Japan presents its compliments to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and has the honor to inform the latter that the light-house at Dokdo Island, Kyungsang Puk Do, Korea has recently been reconstructed by Korean authorities and is now operation.

The following are the details of the above-mentioned light-house:

1. Name	: Dokdo Light-house

2. Location	: 37。14′40″N.L., 131。52′20″E.L.

3. Date of reconstruction	: July 8, 1955

4. Kind of color and construction	: White-colored square iron tower

5. Kind of light	: White flash light. One flash per 5

seconds. Acetylene lamp.

6. Arc rang	: From 140。 to 146。

″  150。 to 179。

″  180。 to 205。

″  210。 to 116。

7. Height	: Height from basement: 2.9m.

Height above the sea-level: 126.9m.

8. Brightness of light	: 240 Watts

9. Range of light	: 15 miles

10. Remarks	: No light-house keeper

The Mission would appreciate if the Ministry would convey the above information to the appropriate authorities of the Japanese Government.

Tokyo, August 8, 1955.

(462) 1955. 8. 16. 일본측口述書(No. 126/A5)

(한국의 燈臺, 倉庫 설치에 항의)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Korean Mission in Japan, and, in reference to the unlawful occupation by the Korean Government of Takeshima, territory of Japan, has the honour to state as follows:

1. On July 19, 1955, the "Hekura", patrol ship of the Maritime Safety Agency of Japan, which went to make a field investigation of Takeshima, caught sight of about 5 Korean nationals on Higashijima and found a square concrete light-house, about 4 meters high, on the southeastern side of the top of the same island, a wooden  house and two buildings looking like store-houses in a sunken place to the north of the light-house, all of which were newly built, and 3 wireless poles, one of which was recently added.

2. The Japanese Government has called the attention of the Korean Government several times to the fact that Takeshima is an integral part of Japan and has repeatedly lodged serious protests with the Korean Government for such series of unlawful actions as stationing of Korean authorities and nationals and the construction of Korean landmarks, a light-house, wireless poles, etc. on Takeshima which is a Japanese territory.

3. The Japanese Government cannot but entertain serious concern about the fact that in defiance of the Japanese protests, the Korean Government has stationed Korean authorities and nationals and constructed a light-house, houses, wireless poles, etc. there. The Japanese Government again files a serious protest with the Korean Government for the above-mentioned actions, demands the latter to make the instant withdrawal of the Korean authorities and nationals from Takeshima as well as the removal of all the buildings and structures there without delay and requests that effective and appropriate steps be taken by the Korean Government with a view to preventing a recurrence of unlawful acts of a similar nature in future.

Tokyo, August 16, 1955

(463) 1955. 8. 24. 일본측口述書 (燈臺 설치 통고 불인정)

1955年 8月 8일자 한국측 口述書 (新燈臺設置 通告)에 대한 反駁, 한국측 燈臺設置 不認定 (본문 생략)

(464) 1955. 8. 31. 한국측口述書(燈臺 등 설치 合法性 재천명)

The Korean Mission in Japan presents its compliments to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, with reference to the latter's Note Verbale of August 16, 1955 regarding the occupation of Dokdo by the Korean Government authorities, has the honor to make the following representation:

I. The Ministry charged in the Note under reference that the Korean Government's managements of Dokdo, such as stationing of Korean authorities and nationals, installation of Korean landmarks, a light-house, wireless poles in the said island, etc. were illegal.

However, the Korean Government has clarified on many occasions, especially in its Notes Verbale of June 26, 1953, September 9, 1953 and September 25, 1954, that Dokdo is doubtless an integral part of the Korean territory. Even though the Ministry attempted at laying claim to the ownership of Dokdo in its Notes Verbale of July 13, 1953 and February 10, 1954, the Mission considers that the Ministry failed to make any substantial refutation against the Korean view that the Korean ownership of the said islands is so complete and indisputable that the occupation of Dokdo by the Korean Government authorities is well within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea. Thus, it is self-evident that the Korean Government has due right to take any measures necessary for management of the islands. And it is the belief of the Mission that the Ministry's charge as mentioned above is entirely groundless.

Accordingly, the Mission hereby informs the Ministry that the Japanese Government is not in a position to lodge any protest against such management of the islands by the Korean Government.

II. On the contrary, the Mission wishes to invite the Ministry's attention to the fact that the Japanese Government has failed to take effective measures for prevention of occurrence of repeated infringement by Japanese vessels into the Korean territorial waters in disregard of the protests lodged by the Korean Government on many occasions. And this time again, about 6::30 a.m. July 19, 1955, a Japanese patrol boat, which was identified as the "HEKURA", intruded into the Korean territorial waters about 1,500 meters from the south-easterly side of the islands.

III. In this connection, the Mission wishes to inform the Ministry that the Korean Government, having a serious concern over such repeated intrusions by armed Japanese vessels into the Korean territorial waters as give threats to the security of the Republic of Korea, hereby files again a most energetic protest with the Japanese Government against such an unlawful act committed by the Japanese patrol boat.

The Mission further requests that the Japanese Government take effective and adequate measures to prevent the recurrence of similar case in future.

Tokyo, August 31, 1955.

[해설]

이 자료는 한일간에 정부견해②를 교환한 직후에 일본측의 도발과 한국측의 위협사격 대응으로 첨예하게 외교문서 논쟁을 교환한 부분이다.

일본정부는 1954년 10월 2일 해상보안청 순시선 오키호와 나가라호를 독도에 파견하여 東島의 1.5마일 지점까지 접근했다가 한국 해양경비대원 7명이 총포의 덮개를 벗기고 총구를 순시선을 향해 돌리며 사격태세를 갖추자 돌아갔다. 일본정부는 독도에 한국 해양경찰대원이 주둔하고 無線電信柱와 2개의 집이 신축된 것에 대해 항의하면서 독도 영유권 분쟁을 국제사법재판소에 가져가자고 거듭 독촉하였다.

한국정부는 1954년 10월 28일 일본정부에 구술서를 보내, 한국이 독도 영유권을 갖고 있음은 논란의 여지도 없는 것이라고 하면서 일본의 제의를 단호하게 거부했다. 한국정부는 일본정부가 마치 독도에 대한 영유권을 가진 것처럼 전제하면서 존재하지도 않는 □독도영토 분쟁□을 만들어내 비록 일시적일지라도 한국과 대등한 입지에 서려고 하는 것이라고 비판하였다.

일본측은 1954년 11월 21일 해상보안청 순시선 오키호와 헤쿠라호를 독도에 파견하였다. 헤쿠라호가 東島로부터 약 1,500야드 떨어진 해안에 접근하자 한국 해양경찰대원들은 연기 신호를 이용하여 철수할 것을 명령했다. 그러나 일본 순시선들이 명령을 무시하고 더욱 해안으로 접근해왔으므로, 한국 경찰대원들은 오전 6시 58분부터 7시 사이에 5발의 포탄으로 경고사격을 하였다. 일본측은 순시선이 철수한 후 한국측에 이를 항의했으며, 한국측은 2척의 순시선의 독도침입을 비난하고 항의하였다.

한국정부가 독도를 그린 세 종류의 우표를 발행하자, 일본정부는 독도를 한국영토로 세계에 알리려는 선전활동이라고 한국정부에 항의했다. 한국정부는 독도가 한국영토의 일부이고, 독도를 그린 우표의 발행은 대한민국정부의 통치권내의 일이므로 일본정부는 이에 항의할 위치에 있지 않다고 반박하였다.

이듬해인 1955년부터는 양측이 무력충돌은 피하고 논쟁을 계속하였다. 한국정부는 1955년 7월 8일에 독도에 새로이 등대를 건립하고, 8월 8일 등대의 세부 내역을 구술서로 일본정부에 통보하였다. 일본정부는 한국측의 등대 설치를 인정하지 않았을 뿐만 아니라 순시선 헤쿠라호를 독도에 파견해 한국측이 독도에 건립한 각종 설치물을 관찰해간 다음 철거를 요구해왔으며, 한국정부는 헤쿠라호의 독도침입과 내정간섭을 일본정부에 항의하였다.

Ⅵ. □日本政府見解③□과 往復文書

(465) 1956. 9. 20. □日本政府見解③□ 수록 일본측口述書

(□日本政府見解□③ 표명)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to its the Korean Mission in Japan and, with reference to the latter's Note Verbale dated September 25, 1954 concerning the territorial rights to Takeshima, has the honour to make the following representation:

1. Careful study by the Japanese Government of the enclosure of the same Note Verbale, "The Korean Government's View Refuting the Japanese Government's View of the Territorial Ownership of Dokdo(Takeshima), as stated in the Note Verbale No. 15/A2 of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated February 10, 1954," fails to reveal any reason by which the Japanese territorial rights to Takeshima may be disproved, nor dies it constitute any ground on which the alleged claim for the Island may be justified.

2. In a hope to wipe out the wrong conception entertained by the Korean Government regarding Takeshima, and to make it clear repeatedly that the same islands are a part of the territory of Japan, there is forwarded, as attached hereto, the Japanese Government's Views on "the Korean Government's Version of Problem of Takeshima" under the date of September 25, 1954.

3. The Korean Government, clinging to its unwarrantable assertion of its ownership, continues to occupy the same islands, in disregard of frequent protests of the Japanese Government. The fact that the Republic of Korea is not entitled to the territorial rights to Takeshima is ##terly self-evident as explained in the annex of this Note Verbale.

The Japanese Government, therefore, renews its stern protest against the unlawful occupation of Takeshima by the Korean Government and the unlawful acts concomitantly committed by the Korean authorities. It also renews its demands for immediate withdrawal and removal of the Korean officials and facilities including wireless poles from the Islands, and further requests the prompt disposition of the postage stamps picturing the same island.

Moreover, the Japanese Government regrets that the Korean Government has filed to accede to the former's proposal for referring this controversial issue to the International Court of Justice with a view to solving it in a peaceful manner. The Government of Japan reaffirms its belief that confiding the case to the judgement of the International Court of Justice is the best policy for attaining a fair and appropriate solution of the present contention.

Tokyo, September 20, 1956.

竹島□關□□一九五四年九月二十五日付

大韓民國政府□見解□對□□日本國政府□見解

(日本政府見解3)

一□日本國政府□□本件□關□□大韓民國政府□見解□愼重□檢討□□□□□大韓民國政府□見解□大部分□□一九五三年九月九日付同國政府□見解□反覆□□□□□□□□□竹島領有□主張□立證□□□□□引用□□□□文獻及□歷史的事實□取扱□□□□□□□□□□□□對□□解釋□□□□□公正□欠□□□□□□□日本國政府□大韓民國政府□□□竹島□領有□證明□□根據□全□見解□□□□□□□□□□□

日本國政府□□以下□□□□本件□關□□大韓民國政府□見解□反覆□□□□□□□竹島□明白□□日本領土□□□事實□□□□說明□□□□□□□□

二□□□□□竹島□領有□正當性□決定□□□□□最□基本的□問題□□日韓兩國□□□□□竹島□□□□間□□□正確□知識□□□□□□□□□領土□一部□考□□□□事際□□□□經營□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□政府□竹島□□□□國際法上必要□□□□領土取扱□要件□滿□□□□□□□□□点□明□□□□□□□□□考□□□

三(1) □□竹島□關□□知見□点□□□□□□韓國側□□世宗實錄地理志□及□□新增東國輿地勝覽□□引用□□于山島及□武陵(鬱陵島)□兩島□蔚珍縣□正東方□海上□位置□□別個□島□□□□□□明□□□□□從□□□古文書□于山島□記□□□□□□□現在□竹島□□□□□□□疑問□餘地□□□□稱□□□□□

□□□□□□方□前記□世宗實錄地理志□□前揭記事□引用□□□新羅時稱于山國□一云鬱陵島□□□一節□□□□□及□□新增東國輿地勝覽□□□□□一說于山鬱陵本一島□□□一節□□□□□□指摘□□□□對□□□□韓國側□□前者□新羅時代□□于山國□□指□□□□□□□□于山島□指□□□□□□□□□□□□□□後者□□□□□□□物語□□□□□□□述□□從□□□日本側□□□□□引用□□于山島□鬱陵島□□□名稱□□世宗實錄□□□新增東國輿地勝覽□□編纂□□□當時□確認□□□□□二□□島□名□□□□□□□事實□影響□及□□□□□決□□□□□□□斷定□□□□□

□□□□□□□韓國側□□□□□一□□文獻□一節□□□□□□□□自己□都合□□□解釋□下□□□□適當□□□□□□問題□正□□理解□□□□□□□前記二□□文獻□□□□□□于山島□鬱陵島□□□□記述□□□□同種□古文獻□廣□比較對照□□□□□間□推移□檢討□□□□□必要□□□□□

□□□□□□□朝鮮最古□史書□□□□□□三國史記□□□□□見□□□同書□□于山國□□鬱陵島□事□□□□□□□□□□□□三國史記□□立場□□□高麗史地理志□□□踏襲□□□鬱陵島□□□新羅時代□于山國□□□□도□□□□□□□□□□□□□記述□最後□□□□于山□武陵(鬱陵)兩島說□□疑□殘□□□□□□□□□□前後□□□□□□世宗實錄地理志□□□□于山□武陵二島說□□□□□□□□□□注記□□□□□兩島□□鬱陵島□□□□新羅時代□于山國□□□□述□□□□□

□□後□□□□□□□□□□新增東國輿地勝覽□□□增補文獻備考□等□□□□二島說□□□□□□□二島一名□□疑□殘□□□□□□□□芝峯類說□□□文獻撮錄□□□□□一島二名說□固執□□□□等色色□□□□□後世□至□□□于山□鬱陵兩島□關係□□確信□□□□記述□□□□□□□

□□□注目□□□□□二島說□□□□□□□□全文鬱陵島□□□□□說明□終始□□于山島□□□□□□□□□具體的說明□行□□□□□点□□□□

□□□□□□□□□□諸文獻□編者□□問題□島□□□□實地□見聞□基礎□□□明確□知識□欠□□□□□□□□□□□關□□認識□□後代□至□□□□□□□發展□□□□□□□□示□□□□□□□□□□

以上□□□□于山□鬱陵兩島□關□□知識□混亂□□□□上記□諸文獻□□□□見□□□□□□□□□□高麗史地理志□□□世宗實錄地理志□等□編纂□□□時代□最□權威□□史書□□□太宗實錄□世宗實錄等□□□□□于山島□鬱陵(武陵□茂陵等)島□關□□記事□精査□□□□同樣□□□判明□□□□□□□□韓國側□□□□□□世宗實錄□及□□新增東國輿地勝覽□□編纂□□□當時□于山島□武陵島□□□名稱□確認□□□□□二□□別個□島□名□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□

□□□□□□□于山島□鬱陵島□□別個□島□□□□□□□□□名□□疑問□持□□□□□以上□□□□□于山島□今日□竹島□該當□□□斷定□□□□□困難□□□□□□□□□□□□□別個□島□□□□□□□□□上記諸文獻□□□說明□□□□□□鬱陵島一島□關□□□□□□□于山島□關□□具體的記述□□□□□□□□□今日□竹島□□□□□□積極的□認證□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□世宗實錄□卷三三□太宗十七年(一四一七年)二月壬戌□條□□□于山島□關□□□同島□□大竹□水牛皮□□他□天産物□産□□□□八十六名□□□□居住□□□□□□記事□□□□□□□□□于山島□今日□竹島□□人□常住□適□□□□□海産物以外□生産□□□□□□□□□

(2)韓國側□今日□竹島□認知□□□□□□□立證□□□□□□□□□□□反□□□□□國□□鬱陵島□古□卽□一○○四年項□□□□□島□□□□知□□(權記)旦□一三七九年□□日本人□□□鬱陵島□渡航□□事實□傳□□□□□(高麗史)□□□□□同島□李朝初期完全□空島□化□□朝鮮國政府□□□□事實上放棄□□□□□日本人□來往□□□□□□□□多□□加□文祿役(一五九三年)後若百年□□□□□□全□日本人□魚採地□化□□□至□□□□□□□□□□元和四年(一六一八年)□□□伯耆國米子□町人大谷甚吉□村川市兵衛等□□藩主松平新太郞□通□□鬱陵島(當時竹島□稱□□)□□渡海免許□受□□□□經營□從事□□□

□□鬱陵島□□往復□途次□船□□□□地□□□□□□□□□等□魚採地□□□利用□□□□□當時松島□名□呼□□□□□今日□竹島□□□□□□島□對□□大谷□村川兩家□□□□□鬱陵島□同□□幕府□□渡海免許□受□□□□□□□□□□□明歷二年(一六五六年)□□□□□以前□□□□□□□(大谷九右衛門編□竹島渡海由來記拔書控□)□

□□松島□□□□□□□□□隱岐島□西北□□□□隱岐□□竹島(當時□鬱陵島)□渡航□□塗次□□□島□□草木□□□岩島□□□□炎天下用水□不自由□□□□□□□□□東西二□□島□□成□□□□□□等□□□□記□□□□古文獻例□□寬文七年=一六六七年齋藤某篇□隱州視聽合紀□□延□九年=天和元年=一六八一年大谷九右衛門勝信請書等□多□□□□□□□□見□□□今日□竹島□該當□□□□□□□□明白□□□□

□□□□享保九年(一七二四年)□幕命□□□□伯耆池田藩□調進□□松島□竹島□圖□□ 松島(□□□□今日□竹島)□□挾□水道□距□□東西□相對□□二□□島□□□□□□□□□數個□岩礁□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□極□□正確□同島□表現□□□□當時□日本人□竹島(當時□松島)□熟知□□□□□□□示□決定的□證據□□□□□□□要□□□□韓國側□古□今日□竹島□認知□□□□□□□立證□□□□□□根據□見出□□□□□□反□□日本側□少□□□一六○○年後期□□□□□熟知□□□□事□上記□諸文獻□地圖等□□見□□□□當時□日本漁民□行動□實際□□考□□□□明白□事實□□□□□□□□□□□□

四(1) 竹島□關□□韓國側□知見□上述□□□□明確□□□以上□□□□島□韓國側□自己□領土□考□□□□□□□□□□□□□論外□□□□

□□韓國側□□□肅宗實錄□卷三十□記載□□□安龍福□記事史實□照□□批判考慮□加□□□□□□引用□□彼□鬱陵島及□獨島(竹島)□水域□日本漁民□侵犯□□護□□□稱□□□□□□右□安龍福□鎖國後備邊司□對□□一方的□陳述□□□□□□□□□□□□日本側□殘□□□□□詳細□安龍福渡來□關□□記錄□比較對照□□見□□□彼□陳述□□虛僞□多□□□□行動□壯大□潤色□□□□□無實□□□□作爲□□□□□□□明□□□□□□□□□□□彼□□□□□言動□□□□□□□□□一私人□□彼□言動□韓國□□□□竹島領有□主張□□根據□□□□□□□等役立□□□□□□□

(2)一方日本側□□□□□鬱陵島□李朝初期以來完全□空島□化□□朝鮮國政府□□□□事實上放棄□□□□□日本人□□□□同島□來住□□□□□□□□□□敎□加□□□□□元化四年(一六一八年)□大谷□村川兩家□對□□幕府□竹島(鬱陵島)渡海免許以後□□一般□竹島(鬱陵島)□□□□幕府□□排領□□□□□考□□□至□□□

□□□揭□□□隱州視聽合記□(一六六七年)□松島(今□竹島)及□竹島(鬱陵島)□□□□□日本□北西部□限界□見□□□□享保九年(一七二四年)□大谷□村川兩家□□松平伯耆守□□□□竹島□關□□七箇條返答書□□□元祿五年(一六九二年)□日本漁民□鬱陵島□□□□□□朝鮮人漁民□出遭□□除□事情□□□□□日本側□□□此島之儀□元來日本□地□□從御公方樣代□排領仕每年渡海□□□候島□□候所□□何□□其方共參候哉□□尋□□□記□□□□□□

□□延寶九年=天和元年(一六八一年)□大谷九右衛門勝信□幕府□□□□巡檢使□□尋□□對□□請書□□□□大猷院樣御代五合年以前阿部四郞五郞樣御取持□以竹島排領仕其上親共□□御目見□被爲御仰付難有奉存侯事□□□□□

韓國側□□□元和四年(一六一八年)□大谷□村川兩家□對□□幕府□竹島(鬱陵島)渡海免許□□□□朱印伏□□□□□□朱印□外國貿易□許可□受□□船舶□棄組員□對□□□幕府□□通常發行□□□身分證明書□□□□□□□日本史上明白□事實□□□□□□事實□□□□見□□□當時□□□□□階屬□日本人□竹島□韓國□主權下□□□□□□□十分承知□□□□□□□示□□□□□□□□□□□□□□兩家□許可□□□□□□鬱陵島方面□遠洋□出漁□□□□□□□日本政府□主張□□□□□□竹島□支配□□許可□□□□□□□□□□□□□□指摘□□ㄹ□□□□□□□述□□□□□

□□□□□□□大谷□村川兩家□幕府□與□□□□□朱印狀□□□□□□□□竹島(鬱陵島)□對□□渡海免許□□□□□□□兩家□右免許□基□□將軍家□蔡□紋□打出□□船印□□□□竹島(鬱陵島)□航□□□□□□□□□等□採捕□木材□伐採等□從事□□特□□□□□竹島□□□□稱□□將軍家□□□□閣老□獻上□□□□常□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□同島□獨占的經營□免許□□□□□□外□□□□□□□

竹島(鬱陵島)□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□以上□□□渡航□途中□□□□明歷二年(一六五六年)□□□□□以前□□同□□幕府□□渡海□免許□□□松島(今日□竹島)□□□□□ 人□□日本領土□考□□□□□□□申□□□□□□□

□□□松島(今日□竹島)□場合□□元祿九年(一六九六年)□幕府□竹島(鬱陵島)渡海禁止措置□□關係□□□□□□後□至□□□□□□考□□變□□□□□□

□□□□□竹島圖說□(一七五一~六三年)□□□□隱岐國松島□□書□□□□□□□□□長生竹島記□(一八○一年)□□松島(今日□竹島)□□□□□□朝鮮西海□□□也□□□□□□□

□□□□幕府□竹島(鬱陵島)渡海禁止以前□編者□□□□□□隱州視聽合記□(一六六七年)□竹島(鬱陵島)及□松島(今日□竹島)□□□□日本□西北部□限界□□□□□□□□比□□□興味探□□□□□□□

五(1) 上述□□□□□韓國側□古□今日□竹島□認知□□□□□□□確證□□□以上□□□□經營□□□□證據□□□□□□申□□□□□□□

韓國□□□□韓國□李朝□世祖以來北邊道□□□□四郡□對□□非開拓政策□□□□□□□□□照□□□□□□空島政策□領土□對□□行政權□放棄□意味□□□□□□□□□□明□□□□□□日本國政府□□□□□空島政策□□□論□□□□□□三年每□鬱陵島及□獨島(竹島)地域□韓國搜討官□派遺□□□□□□□□想起□□□□□□□□□□□稱□□□□□□ 韓國□巡檢使□鬱陵島□□定期的□派遺□行□□□□□□□□□□□□日本側□竹島(鬱陵島)渡海禁止措置□□□□□□後□□□□□□□□□□□□時□同島□逃避□□本國人民□刷還□行□□□□□□□□□□初期□間□□□□□□□□□二百年□□□ □□鬱陵島□□朝鮮國政府□□放棄□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□元和四年(一六一八年)□幕府□□竹島(鬱陵島)渡海□免許□受□□大谷□村川兩家□□元祿五年(一六九二年)□□□一度□韓國本土□□조遭□□□□□ 竹島□□營□行□□□□□□□□□□□□明□□□□□□□同時□□肅宗實錄□□肅宗十九年(一六九三年)一月十日□條□□左議政睦來善□右議政閔□□鬱陵島□□□□□三百年空棄之地□□□□□□載□□□□□□□□□□當時□李朝要路者自身鬱陵島□空棄□地□□□□□□□□□□知□□□□□□□□

日本側□竹島(鬱陵島)□□渡海□禁止□□後□朝鮮國政府□肅宗二十三年(一六九七年)□□鬱陵島□對□□定期的□巡檢□行□□□□□□□□□□□□空島政策□維持□□□□□□□□□人□□入居□許□□□□□□□□□□□□□經營□行□□□□□□□□□

□□禁刷□□□後□長□續□□□□□□□改□□□□人□□入植□企圖□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□李太王二十一年=明治十七年(一八八四年)□□□□□□□□□□□□ □□후□□□□□□入植動奬策□效果□□□□□拳□□□□□□□□□□

鬱陵島□經營□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□島□□□□□□東方□沖合□位置□□人□□常住□□□□□□□□□□□□小岩島□□今日□竹島(當時□松島)□□□□韓國側□經營□手□延□□□□□□到底考□□□□□□

□□□韓國側□□□上述□□□□□三年每□鬱陵島及□獨島(竹島)地域□韓國搜討官□派遣□□□□□□□□□□□□搜討官□派遣□前記□□□□日本側□竹島(鬱陵島)渡海禁止措置□□□□□□後□□□□□□□□□□鬱陵島□□□□□□□今日□竹島(韓國側□□□獨島)□□□及□□□□□□□□□證據□□□□□肅宗實錄□及□□□以降□□英宗實錄□□□正宗實錄□等□散見□□□□搜討官□報告□□□□□□鬱陵島□□□□□□止□□□□今日□竹島□□□□□□言及□□□□□□□一言半句□見出□□□□□□□□□

(2)□□□反□□日本側□□□ 竹島(鬱陵島)渡海□途次松島(今日□竹島)□立寄□□□□□寄港地□□□利用□□□□□□□□□□漁獵□行□□□□□□多□□文獻□載競□□□□□□

□□□□□延□九年=天和元年(一六八一年)□大谷九右衛門勝信□請書□□□□□□□此小島(松島)□□□□海麗漁少宛所務仕候□□□□□□□□元錄八年(一六九五年)十二月二十六日□池田家□□老中阿部豊後守□提出□返答書□□□

□□□□戌年者遭難風竹島着岸不仕殷御□申上候當年□渡海仕候處異國人數多見□申□對着岸不仕能□候節松島□□鮑少□取申候□□□□

□□□□ □□元祿九年(一六九六年)正月二十三日付松平伯耆守□賞□□□

□□□□松島□獵□參候儀竹島□渡海□節通筋□□御座候故立寄獵仕候□他領□□獵□參候□不承候尤□□□出雲國隱岐國□者□米子□者共□同船□□參候□□□□

□기□□□□□□ □長生竹島記□(一八○一年)□□□

□□□□竹島渡海之□竹島丸往□通□□□□□□□此島(松島)江津掛□□□□□□云□□□述□□□□□□□

韓國側□幕府□竹島(鬱陵島)渡海禁制措置□□□□□□□肅宗二十二年=一六九六年□二月□至□□ 當時□日本國政府□鬱陵島及□同島□□僅□四十九□□□□島根縣隱岐島□□約八十六□□□□海上□□鬱陵島□屬島(獨島)□對□□韓國□領有權□再確認□□□□□以後□□□□日本人□漁獵□□□同水域□立入□□□□禁止□□□□□□□□□□□當時□朝鮮國政府□□□國□□間□問題□□□□□□□鬱陵島(竹島)□□□□從□□□□幕府□渡海禁制措置□□□□□□□竹島(鬱陵島)□對□□□□□□韓國側□獨島(今日□竹島)□對□□韓國□領有權□再確認□□□□以後日本人□漁獵□禁止□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□根據□□□□

天保八年(一八三七年)□□□石見國浜田藩廻船問屋會津八右衛門□竹島(鬱陵島)密貿易事件□發賞□□八右衛門□□□□□□刑□處□□□□□□□□□連累□□浜田藩家老岡田束母□家來橋本三兵衛□□八右衛門□鬱陵島□□渡海□松島□□渡海□名目□□□□取計□方法□□□□□□同事件□判決文中□□□□申述□□□□□

□□□□□□竹島(鬱陵島)渡海禁制後□□松島(今日□竹島)□□渡航□□□□問題□□□□□□□□示□□□□□

六□上述□□□□□ 今日□竹島□□松島□名□□□□吉□□□日本人□知□□□日本領土□一部□考□□□□ □□日本人□□□□利用□□□□□□□日本側□□□明治三十八年□至□□同年一月二十八日□閣議決定及□同年二月二十二日□島根縣告示□經□□□島□正式□島根縣□編入□□措置□□□□□

□□点□關□□韓國側□□□□獨島(竹島)□□韓國領土□一部□□□□□決□□國際法□□□占有□對象□□□□□□□□

□□□疑□□□□韓國領土□一部□□□獨島(竹島)□無主□島□□□□□□□□定□基□□□日本政府□□□議論□展開□□□□□全□意味□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□竹島□□□□韓國領□一部□□□□□□□□□□□證據□□□□□□□屢述□□□□□□□□明□□□□□□

現□□明治二十年(一八八七年)項□□隱岐島民□竹島□□□□□□□獵□□□□□採取□行□□明治三十六年(一九○三年)□□□□□□本格的□開始□□□□□□□□□□□□際□□□韓國□□□□同島□占據□□□□□□□□行政權□及□□□□□事實□□□□同島□□□□日本漁民□活動□□□□抗議□□來□□□□□□□

□□□韓國側□□□□□□□島根縣告示□□□□□秘密裡□行□□□□□□外國□□□□□□□□□□□□□日本□一般國民□□□□□□□知□□□□□□□□故□□□決□□一國□意思□公示□□□□□□□□□□□□稱□□□□□

□□□□□□□竹島□島根縣編入□關□□島根縣告示□□ □□□□□秘密裡□行□□□□□□□□□□□閣議決定□基□□島根縣知事□□發□□□□□□□□□□□編入□國內法形式□□□□□□□□□□□□□□表明□□□□□□□疑□□□□日本□國家意思□表明□□□□□□□□□右形式□□當時日本□領土取得□際□慣行□□告示方法□□□□竹島編入□際□□□□□□□□□措置□□□□□

□□公示□問題□關連□□□外國□□通告□問題□□□□ □□点□關□□□□大多數□學者□□□□□□□領土取得□絶對的要件□□□□□□國際法□原則□現在存在□□□□見□□□□□□一九二八年□□□□□島事件及□一九三一年□□□□□□□□島事件□仲裁裁判□□□□□□外國□對□□通告□必要□□旨□判決□下□□□□□□米國□□□島□先占□關□□□□外國□□通告□行□□□□□□例□□□□□□

□□□外韓國側□□□日本□?□□□□竹島支配□事實□關□□□□□□□□調査□□□□□□漁□□日本□侵略行爲□一□□□□□□□□□□□□□國際法□基□□領土支配權力□繼續的行使□□□關係□□□□□稱□□□□□□竹島□韓國領土□□□以上□右□□□□□□적□□□□議論□□□□□□

□□□韓國側□□□竹島□對□□韓國□□□□有效的經營□證據□積極的□提示□□□□□□□日本側□文獻□引用□□竹島□□島根縣編入□前後□□□□韓國領土□一部□□□□□□如□□主張□□□□□□□□□□□右□□□領土□對□□直接的證據□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□文獻□引用□□自己□都合□□恣意的解釋□下□□□□□□又□□現在□竹島□鬱陵島□□混同□□□□□□□□□□□□傍證□□□□値□□□□

七. 以上述□□□□□□□□□□竹島□□□□□意味□□□□□日本□領土□□□□□□□□□疑□□□□□□餘地□□□□從□□□□□□□以上韓國側□券□□□□□□□反駁□加□□必要□□□□考□□□□□□□□□竹島□領土□韓國側□竹島□韓國領□□最□有力□理由□□□□□□券□□□□□九四六年(昭和二一年)一月二十九日付聯合國總司令部賞書SCAPIN第六七七號(若干□外廓地域□政治上行政上日本□□分離□□□□□關□□件)□□關係及□竹島□領土□日本國□□平和條約□□關係□□□□一言□□□

(1)□□□韓國側□□一九四六年一月二十九日付□SCAPIN第六七七號□□□□竹島□日本□領土□□明□□□排除□□□□主張□□□右□對□□□方□□右賞書□日本政府□竹島□對□□政治上□□□行政上□權力□行使□□□□及□行使□□□□企□□□□□停止□□□□□指令□□□지□□□竹島□日本□領域□□除外□□□□□□□□□同覺書第六項□□,□□□指令中□條項□□□□□□□□□宣言□第八條□□□小島嶼□最終的決定□關□□聯合國側□政策□示□□□□解釋□□□□□□□□旨□規定□□□前記□趣旨□明□□□□□□□□□指摘□□□

□□□□□韓國側□依然□□□SCAPIN第六七七號□□小島嶼□日本□領土□□明□□□排除□□□□前言□固執□□□□□平和條約□□□□問題□關□□聯合國最高司令官□處置□全□□□□□實質的變化□加□□□□□□□確認□□□□□□□□解□□□□□□□□□主張□□□

□□□□□□□聯合國最高司令官□與□□□□權能□□占領管理□目的□達成□□□□□□□行動□範圍□制約□□□且□□□期間□□占領管理期間中□限定□□□□□□□□□□□占領目的達成□□□□被占領國□領土權□行使□□□□□□制限□加□□旨□指令□發□□□□□□□□□□□□□日本□占領管理□行□□□期間□□□□□□□□□覺書第六項□□□□□□□日本領土□最終的決定□□□□□□關係□□□□右覺書□□□□竹島□日本□領土□□排除□□□□斷□□□□韓國側□見解□□明□□□誤□□□□□

□□□□□平和條約□□SCAPIN第六七七號□基□聯合國最高司令官□措置□實質的變化□가□□□□□□□確認□□□□□韓國側□主張□根據□□□□

前記覺書□□□□日本政府□政治上□□□行政上□勸力□行使□停止□□□□□諸小島□□□□北緯三0度□□二九度□□□間□西南諸島□□平和條約□發效□□□以前□□□□日本政府□返還□□□□□平和條約第三條□規定□□□北緯二十九度以南□南西諸島□?婦岩□南□南西諸島竝□□沖□鳥島及□南鳥島□對□□□□殘存主權□□□□□□□明□□□□□□□□□南西諸島中□菴美群島□□□□□□□後日本政府□行政管轄權□返還□□□□□□□□□齒舞群島□□□□□日本□平和條約□基□□權利□權限及□請求權□放棄□□□千島列島□中□□包含□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□會議□□□□□□□米全權□□□□明□□□□□□□□□

□□点□日本側□□指摘□□□□□韓國側□□□□□後□日本政府□行政管轄權□返還□□□□□□□諸島□□合衆國□唯一□施政權者□指定□□國際連合□信託統治下□□□□□□□□□□□□□□SCAPIN弟六七七五及□平和條約□□□□□□□竹島□對□□韓國政府□正當□領有權□主張□矛盾□□條項□下□存在□□□□□主張□□□□□

□□□□□□□日本政府□行政管轄權□返還□□□諸島□□國際連合□信託統治下□□□□□□□韓國側□見解□明□□□誤□□□□□北緯二九度□三○度□□間□南西諸島□□ 奄美群島□□□□□□□國際連合□信託統治下□置□□□□□□□□□

前者□日本政府□返還□□□□□□連合國最高司令官□□□□管理□□□□□後者□□平和條約第三條後段□規定□基□□合衆國□行政□立法及□司法上□權力□行使□□□□□□□□□□

(2)次□日本國□□平和條約□竹島□領有□□關係□□□□□□韓國側□□□□平和條約□□□竹島□□鬱陵島□屬島□□□鬱陵本島□□□□韓國領土□□□承認□□□□□□□□意味□□□□□解釋□□□□□稱□□□□□□□□□韓國側□解釋□□平和條約□條文上□□□導□出□□□□□□□□□平和條約第二條□□日本國□朝鮮□獨立□承認□□□□□規定□□□□□□日本側□指摘□□□□□□日韓倂合前□朝鮮□□日本□□分離獨立□□□□□日本□認□□□□□□□□□□□□□日韓倂合前□日本領土□□□□領土□□□□□獨立朝鮮□割讓□□□□意味□全□含□□□□□□□他方竹島□□日韓倂合以前□□□□島根縣□行政管轄下□□□□□倂合後□同縣管轄下□置□□□□□□

從□□日韓倂合以前□竹島□韓國□領土□□□□□□□法的根據□示□□□□以上□平和條約第二條□關□□韓國側□解釋□成立□□□□□

八□□□□要□□□□韓國側□□□古□竹島□韓國領□□□□□□□□證據□□□□□□□□□□近代國際法上□領土取得□要件□□國家□□□□領有□意思□□□意思□公示□適當□支配權力□確立等□□□□□□□□□措置□□□□□□□□□

□□□對□□日本側□□早□□□竹島□□□□正確□知識□□□□□□□□□領土□一部□考□□□□實際□□□□經營□□□□□□□□□竹島□島根縣編入□關連□□□□□□一連□措置□□□□□□後□經營□□□□近代國際法上□□견□□□竹島□日本領有□□□□□要件□□完全□具備□□□□至□□□□□□□

從□□□日本國政府□□一九五四年九月二十五日部在本邦韓國代表部口上書附屬□□□□示□□□竹島□領有權□關□□韓國政府□見解□□□全然同意□□□□□□□□□□

THE JAPANESE GOVERNMAET'S VIEWS ON THE KOREAN GOVERNMENT'S VERSION OF PROBLEM OF TAKESHIMA DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 1954

(日本政府見解 3)

The Japanese Government ha carefully studied the Korean Government's views on the subject at issue. It must be stated that what has been stated by the Korean Government is mostly a mere repetition of its views of September 9, 1953 and that the Korean Government has failed to exercise impartiality in treating and interpreting the literature and historical facts which it has cited to substantiate its assertion of the ownership of Takeshima. Therefore, the Japanese Government is unable to agree that the Korean Government has any ground to claim the ownership of Takeshima.

In the following pages the Japanese Government refutes the Korean Government's views and explains the fact that Takeshima is unquestionably a part of the Japanese territory.

The basic factors to be clarified in determing the rightful ownership of Takeshima are: which of two countries, Japan or Korea, obtained earlier and accurate knowledge of Takeshima; and regarded it as an integral part of its territory; and administered the island in fact; and particually which of the two has satisfied all the necessary requirements of modern international law for the acquisition of territory in respect to Takeshima.

III.  (1) As regards Korea's knowledge in the early days about Takeshima, the Korean Government referring to "the Geographical Chapter of Seijong Shillok", and "Shinjung Tongkuk Yoji Seungnam", asserts that "the two islands of Woosando and Mooneung (Ulneungdo) are different one located in the sea just in the eastern direction of Oolchin Prefecture and, therefore, "...there is no room for doubt as to the fact that Woosando specified in old literatures is Dokdo at present (which Japan calls Takeshima)."

When Japan pointed out that there is a passage in "Geographical Chapter of Seijong Shillok", reading: "At the time of Silla, the islan Ulneungdo", and that there is also a passage in "Shinjung Tongkuk Yoji Seungnam", stating that "according to

another version Woosan Ulneung have been the two different names of one and the same island", the Korean side has refuted it by stating: "...the former indicates that the term 'Woosankuk' was in reference to 'Woosan state' in the Silla era and not to 'Woosan Island' and the latter was nothing but an ambiguous 'story'". It then concluded that: "And, therefore, these quotations can affect by no means the fact the names of Woosan island and Ulneung island were for two separate islands which were affirmed at the time when 'Seijong Shillok' and 'Shinjung Tongkuk Yoji Seungnam' were compiled."

It is not proper for the Korean side to jumpt to conclusions by singling out only one passage in a book, and interpreting it in such a way as to suit its own purpose. In order to understand correctly the question at issue, it is necessary to examine the historical facts by making a comparative study not only of the abovementioned two books but also similar old literatures dealing with Woosando and Ulneungdo.

In this connection, reference may first be made, to the oldest history book on Korea called "Samguk Sagi", which states that Woosankuk is Ulneungdo. The same view as above is also upheld in "Kolyosa Chiliji"(Geographical, Chapter of Korean History), namely, Ulneungdo is the island which was known as Woosankuk in the Silla era, recognizing at the same time that there were some who thought that Woosando and Mooneungdo(Ulneungdo) may be two different islands.

In "Seijing Shillok Chiliji" compiled about the time of complication of "Kolyosa Chiliji", the two islands theory is adopted, but it is stated in a remark column that the two islands correspond to Ulneungdo and are identical with Woosankuk of the Shilla era.

As regards the literatures in the later years, there are such books as "Shinjung Tongkuk Yoji Seungnam" and "Jungbo Moonhun Biko" which support the theory of two different islands, but leave room for the theory of one island with two names while there are books, namely, "Chibong Yusol" and "Moonhun Chwallok" which adhere to the theory of one island with two names. Even in later ages there have been no books which describe, with confidence, the relation between Woosan and Ulneung island. However, it is noteworthy that even the books which adopt the theory of two different islands, contain only explanation concerning Ulneungdo, and have no concrete description of Woosando.

This fact shows concerning the island in question, the compliers of the books referred to above lacked any clear knowledge based on an actual observations on

the spot, and that the Koreans have since made little progress in their knowledge concerning the island.

Such a confusion over knowledge of Woosan and Ulneung Island as mentioned  above can be seen also from careful examination of the descriptions of Woosan Island (alias Mooneung and Muneung) in the most authoriative history books in those days when "Kolyosa Chiliji" and "Seijong Shillok Chiliji" were compiled, namely, "Taijong Shillok" and "Seijong Shillok". Consequently, Korea's statement that "...the names of Woosan Island were for two separate islands which were affirmed at the time when 'Seijong Shillok' and 'Shinjung Tongkuk Yoji Seungnam' were compiled" cannot be accepted.

It is difficult to conclude that Woosando is identical with Takeshima of the present day since there were serious doubts as to whether Woosando and Ulneungdo are two different islands. Furthermore, as the explanations in the literatures referred to above refer simply to Ulneungdo and no concrete descriptions are made as to Woosando, it is impossible to prove positively that the last-mentioned island is identical with Takeshima of the present day even if Woosando and Ulneungdo were different islands.

With reference to Woosando it is stated in the part for the day of Im-mu, Febryary, the 17th Year of King Taijong (1417), in "Seijong Shillok" Volume 33, that large bamboos, buffalo hides and various natural prodycts are produced in the said island with 86 Inhabitants. It is quite clear that this Woosando is not identical with Takeshima of the present day, because Takeshima is a rocky islet unfit for permanent human habitation and yields nothing but marine products.

(2) In contract with the fact that Korea is unable to prove that even in the old days it knew of Takeshima of the present day, Japan has been aware, of the existence of Ulneungdo for many years. It was known to the Japanese as Uruma-no-shima (or Uruma Island) back in 1004 A. D. (according to the Gonki) and moreover, it is said (in the Kolyosa) that the Japanese began to visit the island in 1379. After Ulneungdo became completely uninhabited in early days of the Lee Dynasty and was virtually abandoned by the Korean Government, the Japanese visiting the island incresed in number and for some 100 years subsequent to the War of Bunroku (1593), the island was used by the Japanese fully as a fishing base and hunting ground. It may be mentioned in this connection that Jinkichi Ohya and Ichibei Murakawa, merchants of Yonago in Hoki Province, obtained in the 4th year

of Genna (1618) a permit from the Shogunate Government, through the feudal lord of the province Shintaro Matsudaira, for travel to Ulneungdo (known then as Takeshima) and subsequently utilized the islands.

The place used at that time as an anchrorage in the navigation to and from Ulneungdo and also as a ground of hunting sea-lions and fishing abalones, was an island known then as Matsushima (or Matus island) which is identical with Takeshima of the present day. It was in or before the second year of Meireki (1656) that the Ohya and Murakawa families obtained a permit from the Shogunate Government, as in the case of Ulneungdo, for making passage to Takeshima (according to Takeshima Tokai Yuraiki Nukigaki Hikaye - A Summary of History of travel to Takeshima - compiled by Kyuyemon Ohya).

It is quite clear that Matsushima is identical with Takeshima of today in view of the fact that there are old literatures, namely, "Inshu Shicho Gakki" (a record of What has been Seen and Heard of Inshu) by one Saito - the 7th year of Ka-mon (1667), "Kyuyemon Katsunobu Ohya's Ukesho" (A Letter of Acknowledgement) - the 9th year of Enpo (1st year of Tenwa) (1681), and etc., containing descriptions of Mtsushima to the effect that it is located to the northwest of Oki Island and right on the route of navigation from Oki to Takeshima (Ulneungdo in those days), and is a barren rocky islet consisting of two parts - the eastern and western - where water is utterly insufficient especially in the hot season.

It is particually interesting to note a map of Matsushima and Takeshima prepared by the Ikeda Clan of hoki Province by order of the Shogunate Government which shows that Matsushima (present Takeshima) consists of two islets facing each other with a narrow channel running between them from north to south and it is surrounded by a number of reefs. The map thus depicts the island accurately and it is a definite proof that Japanese in those days were aware of Takeshima (known to them as Matsushima).

In short, it is absolutely indisputable, judging from the literatures and maps referred to  above and also from record of activities of Japanese fishermen in those days, that was well-informed of Takeshima as early as in the latter period of 1600 whereas Korea has no evidence to show that the Koreans have of the island in question since old days.

IV. (1) Since Korea's knowledge about Takeshima is so indefinite as mentioned above, it is entirely out of question to consider that Korea regarded such an island as being a part of her territory.

The Korean side states that Korean nationals including Ahn Yong Bok kept Japanese nationals from infringing the waters of Ulneungdo and Dokdo, by quoating some descriptions about him in Sukjong Shillok Vol. 30, without any consideration and examination of them in the light of historical facts. they are simply based on one-sided statements made by Ahn Yong Bok to Bibyonsa (the Korean defense authorities). It can be said, viewed in the light of detailed records about Ahn Yong Bok kept in japan, that he made the statements, both false and erroneous in many respects, with intention of making what he had done appear to be heroic and chivalrous. Whatever Ahn Yong Bok said or did, the speech or behavior alone of a private individual cannot be used at this date by Korean as the basis for claiming ownership of Takeshima.

(2) On the otherhand, since Ulneungdo became uninhabited in the early days of the Lee Dynasty and was virtually abandonded by the Korean Government, the Japanese traveling to and from the island increased in number, and the general public of Japan as well as Ohya and Murakawa begun to regard Takeshima (Ulneungdo) as the land granted to the Ohya and Murakawa families, particually since a permit was given to them by the Shogunate Government in the 4th year of Genna (1618) for passage to and from the island, and they came to monopolize the island as a base for fishing and hunting activities.

In "Inshu Shicho Gakki" (1667) referred to above, Matsushima (present Takeshima) and Takeshima (Ulneungdo) are regarded as the northwestern limits of Japan, and in Shichi-Kajo-hentosho (A seven point reply) concerning Takeshima addressed to Hoki-no-kami Matsudaira, the feudal lord of Hoki Province, from the Ohya and Murakawa families in ninth year of Kyoho (1724), a mention is made of the time when Japanese fishermen on Ulneungdo for the first time in the 5th year of Genroku (1692) and it is stated that the following question was put to the Koreans by the Japanese: "This is an island which has belonged to Japan since old days and has been granted by the Shogun to our families who enjoy its ownership from one generation to another and which is visited by us every year. By what reason have you come here?"

It is also stated in a note of the 9th year of Enpo or the 1st year of Tenna (1681) submitted by Kyuyemon Ohya in reply to questions put to him by an official inspector sent by the Shogunate Government that:

"Fifty years ago during the reign of the late Lord Taiyuin (note: the posthumous name of Shogun Iyemitsu), Takeshima was given to our family through the good

officiers of Shirogoro Abe, Esq. and in addition, my parents had the honour being received in an audience by the Shogun, for which I feel grateful."

The Korean side considers the permit for passage to Takeshima (Ulneungdo) issued in the 4th year of Genna (1618) by the Shogunate Government to the Ohya and Murakawa families as "Murakawa families as "Shuin-jo" (a shogunate licience to trade) and asserts as follows:

□It is a clear fact in the Japanese history that the "Shu-in" is a certificate of identity normally issued by the Shogunate to those crews of authorized foregin trade vessels. This fact alone will show that the Japanese of all ranks at that time were fully aware that 'Chuko' was under the Korean sovereignty."

Continuing, they state:

"... the Korean Government takes exception, and is compelled to point out that the said two families were permitted only to go out fishing in the distant sea in the direction of the Ulneungdo area, and was not authorized to 'exercise control over Takeshima', as contended by the Japanese Government."

However, what was given the Ohya and Murakawa families was not "Shuin-jo". It was a permit for passage to Takeshima (Ulneungdo) and by virtue of the permit the two families sailed to Takeshima (Ulneungdo) from time to time with their ships flying the flags bearing the Shogunate crest of "hollyhock", in order to catch abalones and sealions and also to cut down timber on the island. The abalones fished there were known as Takeshima abalones and it was the custom of the said families and Cabinet ministers. In short, they were licensed to utilize the island exclusively.

Such being the case in respect to Takeshima (Ulneungdo), it is needless to say that Matsushima (present Takeshima) which is situated in the way to Takeshima (Ulneungdo), and the passage to which was permitted in or before the 2nd year of Meireki (1656), was regarded as a part of the Japanese territory. This view concerning Matsushima (present Takeshima) has remained unchanged, because the Shogunate Government's prehinition, in the 9th year of Genroku (1696), of passage to Takeshima (Ulneungdo) did not include Matsushima.

In the Takeshima Zusotsu (A Map with Remarks of Takeshima) (1751-1763) Matsushima (present Takeshima) is stated as being "Matsushima of Oki Province" and in "Chosei Takeshima Ki" (A note of Takeshima) (1801) Matsushima (present Takeshima) as being "the end of the Western Sea-area of Japan. It is interesting to note, in view of the above description, that in "Inshu Shicho Gakki" (A Record of What Has been Seen and Heard of Inshu (1667) published before the prohibition by

the Shogunate Government of the passage to Takeshima (Ulneungdo), Takeshima (Ulneungdo) and Matsushima (present Takeshima) are regarded as the northwestern limit of Japan.

V. (1) Since there is no evidence establish to that Korea had knowledge in the olden days of the present Takeshima as shown in the foregoing, it is natural that there is no evidence proving the adminstration of the island by Korea.

Nevertheless, the Korean side asserts:

"It is apparent in the light of 'non-cultivation policy toward four countries' in the northern borderland taken by Korea since King 'Sejo' of the Li Dynasty that the so-called 'policy of non-inhabited island' does not mean the renunciation of the administrative jurisdiction over territory. Though the Japanese Government argues on so-called non-inhabited policy, it must be reminded that Korean inspectors were dispatched to the area of Ulneungdo and Dokdo every three years."

Contrary to above assertion of Korea, the periodical dispatch of Korean inspectors to Ulneungdo was begun only after the adoption by Japan of prohibitive measures against the passage of the Japanese to Takeshima (Ulneungdo), and before that time Korean authorities did nothing to exercise controls over the island except that they sometimes sent officials to take back Korean nationals who had fled there under some circumstances. However, this kind of action was taken by Korean side only in the early days and then Ulneungdo was abandoned by the Korean Government for about 300 years. This is apparent from the Shogunate Government in the 4th year of Genna (1618) the permit for passage to Takeshima (Ulneungdo), could administer the island without meeting there any Koreans from Korea Proper. Furthermore, in the paragraph for the happening of January 18, the 19th year of King SukJong (1693) in "Sukjong Shillok", Korean Cabinet Ministers Mok Lai Son (Choaeuijong Mok Lai Son) and Min An (Wooeuijong Min An) are quoted as stating about Ulneungdo that "it has been an uninhabited and abandoned place for 300 years" and it can be seen from this statement that high officials of the Lee Dynasty themselves regarded Ulneungdo as an uninhabited and abandoned place.

After Japan prohibited her nationals from sailing to Takeshima (Ulneungdo), the Korean Government began, in the 23rd year of King Sukjong (1697), to make periodical inspection of Ulneungdo, but this measure was intended by the Korean Government to follow the policy of it permitted no Koreans to dwell there nor did it take any step to administer the island. The non-inhabitation policy or the prohibition of entry of Koreans into the island continued for many years since its

adoption and it was as late as in the 21st year of the Lee Taewang's reign or the 17th year of Meiji (1884) that the Korean Government changed its policy and planned to emigrate Koreans to the island. However, the Korean Government's measures of encouraging emigration did not produce the desired effects.

The administration of Ulneungdo being such as mentioned above, it is inconceivable that the Korean Government did anything for the administration of the present Takeshima (then known as Matsushima) which lies far to the east of Ulneungdo and which is a rocky islet unfit for habitation.

Although the Korean Government asserts that "Korean inspectors were dispatched to the area of Ulneungdo and Dokdo every three years", it introduced the above practice after the prohibition of passage of the Japanese to Takeshima (Ulneungdo) by the Shogunate Government as has been already stated, and the inspectors were sent only to Ulneungdo and there is no evidence to show that the inspection was extended to the present Takeshima (which is called Dokdo by Korea). The contents of reports of inspectors appearing in Sukjong Shillok and Chungjong Shillok are related only to Ulneungdo and there is not a single word referring to a place that may be taken as the present Takeshima.

(2) In contrast with the foregoing facts, there are many literatures stating that Japanese vessels in those days visited Matsushima (present Takeshima) on their way to Takeshima (Ulneungdo) utilizing the former island as anchorage and the visiting Japanese engagedin fishing and hunting there. It is stated, for instance, in a note submitted to the competent authorities in the 9th year of Enpo or the first year of Tenna (1681) by Kyuyemon Ohya that: "... while on this islet (Matsushima), we took a small quantity of sea-lions oil."

Furthermore, in a reply given, on December 26, the 8th year of Genroku (1695), to Bungo-no-Kami Abe, Rochu (equivalent to a cabinet minister) of the Shogunate Government, Feudal Lord Ikeda's office, said as follows in answer to the former's inquiry:

"......We beg to report that in the 7th year our men were unable to bring their ship to the shore at Takeshima owing to a storm. They went to the island again this year, but they did not bring their ship to the shore since many foreigners were sighted there - they caught some quantity of abalones at Matsudaira on their way home." In a memorandum of Hokinokami Matsudaire dated January 23, the 9th year of Genroku (1696) it is stated as follows:

"As regards hunting on Matsushima our men landed and haunted on the island because it lies on the route to Takeshima. We have heard nothing about the persons who went out hunting there from other provinces. Those from Izumo and Oki

Provinces visited the island with our men from Yonago on the same boat."

Furthermore, there is a statement in "Chosei Takeshima Ki" (A Note on Takeshoma - 1801) to this effect:

"...... on her voyage to and from Takeshima the Takeshima Maru comes to anchor along the shore of this island (Matsushima) each time."

The Korean side, however, states as follows in respect to the prohibition of the passage to Takeshima (Ulneungdo) by the Shogunate Government:

"..... until February of the 22nd year of King Sukjong (1696 A.D.) when the then Japanese Government reconfirmed the ownership of Korea over Ulneungdo (Chukdo) and its attached island (Dokdo) which is located in the distance of only 49 sea miles from Ulneungdo and in the sea some 86 miles from Okishima of Shimane Prefecture, and prohibited Japanese from entering the area for fishing thereafter."

However, the island which became then an issue between the Japanese and Korean Government was Ulneungdo (Takeshima) and it was also this island in respect to which the Shogunate Government took measure of prohibiting the Japanese from visiting. There is absolutely no ground for Korea's assertion that "the Japanese Government reconfirmed the ownership of Korea over Dokdo (present Takeshima), and prohibited Japanese from entering the area for fishing thereafter."

In the 8th year of Tempo(1837), the illciit trade with Takeshima (Ulneungdo) conducted by Aizuya Jachiuyemon, a shipping agent under the jurisdiction of Hamada Clan, Iwami Province, came to light and he was crucified. In the written decision concerning crucified Hachiuyimon, Sanbei Hashimoto, a follower of Minister Tanomo Okada of Hamada Clan, who was involved in the crime, is said to have stated to Hachiuyimon that there was a means of treating the passage to Ulneungdo as lawful by using the name of Matsushima as the destination instead of Ulneungdo.

The above fact shows that the passage to Matsushima (present Takeshima) offered no problem even after the prohibition of travel to Takeshima (Ulneungdo).

VI. As has been stated above, the present Takeshima has been known among the Japanese since ancient times by the name of Matsushima and has been utilized by the Japanese, who considered it a part of the Japanese territory. In the 38th year of Meiji(1905) Japan took action to incorporate Takeshima formally into Shimane prefecture as a result of the decision made at a Cabinet meeting of January 28 the same year and the public announcement of the incorporation was made by the Shimane prefectural Government on February 22.

As regards the above point, the Korean Government states:

"...... Dokdo, being a part of the Korean territory, can by no means be the object of occupancy under international law. Thus, it is entirely a nonsense that the Japanese Government develped its own argument on the assumption that Dokdo, which is doubtless a part of the Korean territory, was an ownerless island."

It is, however, quite clear from what has been mentioned repeatedly that there is no evidence to show that Takeshima was at any time a part of the Korean territory.

A study of the recent history of Takeshima reveals that the inhabitants of Oki Island hunted-sea-lions and fished abalones in the Takeshima area since about the 20th year of Meiji (1887) and later hunting and fishing operations were conducted on a large scale from the 36th year of Meiji (1903), but they could not discern any fact that Koreans were occupying the island and exercising administrative power in the area. Natually no protest was ever made by Korea against the activities of Japanese fishermen on Takeshima.

The Korean side tries to refute the above fact with the following statement:

"The alleged notification by the Shimane Prefectural Government was so stealthily made that it was not known even by the general public of Japan, not to speak of foreign countries. Therefore, it can by no means be considered as a public announcement of the intention of one country."

Contrary to the Korean statement that "the notification by the Shimane Prefectural Government was so stealthily made" in respect to incorporation of Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture, the announcement was made by the Shimane Prefectural Governor in compliance with the Cabinet decision and, therefore, irrespective of the manner in which the notification was made, there is no doubt that it expressed the intentions of the Japanese Government. Moreover, it was then the accepted practice in Japan to make announcements in the said manner for acquisition of territory. Consequently, the foregoing measure was not peculiar or unique in the case of incorporation of Takdshima into Shimane Prefecture.

In connection with the aforementioned public announcement, there is a question of notification to foreign countries. In this respect, most of international jurists agree that there is no principle in international law which regards such notification as above as an absolute requirement for acquisition of territory. In the cases, of the Island of Palms of 1928 and of Clipperton Island of 1931, moreover, the Permanent Court of Arbitration gave decisions making it clear that no nothfication to foreign countries is required for the acquisition of territory. The principle followed in the

above two cases was asserted by the United States at the time of its occupancy of the Guano islands.

Further reference should be made to the following irrelevant argument presented by the Korean side concerning the Japanese administration of Takeshima presented by the Japanese side:

"The so-called survey or sea-lion hunting was nothing but one of Japan's aggresive acts and therefore had nothing to do with the continuous exercise of control over territory under international law." This argument is entirely off the mark in the light of the fact that Takeshima has never been a part of Korean territory.

Inasmuch as the Korean side is unable to produce positive evidences of its effective administration of Takeshima, it appears that the Korean side is trying to assert, ny quoting Japanese literatures, that the island was p part of the Korean territory at about the time of its incorporation into Shimane Prefecture. However, such quotations do not serve as direct evidence for estabilshing Korean ownership of Takeshima, nor are they valuable even as a circumstantial evidence, because Korea has interpreted the literatures in such a way to suit her own convenience and confused the present Takeshima with Ulneungdo.

VII. The explanations given with respect to the Japanese position leave no room for doubt that Takeshima is in every sense a part of the Japanese territory. Accordingly, the Japanese side considers it unnecessary to try to refute the Korean statements one by one on all minor points. However, a reference will be made to the relation between the ownership of Takeshima and Memorandum SCAPIN No, 677 of the General Headquarters of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers dated January 29, 1946, on the subject "Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan", which the Korean side regards as one of the most important grounds for laying claim to Takeshima, and a further reference will be made to the relation between the ownership of Takeshima and the provisions of the Peace Treaty with Japan.

(1) The Korean side has asserted that Memorandum SCAPIN No. 677 dated January 29, 1946 "explicitly excluded the islets from the territorial possessions of Japan". Refuting this assertion, the Japanese Government has pointed out that the Memorandum had directed only "to cease exercising, or attempting to exercise, governmental or administrative authority" of the Japanese Government over

Takeshima, and that the island had by no means been excluded by the Memorandum from the Japanese territory as was made explicit in Paragraph 6 of the Memorandum which reads:

"6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied Policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration."

Notwithstanding the rebuttal by the Japanese Government, the Korean side has adhered to the interpretation that the islands were excluded from the territorial possessions of Japan, and furthermore, referring to the Peace Treaty with Japan, it has contended that "..., it can be understood that the Peace Treaty confirmed the SCAP's disposition on this matter without making any substantial change at all".

The power conferred on the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, however, was restricted within the limits necessary for enabling him to attain the objects of occupation and control of Japan. Accordingly, he might give directives for imposing certain restrictions on the exercise by Japan of territorial right but he could take such an action only during the period of occupation and it has nothing to do with the ultimate determination of the Japanese territory as stated in Paragraph 6. of the Memorandum referred to above. In the light of these facts it is apparent that interpreation of the Korean side that Takeshima was "excluded from the territorial possessions of Japan" by the Momorandum is clearly erroneous.

Furthermore, the Korean assertion that "the Peace Treaty has confirmed the SCAP's disposition on Takeshima under the Momorandum without making any substantial change at all", is entirely groundless.

Of the minor islands over which Japan's exercise of governmental and administrative authority was suspended by the said SCAP Memorandum Nansei Shoto between 29°and 30°north latitude were restored to Japan before the coming into effect of the Peace Treaty with Japan.

As to Nansei Shoto south of 29°north latitude, Napon Shoto south of Sofu Gan, Parece Vela and Marcus Islands, provided for in Article 3. of the Peace Treaty with Japan, it was made clear later at the time over these islands, and later, the administrative jurisdiction over the Amami Islands belonging to the Nansei Shoto was restored to Japan. Moreover, it was clarified by the United States' Delegate John Foster Dulles to the San Francisco Peace Conference that the Habomai Islands were not included in the Kurile Islands over which all right, title and claim should be renounced by Japan under the terms of the Peace Treaty.

The foregoing being pointed out by Japan, the Korean side has maintained: The Islands restored to Japan"... are only those which were under trusteeship of the United Nations which designated the Untied States as the sole administering authority." And "... neither SCAPIN No. 677 nor the Peace Treaty with Japan provided any article contradictory to the Korean Government's insistence upon due territorial ownership of Dokdo."

However, the Korean side is clearly mistaken in the interpretation that the islands over which the Japanese Government was permitted to resume administrative jurisdiction had been under the trusteeship of the United Nations. It should be pointed out that the Nansei Shoto between 29°and 30°north latitude and the Amami Islands have never been placed under U.N. trusteeship. The Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers had administered the former group of islands until their restoration to Japan, and the United States had exercised administrative, legislative and judicial power over the latter group up to their return to Japan, according to the provisions of Article 3 of the Peace Treaty with Japan.

(2) With respect to the relation between the Peace Treaty with Japan and the territorial ownership of Takeshima, the Korean side asserts:

"It is further construed as meaning that Dokdo as an attached island of Ulneungdo has given recognition as Korean territory along with Ulneungdo proper by the said Peace Treaty."

However, no such conclusion as above can be drawn from the letters of the article of the Peace Treaty.

The Provisions in Article 2 of the Peace Treaty with Japan that "Japan recognizes the independence of Korea" mean, as has been pointed by the Japanese side, that she recognize the independence from Japan of Korea which was annexed to the former and, therefore, it can by no means be interpreted that the area which formed an inherent part of the Japanese territory prior to the annexation would be ceded to independent Korea.

As a matter of fact, Takeshima was under the jurisdiction of Shimane Prefecture before the annexation of Korea to Japan and it continued to be so after the annexation and, therefore, the aforementioned Korea interpretation of Article 2 is impossible to be established unless the evidence is produced to show that Takeshima was an inherent part of the Korean territory before the annexation of Korea to Japan.

VIII. In short, Korea has no evidence to prove that Takeshima was a part of the Korean territory in the olden days nor did she take any steps to satisfy the requirements for acquiring territory under modern international law, such as the state's declaration of the intention to acquire territory, the announcement of that intention, and the establishment of an adequate to administer the territory.

On the contrary, Japan has had the accurate knowledge of Takeshima since the early days, regarded it as a part of her territory, actually utilized it, and taken a series of actions in connection with the incorporation of the island into Shimane Prefecture, and has subsequently exercised administrative control there of, thus satisfying all the requirements for its ownership under modern international law.

Accordingly, Japan is unable to agree with the views of the Korean Government pertaining to the ownership of Takeshima as expressed in the appendix to the Note Verbale of the Korean Mission in Japan dated September 25, 1954.

(466) 1957. 5. 8. 일본측口述書(No. 65/A1)

(韓國官民常駐 및 燈臺 尙存에 항의)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Korean Mission and has the honour to make the following representations relative to the unlawful occupation by the Korean Government of Takeshima a Japanese territory:

1. Report was received from the "Tsugaru", a patrol ship of the Maritime Safety Agency which arrived in the neighbourhood of Takeshima for investigation in the morning of April 9, 1957, that some Koreans and a building believed to be lighthouse were sighted on Higahi-jima of the Island.

2. The Japanese Government has made it clear on more than one occasion to the Korean Government that Takeshima is an integral part of the Japanese territory, and has repeated strong protest against a series of illegal acts committed by the latter Government such as stationing Korean officials and civilians and establishing the lighthouse on the Island.

3. The Japanese Government cannot but entertain serious concern about the failure of the Korean Government to meet the Japanese demand to remove its nationals and structures from the Island. It hereby again files its vigorous protest with the latter Government. The Japanese Government at the same time demands the Korean Government to withdraw and remove forthwith its nationals and installations from the same Island and to take without delay pertinent and effective measures to prevent the recurrence of similar cases in the future.

Tokyo, May 8. 1957.

(467) 1957. 6. 4. 한국측口述書(PKM-12)(일본측 口述書에 반박)

The Korean Mission presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, with reference to the latter's Note Verbale No. 63/A1 of May 8, 1957 concerning the Dokdo Island, has honor to make the following representations:

1. As has been pointed out on many occasions in the past, the Dokdo Island is an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Korea, historically and geographically. It is natural that the Korean Government has due right to manage the said Island by stationing its nationals and constructing a lighthouse thereon.

2. Accordingly, the Korean Government cannot recognize the propriety of the so-called protest filed by the Japanese Government in an attempt to reiterate the same groundless allegations contained in the Ministry's Note Verbale under reference.

3. The fact that the "Tsugaru", a patrol boat of the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency, infringed upon the Korean territorial waters surrounding the said Island is a matter of serious concern of the Korean Government which cannot but regard it as a threat to the security and peace of the Republic of Korea. Under these circumstances, the Mission wishes to file again a most energetic protest with the Japanese Government against the illegal action committed by a Japanese Government vessel and request the latter to take appropriate and effective measures to prevent the recurrence of the similar cases in future.

Toky, June 4, 1957.

(468) 1957. 10. 6. 일본측口述書(1957. 5. 8. 일본측口述書와 同一)

1957年 5月 8日字 일본側 口述書와 내용 同一 (본문 생략)

(469) 1957. 12. 25. 일본측口述書(No. 199/A1) (上同)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Korean Mission and, regarding the unlawful occupation by the Korean Government of Takeshima, a part of Japanese territory, has the honour to state as follows:

1. The Japanese Government has had the occasions to point out the fact that Takeshima is doubtlessly a part of the Japanese territory in the light of the historical  facts and international law, and has repeated its energetic protest against the continuation of occupation of the island by the Korean Government.

2. Nevertheless, the patrol boats which were dispatched to the island by the Maritime Safety Board of Japan for inspection on August 11 and October 20, 1957, found that the lighthouse, wireless poles and other facilities constructed by the Korean Government were still existing and that the island was inhabited by Korean nationals.

3. That Takeshima is an integral part of the Japanese territory, leaves no room for doubt as stated in the Ministry's Note Verbale No. 102/A1 dated September 20, 1956.

The Japanese Government cannot but entertain a serious concern over the fact that the Korean Government is continuing the occupation of the island in defiance of the repeated protests of the Japanese Government. It hereby renews its most stern protest against the Korean Government and demands the same Government to remove immediately from the island all Korean nationals and facilities it has   constructed thereon, and at the same time, to take promptly effective and appropriate measures in order to repress the recurrence of similar cases in the future.

Tokyo, December 25, 1957.

(470) 1958. 1. 7. 일본측口述書(上同)

1957年 5月 8日字 일본側 口述書와 내용 同一(본문 생략)

(471) 1958. 10. 6. 일본측口述書(No. 175/ASN) (上同)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to its the Korean Mission, and has the honour to make the following representation with reference to the unlawful occupation by the Korean Government of Takeshima, a territory of Japan:

1. According to investigations made twice on may 7 and September 10, 1958, by the "Hekura", a patrol boat of the Maritime Safety Agency of Japan, it has been made clear that, in defiance of the repeated protests of the Japanese Government, the Korean authorities and nationals are still stationed in the Island, and the light-house, houses and other establishments constructed by the Korean Government have not yet been removed.

2. The reasons that Takeshima is unquestionably an integral part of the Japanese territory have frequently been given.

Accordingly, the Japanese Government which cannot but entertain serious concern about the continuation of the unlawful occupation of Takeshima, a Japanese territory, by the Korean Government lodges again hereby a strong protest with the Korean Government, demanding the instant withdrawal of the Korean authorities and nationals from Takeshima as well as removal of all the buildings and structures there without delay, and requesting that effective and appropriate steps be promptly taken by the Korean Government with a view to preventing the recurrence of unlawful acts of similar nature.

Tokyo, October 6, 1968.

[해설]

일본정부는 1956년 9월 20일자 구술서로 □한국정부 견해 ⑵□를 반박하고, 독도가 일본영토임을 주장하는 □일본정부 견해 ⑶□을 한국측에 보내왔다. 중복되는 부분을 빼면, 그 요지는 다음과 같다.

①《세종실록》 지리지의 于山·武陵 二島說만 있는 것이 아니라 一島二名說도 있으므로, 우산도가 오늘의 竹島라는 명확한 증거 자료가 조선측에는 없다.

② 이와 반대로 일본에서는 이미 1004년경에 울릉도가 □우르마島□로 알려지고(≪權記》), 1379년부터 일본인이 울릉도에 도항한 사실이 전해지고 있다(≪高麗史》). 한국측이 조선 초기에 울릉도를 완전히 空島化하여 사실상 방기한 반면, 일본인의 내왕은 점차 증가하여 1593년 후 약 100년 동안 전적으로 일본인의 漁採地화하기에 이르렀다. 그 이후 1667년 齋藤의《隱州視聽合記》를 비롯해서 다수의 고문헌들과 고지도들이 竹島[울릉도]와 松島[독도]를 정확히 알고 묘사했으며 실제로 활용하였다.

③《숙종실록》의 안용복 기사는 일본측에 남아 있는 상세한 안용복 도래에 관한 기록과 비교 대조해보면, 허위가 많고 행동을 장대하게 윤색했기 때문에 竹島영유 주장의 근거가 될 수 없다.

④《隱州視聽合記》(1667)도 松島(오늘의 竹島？독도)와 竹島(오늘의 울릉도)를 갖고 일본의 北西部의 한계라고 보았다.

⑤ 한국측은 元和 4년(1618)의 大谷·村川 양가에 대한 幕府의 竹島[울릉도] 渡海免許를 朱印狀이라고 보았으나 이것은 朱印狀이 아니라 渡海免許였다. 幕府는 大谷·村川 양가에게 明歷 2년(1656) 松島에의 渡海免許도 허가하였다.

⑥ 조선정부는 울릉도에 대해서도 공도정책을 실시하여 수백년간 방기해왔는데, 이 섬보다 훨씬 동쪽의 바다 가운데 위치하여 사람이 常住할 수 없는 小岩島인 독도[竹島]에까지 경영의 손을 뻗쳤다고는 도저히 생각되지 않는다. 한국측은 3년마다 搜討官을 울릉도와 독도 지역에 파견했다고 주장하고 있으나 搜討官의 파견은 일본측의 竹島[울릉도]渡海禁止措置 이후의 일이며, 그것도 울릉도에만 보냈고, 독도까지 미쳤다는 어떠한 증거도 없다.

⑦ 이에 반하여 일본측에는 竹島[울릉도] 渡海의 길목에 松島(독도？지금의 竹島)에 들러서 이를 寄港地로 이용함과 동시에 그곳에서 漁獵을 행했다는 다수의 문헌기록이 있다.(문헌기록의 例 제시)

⑧ 竹島[독도]가 한국영토라는 증거가 없으므로 1905년 1월 28일의 일본 閣議결정 및 같은 해 2월 22일의 島根縣 告示를 거친 영토편입 조치는 적법한 것이다. 한국측은 島根縣 告示가 비밀리에 행해졌으며, 외국에 어떠한 통보도 하지 않았으므로 一國의 意思의 공시로 볼 수 없다고 주장하나, 이 같은 고시는 당시 일본의 영토취득 고시의 관행이었으며, 竹島편입에 대해서만 취한 조치는 아니었다. 또한 외국에의 통고는 대다수의 학자들이 영토취득의 절대 요건이라고 보고 있지 않다.

⑨ 한국측은 1946년 1월 29일자의 SCAPIN 제677호에 의해 독도가 일본의 영역으로부터 명백히 배제되었다고 주장하고 있으나, 동 각서 제 6 항의 규정과 같이 그것은 일본영토에 대한 최종결정은 아니다. 또한 한국측은 그 후 일본정부의 행정관할권에로 반환된 섬들에 대하여 그것은 □미국을 유일의 시정권자로 지정한 국제연합의 신탁통치하에 있던 섬들뿐이다□라고 했는데, 이것도 분명히 오류이다. 북위 29도와 30도 사이의 南西諸島나 奄美諸島는 국제연합의 신탁통치하에 두어진 일이 없다. 전자는 일본정부에 반환될 때가지 연합국 최고사령관이 관리했으며, 후자는 평화조약 제 3 조 후단의 규정에 기초하여 미국이 행정·입법 및 사법상의 권력을 행사해온 것에 불과하다.

⑩ 한국측은 □강화조약에 의하여 독도가 울릉도의 屬島로서 울릉도와 함께 한국영토로 승인되고 있음을 의미하는 것으로 해석된다□고 칭하고 있으나, 한국측의 이러한 주장은 강화조약 조약문으로부터는 도출될 수 없다. 강화조약 제 2 조의 규정은 한일합병 당시의 조선이 일본으로부터 분리 독립함을 인정하는 것이지, 한일합병 전에 일본영토의 일부가 된 영토를 독립 조선에 할양하는 의미는 전혀 포함되어 있지 않다. 따라서 한일합병 이전에 竹島[獨島]가 조선영토였다고 하는 법적 근거가 제시되지 않는 이상, 한국측의 주장은 성립되지 않는다.

한국정부가 위의 □일본정부 견해 ⑶□에 대한 반박 문서를 준비하는 기간에도 일본 순시선들은 주기적으로 독도 수역을 침범하였다. 일본은 1957년 4월 19일 순시선 츠가루호를 독도에 파견하여 독도를 관찰하고 간 다음 독도에 있는 한국 관리들의 철수와 시설물의 철거를 요구해왔으며, 한국정부는 이를 반박하고 츠가루호의 독도 수역 침범에 강력히 항의하였다.

일본측은 1957년 8월 11일과 10월 20일 두 차례에 걸쳐 순시선들을 파견하여 독도 실태를 관측하고 시설물의 철거를 요구하였다. 또한 일본정부는 이듬해 1958년 5월 7일과 9월 10일에도 두 차례에 걸쳐 순시선을 파견해서 독도를 관찰하고 한국정부에 항의서를 제출하였다.

Ⅶ. □韓國政府 見解③□과 往復文書

(472) □1959. 1. 7. 韓國政府見解③ 수록 韓國側 口述書(PKM-1)□

(韓國政府見解③ 표명)

1959. 1. 7字 한국側口述書(PKM-1)

The Korean Mission presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and with reference to the latter's Note Verbale No.102/A1 and the attachment thereto of September 20, 1956, No. 199/A1 of December 25, 1957, and No.175/ASN of October 6, 1958, regarding the ownership of Dokdo, has the honour to state as follows:

As the Government of the Republic of Korea has repeatedly made it clear of many occasions, the fact that Dokdo is an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Korea has unequivocally been vindicated by authoritative historical and geographical evidences and literatures, and there is no room at all for any argument thereon under international law. In view of her territorial ownership of the Island, it is the right of the Republic of Korea to exercise an exclusive jurisdiction over the Island and to administer it.

Therefore, the Mission wishes to state that the Government of the Republic of Korea cannot recognize the propriety of the arguments and the protests made by the Ministry in its Notes Verbale under reference.

In this connection, having a serious concern over the fact that patrol boats of the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency trespassed the Korean territorial waters around the Island, the Government of the Republic of Korea lodges a strong protest with the Japanese Government against such unlawful acts and, at the same time, strongly requests that the Japanese Government immediately take appropriate and effective measures to prevent the recurrence of similar cases in future.

Stating once again that Dokdo is an indivisible and integral part of the territory of the Republic of Korea, the Mission wishes to present the just and pertinent views of the Government of the Republic of Korea on the ownership of the Island, as attached hereto, refuting the Japanese view contained in the attachment to the Ministry's Note Verbale No. 102/A1 dated September 20, 1956.

Tokyo, January 7, 1959.

一九五六年九月二十日字

獨島에 관한 日本政府의 見解를 反駁하는

大韓民國政府의 見解(韓國政府見解3)

一. 大韓民國政府는 表題件에 관하여 日本國政府의 見解를 愼重히 檢討하였다. 大韓國民政府는 日本國政府의 見解가 그 引用한 文獻과 歷史的 事實에 對한 認識에 있어서 도리어 公正性을 잃었고 또 그 見解가 明白히 不當한 理論의 分析으로 僞裝되고 있음을 遺憾으로 생각한다. 따라서 大韓民國政府는 日本國政府가 獨島領有에 관한 大韓民國政府의 見解를 否認할 何等의 根據도 提示할 수 없었

다는 点을 再闡明하지 않을 수 없다. 이에 大韓民國政府는 本件에 관한 一九五六年九月二十日字 日本國政府의 見解를 反駁하는 同時에 獨島領有에 관한 大韓民國政府의 見解가 明白히 公正한 것임에 틀림없다는 事實을 證明하고자 한다.

二. (1) 大韓民國政府는 韓國이 이미 李朝初期로부터 于山島와 鬱陵島가 各己 別稱의 二島임을 認知하고 있었으며 또 그 于山島는 獨島(日本所謂 現在의 竹島)와 同一하다는 点을 正確한 文獻에 依據하여 主張하여 왔다. 이에 對하여 日本國政府는 韓國側이 提示한 李朝初期의 官撰記錄인 「世宗實錄 地理志」 中의 「于山, 武陵二島 在縣正東海中」 이라 한 것과 亦是 當時의 官撰인 「新增東國輿地勝覽」 中의 「于山島 鬱陵島 二島 在縣正東海中」 이라 한 二島認知의 明確한 記事를 否認하기 爲하여 本文에 各各添入된 註記 卽 「新羅時 稱于山國 一云 鬱陵島」라고 한 것과 「一說于山鬱陵本一島」라 한 것을 들어 于山, 鬱陵이 同一島를 가리킨 것이라고 牽强附會하였으나 韓國側은 이미 島名(울릉島)과 國名(于山)이 表示하는 槪念의 外延을 混同하는 데서 오는 日本側의 誤解를 指摘한 바 있고 또한 「一說云云」의 註記는 本文의 記錄 事實을 否認하는 것이 될 수 없다는 것을 闡明하였던 것이다. 特히 地理的 知識이 發達되지 않았던 時代에 있어서는 一島에 二名이 混用되다가 正確한 知識의 獲得과 더불어 二島二名으로 分離 指稱되어지는 □緯를 說明하고 더욱이 日本이 바로 □明治□初期에있어서도 鬱陵島一島를 「松島」「竹島」라는 二名으로 混稱하다가 其後에야 鬱陵島와 獨島(日本所謂 現在의 竹島)를 各各 指稱하게 되었다는 實質的인 眞實을 日本人 當者의 學究的인 論證을 빌어서 提示하기까지 하였던 것이다.

또한 日本側이 「文獻撮錄」 中의 記事를 들어서까지 于山·鬱陵이 同一島를 指摘한 것이라는 그릇된 主張을 補强하려는 데 對하여 韓國側은 그것이 李朝末葉의 一個 私人의 隨錄으로서 李朝初期의 歷史地理에 관하여 典據가 될 수 있는 文獻的 價値가 全無한 것이라는 点을 指摘하였던 것이다.

(2) 그런데 韓國側의 이같은 正當 且 公正한 見解에 對하여 日本側은 또다시 이를 反駁하는 見解를 提示하고 있으나 이는 從來의 牽强附會한 見解를 反復한 것에 지나지 않으며 따라서 日本側은 依然히 그 引用文獻의 文意와 歷史的 事實을 曲解하는 것이라고 하지 않을 수 없다.

卽 日本側은 「三國史記」에 記錄된 「于山國···或名 鬱陵島」라고 한 것을 듣고 「高麗史地理志」에서도 이것이 踏襲되었다는 것을 말하고 또 上述한 바와 같이 「世宗實錄地理志」에서 「于山武陵二島 在縣正東海中」이라 한 本文記事에 添記된 「新羅時 稱于山國 一云 鬱陵島」라고 한 것을 擧論하면서 于山 鬱陵이 同一島를 指稱한 것이라고 臆斷하고 있으나 이는 어느 文獻의 한 句節을 自己에게 有利하게 引用解釋함으로써 그 全體的인 眞實을 隱蔽하려는 日本側의 그릇된 偏見에서 導出된 結論에 지나지 않는 것이다. 왜냐하면 于山國을 鬱陵島라 하고 또는 鬱陵島를 于山國이라고 하였다하더라도 그 어느 것도 鬱陵島 附近의 無人小島가 于山國에 包含되어 있지 아니하였다는 事實을 말하는 것이 아닌 것이다. 더욱이 日本側은 「世宗實錄 地理志」중의 一註記를 引用하여 이로써 于山 武陵 兩島를 鬱陵島라고 하였다고 牽强附會하고 있으나 本文의 「于山武陵二島在縣正東海中」「二島相去不遠風日淸明 卽 可望見」이라한 別稱의 二島로서 明白히 認知된 事實에 秋毫의 疑問도 있을 수 없는 것이다.

이와 같이 明白히 是認하지 않을 수 없는 事實에도 不拘하고 日本側은 韓國側이 引□한 文獻이 當時韓國에서의 政府에 의한 官撰物이었다는 事實에는 조금도 留意하지 않고 如何間 韓國側에서 于山島와 鬱陵島가 別個의 섬(島)이라는 것에 對하여 많은 疑問을 가졌었던 것처럼 主張하기 爲하여서 本 問題에 대한 何等의 文獻的 價値도 認定할 수 없는 一個 私人의 隨錄에 불과한 「芝峯類說」과 「文獻撮錄」의 記事를 또다시 擧論하는 데 對하여 韓國側은 더 解明할 必要조차 느끼지 않는 바이다.

또한 日本側은 「增補文獻備考」에서도 二島說을 취하면서도 亦是 一島二名에의 疑問을 남긴 것이였다고 하나 실제로는 「增補文獻備考」에서도 「于山島 鬱陵島 鬱一作蔚 一作芋 一作羽 一作武 二島 卽 芋山」이라 하였다. 이들을 說明하면 于山島와 鬱陵島 그 중 鬱陵의 鬱字를 或은 蔚, 或은 芋, 或은 羽, 或은 武로도 쓰고 있으나 實上 于山과 鬱陵은 二島이니 그 中의 一인 于山은 卽 芋山이다. 換言하면 鬱陵의 上字가 于山의 上字와 混用되고 있으나 于山과 鬱陵은 二島라는 것이다. 이로써 比文獻에서도  于山, 鬱陵이 二島로서 確認되어 있음은 明白한 것이다. 日本側은 當時의 于山島가 今日의 獨島에 該當한다고 斷定하기는 困難할 것이라고  臆測하고 있으나 「增補文獻備考」中의 「與地志」를 引用하면, 「鬱陵, 于山 皆于山國于山卽倭所謂 松島也」(譯=鬱陵島와 于山島는 다 「于山國」이니 于山島는 倭의 이른바 松島)라고 明記한 記事는 日本國政府의 曲解를 包含하여 指稱한 것이며 그 中 于山島는 日本의 所謂 松島(日本 所謂 今日의 竹島) 즉 獨島를 가리킨 것이 分明하다. 이와 같은 記述이 私人 隨錄이나 體驗記에서가 아니고 一國의 官撰地理志에 收錄되어 있다는 것은 再論할 餘地도 없이 곧  그것이 國家的인 認識을 말하는 것이며 따라서 獨島가 分明히 國家領土의 一部로 看做되어 있는 事實을 立□하는 것이다.

(3) 于山島가 今日의 獨島의 指稱인 것은 非但 韓國側記錄에서만 分明할 뿐 아니라 日本側記錄(松島之記)에서도 또한 的確한 것을 忘却하여서는 안될 것이다. 卽 一八七六年∼八十八年(明治九年∼明治十二年)에 一部 日本漁民들이 所謂 竹島開拓願을 提出함에 當時 日本政府는 唐慌하여 朝鮮의 學者에 請託하여 松島問題에 對한 意見을 물었을 때 外務省公信局長 田□太一은 曰「松島(獨島)는 我 邦人의 令名이나 其實은 朝鮮 鬱陵島에 屬한 于山이다. 只今 까닭없이 사람을 보내어 巡視한다는 것은 他人의 □배를 慾心내는 것이다. 하물며 隣境을 侵越함과 類似함에 있어서랴 云云」이라 하여 그 所謂 開拓을 不許하자는 結論을 내렸던 것이다. 이로써 名稱問題 所屬問題가 韓國側 自身의 解明을 기다릴 必要조차 없이 이미 明治時代의 日本國官史에 依하여 雄辯으로 代言되고 있음을 알 수 있다.

또한 日本側은 自己의 主張을 有力케 하기 爲하여 「隱州視聽合記」를 引用하였는데 그 引用이 큰 誤讀에 基因된 것임으로 다시 그 原文을 情讀할 必要가 있다. 이 책은 書名과 같이 隱州君隱□島에 관한 記事로써 隱州가(主題로 되어) 日本의 乾地(西北限界)로 되어있다는 것이다. 그 原文을 引用하면

□倭訓海中

隱州在北海中敎云隱□島

言遠故名□

南方至雲州美 戌亥間行二日一夜有松島 又一日程有竹島 此二島無人之地 見高麗 如自雲州 望隱州 然則 日本之乾地以此州爲限矣

여기에 所謂 松島는 즉 獨島, 竹島는 鬱陵島를 말한 것으로 此 二島에서 高麗(韓國) 本土를 望見하는 距離關係가 마치 雲州에서 隱州를 望觀한 것 같으니 그런 즉 日本의 西北部는 此州로서 限界를 삼는다는 것이다. 이것을 日本側은 誤讀하여 前二島로서 日本의 西北部의 限界라고 한 것은 큰 잘못이다.

「隱州視聽合記」의 記事야말로 正當한 見解라고 보지 아니하면 아니되겠다.

三 (1) 위와 같이 明明白한 事實을 日本國政府는 故意로 隱蔽하여 否認하고 日本人이 일찍부터 鬱陵島에까지 渡船하였다는 事例와 日本人이 十七世紀頃 幕府에서 鬱陵島 渡船免許를 받게 되었다는 事實 및 그 渡船送中에 獨島가 그들의 魚採地로 利用되고 十七世紀後半期에 이르러서는 또한 獨島에 對한 渡海免許를 幕府에서 받게되었던 것이라고 말하고 있으나 이같은 引□은 日本國政府가 獨島領有에 對한 權利를 主張하는 데 있어 何等의 도움도 되지 못하는 것이다.

實로 日本人은 三國時代로부터 特히 高麗王朝末技에 이르러서는 韓國의 沿岸各地와 內陸에까지 깊이 出沒入寇하여 韓國의 人民과 財産을 虜掠하였었다는 事實을 想起하고 나아가 當時에 있어서의 日本人들의 侵寇虜掠을 爲한 渡海가 非但 鬱陵島 一帶에만 그쳤던 것이 아니였다는 事實을 虛心坦懷하게 想起 是認한다면 日本國政府는 本 問題에 관한 스스로의 主張이 根本的으로 그릇된 立場에서 出發되고 있다는 것을 率直히 是認하지 않을 수 없을 것이다. 當時에 日本

人들이 韓國沿海各地를 寇略함으로써 그 寇略地區에 관한 「地理를 熟知」하였던 것이라고 한다면 이로써 韓國沿岸各地의 領有를 主張할 수 있는 가 우리는 質問하고 싶다.

(2) 日本國政府는 앞서 韓國側이 有力한 資料의 하나로써 安龍福의 英雄的 活動에 관한 歷史的 事實을 提示하였음에도 不拘하고 또다시 이를 故意로 否定하려고 하는 것은 結局 自己네 主張에 不利한 하나의 障碍 事實로 여기는 所以에 不過하다고 밖에는 解釋되지 않는다. 安龍福의 渡日談判事件은 우리의 許多한 官私記錄에서 分明할 뿐 아니라 또한 日本側記錄(三國通船一覽)에도 나타나는 著名한 事實이며 이것이 當時 日本國政府에 큰 衝擊을 주어 마침내 이것으로 말미암아 日本側이 自國民의 이 方面에로의 出漁를 禁하였던 것은 속일 수 없는 昭然한 事實이다.

日本側은 이에 對하여 出漁禁制後에도 松島에의 渡船은 問題가 아니였다고 하는 文獻을 引用하였으나 위에서 累言한 바와 같이 이것은 一種의 侵?行爲 밖에 되지 않는 것이며 日人이 이같은 侵寇行爲를 爲한 寄港地 乃至는 碇泊地로서 人間의 常主가 不可能한 小岩島인 獨島를 利用하였었다는 것을 말하여 이로서 同島의 □營을 云謂함은 전혀 正軌를 脫한 論理의 展開라고 하지 않을 수 없다. 또한 當時 日本의 所謂 「竹島」「松島」가 지금 鬱陵 獨島의 어느 것을 指稱한 것인지 分別키 어렵다. 換言하면 「竹島」「松島」란 이름이 都大體 서로 바뀌어 二名 共히 鬱陵島, 獨島를 混稱하였기 때문에 日本側記錄은 그 어느 것을 獨島 어느 것을 鬱陵島로 指稱한 것인지 實로 區別하기 어려운 까닭이다. 이러한 名稱의 混亂은 무엇보다도 二島에 대한 當時 日本人의 地理的 知識이 明確치 못하였다는 것을 □明하는 것이며 또 이러한 地理的 知識의 欠陷은 結局 이것이 日本의 管轄權 外에 屬하였던 것을 말하는 것이다.

要컨데 이미 新羅 智□王당시에 于山國이 新羅에 □屬하였다는 事實과 그 于山國은 李朝初期에 이르러서는 分明히 鬱陵 于山 兩島를 包含한 것으로 認知되어 官撰地理志를 비롯한 其他 公私記錄에 收錄되었고 따라서 鬱陵島의 屬島인 于山島 卽 獨島도 領域의 一部로 分明히 看做되어 있었다는 事實에 秋毫의 疑問을 품을 餘地가 없다.

四 (1) 上述한 바와 같이 獨島가 韓國領土의 一部分이라고 하는 歷史的 事實을 論駁할 充分한 □據를 가지지 못한 日本國政府는 所謂 島根縣告示라는 一方的 措置를 들어 國際法上의 領土取得의 要件이 充足된 것처럼 金科玉條로 내세우려는 從來의 態度를 今般에도 依然히 反復하고 있으나 이와 같은 日本側의 견해는 韓國側의 獨島領有에 대한 主張에 何等의 影響도 주지 못할 뿐 아니라 一顧의 價値조차 없는 것임을 밝히고자 한다.

日本側은 이른바 一九0五年一月二十日의 日本閣議決定과 同年二月二十日의 島根縣告示를 □過하여 獨島를 正式으로 島根縣에 編入하였다고 主張한다. 그러나 이러한 日本의 國內措置는 獨島가 近古로부터 日本의 領土였다는 日本國政府의 執拗한 主張에 對하여 조금도 도움이 되지 않는 것은 勿論 오히려 적어도 一九0五年 當時까지 日本國이 獨島를 그 領土의 一部分으로 생각하고 있었지 않았다는 하나의 有力한 反證을 提示하는 것이다. 왜냐하면 日本側이 眞實로 獨島의 永有權을 確立하였을 진대 그 當時에 새삼스러이 이를 日本國의 領土로 編入할 必要가 奈□에 있었든가. 日本國政府의 이러한 行動은 그 當時 日本이 韓國을 侵略하여 窮極的으로 이를 倂呑하기 위한 前哨工作으로 優先 獨島에 대한 그들의 侵寇行爲를 合理化할 하나의 口實로서 마치 無主物의 先占과 같은 國內的 措置를 取한데 不過한 것이다. 日本側의 論理를 따른다면 獨島가 島根縣에 「正式으로」編入될 때까지 그것은 日本의 어느 縣에도 속하지 않는 比定式의 日本領土였다는 結論이 나오는데 이야말로 荒唐無稽한 詭辨이 아닐 수 없다. 이와 反對로 獨島는 歷史上으로나 地理上으로나 分明한 韓國領土인 鬱陵島와 不可分離의 關係를 가진 卽 共同運命體的 關係에 놓여온 것이고 絶對로 無主物이 아니였음을 想起하여야 한다. 따라서 所謂 島根縣告示라고 하는 日本國의 一方的 國內措置는 國際法的 □果를 發生하지 않는다.

(2) 또한 日本側은 韓國側이 「竹島의 島根縣編入에 관한 島根縣告示는 『極히 秘密裡에 行하여졌다』」라고 한데 對하여 이것을 否認하면서 「閣議決定에 依하여 島根縣知事로부터 發布」된 것임으로 秘密裡 編入이 아니고 公開的 編入인 것처럼 말하려 하고 있다. 그러나 外國에는 물론 日本의 一般國民에게도 알려지지 않은 所謂 「竹島編入」이 어떻게 秘密裡가 아니라고 말할 수 있겠는가. 外國의 例는 姑捨하고라도 日本國의 文部省 自身이 日本人의 學校敎科用으로 認可한 現代地圖가 獨島를 決코 日本 領土의 部分으로 取扱하지 않고 있으며 日本全國敎育圖書株式會社가 一九五二年六月十日에 發行한 標準世界地圖의 第六版에도 漢子竹島를 韓國語로 音表하고 있는 事實은 所謂 島根縣告示라고 하는 것이 秘密裡에 行하여 진 것이 아니란 日本側의 主張을 □覆시키는 有力한 傍證이 되는 것이다.

(3) 이와 같은 이른바 島根縣告示에 依한 「日本의 國家意思의 表明」이란 것이 當時 日本이 領土取得時에 慣行한 告示方法이든 또는 竹島編入에 際하여 特別히 取한 措置이든 間에 그러한 編入의 國內法 形式은 우리에게 何等의 關係도 없고 또한 國際法 慣行에도 없는 일이다. 如何한 國際的 先例에 있어서도 他國의 領土를 一個地方廳의 告示로서 秘密裡에 編入하였다는 實例를 우리는 들은 바 없다. 日本側은 自己의 主張을 正當化하고자 몇 개의 國際的 先例를 들은 바 있으나 「크립퍼어톤」島에 대한 □國主權의 樹立을 公告하였던 것이다. 이것은 正히 日本國의 隱密한 「領土取得의 慣行」과는 天壤의 差異가 있는 것이다. 또 一九二八年의 「팔마스」島 事件에 대한 仲裁裁件에 있어서는 外國에 대한 通告가 其他의 公式的인 行爲와 同樣으로 「팔마스」島에 대한 和蘭의 行爲를 正當化하는 條件이 됨을 認定하고 있으며 絶對로 「通告가 必要없다」고 하지는 않았던 것이다. 다만 「팔마스」島와 같은 住民이 살고 있는 地域에 있어서는 隱密한 主權의 行使란 不可能하다는 前提下에 「아프리카」大陸의 土地의 先占에서 보는 바와 같은 通告의 義務가 發生하지 않는다고 判定하였을 뿐이다.

또 日本側이 「구아노」島의 先占에 관하여 例示하고 있는 一八九十年의 美國大法院의 判決(죤스對美國事件)에서 보드라도 問題의 섬이 明白히 無主의 地域이라는 確□이 선 然後에 비로소 그 섬의 美國에의 編入을 決定하기로 된 것이며 그렇기 때문에 外國에서의 通告를 行하지 않았던 것이고 또 이 事件은 純全히 國內的 事件으로서 外國과의 分爭이 惹起된 일이 없었다.

이와 같이 上記 어느 國際的 事件도 日本의 荒唐한 獨島占有論을 合理化할 何等의 傍證도 될 수 없음을 指摘하는 바이다. 自己側의 有利한 事件처럼 보이는 國際的 事例라고 하여 全然事情과 條件이 判異한 獨島問題에 대하여 斷片적인 部分을 함부로 授用하려고 하는 日本側의 態度는 오히려 國際法에 관한 理解의 不足함을 表示하는 外에 아무런 所得이 없으리라고 생각한다. 우리는 도리어 一八八年의 「國際法 協會」의 宣言이 先占에 관한 要件으로서 隱密한 告示가 아니라 外國에 대한 通告를 要求하고 있는 데에 日本側의 注意를 喚起하고저 한다.

五. 다음으로 對日平和條約 第二條에 관하여 論述한다면 此條의 解釋에 있어서의 우리의 見解는 日本國이 韓國의 獨立을 承認하고 또한 原來의 韓國 領土 一切을 大韓民國에 返還할 것을 聯合國에 嚴肅히 約束하였으며 同時에 大韓民國은 權利로서 第二條의 利益을 主張할 수 있다는 것이다. 領土返還의 要求는 原來의 韓國領土에 局限하는 것이고 原來의 日本領土에 對하여 要求하는 것은 勿論 아니다. 그럼에도 不拘하고 日本側이 獨島가 原來의 日本領土인 것처럼 主張하여 平和條約을 歪曲하는 所以는 오로지 一九0五年의 問題의 島根縣告示에 依한 所謂 獨島의 編入이 一九一十年의 韓日倂合以前에 成就되었다는 데에 基因한다. 그러나 이러한 編入의 法的 □果는 先占의 要件을 具備하지 못하였기 때문에 無□일 뿐만 아니라 實로 淸日戰爭 以後 日本帝國主義의 一連의 侵略行爲의 一環이였다는 意味에서 그 編入조치는 斷然코 容認될 수 없는 것이다.

獨島는 韓日倂合以前에 正確히 말하면 一九0五年에 先占이 아니라 日本의 强奪적 方法에 依하여 日地方自治團體의 告示로서 此所謂 編入을 當하였던 것임은 累述한 바와 같다. 이것이 果然 合法的인 것이였던가.

一八九五年 淸國과의 戰爭에 勝利한 日本은 一九0四年 露西亞와 戰爭을 開始하여 帝國主義的 膨脹政策을 敢行하고 獨島를 所謂 編入하기 前年인 一九0四年八月二十二日에는 所謂 韓日協約을 强要하여 事實上 韓國의 實權을 掌握하였다. 따라서 當時의 韓國은 形式上으로는 獨立을 維持하고 있었으나 實質上으로는 日本의 支配下에 있었다. 事實上 日本은 韓國의 完全倂合을 위한 豫備工作으로서 韓國의 國際社會에 있어서의 發言權을 封鎖할 目的으로 韓日協約의 第二項에 依하여서 「스티븐」을 買收派遺하여 그로 하여금 韓國의 外交上의 實權을 掌握케 하였던 것이다. 日本의 走狗인 外交顧問이 이처럼 韓國의 外交를 掌握하고 있었던 當時의 獨島編入에 對하여 「外國에 의하여서 問題된 일이 없다」고 하여 마치 韓國이 獨島 編入을 認定한 것처럼 내세울 수 있는가. 이 對答은 否定的이 아닐 수 없다. 이것은 客觀的인 期待可能性이 全的으로 欠如되있고 그러한 情勢의 造作은 바로 日本側에 責任이 있기 때문이다. 이리하여 우리는 韓日倂合前이라할지라도 그와 같은 政治情勢下에 취하여진 日本의 措置는 전혀 承認할 수 없는 것이다.

六. 끝으로 우리는 獨島問題의 解決에 重大한 關鍵이 되는 聯合國의 日本領土處理方針과 그 基本情神에 言及하고저 한다. 聯合國의 日本領土의 處理는 「카이로」宣言과 對日平和條約에 이르는 一連의 國際文書에 依據하였다. 一九四三年十一月二十七日의 「카이로」宣言에서 美, 英, 中 三大國은 韓國人民의 奴隸狀態에 留意하고 適當한 경□路를 밟아서 韓國을 自由獨立國家로 할 決意를 한다고 規定한 後 다시 「三大聯合國의 目的은 一九一四年의 第一次世界大戰의 開始以後에 日本國이 奪取하였거나 또는 占領한 모든 太平洋 諸島를 日本國으로부터 剝脫하는 것 그리고…日本國이 淸國으로부터 盜取한 모든 地域을 中華民國에 返還하는 데 있다」고 하였으며 또 「日本國은 또 暴力 및 强力에 依하여 略取한 其他 모든 地域으로부터 驅逐된다」고 規定하였다. 이 「카이로」宣言은 日本의 「포스담」宣言의 受諾과 同時에 同宣言 第八項에 의하여 日本을 嚴然히 拘屬하는 國際文書가 되었다. 이와 같이 聯合國의 日本領土處理에 관한 基本方針은 日本領土를 淸日戰爭 以前의 狀態로 還元시키려고 한 것이 分明할 진대 一九0五年 日本이 韓國政府에 外交顧問을 派遺하고 財政顧問과 警務顧問

까지 派遺하여 놓고 島根縣告示라는 日地方自治團體의 告示로서 編入하였다는 獨島의 取得은 바로 「暴力과 强力에 의하여 略取」한 것임이 明白하며 日本은 마땅히 이러한 地域으로부터 驅逐되어야 하는 것이다.

또다시 獨島는 「스킾인」第六七七□에 依하여 比隣接島嶼로서 隣接諸小島와는 明白히 區別되었고 一九四七年六月十九日 日本에 대한 降伏 後의 基本政策에 依하여 日本의 領土는 隣接島嶼에만 局限되었음을 日本으로부터의 獨島의 分離는 이로써 確定되었다. 따라서 對日平和條約에 獨島를 日本에 編入한다는 積極的인 規定이 없는 限 日本으로부터 分離가 確定된 地位에는 아무런 變動도 있을 수 없는 것이다. 이와 같이 獨島의 處理는 「포스담」宣言으로부터 「日本의 降伏後의 基本政策」에 이르는 一連의 文書에 依하여 統一的으로 理解되어야 하며 그러한 用意없이 「스캪인」第六七七□의 第六項만으로 全體를 歪曲하려는 日本側의 態度는 不當한 것이다. 특히 留意하여야 할 点은 韓國은 對日平和條約에 앞서 이미 一九四八年八月에 獨立을 達成한 以來 獨島의 管理 統治를 回復하였으며 그러한 狀態下에서 對日平和條約의 該當事國으로부터 正式承認을 받고 있었다는 事實이다. 이 事實은 獨島가 韓國의 領土임을 더욱 明白히 하여주는 것이다.

獨島는 聯合國 最高司令官이 管理하는 周□小島도 아니고 또 韓國獨立後 合?國의 立法 및 司法權의 行使에 留保된 地域도 아니었다. 더욱이 獨島에 관한 日本의 所謂 「殘存主權」이 設立된 일도 없는 것이다.

七. 上述한 바 諸般權威있는 文獻과 歷史的 事實이 立證하는 바와 같이 獨島는 歷史上 地理上으로 또한 否認할 수 없는 法理論에 의하여 大韓民國의 嚴然한 領土의 一部임에도 不拘하고 日本國政部가 不法的으로 이의 領有權을 主張함은 그 眞實한 意圖가 奈□에 있는 지 疑心되지 않을 수 없다.

大韓民國政府는 日本側의 이러한 主張이 何等의 正當한 根據도 가지고 있지 못한 것이며 따라서 韓國이 古來로부터 認知하여 왔고 또한 鬱陵島의 不可分의 屬島로서 分明히 그 領域의 一部로서 看做하여왔으며 大韓民國의 主權確立과 더불어 그 營轄權을 回復한 獨島의 地位에 何等의 影響도 미칠 수 없다는 것을

指摘코저 한다. 그럼으로 大韓民國政府는 一九五六年九月 二十日字 日本外務省 구上書附添에 表明된 日本國政府의 見解를 秋毫도 容忍할 수 없는 것이다. 獨島는 大韓民國의 領土의 不可分의 一部임을 再三 宣言하는 바이다.

THE KOREAN GOVERNMENT'S VIEWS REFUTING

THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT'S VERSION OF

THE OWNERSHIP OF DOKDO

DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 1956

(韓國政府見解3)

I. The Korean Government has carefully studied the views of the Japanese Government on the subject matter. The Korean Government notes with regret that the Japanese Government has departed from impartiality in interpreting the literatures and historical facts it has cited and that its views are merely those which are camouflaged with unreasonable theoretical embellishments. The Korean Government, therefore, must make it crystal clear that the Japanese Government has again failed to present any ground to refute the views of the Korean Government with regard to the ownership of Dokdo. The Korean Government hereby refutes, the views of the Japanese Government on the subject matter dated September 20, 1956 and, at the same time, explains the fact that the views of the Korean Government with regard to the ownership of Dokdo are indisputably clear and just.

II. (1) The Korean Government has maintained on the basis of authentic literatures that Korea, from the early days of the Li Dynasty, recognized Woosando and Ulneungdo as two different islands with different denomination for each and that the former (Woosando) is identified to be Dokdo (which Japan today calls "Takeshima"). To support the above position, the Korean side has quoted the following passages from "Seijong  Shillok Chiliji", a government-compiled record of the early days of the Li Dynasty, and "Shinjung Tongkuk Yoji Seungnam", another government-compiled record of the same dynasty period, which respectively read: "...the two islands of Woosan and Mooneung are located if the sea just to the east of the (Oolchin) Prefecture", and "...Woosando and Ulneungdo...the two islands are located in the sea just to the east of the (Oolchin) Prefecture." The Japanese Government, however, in an attempt to repudiate the above position of the Korean Government, developed an unreasonable argument by trying to make a distorted interpretation of the above-quoted passages by means of referring only to certain

passages in the remark columns of the main texts of the said literatures, which read: "...During the period of Silla, Woosankuk was also called Ulneungdo..."and "...According to another version, Woosan and Ulneung are said to be one and the same island." As the Korean Government has already pointed out, this misunderstanding on the part of Japan is caused by a confusion on the extension of concepts denoting the name of an island (Ulneungdo) and that of a state (Woosankuk). The Korean Government has made it clear that such a passage in the remark column as "...according to another version..." can by no means reverse the facts that are recorded in the main text of the literature.

The Korean side also explained on the process of how one island which had been called with two different names while geographical knowledge was still in a primitive state became to be identified correctly with its proper name as geographical knowledge improved. For example, the Korea side has presented, with the help of academic findings done by a Japanese scholar, the evident fact that the Japanese people themselves called Ulneungdo with two different names of "Matsushima"and "Takeshima" intermixedly until as late as the early days of the "Meiji" era, and they later began to discern the two names as designating Ulneungdo and Dokdo (which Japan today calls "Takeshima") respectively. As for the Japanese attempt to substantiate its unjust assertion by referring to a passage in "Moonhun Chwallok", that "Woosan" and "Ulneung" designated one and the same island, the Korean side has pointed out that the said material is nothing but a private essay written late in th Li Dynasty and has no value whatsoever as an authoritative literature which serves to determine historical and geographical facts of the early days of the Li Dynasty.

(2) In an attempt to refute the just and impartial views of the Korean Government, the Japanese side presents its views, but they are nothing more than a mere repetition of its earlier far-fetched arguments; it must be stated, therefore, that the Japanese side is making a gross distortion of the context of the literatures and historical facts it cited. By referring to a passage in "Samkuk Sagi" that "Woosankuk was sometimes called Ulneungdo□, and saying that the same view was upheld in "Koryosa Chiliji" reading "During the Silla, Woosankuk was also called Ulneungdo", which is added to the following text of the last-mentioned literature that "The two islands of Woosan and Mooneung are located in the sea just to the east of the (Oolchin) Prefecture", the Japanese side tries to surmise that Woosan and Ulneung designated one and the same island. Such a conclusion, However, has apparently

been drawn from a prejudiced attitude of the Japanese side to deny whole truth by referring to, and interpreting, a certain seemingly favorable passage of a literature in such a manner as to satisfy its own cause. For, even if it is admitted that Woosankuk was called Ulneungdo and vice versa, neither case of the above serves to indicate that a small uninhabited island in the vicinity of Ulneungdo was not a part of Woosankuk. Although the Japanese side, by referring to a passage in the remark column of "Seijong Shillok Chiliji", offers a strained argument that the two islands of Woosan and Mooniung were called Ulneunhdo, there is no room for any doubt to the obvious fact that they were recognized as two different islands with two different names, as clearly evidenced by the following passages of the text of "Soijong Shillok", reading, "the two islands of Woosan and Mooneung are located if the sea just to the east of the (Oochin) Prefecture", and "As the distance of tow islands is mot so far from each other, they can be seen from each other when the weather is fine."

In spite of such indisputable facts as enumerated above, the Japanese side, without paying any attention to the fact that the literatures cited by the Korean side were those compiled by the then Korean Government, again brings up certain passages from "Chibong Yusul" and "Moonhun Chwallok" which are nothing but private essays having no value as authentic literatures on the subject matter. As for such an attempt on the had entertained doubts about the fact that Woosando and Ulneungdo were two separate islands, the Korean side feels no need of making any further explanations. The Japanese side again argues that, although "Jungbo Moonhun Biko" took "two islands theory" on the subject matter, it still left a room for doubt about the possibility that the two names were for one island, but it is in fact stated in the said material that "Of the two islands, Woosando and Ulneungdo, Ul(鬱) of the latter is sometimes spelled Ul(蔚) or Uoo(芋) or Uo(羽) or Moo(武); however, Woosan and Ulneung are in fact two different islands, and Woosan(于山) one of them, is Uoosan(芋山). Namely, the first character of Ulneung is sometimes confused with that of Woosan, but Woosan and Ulneung are two different islands. In the light of the above, it is quite evident that Woosan and Ulneung are also confirmed to be two different islands. The Japanese side dares to surmise that it is hard to conclude that Woosando of those days is identical with Dokto of today, but the clear-stated passage from "Yochiji"of "Jungbo Moonhun Biko", reading, "Both Ulneung and Woosan are of Woosankuk (Woosan state) and Woosan is called Matsushima by the Japanese", is enough to clear out the misinterpretation on the part of Japan. It is beyond any doubt that Woosankuk ( Woosan state) was an inclusive designation of the two islands of Ulneung and Woosan and that Woosan, one of them, is identical with the so called Matsushima, that is, Dokto  (which

Japan today calls "Takeshima"). The fact that such statements are contained, not in private essays of records of hearsay stories, but in the government-compiled geographical books of a State, clearly signifies that the island which was recorded in such books had been recognized by the State, and accordingly serves to prove that Dokto was unmistakably regarded as an integral part of the Korean territory.

(3) One should not let it go without notice that Woosando is the designation of Dokto of today, which fact is evident not only in the records of the Korean side but also in those of the Japanese side such as "Matsushima-No-Gi." It is interesting to note in this connection that, when some Japanese fishermen, during 1876-1878, submitted to the Japanese Government the so-called "applications for exploitation of 'Matsushima'", the Japanese scholars, asking for their opinions thereon. Mr. Hutoichi Tanabe, then Director of Official Communications Bureau of the Japanese Foreign Ministry, reached the conclusion that the applications should be turned down for reasons that " 'Matsushima'(Dokto) is a denomination given by our countrymen, but the island is n fact Woosan which is an annexed island of Ulneungdo, a territory of Korea. Therefore, if we were to sind our people there now without a cause, it would be tantamount to our being covetous of others' treasures, not to speak of its being an act of infringing neighbors' territory..." It is quite clear without further clarification by the Korean side that the question as to the name and ownership of Dokto was eloquently clarified as an integral part of the Korean territory by a Japanese official of the "Meiji" era.

With a purpose of substantiating its assertion on the ownership of Dokto, the Japanese side refers to "Inshu Shincho Gakki", but, as the said reference stems from a gross mis-reading o the context of the said literature, it is felt necessary to peruse the original text here again. This book, as its title indicates, deals with "Oki" island of  "Inshu" Prefecture, and states that "Inshu" is the northwestern limit of Japanese border. To quote the original text: "Inshu is in the north sea, hence, it is called Okinoshima...Proceeding in the direction of Shutsukai (Northwest) for two days an one night, one also finds Matsushima there, and in one day's distance therefrom, one also finds Takeshima. These two islands are uninhabited, the sight of Koryo viewed therefrom being just like that of Inshu viewed from Oonshu. Therefore, Japan's northwestern boundary is limited by this shu (Inshu)." The so-called "Matsushima" mentioned in this literature points to Dokto, and Takeshima to Ulneungdo, and the above-quoted passage means that the distance between Koryo (Korea) mainland and these two islands is about the same as that between "Oonshu" and "Inshu", therefore, this shu(Inshu) is made Japan's northwestern limit. It is a

gross error on the part of the Japanese side to assert that "These two islands are the north-western limits of Japan", as the text reads these shu and not these two islands. It must be pointed out that the said statement in "Inshu Shicho Gakki" os a correct one.

III. (1) The Japanese Government, purposefully wrapping up and denying such manifest fact as that referred to above, cites the fact that the Japanese people from early days sailed as far as Ulneungdo, that around the seventeenth century, some Japanese merchants obtained permit from the Shogunate Government for travel to Ulneungdo, that they used Dokto as a fishing ground, and that, in the latter part of the seventeenth century, they obtained permit from the Shogunate Government good for travel to Dokto as well. This elaboration, however, serves in no way to support the Japanese Government's assertion on the territorial right over Dokto.

Should the Japanese side recall the fact that, since the era of Samkuk(Three Kingdom of Korea), and particularly, from the latter part of the Koryo Dynasty, the Japanese people infringed on the Korean coastlines, sometimes deep into the inland, to engage in kidnapping people and pillaging properties, and should it further recall and admit without prejudice the fact that sailings to the Korean peninsula by the Japanese on invasive missions were not limited to the Ulneungdo ownership of Dokto are based on a fundamentally wrong position. Granting that the Japanese, by invading various parts of the Korean coasts, obtained at that time "an accurate knowledge on the geography" of the invaded areas, it must be questioned whether such fact alone could serve as valid ground for claiming territorial rights over these coastal areas.

(2) The attitude of the Japanese Government to intentionally deny the historical accounts on heroic activities of An Yong Bok, which the Korean side quoted as a supporting evidence of its views, cannot but be interpreted as meaning that the Japanese side regards the said historical facts as a deterrent unfavorable to their assertion. The case of An Young Bok's sailing to Japan and bargaining with the Japanese is a conspicuous fact which appears n many of official and private records of Korea, and it is an indisputably evident fact that the then Japanese Government, greatly shocked by going out fishing to this area.

The Japanese side cited the literatures which state that even after the prohibition, travel to Dokto "offered no problem", but as has repeatedly been pointed out in the above, such a travel to Dokto was nothing but an act of invasion by the Japanese.

Therefore, it is a gross logical error on the part of the Japanese side to assert as if the Japanese had administered Dokto, only because they once utilized this small and rocky islet which is not fit for permanent human habitation, as a port of call and anchorage in the course of their invasive activities. Furthermore, it is not altogether clear which one of Japan's so-called "Takeshima"and "Matsushima" of those days points to the present Ulneungdo or Dokto. In other words, the names of "Takeshima"and "Matsushima" were both so confusedly used to designate Ulneungdo and Dokto respectively that one cannot discern in Japanese literatures which one of them points to Ulneungdo of Dokto. Such a confusion in the names of these two islands serves to prove, above all things, that geographical knowledge of the Japanese on the two islands at that time was not accurate, and this lack of geographical knowledge on these islands indicates that they were out of the jurisdiction of Japan. In short, there can be can be no room for any doubt that Woosankuk  belonged to Silla at the time of King Chizeung's reign(철자확인요망), that by the early days of the Li Dynasty, this Woosankuk was Clearly recognized to include Ulneung and Woosan, which fact was recorded in government-compiled geographical books as well as other official and private documents of these days and that, therefore, Woosando (Dokto of the present day), which is a dependent island of Ulneungdo, was definitely regarded as an integral part of the Korean territory.

VI. (1) The Japanese Government, lacking sufficient evidences to refute the historical fact that Dokto has been an integral part of the Korean territory, adheres to its old position asserting as if it had satisfied the requirements for acquisition of territory under international law simply through a unilateral measure of the so-called announcement of the Shimane Prefectural Government. However, this Japanese stand can by no means affect Korea's lawful claim to territorial rights over Dokto and does net deserve consideration.

The Japanese side asserts that Japan formally incorporated Dokto into the territory of Shimane Prefecture through the so-called decision of its Cabinet meeting of January 28, 1905 and  the announcement of the Shimane Prefectural Government of February 20 of the same year. However, such unilateral domestic measures of Japan in no way serves to aid the Japanese contention that Dokto was a part of the Japanese territory since modern times. Rather, such domestic measure presents a potential counter-proof that at least until as late as 1905, Japan did not regard Dokto as a part of its territory. For, if Japan had substantially established, its territorial

rights over Dokto, there should have been no need at all for the Japanese  Government to take any belated measure at that time to incorporate Dokto into its territory. Such an act on the part of Japan was nothing but a preliminary step to invade and ultimately swallow up Korea under her rule, and the unilateral domestic measure taken by the then Japanese Government with regard to Dokto was merely an attempt of Japan to make her act of aggression toward Dokto appear as if a lawful act of incorporating an ownerless island under the guise of preoccupation theory. Should the Japanese logic be followed, the conclusion would lead that until the time Dokto was "formally" incorporated into the Japanese territory, it had been an "informal" part of the Japanese territory, belonging to no prefecture of Japan. Such a conclusion cannot but be regarded as a really fantastic sophistication. It should be recalled that Dokto, having maintained an inseparable relationship, and shared a common destiny, with Ulneungdo, which has historically and geographically been an integral part of the Korean territory, was never an ownerless island. Accordingly, the so-called "announcement of the Shimane Prefectural Government", a strictly domestic measure of Japan, cannot yield any legal effect, as far as international law is concerned.

(2) While the Korean side pointed out that "the notification by the Shimane Prefectural Government" was so stealthily made in respect to the so-called "incorporation of 'Takeshima' into Shimane Prefecture,"the Japanese Government tries to assert as in the incorporation were not a stealthy but a public measure, saying that it was "formally announced by the Governor of the Shimane  Prefecture in compliance with the decision of the Japanese Cabinet."  But how can one call it a public announcement when the so-called "incorporation of 'Takeshima'" was not made known even to the general public of Japan, hot to mention of foreigners? Aside from foreign examples, the fact that the modern atlas approved by the Japanese Ministry of Education for use by Japanese public schools does not treat Dokto as a part of the Japanese territory at all and that the sixth edition of the Standard World Atlas issued on June 10, 1952 by the Japanese Educational Publications Company, gives as mane for Dokto, a Japanese phonetic spelling of "Chookto", which is a Korean pronunciation for "Takeshima" in Chinese character, provides an excellent circumstantial proof to reverse the Japanese assertion that the so-called "announcement of the Shimane Prefectural Government" was not made stealthily.

(3) Irrespective of whether this so-called "expression of the intentions of the Japanese Government" by the announcement of the Shimane Prefectural Government was made in pursuance of the accepted practice of Japan for acquisition of territory at that time or it was measure specifically taken in the case of incorporation of "Takeshima," such a domestic legal process of incorporation by Japan bears no effect on the Korean side.  Besides, there is no such case in international practice. In no international precedents has there been a case where a part of the territory of one country was stealthily incorporated by the other through a unilateral announcement of the other's local government.

Although the Japanese side quoted several international precedents in an effort to justify its contention, it must be noted that, in case of Clipperton Island, the Hawaiian Government id receive a notification , and that the establishment of French sovereignty over the said island was publicized in English on the Polynesia, "a newspaper published in Hawaii.  It was indeed far from being similar to Japan's stealthy practice of "acquisition of territory."   In the case of the Island of Palmas of 1928, the Permanent Court of Arbitration admitted that the notification to foreign countries as well as other official measures taken by the Dutch Government, served as one of the conditions justifying the Dutch action in respect to the said island, and it never implied that "notification was absolutely unnecessary" in that case.  It only concluded that, since no stealthy exercise of sovereignty was possible over such an inhabited territory as the Island of Palmas, the obligation of notification as in cases of original acquisition of territory in Africa was not deemed necessary in the case of the Island of Palmas.  As for the judgement of the U.S. Supreme Court of 1890 of the case of occupancy of Guano Islands (Jones vs. the U.S.), which the Japanese side has cited as a precedent, it should be pointed out that the decision to incorporate the islands into the territory of the United States of America was made only after positive proof was established that the islands in question were evidently ownerless.  Under these circumstances, the action of incorporation was not notified to other countries.  Moreover, this case was a strictly domestic affair of the United States of America and there has since been no dispute raised over the said islands by any foreign state.

As clearly seen in the above, none of the cases quoted above ever serves even as a circumstantial proof to justify japan's fantastic claim to the ownership of Dokto.  The Japanese attitude to quote only a few fractional parts of certain cases from international precedents, which seemingly are favorably to their contention, and to apply them conveniently to the Case of Dokto, which is entirely different from them, in circumstances and in nature, serves no purpose but to reveal japan's lack of understanding on international law.  The Korean side wishes to invite the attention

of the Japanese side to the fact that the "Association of International Law" unequivocally declared in 1888 that notification to other countries, not stealthy announcement, was a requisite for acquisition of ownerless territory.

V.   With reference to Article 2 of the japanese Peace Treaty, the Korean Government, in its interpretation, is of the view that Japan recognized the independence of Korea and solemnly pledged to the Allied Powers to return the entire inherent Korean territory to the Republic of korea, and that Korea is entitled to claim as its right the benefits stipulated in that Article.  This right of Korea to demand restoration of territory is of course limited to what was the inherent Korean territory and not the inherent Japanese territory.  But when the Japanese side attempts to make a distorted interpretation of the Peace Treaty by asserting as if Dokto were an inherent part of the japanese territory, it seems that they base their assertion on the fact that the so-called "incorporation of Dokto into the japanese territory through the announcement of the Shimane Prefectural Government in 1905" was executed prior to the annexation of Korea to Japan in 1910.  However, such an act of incorporation by Japan, having failed to meet the requisite for preoccupation under international law, is not only null and void bearing no legal effect, but also absolutely inadmissible in as much as it was a part of the series of aggressive acts by the imperialistic Japan since the Sino-Japanese War.

As the Korean side has repeatedly started, Dokto was allegedly incorporated into Japan not through dud legal process for acquisition of territory but through an act of plunder and aggression in the form of the unilateral announcement of a local government of Japan prior to the annexation of Korea to Japan-to be exact, in the year of 1905. How can such an act be justified as legal?  Japan, emerging victorious from the war with China in 1894, started another war with Russia in 1904, and dared to pursue a series of imperialistic expansionist policies and, on August 22, 1904, one year before its so-called "incorporation of Dokto", forced upon Korea the so-called "Korea-Japan Agreement, "which virtually made Japan to take complete control over Korea. In consequence, although Korea at that time still nominally maintained independence, she was actually under the control of Japan.  Furthermore, as a preliminary step toward the complete swallow-up of Korea, the Japanese Government by virtue of the provisions of Article 2 of the so-called "Korea-Japan Agreement," and, with a view to blocking Korea's voice from being heard in the international society, empowered him to take the reins on foreign policies of the then Korean Government. As for the so-called "incorporation of Dokto" executed by

Japan at the time when the foreign advisor, a puppet of Japan, was controlling the diplomacy of Korea, how can Japan reasonably assert that Korea did ever recognize the incorporation, only because of the fact that it was "not disputed by any foreign country" at that time?  The answer is definitely in the negative. The circumstances under which the so-called "incorporation of Dokto" was executed by Japan preclude any expectant possibility that the then Korean Government could have raised any dispute on the said unlawful act of incorporation by Japan, in as much as Korea was under complete control of Japan and as the situation was forced upon Korea by no other party than Japan herself. Therefore, even though the so-called "incorporation of Dokto" was executed prior to the annexation of Korea by Japan, the Japanese act done under such a political climate can never be recognized as lawful measure.

VI.   Lastly, a reference is to be made as to the Allied Powers, post-war policy and its basic spirit on the disposition of the Japanese territory, which serves as a key to the settlement of the Dokto issue.  The post-war disposition of the Japanese territory by the Allied Powers was based on a series of international documents ranging from the Cairo Declaration to the Japanese Peace Treaty.  The Cairo Declaration of November 27, 1943 states that the Three Great Allies of the United States, Great Britain and China, "Mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, are determined that Korea shall become free and independent in due course"; that "it is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the First World War:'that "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese shall be restored to the Republic of China"; and that "Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed."  With the acceptance by Japan of the Potsdam Proclamation, the Cairo Declaration became, by virtue of Article 8 of the former, an international document that legally binds Japan.  It is clear that the fundamental policy of the Allied Powers in regard to the disposition of the Japanese territory was to reduce it to what it was prior to the Sino-Japanese War, and it is quite evident that the so-called acquisition of Dokto by Japan through incorporation in the form of an announcement of the local autonomous organ of the Shimane Prefectural Government in 1905 when Japan already had its puppets as advisors not only on foreign affairs but also on financial and police affairs of the then Korean Government, was no less than an act of violence and greed.  Therefore, it is taken for granted that Japan must be expelled from such a territory.

Furthermore, Dokto was clearly distinguished by SCAPIN No.677 as a non-adjacent island of Japan and, in accordance with the fundamental post-war polity of the Allied Powers toward Japan on June 19, 1947, the Japanese territory was restricted to Japan proper and its adjacent islands, and thus the separation of Dokto from Japan was clearly established once and for all.  Accordingly, since no positive provision to incorporate Dokto into Japan is found in the Peace Treaty, there could be no change what so ever on the status of Dokto, the separation of which from the Japanese territory was confirmed.  As has been pointed out, the disposition of Dokto should consistently be understood on the basis of a series of international documents ranging from the Potsdam Proclamation to the established fundamental post-war policy of the Allied Powers toward Japan.  Therefore, it is utterly unreasonable that the Japanese side, without such prudence, is trying to distort the whole picture by referring only to Paragraph 6 of SCAPIN No.677.  It is to be recalled in this connection that, prior to the singing of the Peace Treaty with Japan, the Republic of Korea resumed its control and administration over Dokto since it had attained independence on August 15, 1948, and that Korea as such was accorded formal recognition by the signatories of the Japanese Peace Treaty.  This fact makes it even clearer that Dokto is an integral part of the Korean territory.

Dokto was never regarded as one of the adjacent islands administered by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, nor was it a part of areas reserved for the United States of America to exercise its legislative and judicial authority after the independence of Korea.  It is further noted that Japan's so-called "residual sovereignty" has never been established over Dokto.

VII.    As authoritative literatures and historical facts unequivocally vindicate, Dokto is, in the light of indisputable legal theory, an integral part of the Korean territory both historically and geographically and the Korean Government cannot but wonder what the real intention of Japan is in illegally laying claim to the territorial rights over Dokto. The Korean Government wishes to point out that this Japanese claim has no justifiable ground and, accordingly, can in no way affect the present status of Dokto, which Korea recognized and regarded as an integral part of its territory since early days as an inseparable dependency of Ulneungdo, the jurisdiction over which Korea recovered upon the restoration of its sovereignty. Therefore, the Korean Government can never accept the Japanese Government's views on the subject matter as expressed in the papers attached to the Note Verbale of the Japanese Foreign Ministry dated September 20, 1956. The Korean Government hereby declares once again that Dokto is an integral part of its territory.

[해설]

이 자료는 한국정부가 □일본정부견해③□을 조목별로 비판하고 독도가 한국영토임을 논증하여 일본에 보낸 □한국정부견해③□의 내용이다.

한국정부는 비교적 장기간의 준비 끝에 1959년 1월 7일자로 구술서를 보냄과 동시에 □일본정부 견해③□(1956년 9월 20일자)을 반박하고 □한국정부 견해③□을 발송하였다. 이전의 것과 중복되는 부분을 제외하고 그 요지를 들면 다음과 같다.

① 일본측은《세종실록》지리지나《신증동국여지승람》에 우산도와 울릉도를 별개의 두 섬으로 설명한 二島說도 있으나 동시에 一島二名說도 수록되어 있으므로 우산도가 오늘의 독도라는 증거가 되지 않는다고 주장하나, 一島二名說은 □一說云云□ 하면서 註記한 것임을 주목해야 한다. □一說云云□의 註記는 본문의 二島說의 기록 사실을 부인하는 것이 되지 못하며, 지리적 지식이 발달되지 않았던 시대에는 一島에 二名이 혼용되다가 정확한 지식의 획득과 더불어 二島二名으로 분리 지칭되게 된 경위를 이미 설명한 바 있다.

② 울릉도와 별개의 섬으로서 우산도가 반드시 오늘날의 독도를 지칭한 것인가의 문제에 대해서는《증보문헌비고》 가운데 □ 輿地志에 이르기를 鬱陵과 于山은 모두 于山國地이니, 우산은 곧 왜가 말하는 바의 松島이다□라고 한 기록에서 명료히 알 수 있다. 일본정부가 주장하는 바와 같이 당시 일본에서는 독도를 松島라고 호칭하고 있었다.

③ 우산도가 오늘날의 독도를 지칭한 것임은 일본측 기록(《松島之記》)에도 있다. 즉 1876∼1878년 일본 어민들이 소위 松島開拓願을 제출함에 당시 일본정부가 당황하여 조야의 학자에게 청탁해 松島 문제에 대한 의견을 물었을 때, 외무성 공신국장 田邊太一이 □松島[독도]는 我邦人의 명명이나 그 실은 조선 울릉도에 속한 于山이다. 지금 까닭 없이 사람을 보내 순시한다는 것은 타인의 보배를 욕심내는 것이다. 하물며 隣境을 침범함에 있어서랴□라 하였다.

또한 일본측이 자기 주장을 유력하게 하기 위하여《隱州視聽合記》를 인용했는데, 그 인용이 크게 오독되어 있는바 그 부분은 竹島[울릉도]와 松島[독도]가 한국영토임을 증거하는 것이다. 즉 松島와 竹島의 두 섬에서 高麗本土를 望見하는 거리 관계가 마치 雲州에서 隱州를 望見한 것 같으니, 그런즉 일본의 서북부는 此州에서 한계를 삼는다는 것이다. 이것을 일본측이 오독하여 前二島(松島와 竹島)로써 □일본의 서북부의 한계□라고 번역함은 큰 잘못이다.

④ 일본측은 17세기경 일본인이 幕府로부터 울릉도 渡航免許를 받고 울릉도에 가는 도중에 독도가 그들의 漁採地로 이용되고, 17세기 후반에 이르러서는 또한 독도에 대한 渡海免許를 幕府에서 받게 된 것이라고 말하고 있으나, 이같은 인증은 일본정부가 독도 영유권을 주장하는 데 하등 도움이 되지 못한다. 일본인들은 삼국시대부터 17세기 초까지 한국의 내륙과 해안에 침범하여 노략질을 했는데, 그 노략지구에 대한 □地理的 熟知□가 영유권의 근거가 된다면, 이로써 한국 연안 각지의 영유를 주장할 수 있겠는가 질문하고 싶다.

⑤ 일본정부는《숙종실록》의 안용복 기록을 부인하고 있는데, 안용복의 渡日談判事件은 일본측 기록인《三國通航一覽》에도 나타나는 저명한 사실이며, 이것이 당시 일본국 정부에 큰 충격을 주어 마침내 이로 말미암아 일본측이 일본인의 이 방면으로의 출어를 금하였던 것은 속일 수 없는 소연한 사실이다.

⑥ 일본정부는 소위 島根縣 告示라는 일방적 조치를 들어 국제법상의 영토 취득의 요건이 충족된 것처럼 주장하는데, 이것은 일고의 가치도 없는 것이다. 도리어 1905년 2월 島根縣 告示라는 것은 1905년 당시까지 일본국이 독도를 자기 영토의 일부로 생각하고 있지 않았다는 유력한 반증이다. 왜냐하면 일본측이 진실로 독도의 영유권을 확립하였을진대, 새삼스러이 이를 일본국의 영토로 편입할 필요가 없을 것이기 때문이다.

⑦ 또한 일본측은 한국측이 島根縣 告示가 □극히 비밀리에 행해졌다□고 한 데 대하여 이를 부인하면서 □閣議決定에 의하여 島根縣知事로부터 發布□된 것이므로 비밀리 편입이 아니고 공개적 편입인 것처럼 말하고 있다. 그러나 외국에는 물론 일본의 일반 국민에게도 알려지지 않은 소위 □竹島 편입□이 어떻게 비밀리가 아니라고 말할 수 있겠는가.

⑧ 일본측의 이와 같은 소위 島根縣 告示에 의한 □일본의 국가 의사의 표명□이란 것은 당시 일본의 영토 취득시에 관행한 고시 방법이든, 또는 □竹島 편입□에 즈음하여 특별히 취한 조치이든간에 그러한 편입의 국내법 형식은 우리에게 하등의 관계도 없고 또한 국제적 관행에도 없는 일이다. 어떠한 국제적 선례에서도 타국의 영토를 一個 地方廳의 고시로써 비밀리에 편입했다는 실례를 우리는 들은 바 없다. 우리는 도리어 1888년의 國際法協會의 선언이 先占에 관한 요건으로서 은밀한 고시가 아니라 외국에 대한 통고를 요구하고 있는 데에 일본측의 주의를 환기시키고자 한다.

⑨ 연합국의 일본영토 처리방침과 기본정신은 카이로선언과 포츠담선언에서 확정되었는데, 그것은 일본이 □폭력과 탐욕에 의하여 약취한 기타 모든 지역으로부터 구축□되어 일본영토를 청□일전쟁(1894) 이전의 상태로 환원시키려고 한 것이 분명하다. 일본이 1905년 한국정부에 외교고문을 파견하고, 재정고문과 경찰고문까지 파견해놓고 島根縣告示라는 一地方團體의 고시로써 편입하였다는 독도의 취득은 바로 □폭력과 탐욕에 의하여 약취□한 것임이 명백하며, 일본은 마땅히 이 지역으로부터 구축되어야 하는 것이다.

또다시 독도는 SCAPIN 제677호에 의하여 非隣接島嶼로서 隣接諸小島와는 명백히 구별되었고, 1947년 6월 19일 □일본에 대한 항복 후의 기본정책□에 의하여 일본의 영토는 인접도서에만 국한되었으므로 일본으로부터의 독도 분리는 확정되었다. 따라서 대일강화조약에 독도를 일본에 편입한다는 적극적 규정이 없는 한 일본으로부터 분리가 확정된 지위에는 아무런 변동도 있을 수 없다.

특히 유의해야 할 점은 한국은 대일강화조약에 앞서 1948년 8월 독립을 달성한 이래 독도 관리 통치를 회복했으며, 그러한 상태에서 대일강화조약의 該當事國으로부터 정식 승인을 받고 있었다는 사실이다. 이 사실은 독도가 한국영토임을 더욱 명백히 해준다.

위의 □한국정부 견해 ③□은 역사적 사실 반박의 한국측 사료설명이 미흡한 반면에 일본측 사료《隱州視聽合記》의 오독을 바로잡았고, 무엇보다도 국제법상의 한국측 논리를 명료하게 제시했다는 점에서 큰 진전이었다고 볼 수 있다.

Ⅷ. 日本巡視船 領海 侵犯 등에 대한 往復文書

(473) □1959. 9. 18 한국측 口述書(PKM-20)□

(日本巡視船 領海侵犯에 抗議)

1959. 9. 18 한국측 口述書(PKM-20)(日本巡視船 領海 侵犯에 抗議)

The Korean Mission presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, with reference to the trespassing of the Korean territorial waters surrounding Dokto by the "HEKURA", a patrol boat of the Japanese Government, has the honour to state as follows:

1. On the morning of September 15, 1959, the "HEKURA" (About 600 tons), a PM-14 type vessel of the Japanese Government infringed upon the Korean territorial waters surrounding Dokto. The Korean authorities concerned found that the said Japanese vessel turned up from the point of 37°24′50″N.L. and 131°52′22″ E.L. at 6:20 a.m., September 15, 1959. After cruising around the island with a distance of about five hundred (500) metres from the shore, the said Japanese vessel withdrew itself toward Japan from the point of 37°25′10″N.L. and 131°52′25″E.L. at 7:30 a.m. of the same day.

2. As the Government of the Republic of Korea has clarified on many occasion, Dokto was and is a part of the Korean territory from time immemorial. Thus, the Government of the Republic of Korea has refuted all kinds of Japanese allegations claiming territorial rights over Dokto as not only groundless but also unjust.

3. The Government of the Republic of Korea cannot but entertain a serious concern over the trespassing of Korean territorial waters around committed by Government vessels of Japan in defiance of the repeated protests of the Korean Government. The Korean Mission renews its most energetic protest against the Japanese Government and requests that the same Government takes promptly effective and appropriate measures in order to repress the recurrence of similar cases in future.

Tokyo, September 18, 1959.

(474) □1959. 9. 23 일본측 口述書(No. 156/ASN)□

(한국측 59. 9. 18 口述書에 반박)

1959. 9. 23 일본측 口述書 (No. 156/ASN)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Korean Mission and, with reference to the latter's note verbale PKM-20 dated September 18, 1959 concerning the recent inspection of the conditions of Takeshima by a Japanese Government patrol boat, has the honour to make the following representations:

1. The Japanese Government has already fully elucidated to the Korean Government on numerous occasions in the past that Takeshima is indisputably a part of the Japanese territory in the light of the historical facts, legal evidence and the provisions of the Peace Treaty with Japan, and has protested strongly against the illegal occupation of the Island by the Korean authorities.

2. It is within the unquestioned right of the Japanese Government recognized under international law to inspect at any time the island which is an integral part of the Japanese territory and take any other steps which may be deemed necessary. There exists no justifiable ground whatsoever on which the Korean Government can lodge a protest with the Japanese Government against any such action. Therefore, the Japanese Government can never admit the Mission's protest made in its not verbale under reference.

3. Meanwhile, "HEKURA", a patrol boat of the Japanese Maritime Agency, which was dispatched to the island for inspection on September 15, 1959, ascertained that the island was still occupied by Korean Government officials and the lighthouse, houses, and other facilities constructed by the Korean Government had not yet been removed.

4. Under the above-mentioned circumstances, the Japanese Government hereby its most vigorous protest to the Korean Government against its continued unlawful occupation of the island effected in defiance of the repeated protests of the Japanese Government, and strongly demands that the Korean Government immediately remove from the island all Korean officials and all structures, and promptly take effective and appropriate measures for suspending the illegal fishing operations by Korean fishermen in the Japanese territorial waters around the island.

Tokyo, September 23, 1959.

(475) □1959. 12. 3 한국측 口述書(日本巡視船 領海侵犯에 抗議)

1959. 9. 23. 일본측 口述書에 대한 反駁 (본문 생략)

(476) □1960. 12. 22 일본측 口述書(No. 371/ASN)□

(燈臺, 建造物 尙存에 항의)

1960. 12. 22 일본측 口述書(No. 144/ASN)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Korean Mission and, regarding the unlawful occupation by the Korean Government of Takeshima, part of Japanese territory, has the honour to make the following representations:

1. The Japanese Government has pointed out on several occasion in the past that, in the light of historical facts as well as international law, Takeshima is undoubtedly a part of Japanese territory, and at the same time reiterated a most energetic protest against the occupation of Takeshima by the Korean Government authorities.

2. Meanwhile, a patrol boat of the Maritime Safety Agency, the "Hekura", which visited the island to conduct a field investigation on December 8, 1960, found that the lighthouse, buildings and other structures built by the Korean Government remained there without being removed, and that Korean officials were observed staying there.

3. Such being the case, the Japanese Government renews its vigorous protest against the Korean Government which, in defiance of the former's repeated protests, still continuous to occupy Takeshima, part of Japanese territory, and strongly demands that the Korean Government take prompt steps to have its officials withdrawn and its installations removed from the same island.

Tokyo, December 22, 1960.

(477) □1961. 1. 5. 한국측 口述書(PKM-1)□(日本側 口述書에 반박)

1961. 1. 5. 한국측 口述書(PKM-1)

The Korean Mission in Japan presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, with reference to the latter's Note Verbale No.371/ASN of December 22, 1960 regarding Dokto, referred to as "Takeshima" in the Minister's Note, has the honour to state as follows:

1. As the Government of the Republic of Korea has made it clear to the Government of Japan on numerous occasions in the past, it is an indisputable fact that Dokto is an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Korea is the light of historical and geographical facts as well as international law.

2. The Government of the Republic of Korea, therefore, finds itself in no position to receive protests by foreign Governments against its national's staying on the Island, an integral part of the Korean territory, and against the construction and maintenance of necessary structures and facilities on the same Island.

3. Stating once again that Dokto is an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Korea, the Government of the Republic of Korea strongly requests the Government of Japan immediately take appropriate and effective measures to keep Japanese patrol vessels as well as fishing boats from intruding into the territorial waters around Dokdo if such measures have not been taken.

Tokyo, January 5, 1961

(478) □1961.12.25 日側口述書(No. 375/ASN)□

1961.12.25 日側口述書(No. 375/ASN)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Korean Mission and, regarding the unlawful occupation by the Korean Government authorities of Takeshima, part of Japanese territory, has the honour to make the following representations:

1. The Japanese Government, on many occasions in the past, pointed out that, in the light of historical facts and international law, Takeshima is undoubtedly a part of Jananese territory and at the same time reiterated a most energetic protest against the unlawful occupation of Takeshima by the Korean Government authorities.

2. In spite of these, when "Hekura", patrol vessel of the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency, visited Takeshima for inspection on December 3, 1961, it discovered that the light house, buildings, flag-post, wireless facilities and other objects constructed by the Korean Government on the island still remained there without being removed, and that Korean Government officials were stationed.

3. Such being the case, the Japanese Government presents a most energetic protest to the Korean Government against the fact that, in spite of the repeated protests by the Japanese Government, the Korean Government still continues the unlawful occupation of Takeshima, part of Japanese territory, and it demands strongly that the Korean Government withdraw immediately the Korean officials from the island and remove all the structures constructed there.

Tokyo, December 25, 1961

(479) □1961.12.27 한국측 口述書(No. PKM-80)□(日本側 口述書에 반박)

1961. 12.27  한국측 口述書(No. PKM-80)

The Korean Mission in Japan presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, with reference to the latter's Note Verbale No. 375/ASN of December 25, 1961, regarding the ownership of Dokdo, has the honour to state as follows:

1. It is an unequivocally vindicated fact that Dokdo is an integral part of the Republic of Korea in the light of historical facts and international law, and this undisputable fact has been repeatedly made clear to the Japanese Government through the Mission's Notes transmitted to the Ministry in the past.

2. In view of the inherent right of a Government over its territory, the Korean Government can not but consider the demand of the Japanese Government to withdraw the Korean officials from Dokdo, an integral part of the Korean territory, and to remove structures constructed thereon, as an intervention in the domestic affairs, and the Korean Government is obliged to lodge the most energetic protest with the Japanese Government against such an intervention in domestic affairs.

3. In connection with the present case, it is stated that, on December 3, 1961, around 8:20 a.m., the Japanese patrol vessel "P. N. 14 Hekura" approached Dokdo as close as 500 meters from direction of Okinoshima located to the east of Dokdo and after sailing around the Island once, disappeared around 9:30 a.m. to the direction from which it came. Since this is an apparent intrusion of the Korean territorial waters, the Korean Government is obliged to lodge the most energetic protest with the Japanese Government against the intrusion of the Korean territorial waters by the Japanese government vessel and strongly demands that the Japanese Government take immediate and appropriate measures to prevent the recurrence of a similar case in the future.

December, 27, 1961

Tyoko

(480) □1962. 2. 10. 일본측 口述書(No.34/ASN)□

(韓國아마추어通信員 獨島上 活動에 항의)

1962. 2. 10. 일본측 口述書(No.34/ASN)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Korean Mission and, with reference to the illegal landing of Korean nationals on the Japanese territory Takeshima and their engagement in illegal communication activities thereon, has the honour to make the following representations:

1. According to the reports which appeared in "Hanguk Ilbo", Korean newspaper, on February 3 and February 4, five members of the Korean Amateur Wireless League and two reporters of the said newspaper, having been given sea passage aboard a Korean naval vessel, landed Takeshima on February 2 for a scheduled stay of one week and were engaged in transmitting to foreign countries message to the effect that Takeshima is Korean territory.

2. The Japanese Government, on many occasions in the past, pointed out to the Korean Government that, in the light of historical facts and international law, Takeshima is undoubtedly a part of Japanese territory and at the same reiterated a most energetic protest against the unlawful occupation of Takeshima by the Korean Government authorities.

3. If the contents of the newspaper reports referred to above are true, the Japanese Government is obliged to make the most energetic protest to the Korean Government for the illegal landing on Takeshima of the Korean nationals and their engagement in illegal wireless communication activities thereon and for the provision of sea passage and other facilities by the Korean authorities to assist the illegal acts of the Korean nationals. The Japanese Government demands strongly that the Korean Government take all the effective and appropriate measures to prevent the recurrence of similar illegal acts.

Tokyo, February 10, 1962

[해설]

이 시기는 □한국정부견해③□을 보낸 직후의 한·일 양국정부 사이에 교환된 독도영유권논쟁의 왕복문서이다.

한국정부가 일본정부에 □한국정부 견해 ⑶□을 보낸 이후에도 일본 해상보안청 순시선의 독도 수역 침범은 주기적으로 계속되었다.

일본측은 1959년 9월 15일 순시선 헤쿠라호(약 600톤)를 독도에 침입시켰다가 한국측의 항의를 받았다. 일본정부가 竹島는 일본영토이므로 한국정부는 항의할 위치에 있지 않다고 응수했으므로 한국측이 이를 반박하여 외교문서 논쟁이 전개되었다.

일본측은 1960년 12월 8일에도 해상보안청 관찰선을 독도에 파견하여 관찰한 후 독도에 주둔하고 있는 한국인들의 철수와 시설물의 철거를 요구해왔으며, 한국측은 이를 반박하였다.

일본정부는 1961년 12월 3일에도 순시선 헤쿠라호를 독도에 파견하여 관찰하고 12월 25일자 구술서를 한국정부에 보내어 독도로부터의 한국인들의 철수와 시설물의 철거를 요구하였다. 이에 대해 한국정부는 1961년 12월 27일자 구술서에서 일본정부의 그러한 요구는 □내정간섭□임을 지적하여 강력히 반박하고 헤쿠라호는 독도 동쪽 한국영해 500미터 지점까지 침입했다가 물러갔는데 다시는 이러한 침입이 재발하지 않도록 적절한 대책을 세우기를 일본정부에 강력히 촉구하고 항의하였다.

일본정부는《한국일보》의 1962년 2월 3, 4일자 보도에서, 한국 아마추어무선연맹 회원 5명과 한국일보 기자 2명이 한국 해군이 제공한 선박을 타고 2월 2일 독도에 상륙하여 7일간 독도에 체류하면서, 독도가 한국영토라는 메시지를 외국과 교신하기로 한 것에 대해 1962년 2월 10일자의 구술서로 강력하게 항의하였다.

Ⅸ. □日本政府見解④□와 往復文書

(481) 1962. 7. 13 □日本政府見解④□ 수록 日本側 口述書(No. 228/ASN)         (□日本政府見解④□ 표명)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Korean Mission and, concerning the problem of the territoriality of Takeshima, has the honour to make the following representations:

1. The Japanese Government, being firmly convinced that Takeshima constitutes an integral part of Japanese territory, has repeatedly protested most vigorously to the Korean Government against the unlawful occupation of the island by the Korean Government authorities and has explained in detail to the Korean Government, the fact that, in the light of historical facts and international law, the island is undoubtedly a part of Japanese territory. The Japanese Government considers it highly regrettable that, in spite of the repeated protests by the Japanese Government, the Korean Government authorities still continue the unlawful occupation of Takishima. The Japanese Government, therefore, is obliged to make a most vigorous protest to the Korean Government against the unlawful occupation and demands strongly that the Korean Government withdraw the Korean officials immediately from the island and remove all the structures constructed there.

2. Despite the well-founded views expressed by the Japanese side concerning the territoriality of Takeshima, the Korean Government attempted, in its Views attached to the Korean Mission's Note Verbale of January 7, 1959, to refute the Japanese Government's Views of September 20, 1956. After a careful study of the Korean Views, the Japanese Government has reached a conclusion that the Korean Views fail to make any effective refutation at all against the indisputable fact that Takeshima is a part of Japanese territory, and that they do net present any ground that can support the Korean contention for the possession of the island. Therefore, in order to enunciate  agin that the views entertained by the Korean Government concerning Takeshima are entirely erroneous and that the island is an integral part of Japanese territory, the Japanese Government presents, enclosed herewith "The Japanese Government's Views on the Korean Government's Views of January 7, 1959, concerning Takeshima."

Tokyo, July, 13, 1962

竹島□關□□ 1959年 1月 7日 付

韓國政府□見解□對□□日本政府□見解

(日本政府見解 4)

日本國政府□□竹島□古□□□日本固有□領土□□□□徒來□□明□□□□□來□□□□□立場□□□□再□强調□□□□□□□□

□□□□□國際法上□□□地域□古□□□一國□固有□領土□□□□否□□□□□□□□□國□問題□地域□□□□□□□□□□□實效的□支配經營□□□□□□最□決定的□要素□□□□□□□□□

日本□□古□□□竹島□□□□□正確□知見□有□□□□□□□領土□□□實效的□支配經營□□□□□□□□□□□□□□日本國政府□徒來□見解□□□□□□□□□多□具體的□據□□□□立□□□□□□□□□□□□□韓國政府□□□事實□十分□認識□□□□□□誤□□主張□固執□□□□□□□今一度日本□□□□古□□□實效的□竹島□支配經營□□□□□□事實□□□□□記述□□□□次□□□□□□□□

□□□後記(6)□詳述□□□□□明治時代□□□□□□□日本□□今□竹島□□松島□□□□鬱陵島□□竹島□□□□□□□□

日本□竹島經營□□□國□鬱陵島□經營□□□□□□□遡□□鬱陵島□1004年□□日本人□□□□□□島□□□□知□□□14世紀後半□□日本人□鬱陵島□渡航□□□□記錄□□□□ 李朝初期□朝鮮政府□空島政策□□□□□□經營□放棄□□□□日本人□同島□來往□□□□□多□□□□16世紀末□□約100年間□鬱陵島□日本人□魚採地□□□□□□□□□□米子□町人大谷甚吉□村川市兵衛□元和4年(1618年)□正式□幕府□□鬱陵島□□渡海免許□得□□□經營□徒事□□□□□

竹島□□□□□鬱陵島□□往復□途中□寄港□□□□□□□□□寬文7年(1667年)□出雲藩士齋藤某□編□□□隱州視德聽合紀□□隱岐□漁夫□□實見談□採錄□□□□□□□□□□□卷1□□

□隱岐島□□□西北方□行□□□二日一夜□□□松島(今□竹島)□□□□□一日程□竹島(今□鬱陵島)□□□□□□二島人□□地□□□□

□記□□□□□1656年□□□□□□以前□□大谷家□竹島□幕府□□拜領□漁獵□□□□□□□□獨占的□經營□□免許□得□□□□□□□□□□□□大谷甚吉□3代目大谷九右衛門勝信□延□9年(天和元年1681年)5月13日□請書□□□□記述□□□□

□嚴有院樣(德川家綱)□御代,竹島(今□鬱陵島)□□道筋□船□□□20町□□□□小島□□□□□□□草木□□□岩島□□□□25年以前□阿部四郞五郞樣□取□□□□幕府□□拜領□船□渡□□□□□小島□□□□□□油□少□□□□□□□隱岐□國島後□福浦□□小島□海上60里余□□□□□□

□□小島□□□□□□□□□今□□竹島□□□□□□□□□大谷家□幕府□□竹島□渡海□漁獵□□免許□得□幕府□公認□下□竹島□經營□□□□□□□□□元祿8年(1695年)12月26日□池田家□□老中阿部豊後守□提出□□返答書□□□□年□鬱陵島□歸途□□松島(今□竹島)□□□□□少少□□□□□□□記□□□□□元祿9年(1696年)1月23日付□松平伯耆守□賞□□□松島(今□竹島)□竹島(今□鬱陵島)□赴□途中□□□立寄□□獵□□□□出雲□隱岐□國□者□米子□□□□□□同□船□赴□□□福浦□□松島(今□竹島)□□80里□松島(今□竹島)□□竹島(今□鬱陵島)□□40里□□記□□□□□

元祿9年(1696年)1月□德川幕府□鬱陵島□經營□放棄□□□□□決□□□□今日□竹島□□渡航□禁止□□□依然□□□日本領土□考□□□□□

18世紀中頃□著述□□□北國通葬□□竹島圖說□□□□□隱岐□國松島(今□竹島)□西島□□海上道□□□□□40里□□□北方□一島□□□名□□□竹島(今□鬱陵島)□□□□□□□□□隱岐□國松島□□記□□□□□□□松島□西島□記□□□□点□□□松島(今□竹島)□東西兩島□□□□□□□□□□熟知□□□□□□□明□□□□□□

矢田高□□□長生竹島記□(1801年)□□□松島□□□□具體的□記□□□□□炎天□□□□□用水□不自由□□□□竹島(今□鬱陵島)渡海□□□□竹島丸□往復□□□□□□□□島□寄港□□□□□□□本朝西海□果□□□□□□□□□□

□□今□殘□□□□地圖□□□□□□□□伯耆□池田藩□享保9年(1724年)□幕府□命令□□□□調進□□松島·竹島□圖□□□松島(今□竹島)□□□□水道□□□□□東西□相對□□2島□□□□□□□□□數個□岩礁□□□□□□□東島□水道側□浜□□船寄場□□記□□□□小屋□畵□□□□□日本人□竹島經營□□□認識□正確□□示□□□□□長久保赤水□日本輿地路程全圖□(安永2年1775年)□近藤守重□□要分界圖考□(文化元年1804年)□□□□□江戶時代□中期以降□多□□日本地圖□□隱岐□朝鮮□間□2島□□□□□隱岐□近□方□□松島□□朝鮮□近□方□□竹島□□□□□□□□□□□□□位置□□□□今□竹島□鬱陵島□□□□

天保8年(1837年)□浜田□回船問屋□會津屋八右衛門□密貿易□□□發賞□□死刑□處□□□□事件□□□□□□□密貿易□竹島(今□鬱陵島)□□間□行□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 同事件□判決文中□橋本三兵衛□會津屋八右衛門□□□□□松島(今□竹島)□渡海□名目□竹島(今□鬱陵島)□□渡航□禁□□□□□□□□松島(今□竹島)□□渡航□□□□□問題□□□□□□□□示□□□□□

) 浜田藩家老岡賴母□家來

□□後記(7)□□□□明治初年(1877-7年)□□□□□□當時□日本外務省□首腦部□竹島□日本領土□□□□□□□□□明確□認識□持□□□□□

以上□□□□歷史的根據□背景□□□□明治38年(1905年)1月28日□閣議決定□□□同年2月22日□島根縣告示□□□□日本政府□竹島□島根縣□編入□□措置□□□□□□□□□□

(3)韓國政府□□朝鮮□古文獻□朝鮮半島東方海上□鬱陵島□于山國□□□二□□島□存在□□□□□記述□□□□□于山島□□□□□現在□竹島□□□□主張□□□□□□□日本□□□竹島□認知竝□□經營□先立□□朝鮮側□竹島□認知□□□□□强升□□□□試□□□□□□日本國政府□徒來□□指摘□□來□□□□□朝鮮□古文獻□客觀的□檢討□□□□□□□□朝鮮側□□□□□□竹島□認知□□□□□□證據□何□見出□□□□□□□□□

□□□□□日本國政府□□1956年9月20日府見解□□指摘□□□□□□朝鮮□古文獻中□鬱陵島□于山島□兩名□□□□□□□□別個□二島□指□□□□□□□□□兩名□□一島□指□□□□□□□兩說□□□□□□□□二島說□□□古文獻□□□□□一島二名□疑□□殘□□□□□□□□□□□全文鬱陵島□說明□終始□□□□□于山島□□□□□□二島說□□□□□□古文獻□編者□于山島□島名□□□□□際□□□□□于山島□今日□竹島□□□□□□立證□□□□□□□□□□

□□韓國政府□□增補文獻備考□□□輿地志□□□鬱陵□于山皆于山國□□于山則□倭所謂松島也□□□記事□引用□□于山島□竹島□□□□□□□□□實證□□□試□□□□□□□記述□日本側□□松島□□命名□□經營□□□□島(今□竹島)□□□□□□知□□□古文獻□□□□□□于山島□□□松島□□□□□□□□□□□□□高麗史地理志□世宗實錄地理志□新增東國輿地勝覽□記□□□于山島□現在□竹島□□□□立證□□資料□□何等□□□□□

□□□日本國政府□□1956年9月20日付見解□□□□□述□□□□□□李朝太宗17年2月□金麟雨□報告□□□□□□于山島□□□大竹□生苧□錦子等□産□□15戶86名□人民□住□島□□□記□□□明□□□鬱陵島□指□□□□□

□□□韓國側□鬱陵島□于山島□別個□島□□□□□□自己□主張□根據□□□引用□□□新增東國輿地勝覽□□□□□最初□揭載□□□□八道總圖□□□□卷44□□江原道□□地圖□于山島□鬱陵島□朝鮮本土□中間□大□□畵□□□□□□□□□記□□□□于山島□□□□□□實在□□□島□□□□

□□□□□□日本□□□竹島□認知□經營□先立□□朝鮮側□同島□認知□□□□□□□證據□朝鮮□古文獻中□何□存在□□□□□□□□□□□□竹島□對□□實效的經營□行□□□形跡□何□□□□□□□□□□□

(4)日本國政府□歷史的□諸資料□列擧□□□竹島經營□事實□證明□□□□對□□□韓國政府□□1959年1月7日付見解□□□□□□□日本人□侵寇虜掠□□□□渡海□□□□□規定□□ □地理□熟知□□□□□□□□□□□侵寇□□□□□□□□□領有權□主張□得□□□□□□□□□□□□□韓國政府□主張□前提□□□□□日本□竹島□對□□實效的經營以前□□朝鮮□同島□實效的□經營□□□□□□□立證□□□□□□□□□□□□前述□□□□□□□□證明□□□□□何□□□□□□□□□□□□□□主張□□□□□根據□□□□□□□□□

(5)□□□韓國政府□□1959年1月7日付見解□□□□□□安龍福□供述□□□□竹島□韓國領□□□根據□□□□□試□□□□□□同事件□關□□□肅宗實錄□□□□□增補文獻備考□□記述□□國禁□犯□□海外□出□犯人□歸國後取調□□受□□際□供述□□□□日本側□存□□安龍福渡來□關□□莫大□□□詳細□記錄□照□□□□內容□客觀的□檢討□□□□□□□供述□虛僞□滿□□□□□□□□□□□日本國政府□□1956年9月20日付見解□□□□□指摘□□□□□□□□ □

韓國側□記錄□□□安龍福□供述□□□□□安龍福□隱畸□□伯耆□向□□□□□□□鬱陵子山兩島監稅將□□稱□□□□□□(□增補文獻備考□□□□鬱陵監稅官□□稱□□□記□□□□□)□朝鮮□□□□□□□官名□□□□□□□□□□彼□朝鮮政府□□何□委任□□□□□□□□□□□□□□

□□□肅宗實錄□□□□□安龍福□最初□來日□□際(元祿6年□1693年)□□鬱陵·子山等□島□□□□朝鮮地界□定□□□書契□江戶幕府□□得□□對馬□藩主□□□書契□奪□取□□□□□2度目□來日□□際(元祿9年□1696年)□□□□□□□□他□不法行爲□江戶幕府□소□□□□□□□□□日本側□當惑□□□先□朝鮮□國境□犯□□日本人15人(鬱陵島□安龍福□逮捕□□大谷家手代等)□處罰□□□述□□□□□□事實□全□□□供述□異□□

鬱陵島漁撈□大谷□村川兩家□幕府□□□□□□□□永年□□□□□□□□□□□朝鮮人□出漁□□來□□□□□元祿6年□朝鮮人出漁□生□證人□□□安龍福□□捕□□日本□□□□來□□幕府□安龍福□朝鮮□送還□□□□□□□對馬藩主□宗義倫□□□朝鮮人□鬱陵島□□出漁禁止□朝鮮側□交涉□□□□□□□□□□□□□□幕府□鬱陵島□朝鮮領□□□書契□□□□無□□□□□□□得□□□□□□□□□逮捕□□□□□處罰□□□□□□□□□ □□□□□安龍福□備邊司□取調□□對□□供述□□□□□自己□行動□壯大□潤色作爲□□□□□元祿6年□安龍福□日本□□□□□□□□朝鮮□送還□□□□□□間□□鬱陵島問題□日本□朝鮮□□間□大□□外交問題□□□□□□□□□時期□來日□□安龍福□鬱陵島□□□□□□動□□知□□□□□□□自己□有利□創作□□□備邊司□供述□□□□□□□□

以上述□□來□□□□□安龍福□供述□虛僞□費□□□□信賴性□乏□□□□□□□□□ □□□□□□日本國政府□□1956年9月20日付見解□□□□□述□□□□□一私人□□彼□言動□□韓國□□□□竹島領有□主張□□根據□□□□□□□□役立□□□□□□□□

□□韓國政府□□安龍福□渡日談判事件□當時□日本國政府□大□□衝擊□□□□□□□□□□□日本國□自國民□□□方面□出漁□禁□□□□□□□□□□□□□□時期的□□□誤□□□□□□□明白□□□□□□□□安龍福□再度□渡日□□伯耆□□□□□□元祿9年6月□初□□□□□米子□大谷□村川兩家□鬱陵島□□渡海禁制□對馬藩主□□□伯耆藩主□通達□□□□□□□□□□前□元祿9年1月28日□□□□

韓國政府□□1959年1月7日付見解□□中□日本□文獻中□松島□竹島□名□混同□□□□□□鬱陵島□竹島□指稱□□□判□□□□□□□日本□竹島□對□□明確□知識□疑問□投□□□□□□試□□□□□

松島□竹島兩島□變還□□□□□□□□□□1953年7月13日付日本國政府見解□□□□□述□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□改□□述□□□□日本□□明治時代□□□□□□一貫□□鬱陵島□□竹島□□今日□竹島□□松島□□呼□□□□□□□後□□□時期□名稱□混亂□下記□□□□鬱陵島□對□□□□□□□人□測定□誤□□起因□□□□□

□□□□□□□經緯□□□□□1787年□□□□□□□□□·□·□□□□(Galaup de la Perouse)□鬱陵島□도□□□□□Dagelet島□命名□□□□□□□□□1797年□(□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□(William Robert Brouton)□同□鬱陵島□對□□Argonaut島□□名□與□□□□□□□□□□□□□同島□經緯度□間遠□□測定□□□□□□□後□□□□□□□地圖□鬱陵島□Dagelet, Argonaute□二島□□□記載□□□□1840年□□□□□□□日本圖□作□□□□從來□日本□地圖□竹島(今□鬱陵島)□松島(今□竹島)□記□□□□□□□□□誤□□竹島□Argonaute島□□松島□Dagelet島□□□□□□□

□□後□□□□□□測定□不正確□□□□□□□判明□□□□□□□□地圖□□Arogaute島□抹消□□□鬱陵島□Dagelet島(松島)□□□□□記□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□지도□□□□□從來□竹島□□呼□□□□□鬱陵島□□松島□□□□□□□□□□

□□□□□□□□□□□測定□誤□□起因□□竹島□松島兩島名□混亂□□□□□□□1905年2月□從來□□松島□□島根縣□編入□□□際□□□□□竹島□□正式□命名□□□□□□□□□

(7)明治9年□10年□11年□間□□□□□□□□□□赴□船上□□今□鬱陵島□望見□□□□□□□□□□松島□□□□□開拓願□日本國政府□提出□□□

韓國政府□□1959年1月7日付見解□□□□□□□□開拓願審議□際□□外務省田□公信局長□□竹島(獨島)□□□邦人□命名□□□□□□□實□朝鮮鬱陵島□屬□□于山□□□□□□□□□□開拓□許□□□□□□□□□□□結論□下□□□□□□□主張□□□□□韓國政府□□□主張□□□□自己□主張□有利□□□□□□□□記錄中□一節□□□引用□□□□□□□

當時□外務省□□□松島□□島□開拓願□提出□際□□□□松島□□□□□果□□□□□□島□指□□□□□□□□□□明□□□□□□□視察□行□□必要□□□□□□□□檢討□□□□□□□

□□찰□田□公信局長□□松島□于山島□□□□□□□□□□□□□□前置□□□□ □□□□□假說□□□□論□□□□□□□□□

韓國政府□見解□第一□誤□□□□□引用句□田□局長□說□□□□□□□□□□第二□誤□□□□□假說□□□□松島□獨島□□□今□竹島□指□□□□□曲解□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□松島□□現在□竹島□□□□□□□□□開拓願□□□□□實體□明確□□□松島□意味□□□□□□□□田□局長□□□松島□鬱陵島□屬□□于山島□□□□□□□□□□□□(□□場合□于山島□名□□朝鮮側□古文獻□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□今□竹島□指□□□□□□□□□前記(3)□詳述□□□□□□□□□)□□□本當□□□□□□□□開拓□□□□□□□□述□□□□□過□□□□

□□□□□議論□際□□渡□記錄局長□□□□□□□□松島□□□□□竹島(今□鬱陵島)□□□彼□屬□□□□□竹島(今□鬱陵島)以外□□□松島□□□□□□屬□□□□□□□□□□□□□□松島□□□□□島□□□□□本來□竹島□□□□鬱陵島□□□□□□松島□□□□□洋名□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□國□屬□□□各國□地圖□□然□□□□舊幕府無事□好□□□□□□竹島(今□鬱陵島)□□□□□□□朝鮮□讓渡□□□□□□□松島(今□竹島)□竹島(今□鬱陵島)□□□□近□方□□□□□日本□屬□□朝鮮□□異論□□能□□□□□□□□□視察□結果□□□松島□鬱陵島□別物□□□□因審□隱岐□石見□□□□□□□□得□□□□見解□示□□□□□

明治13年9月□軍艦天城□赴□□實際□□□島□測量□□結果□□□□□□問題□松島□鬱陵島□□□□□□□□ 鬱陵島付屬□島□竹島□□□□□□明確□□□□□

□□□□□松島開拓願□審議□際□□明□□□□□□□□□□□□明治初期□□□□□日本國政府□竹島□日本固有□領土□□□認識□□□□上□立□□議論□□□□□□□□□□

(8)韓國政府□□日本□島根縣告示□□□竹島□島根縣□編入□□□□□□1905年□□□日本□竹島□□□領土□一部分□□□考□□□□□□□□□□有力□證據□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□日本國政府□從來□日本側見解及□今回□見解□述□□□□□□□□竹島□古來□□日本□領土□□□□□□明□□□□□

□□前記(6)□□□□□述□□□□□□島根縣告示□先立□□□20餘年前□問題□□□□□□□□□松島開拓願□□審査□當□□外務省□要路□□竹島□日本領□屬□□朝鮮側□異論□□能□□□□□□明確□□□□□□

閣議決定□□□□島根縣告示□□日本□近代國家□□□□竹島□領有□□意見□再確認□□□□□日本□近代行政區分□中□編入□□□□□□□公示□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□一連□事實□□竹島□對□□實效的□占有及□經營□□□主權□行事□示□□□□□□□□□□□

上記□□□□□島根縣告示□閣議決定□基□□島根縣知事□□□發□□□□□□□□□□□□□□手續□□當時日本□採用□□□□通常□編入方法□□□□□□□□□□竹島□□□□特□□□□□措置□□□□□

韓國側□□島根縣告示□秘密裏□行□□□□竹島編入□日本□一般國民□□□知□□□□□□主張□□□□□□□□□全□事實□反□□驚□□□主張□□□□□現□島根縣告示□明治38年2月22日付□島根縣縣報□揭載□□□□□□□□□例□□同年2月24日付□山陰新聞第5912號□□右告示□□□□事實及□□□內容□報道□□□□□□□□□

□□□韓國政府□□□□□日本國內□告示□□外國□通報□□□□□□□□고□□國際法上□□□□效果□□□□□□斷□□□□□□□□□國際法上一般□□條約上特別□義務□負□場合(例□□□□□□□地域□關□□1885年□□□□□議定書)□際□□領土□取得□他國□對□□通告□□□□□義務的□□□□□□□□□□□□

□□□學說□□□□□□□□例□□□□□□□□□(International Law I□8版559項)□□□□□□□□□(Traite de Droit International public Tome I□441項)□他國□□通報□□□□領土取得□條件□□□□□□□□□□□□

判例□□□□□□□□□日本國政府□指摘□□□□□□1928年□□□□□島事件□□□□□□□□□□關□□1885年□□□□□議定書□規定□適用□□□□□□□□□政府□他國□對□通告□行□□義務□存在□□□□□(An obligation for the

Netherlands to notify to other Powers...did not exist.)□判決□□□□□□□□1931年□□□□□□□□島事件□判決□□□□□□□□□□□領土□取得□他國□通告□□□□□點□□□□1885年□□□□□議定書□規定□□□□□□□□通報□義務□□□場合□適用□□□□□□□方法□□□領土取得□□□行爲□公示性□與□□□□□充分□□□□判決□□□□□□□□□□□兩判決□□□□□領土取得□要件□□□外國政府□□通報□義務的□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□

□□□韓國政府□□國際法協會□1888年□宣言□外國□□告示□必要□□□□□□□述□□□□□□同協會□同年□行□□□□□□□

從□□□□□□□1888年□國際法學會□□□宣言□思□□□□□同宣言□□□□□外國□□通報□必要要件□□□□□□□□

"La notification de la prise de possession se fait, soit par la publication dans la forme qui, dans chaque Etat, est en usage pour la notification des actes officiels, soit par la voie diplomatique."

□述□□各國□□□□慣行□□形式□□□公表□□□□□□□□□□明□□□□□□□□

以上□如□□無主地□先占□□□□□學說□先例□外國政府□□通報□□□□□□□義務的□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□古來□□日本□□□□認識□□□□□有效□經營□□□□地域□□□□□□□□他國□□□□爭□□□□□□□□地域□□□□□一層□□□通報義務□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□

□□□竹島□場合□□□島根縣□□告示□發□□□□□□□□□□□右告示□□□□□上記學說友□判例□□□公示(notoriety)又□公表(publication)□該當□□□□□□□□□□□□

韓國政府□日本□行政機關□□□告示□□□□明白□목□□□□□단□外國□□通報□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□竹島□島根縣編入措置□秘密性□云云□□□□□全□□□□□□□□□□□□□

□□□韓國政府□□1959年1月7日付見解□□□□□□島根縣告示□□□竹島□編入□□□日淸戰役以後□日本帝國主義□一連□侵略行爲□一環□□□□□□述□□□□□1904年□日韓協約□□□外交顧問□任命□□竹島編入□有效性□關係□□□如□述□□□□□□韓國□島根縣告示□□以前□□竹島□有效□經營□□□□□□□□□□立證□□□□限□□□□□議論□全□根據□□□□同島編入□侵略行爲

□□□□□□如□主權國□對□□重大□非難□□最□高度□確實性□□□□立證□□□□□□□□□韓國□全□事實□反□□獨斷□□□□□□□非難□行□□□□斷□□容忍□□□□□

(9)韓國政府□□□□□□1959年1月7日付見解□□□□□□前後□□□□聯合國□□□日本領土處理方針□□□□□□□□竹島問題解決□重大□鍵□□□□□□□□□宣言□聯合國總司令部賞書SCAPIN677號等□□□□竹島□日本國□□□分離□確定□□□述□□□□□

□□□□□□□日本國政府□□1956年9月20日付見解□□述□□□□□戰後□日本領土處理□□□□□□□□□□平和條約□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□平和條約□□日韓倂合前□朝鮮□日本□□分離獨立□□□□□認□□□□□□□□□日韓倂合前□□日本□領土□□□□領土□獨立□□韓國□□□□□割讓□□□□意味□全□含□□□□□□□□□□□

韓國政府□□竹島□□□□宣言□□□□暴力及□强慾□□□略取□□□地域□□□□主張□□□□□□日本政府□從來□見解□操返□述□□□□□□□□竹島□古來□□日本國及□日本國民□平和裡□□□□公然□□□□領有□有效□經營□□□□□□□□□□□□□□外國□□□□□□爭□□□□□□□□地域□□□□□□□□□□意味□□□□□□□□韓國□□日本國□略取□□□□□□□□□□□明□□□□□□

韓國政府□SCAPIN677號及□1947年6月19日付□□日本□對□□降伏後□基本政策□□基□□□竹島□日本□□□分離□確定□□□主張□□□□□□日本國政府□□□□指摘□□□□□□SCAPIN677號□□□□□宣言第8條□特□引用□□同指令□聯合國□□□日本□諸小島□最終的決定□□□□□□□明□□□□□□□□1947년□對日基本政策□□降伏後□日本國□關□□一般的聲名□□□□□□□□□□竹島□掃屬□具體的□確定□□□□□□□□□

□□□SCAPIN677號自體□□□□□□竹島□明□□□朝鮮□□別個□對象□□□朝鮮□□別個□項目□中□規定□□□□□□□□□□□平和條約□SCAPIN677號□□□□行政分離□□□鬱陵島□濟州道及□竹島3島□□□鬱陵島及□濟州道□2島□□□□日本□放棄□規定□□竹島□□□□何□□規定□□□□□□□事實□□竹島□日本國□□□獨立□承認□□□朝鮮□□□□□日本國□權利□權原□及□

請求權□放棄□□□朝鮮□□中□含□□□□□□□□□示□□□□□□□

THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT'S VIEWS

ON THE KOREAN GOVERNMENT'S VIEWS OF JANUARY 7, 1959

CONCERNING TAKESHIMA

(日本政府見解4)

(1) The Japanese Government has made clear its stand on previous occasions that Takeshima is Japan's inherent territory from olden times, and herein reiterates and re-emphasizes this position.

(2) Under international law, the most decisive factor in determining whether or not a certain area is an inherent territory of a certain State from olden times is how effectively the State concerned has controlled and managed the area in the question.

Japan has possessed exact information and knowledged concerning Takeshima and has effectively controlled and managed the island as her territory from ancient times. Though the Japanese Government has repeatedly proved this fact in its previous Views by citing numerous concrete evidences, the Korean Government continues to persist in its erroneous assertions by ignoring realities.  The Japanese Government presents once more a summary of the facts of history showing how effectively Japan has controlled and managed Takeshima from olden times.

It may be pointed out here that, in Japan, until early in the Meiji Era, Takeshima of today had been called "Matsushima" and Ulneung "Takeshima", as is explained in detail elsewhere (6).

Japanese management of Takeshima dates back to the period when Japan managed Ulneung Island. About 1004, Ulneung Island was known to the Japanese as "uruma-no-shima", and there are records that during the latter half of the fourteenth century, Japanese were used to sail to the island. On the early years of the Lee Dynasty (at the beginning of the fifteenth century), the Korea Government abandoned the management of Ulneung by adopting an evacuation policy, and Japanese in increasing numbers went to the island, which became their fishing ground for about one hundred years from the end of the sixteenth century. In the 4th year of Genna(1618), in particular, Jinkichi Ohya and Ichibei Murakawa, townsmen of Yonago, Hoki Province, were granted a formal permit from the Tokugawa Shogunate to sail to Ulneung and managed the island. They visited Takeshima on their way to and from Ulneung.

Inshu Shicho Gakki, compiled by one Saito, a clansman of Izumo, in the 7th year of Kammon(1667) is a record of what fishermen of Oki and others told according to their actual experiences, of which the first chapter contains the following passage:

"By going to the north-westerly direction from Oki Island for two days and one night, one comes to Matsushima (Takeshima of today) and by going further out for about another day one comes to Takeshima (Ulneung of today). on these two islands there live no people."

In 1656 or earlier, the Ohya family was given Takeshima by the Shogunate, together with the exclusive right to management of the island, including fishing. In this regard, a letter of acknowledgment of Kyuyemon Katsunobu Ohya (second descendant of Jinkichk Ohya) dated 13th May, the 9th year of Empo (1st year of Tenwa, 1681), reads as follows:

"In the reign of Lord Genyu-in (Iyemitsu Tokugawa, the 3rd Shogun), on the way to Takeshima (Ulneung of today) there is an islet that can be circled by going on boat for 20 cho. This is a rocky islet with neither grass nor tree. Twenty-five years ago, this islet was given by the Shogunate to our family through the good offices of Shiro-goro Abe, Esq. and we went to the islet by boat. on this islet, we took, a small quantity of sea-lion oil. It is a little more than 60 ri by boat from Fukuura of Dogo of Oki Province to the islet"

This "islet", needless to say, is Takeshima of today. The Ohyas obtained a licence from the Shogunate to sail to the island and engage in fishing and they managed Takeshima under the authorization of the Tokugawa Shogunate. A reply note presented by the Ikeda Clan to Bungo-no-Kami Abe (member of the Shogun's Council of Elders) dated December 26, the 8th year of Geroku (1695), says; "On the way back from Ulneung in that year,  they (the Ohyas) caught some quantity of abalones at Matsushima (Takeshima of today)." Again, a memorandum of Hoki-no-Kami Matsudaira dated January, 23, the 9th year of Geroku(1696), says: "As Matsushima (Takeshima of today) is situated on the route to Takeshima(Ulneung of today), our men stopped over at the island to fish. Men from Izumo and Oki Provinces went together with our men from Yonago on the same boat. The distance from Fukuura to Matsushima (Takeshima of today) is 80 ri and it is 40 ri from Matsushima (Takeshima of today) to Takeshima (Ulneung of today)."

In January of the 9th year of Genroku (1696), the Shogunate decided to relinquish management of Ulneung, but, it did not prohibit travels to Takeshima of today and continued to regard the island as Japanese territory. Takeshima Zusetsu written by Tsuan Hokugan in the middle of the eighteenth century contains the following passage:

"About 40 ri by sea to the north of the western islet of Matsushima (Takeshima of today) of the Oki Province, there is an island which is called Takeshima (Ulneung of today)."

It is particularly to be noted here that this book speaks of "Matsushima of the Oki Province", and also refers to "the Western islet of Matsushima", which attests to the author's clear knowledge of Matsushima (Takeshima of today) as consisting of islets, eastern and western.

Chosei Takeshima Ki by Takamasa Yada (published if 1801), which gives concrete description of Matsushima (Takeshima of today), says:

"Water is in sufficient in the hot weather. On the way to and back from Takeshima (Ulneung of today), the 'Takeshima Maru'(a ship) called at this island every time. This is the end of the western sea area of Japan."

An old map of Matsushima and Takeshima, which was prepared by the Ikeda Clan of Hoki Province in the 9th year of Kyoho (1724) on the order of the Shogunate, shows Matsushima (Takeshima of today) as consisting of two islet facing each other with a narrow channel running between and also several reefs surrounding them; and, the map shows "Funatsukiba" (quay) and a small hut on the beach on the channel side of the eastern islet. this testifies to Japanese management of Takeshima as well as an accurate knowledge of the island.

A number of Japanese maps dating from the middle of the Edo Era towards such as Nihon Yochi Rotei Zenzu, made in the 4th year of Anyei (1775) by Skisui Nagakubo and Henyo Bunkai Zuko, made in the first year of Bunka (1804) by Morishige Kondo, showing the two islands between Oki and Korean Penisula, desinate the one nearer to Oki "Matsushima" and the other nearer to Korean Peninsula  "Takeshima". Judging from the relative positions of these two islands, they represent respectively Takeshima of today and Ulneung.

There occurred in the 8th year of Tempo (1837) an incident, in which Aizuya Hachiuyemon, a shipping agent of Hamada, was executed for illegal foreign trade, allegedly with Takeshima (Ulneung of today).

The text of decision on the case quotes a remark by one Sanbei Hashimoto to Aizuya Hachiuyemon: "There is a way of going over to Takeshima-that is, under the pretext of sailing to Matsushima, the nearer island."

) retainer of Minister Tanomo Okada of Hamada Clan

This illustrates the situation, in which travel to Matsushima (Takeshima of today) was no problem even after the prohibition of travel to Takeshima (Ulneung of today).

Also, tin the early part of the Meiji Era (1877-78), the authorities of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs acted of full cognition of the territorial status of Takeshima as a Japanese, as in described in (7) below.

It was with the background of historical facts described above, that the Japanese Government took the step of incorporating Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture by the Cabinet decision of January 28, the 38th year of Meiji (1905), and the public announcement was given by Shimane Prefecture on February 22 of the same year.

* retainer of Minister Tanomo Okada of Hamada Clan

(3) By citing that the Korean old literatures which refer to the existence of two islands,  namely Ulneung Island and Woosan Island, to the east of Korean Peninsula, and by alleging that the said Woosan Island is Takeshima of today, the Korean Government attempts to draw a forced conclusion that, prior to the possession of knowledge of Takeshima of today and its management by Japan, Korea had already possessed knowledge of Takeshima of today. However, as the Japanese Government has pointed out in its previous Views, if the old Korean literatures are studied objectively, there can be found no evidence all that Korea had any such knowledge of Takeshima.

As was pointed out by the Japanese Government in its Views of September 20, 1956, there are two theories as to the names of Ulneung Island and Woosan Island in the Korean old literatures. One theory says that these two names apply to two different islands, the other maintains that they represent a single island. Moreover, even those old favour of the one-island and two-names theory. Moreover, the literatures are confined solely to the description of Ulneung Island and, with regard to Woosan Island, they only mention its name without making any concrete description of the island at all. This fact proves that, in citing the name of Woosan Island, the compilers of those literatures were devoid of any clear and concrete knowledge based on any evidence that Woosan Island is Takeshima of today.

The Korean Government seeks to establish that Woosan Island is Moonhun Biko, which reads, "Both Ulneung and Woosan are of Woosan State, and Woosan is what the Japanese call Matsushima". However, this article is nothing more than an attempt to identify Woosan Island of the old literatures with "Matsushima", after it became known that there was an island (Takeshima of today) which Japan had named "Matsushima" and managed. Consequently it cannot provide any evidence at all the "Woosan Island" as mentioned in "Koryosa Chiriji", "Sjong Shillok Chiriji" of "Shinjung Tongkok Yoji Seungnam" is Takeshima of today.

Moreover, as stated by the Japanese Government in its Views of September 20, 1956, the "Woosan Island" appearing in the report of Kim Rin U of February, the 17th year of King Taijong of the Lee Kynasty (1417), is described as producing large bamboos, flax, cotton, etc, and having a colony of fifteen houses and eighty six inhabitants. From these description it is quite clear that this Woosan Island is no other than Ulneung of today.

The Korean Government refer to a book called Shinjung Yongkuk Yoji Seungnam to support its contention that Ulneung Island and Woosan Island are two different islands. But, an the "Comprehensive Map of the Eight Province" which appears at very beginning of that "Seungnam" and also on the Map of Kangwon-Do contained in its forty-fourth volume, Woosan Island is shown as s large island between Ulneung Island and Korean Peninsula. Thus, "Woosan Island"as described in the book in question os an island which does not exist at all.

From the above observation it is quite clear that there is no evidence at all in the old Korean literatures that can prove the possession of knowledge of Takeshima by Korea prior to the time when Japan began to know and manage the island, and that, much less, there is no trace whatsoever that Korea ever made effective management of the island.

(4) Whereas the Japanese Government has established the fact of Japan's management of Takeshima by enumerating various materials of evidence from the historical point of view, the Korean Government, in its Views of January 7, 1959, tries to ascribe it to 'the sailing by the Japanese on invasive missions' and maintains that the possession of an accurate knowledge on the geography cannot serve as a valid ground for claiming territorial rights because it originated from those invasive activities.

In order that such contention by the Korean Government might stand, however, it must be proved at least that, prior to the Japanese management of Takeshima, Korea had actually managed the island. But, as has already been stated, there is no such evidence. Hence, the Korean contention is, in any event, totally unfounded.

(5) In its Views of January 7, 1959, the Korean Government tries to use the testimonies of Ahn Yong Bok as a ground for the Korean claim to Takeshima. But, the stories concerning the Ahn Yonh Bok case which are contained in Sukjong Shillok and Jungbo Moonhum Biko originate from the testimonies given by Ahn

during police investigations of his crime of going abroad in violation in the law of his land. When these stories are examined objectively in the light of the voluminous and detailed records which are preserved of the Japanese side concerning the visits of Ahn Yong Bok to Japan, his statements are full of falsehoods, as pointed out by the Japanese Government in its Views of September 20, 1956.

According to his statements contained in the Korean records, Ahn Yong Bok styled himself as "Taxation General of Ulneung and Woosan Islands" (Jung Moonhum Biko has it that he styled himself as Taxation official of Ulneung") when he went from Oki to Hoki Province, but there was no such official post in Korean then. In fact, he had been given actually no commission whatsoever by the Korean Government.

Again, according to the Sukjong Shillok, Ahn Yong Bok, on his arrival in Japan for the first time in the 6th year of  Genroku (1693) obtained from the Shogunate a written pledge recognizing Ulneung, Woosan and other islands as marking the limits of Korean territory, but the clan lord of Tsushima took away the paper from him, so that when he came to Japan for the second time in the 9th year of Genroku (1696), and sought to complain to the Tokugawa Shogunate of these and other wanton acts, and the Japanese authorities were so embarrassed that they punished the fifteen countrymen of theirs who had previously violated the Korean territory(i. e., agents of the Ohya family who arrested Ahn Yong Bok on Ulneung Island). This testimony is, of course, completely at variance with fact.

The truth is that while the Ohyas and Murakawas had been engaged in fishing off Ulneung for many years under the official permission of the Tokugawa Shogunate, Koreans began to come to fish in the same waters. So, in the 6th year of Genroku (1693) they captured Ahn Yong Bok and another Korean and brought them back to Japan as living evidences of illegal fishing by Koreans. The Shogunate deported these men back to korea and ordered Yoshitsugu Soh, clan lord of Tsushima, to negotiate with the Korean authorities for the prohibition of fishery by Koreans around Ulneung Island. Therefore, it could not have possibly happened that the Shogunate gave Ahn a written pledge, recognizing Ulneung Island as Korean territory, nor were his captor ever punished.

Thus, in his testimonies made to the border police, Ahn Yong Bok falsified and embellished his activities in a grandiose fashion. Between the time whin Ahn was brought to Japan and the time when he was sent back to Korea in the 6th year of Genroku, the Ulneung Island question became a major diplomatic issue between

Japan and Korea. Ahn, who was then in Japan, and knew about the situation concerning Ulneung Island, fabricated a tale of adventures to his own advantage and told it to the Korean border police. Ahn's testimonies are too full of falsehoods to deserve serious consideration. In any case, as is pointed out in the Japanese Government's Views of September 20, 1956, such testimonies of a private individual like Ahn Yong Bok can not serve in the least to provide any ground for the Korean claim of territorial rights to Takeshima.

The Korean Government contends that the events of Ahn's visit to Japan and of his negotiations had made such a great impact on the Japanese Government that, Japan subsequently prohibited her nationals to sail for fishing in these areas. The contention is evidently false in the light of time sequence. Whereas it was in the beginning of June in the 9th year of Genroku that Ahn Yong Bok arrived in Hoki Province on his second visit to Japan, it was earlier by several months, on January 28 of the 9th year of Genroku, that the Shogunate order prohibiting the Ohyas and the Murakawas of Yonago to sail to Ulneung Island was communicated to the clan lords of Tsushima and Hoki.

(6) In its Views of January 7, 1959, the Korean Government tries to cast doubt upon the clear knowledge which Japan has always possessed concerning Takeshima by alleging that in Japanese historical documents, the names of Matsushima and Takeshima are so confused that it is difficult to tell which of them applies to Ulneung Island and Takeshima respectively.

The history of the names "Matsushima" and "Takeshima" has already been explained in the Japanese Views of July 13, 1953. To repeat, in Japan, until the beginning of the Meiji Era, Ulneung Island had been consistently called "Takeshima" and the Takeshima of today "Matsushima". The confusion of the names for a certain length of time thereafter was caused by an error on the part of Europeans in measuring the position of Ulneung Island.

1n 1787, Galaup de la Perouse, a Frenchman, reached Ulneung and named it Dagelet Island. Then, in 1797, William Robert Broughton, an Englishman, named it Argonatute Island. But, owing to the fact that Broughton made an error in measuring the position of Ulneung Island, European maps thereaftwer showed it as two islands, i.e., Dagelet Island and Argonatute Island. Then, When Siebold made his Japanese map   in 1840 he saw two islands, "Takeshima"(Ulneung of today) and "Matsushima" (Takeshima of today) on the Japanese maps existing at the time, and committed a mistake of identifying Argonaute Island with "Takeshima" and Dagelet

Island with "Matsushima". Subsequently, as the survey by Broughton turned out to have been inaccurate, Argonaute Island was erased from European maps and Ulneung Island only was shown as Dagelet Island ( Matsushima). This, in European maps Ulneung Island, which had been called "Takeshima" in Japan, came to be called "Matsushima" in Europe. In order to avoid the confusion of the two manes "Takeshima" and "Matsushima", Japan changed the name of her own island of "Matsushima" to "Takeshima", when it was incorporated into Shimane Prefecture in February 1905.

(7) Several people who observed Ulneung Island of the present day from distance on their voyage to Vladivostok during the 9th, 10th and 11th years of the Meiji Era (1876, 1877 and 1878) applied to the Japanese Government for the development of the island which they referred to as "Matsushima".

In its Views of January 7, 1959, the Korean Government asserts that in the deliberation on these applications, Mr. Tanabe, Director of Public Communications of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, concluded not to grant permission to develop the island, saying that "Matsushima (Dokto) has been so named by Japanese, but actually it is Woosan belonging to Ulneung Island of Korea....". But, this Korean assertion os based on a distorted quotation from the records for the purpose of presenting its own argument as favourable.

Upon receipt of the applications for the development of an island called "Matsushima", the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at that time considered whether it was necessary to conduct an investigation in order to clarify what island this "Matsushima" in fact referred to. On that occasion, Director Tanabe remarked by way of a preface: "There are those who say Matushima is Woosan Island." He, then, processed to speak on that hypothesis.

The first error in Korean Government's views is that the remark of Director Tanabe is quoted not as a hypothesis but his own opinion. The second error lies in identifying the "Matsushima" mentioned in his hypothetical remark with Takeshima of today. The Matsushima mentioned here does not mean Takeshima of today, but a Matsushima of uncertain identity for the development of which the applications were made to the Japanese Government. Director Tanabe said: "There are those who maintain that Matsushima is Woosan Island belonging to Ulneung Island. If that was in fact the case, we should do nothing about its development.

) In this hypothesis which Tanabe referred to, the name of Woosan Island was raised by looking at the Korean old literatures. The fact this island is not Takeshima of today has already been explained in detail in (3).

In the course of the Foreign Ministry's deliberation, Mr. Watanabe Director of the Bureau of Records, said, "If this so-called Matsushima is really Takeshima (Ulneung

of today), it belongs to them (Korea). On the other hand, if it is in fact a Matsushima other than Takeshima(Ulneung of today), it cannot but belong to us (Japan). But, that Matsushima, i.e., Derase Island, is in fact Takeshima, namely Ulneung Island, and our Matsushima seems to be what Europeans call 'Hornet Rocks'. Maps fo various countries all agree that the 'Hornet Rocks' belongs to our country." He also said: "The old Shogunate, desiring to have o troubled, ceded Takeshima (Ulneung of today) to Korea but Matsushima (Takeshima of today), being situated nearer to us than Takeshima ( Ulneung of today), belongs to Japan, a fact that Korea cannot conceivably dispute." He voiced his opinion that, if an investigation showed that the Matsushima in question was an island other than Ulneung, it could not but belong to one of the Japanese Provinces of Inaba, Oki and Iwami.

An actual survey carried out by Warship Amagi in September of the 13th year of Meiji (1880) established the identity of the Matsushima in question with Ulneung and also the existence of an islet ("Bamboo Island") belonging to it.

The Foreign Ministry's deliberation of the applications for the development of Matsushima serves to demonstrate that even early in Meiji Era, the Japanese Government authorities were conducting discussions on the basis of their clear knowledge and full recognition of Takeshima as an inherent territory of Japan.

* In this hypothesis which Tamabo referred to, the name of Woosan Island was      raised by looking at the Korean old literatures. The fact this island is not          Takeshima of today has already been explained in detail in (3).

(8) The Korean Government asserts that the fact of Japan's incorporation of Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture by the public announcement of Shimane Prefecture provides a strong evidence that until 1905 Japan had not regarded Takeshima as part of its previous Views as well as herein, it is evident that Takeshima has been Japanese territory since olden times, and that, as is stated in (7) above, during the deliberation of the so-called "applications for the development of Matsushima" which took place more than 20 years prior to the public announcement of Shimane Prefecture, high officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs made clear beyond dispute the fact of Japanese possession of Takeshima and considered that the Korean side could not conceivably dispute it.

The public announcement of Simane Prefecture following the cabinet decision is of a nature of reaffirming the Japanese intention to retain the possession of Takeshima as a modern state, of incorporating the island in the modern administrative structure of Japan and of giving publication to the incorporation. And, a series of events which followed the incorporation attest to Japan's exercise of sovereignty by means of effective occupation and management of Takeshima.

As has been mentioned above, the public announcement of Shimane Prefecture was issued by the Governor of Shimane Prefecture on the authority of the Cabinet decision. This was the customary procedure which was observed by Japan in incorporation of territory at that time and by no means a measure employed exceptionally in this case.

The Korean Government asserts that the public announcement of Shimane Prefecture was done in secret so that even the Japanese people themselves were not aware of the incorporation of Takeshima. This is an amazing assertion which is utterly false. As a matter of fact, the public announcement of Shimane Prefecture was published in the Shimane Prefecture Gazette dated February 22, 1905; and, or example, the Sanin Shimbun (No. 5912; February 24, 1905) reported the fact of the announcement and the contents thereof.

Again, the Korean Government concludes dogmatically that such a domestic announcement, which was not communicated to foreign countries, could not have any effect on the level of the international law. But, generally speaking from the standpoint of the international law, it is not obligatory to notify the acquisition of territory to other countries except where there is a specific obligation to do so under a treaty (for example, Berlin Protocol of 1885 concerning the Congo area).  If theories on this point are examine, one finds that neither Oppenheim (International Law I, 8th edition 559 page) nor Guggenheim (Traite de Droit international public Tome I, 441 page) makes notification to foreign countries a condition of the acquisition of territory.

As regards precedents, the Japanese Government has already pointed out the Case of Palmas Island of 1928 where it was decided that an obligation for the Netherlands Government to notify other Powers did not exist because the provisions of the Berlin Protocol of 1885 concerning the Congo was not applicable to the case.  In the Case of Clipperton Island of 1931, it was decided on the point that France did not notify the acquisition of territory to other countries, that such obligation of notification as prescribed in the Berlin Protocol of 1885 did not apply to the case and that, by whatever means  it might be, it was enough if notoriety was given to the act of the acquisition of territory.  Thus, neither of these two judgements makes

notification to foreign governments obligatory as a condition of the acquisition of territory.

Moreover, the Korean Government states that the declaration of the Association of International Law of 1888 made a notification to foreign countries necessary, but the said Association did not hold a meeting in that year. Therefore, this seems to refer to the Declaration of the Society of International Law of 1888.  In that declaration, however, a notification to foreign countries is not made a necessary condition.  It says in fact:

"La notification de la prise de possession se fait, soit par la publication dans la forme qui, dans chaque Etat, est en usage pour la notification des actes officiels, soit par la voie diplomatique."

The Declaration, thus, makes it clear that publication may be giver in the form which is in usage in each country.

Inasmuch as the theories and the precedents cited above do not make obligatory a notification to foreign governments as regards the initial occupation of ownerless land, it must be concluded that the obligation of notification does not exist at all, in the case of an area which Japan has known and managed effectively from olden times and the Japanese possession of which no other country ever disputed.

Moreover, in the case of Takeshima, a public announcement was actually made by Shimane Prefecture, and this announcement is nothing less than such "notoriety" or "publication" as is mentioned in theories and precedents.

The Korean Government, failing to take note of the plain public announcement by the Japanese administrative organ, accuses Japan of secrecy in the incorporation of Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture solely on account of the mere absence of notification to foreign countries.  Such accusation is entirely groundless.

In its Views of January 7, 1959, the Korean Government alleges that the incorporation of Takeshima by means of the public announcement of Shimane Prefecture was "as instance in a series of aggression by the Japanese imperialism following the Shino-japanese War and also argues as if the appointment of a diplomatic advisor under the Japan-Korea Agreement of 1904 had some bearing upon the validity of the incorporation of Takeshima.  However, unless it can be proved that Korea ha managed Takeshima effectively since before the public announcement of Shimane Prefecture, such argument is absolutely untenable.  In fact, since a grave accusation against a sovereign State such as of committing an act of aggression ought to be proved with the highest measure of certainty and the accusation which the Korean Government dogmatically makes against Japan in utter disregard of facts can in no way be tolerated.

(9)  In its Views of January 7, 1959, the Korean Government calls the policy on the disposal of Japanese territory by the Allied Powers following the War an essential key to the solution of the Takeshima question and it asserts that the  detachment of Takeshima from Japan was finalized by the Cairo Declaration, SCAPIN No.677 and other instruments.  However, as the Japanese Government made clear in its Views of September 20, 1956, the disposal of the Japanese territory following the war was made under the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 and not before.  The Peace Treaty recognized the separation and independence from Japan of Korea as it had been prior to its annexation to Japan, but it can by no means be interpreted as obligating Japan to cede anew to independent Korea any territory which had been in Japanese possession since before the annexation.

The Korean Government asserts that Takeshima falls in he category of what the Cairo Declaration called areas  "taken by violence and greed".  However, as the Japanese Government has pointed out repeatedly, Japan and the Japanese people have been in peaceful possession o Takeshima, managing openly and effectively the island since olden times.  Furthermore the Japanese possession of the island was never disputed by any foreign country.  Therefore, it is clear that the island was not taken away by Japan from Korea in any sense whatsoever.

The Korean Government asserts that a separation of Takeshima from Japan was finalized on the basis of the SCAPIN No.677 and the Basic Post-Surrender Policy for Japan of June 19, 1947.  But, as the Japanese Government has already pointed out, the SCAPIN No.677, specifically referring to the Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration, made clear that the directive did not provide for such an ultimate disposition of the minor islands by the Allied Powers, and the Basic Post-Surrender Policy for Japan of 1947 was nothing but "a statement of initial general policy relation to Japan after surrender".  Thus, neither of these two documents makes a concrete decision on the disposal of Takeshima.  Moreover, the SCAPIN No.677 itself treats Takeshima as a separate entity from Korea and makes provisions on it in a separate category from Korea.  On the other hand, while the SCAPIN No.677 provides for the administrative separation of three islands, i.e., Ulneung Island, Cheju Island and Takeshima, the Peace Treaty provides for the renunciation by Japan of only the two islands of Ulneung Island and Cheju Island with no provision on Takeshima.  This fact cannot but mean that Takeshima is not included in the "Korea" the independence of which Japan recognized, nor is it included in the "Korea" to which Japan renounced all right, title and claim.

(482) 1963. 2. 5 日本側 口述書(No.41/ASN)(韓國警備艇武器搬入에 항의)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Korean Mission and, regarding the unlawful occupation by the Korean Government authorities of Takeshima, part of Japanese territory, has the honour to make the following representations:

1. The Japanese Government, on many occasions in the past, pointed out to the Korean Government that, in the light of historical facts and international law, Takeshima is undoubtedly a part of Japanese territory and, at the same time, reiterated the most energetic protest against the unlawful occupation of Takeshima by the Korean Government authorities.

2. In spite of these, when "Oki", patrol vessel of the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency, visited Takeshima for inspection on December 22, 1962, it discovered that various kinds of structures constructed by the Korean Government on the island still remained there without being removed, and that Korean Government officials were stationed.

3. The Japanese Government considers it deeply regrettable that, in spite of these repeated protests by the Japanese Government, the Korean Government still continues to occupy Takeshima unlawfully at this time when friendly atmosphere between Japan and Korea is increasing. Therefore, the Japanese Government lodges again the most energetic protest with the Korean Government against the unlawful occupation, and demands strongly of the Korean Government the immediate withdrawal of the Korean officials from the island and the removal of all the structures constructed there.

4. Further, in connection with the above, the Japanese Government desires to point out the following fact. On January 8, "Hwarang-Ho", patrol boat belonging to the Ulneung Police Station of the Kyongsanbuk-do Police Bureau, Republic of Korea, (8 tons, the number of crew: 6 including the squad leader Park Hong Chu, policeman of the Ulneung Police Station, and the captain Kim Bong Gap) reached Urago Harbour, Nishinoshima-cho, Chifu-gun, Shiname-ken, after drifting on for some time. On board the boat were 2 sets of wireless transmitters, 13 rifles and 1 carbine with 18 bullets attached. Upon being questioned by the Japanese authorities, the crew of the boat stated that the boat had set sail on January 4 from Ulneung Island to Takeshima to transport the above equipment to the Korean officials occupying the island, that, unable to reach the shore of Takeshima owing to the rough condition of the sea, it had set on the return journey on January 5, that it

had begun to drift on the way due to the stormy condition of the sea and that it  had reached Urago Harbour. With regard to this case, the Japanese Government  lodges the most energetic protest with the Korean Government against the fact that the crew of the boat attempted unlawfully to land Takeshima, part of the Japanese territory, and also against their attempt to transport the equiment to the Korean officials who occupy the island unlawfully.

Tokyo, February 5, 1963.

(483) 1963. 2. 25 韓國側 口述書(No.PKM-12)

(일본측 63. 2. 5 口述書에 반박)

The Korean Mission presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, with reference to the latter's Note Verbale No.41/ASN dated February 5, 1963, has the honor to state as follows:

1. On numerous occasion in the past, the Korean Government made it unmistakably clear on the basis of historical facts and international law that Dokdo is an integral part of the Korean territory. Accordingly, the exercise of territorial sovereignty by the Korean Government on the said islands is entirely lawful and proper. The Korean Government wishes to point out that the allegation by the Japanese Government to the effect that Dokdo is occupied unlawfully by the Korean Government authorities is entirely without ground and that it can, by no means, recognize any propriety of the protest to the same effect, made by the Japanese Government in the Note reference.

2. Although the Korean Government is grateful to the Japanese authorities concerned for the cooperation rendered in rescuing the Korean patrol boat "Hwarang Ho", which went adrift in January, 1963, the Korean Government also takes the position that, as Dokdo is an integral part of the Korean territory, the Japanese Government is not in a position to lodge such a protest as specified in paragraph 4 of the said Note, nor does the Korean Government recognize any propriety of it.

3. The Korean Government cannot but express grave concern over the fact that the Japanese patrol vessel "Oki" violated without prior permission the Korean

territorial waters adjacent to Dokdo at a time when both the Korean and Japanese Governments are making sincere efforts for the settlement of the various pending issues and the normalization of relations between the two countries. The Korean Government hereby lodges the most energetic protest with the Japanese Government against the unlawful activities perpetrated by a Japanese public vessel "Oki" and demands strongly of the Japanese Government to take immediate and appropriate measures to prevent the recurrence of a similar incident in future.

Tokyo, February 25, 1963

[해설]

이 자료는 일본정부가 □한국정부견해③□을 반박해서 보내온 □일본정부견해④□와 그 직후의 독도영유권논쟁 왕복문서이다.

일본정부는 이어서 1962년 7월 13일자 구술서로 장기간에 걸쳐 준비한 □일본정부 견해④□를 한국정부에 보내 □한국정부 견해 ③□(1959년 1월 7일자)을 반박하고, 독도가 일본영토의 일부라고 주장하였다. 중복되는 부분을 제외하면, □일본정부 견해 ④□의 요지는 다음과 같다.

① 일본은 옛날부터 독도에 대하여 정확한 지식을 갖고 영토로서 실효적으로 지배 경영해왔다. 조선 초기부터 조선정부가 울릉도에 대한 공도정책을 실시하여 경영을 방기했기 때문에 울릉도에 내왕하는 일본이들이 많아졌고, 16세기 말부터 약 100년간 울릉도는 일본인의 漁採地가 되었다. 이에 米子의 町人 大谷甚吉과 村川市兵衛는 元和 4년(1618) 幕府로부터 정식으로 울릉도 渡海免許를 얻고 경영에 종사했다. 독도[竹島]에는 이때 울릉도에 왕복하는 도중에 기항한 곳이다. 1656년경에 大谷家는 幕府로부터 독도에 대한 독점적 경영면허도 얻었다.[大谷甚吉의 3대째인 大谷九右衛門勝信의 延寶 9년(1681) 5월 13일의 請書가 그 자료이다] 1696년(元祿 9) 1월에 德川幕府는 울릉도 경영을 방기할 것을 결정했으나, 오늘날의 竹島[독도] 渡航은 금지되지 않았고 의연히 일본영토로 생각되었다.

18세기 중엽의《竹島圖說》에는 □隱岐의 國 松島(지금의 독도？竹島)의 西島로부터 바닷길로 약 40리 가면 북방에 한 섬이 있는데 이름하여 竹島(지금의 울릉도)라고 한다□고 하여, □隱岐의 國 松島□라고 기록하였다. 또한 1801년의《長生竹島記》에는 松島[독도]에 대한 구체적 묘사가 있다. 이 밖에 독도를 비교적 정확하게 묘사한 3개의 古地圖가 있다.

1837년(天保 8)에 浜田의 무역상인 八右衛門의 밀무역이 발각되어 사형에 처해진 사건이 있었다. 이 무역은 竹島(지금의 울릉도)와의 사이에 행해진 것이었는데, 이 사건의 판결문 안에 □가까운 松島(지금의 독도) 渡海의 명목으로 竹島(지금의 울릉도)에 건너가는 방법이 있었다□는 기록이 있다. 이것은 竹島[울릉도] 도항이 금지되었을 때도 松島[독도] 도항은 문제가 안 되었음을 나타낸다.

또한 明治初(1877∼1878)에도 당시의 일본 외무성 수뇌부는 독도(일본명 竹島)가 일본영토라는 사실을 명확히 인식하고 있었다.

② 조선의 고문헌 가운데는 울릉도와 우산도의 두 이름을 들어 二島說을 주장한 것과 一島二名說을 주장한 것이 병존하고 있는데, 二島說의 주장자도 우산도의 이름만 들 뿐, 실제적 지식에 기초하고 있지 않으므로 우산도가 오늘의 독도임을 입증할 수 없다.

한국정부는《증보문헌비고》의 □ 輿地志에 이르기를 울릉과 우산이 모두 于山國地이다. 우산은 곧 왜가 말하는 松島다□라는 기록을 인용하여 우산도가 독도임을 실증하려고 시도하고 있으나, 이 기록은 일본측에서 □松島□라고 명명하여 경영하고 있던 섬(오늘의 독도？竹島)이 있다는 것을 알고, 고문헌에 나타나는 우산도를 후에 그 松島에 짜맞춘 것에 지나지 않으며,《고려사》 지리지,《세종실록》 지리지,《신증동국여지승람》에 기록된 우산도가 현재의 독도(일본명 竹島)라는 것을 입증하는 것은 아니다.

③ 또한 한국측이 울릉도와 우산도가 별개의 섬이라는 주장의 근거로 인용하는《신증동국여지승람》의 〈八道總圖〉 및 권 44의 강원도지도에 우산도는 울릉도와 조선 본토 중간에 크게 그려져 있는바, 이는 실재하지 않는 섬이다.

④ 일본정부가 역사적 자료들을 열거하여 竹島經營의 사실을 증명한 데 대해서, □한국정부 견해 ⑶□은 이것을 일본인의 침략과 노략을 위한 渡海라고 규정하고, 지리를 숙지하고 있었을지라도 그것은 침략을 위한 것이었기 때문에 영유권을 주장할 수 없다고 하였다. 이러한 한국정부의 주장이 성립하려면 일본의 竹島에 대한 실효적 경영 이전에 조선이 그 섬을 실효적으로 경영했었다는 것이 입증되어야 한다.

⑤ 한국정부가 독도를 한국영토라고 주장하는 근거로 제시하는《숙종실록》과《증보문헌비고》의 안용복 기사는 國禁을 위반하고 해외에 나간 범인이 귀국 후 취조 받았을 때의 진술이므로, 일본측에 존재하고 있는 안용복 渡來에 관한 상세한 기록과 대조해볼 때 허위로 가득차 있으며, 한 개인의 언동에 불과해서, 한국측의 독도 영유 주장의 근거가 될 수 없다.

또한 한국정부는 □안용복의 渡日담판 사건이 당시의 일본정부에 큰 충격을 주어, 이로 인해 일본이 자국민의 이 방면의 출어를 금하였다□고 말하고 있으나 이것은 시기적으로 오류임이 명백하다. 즉 안용복이 두번째 도일하여 伯耆에 도착한 것은 元祿 9년 6월초이며, 米子의 大谷·村川 두 가문에 대한 울릉도에의 渡海禁止가 對馬藩主 및 伯耆藩主에게 通達된 것은 이보다 앞선 元祿 9년 1월 28일이기 때문이다.

⑥ 한국정부는 일본 문헌 가운데 松島와 竹島의 이름이 혼동되어 어느 것이 울릉도와 독도를 지칭하는 것인가가 판별되지 않는 것은 일본의 독도에 대한 명확한 지식에 의문을 갖게 하는 것이라고 말하고 있다. 그러나 일본에서는 明治시대 초기까지는 일관하여 울릉도를 竹島, 독도를 松島라고 불렀다. 그 후 일정 시기에 혼란이 생긴 것은 유럽인의 오류 때문이다.

⑦ 한국정부는 明治 9∼11년의 松島開拓願 심의에 대하여 외무성 田邊 公信局長이 □松島[독도]는 우리나라 사람의 명명이지만 그 실은 조선 울릉도에 속하는 于山이다.……□라고 개척을 허가해주지 않으려 했다고 주장하고 있으나 이것은 오류다. 이때 田邊 공신국장은 □松島가 우산도라고 하는 사람이 있는데□라고 前置한 후 이러한 가설을 논했던 것이다. 한국정부의 제 1 의 오류는 이 인용구를 田邊 공신국장의 설이라고 한 것이고, 제 2 의 오류는 이 가설을 들어 松島를 독도라고 곡해하고 있는 것이다. 明治 13년 9월 군함 天城號가 실제로 이 섬을 측량한 결과 문제의 松島는 울릉도임이 밝혀졌다.

⑧ 한국정부는 일본이 島根縣 告示에 의하여 독도[竹島]를 島根縣에 편입한 것은 1905년까지 일본이 독도를 그의 영토의 일부로 생각하지 않았다는 유력한 증거라고 주장하고 있는데, 竹島[독도]는 고래부터 일본영토이며, 島根縣 告示에 앞서 20여 년 전에 소위 □松島開拓願□ 심사에 당하여 외무성 要路는 竹島[독도]가 일본영토에 속하고 조선측도 이론이 있을 수 없다는 것을 명확히 하였다. 각의결정에 뒤따른 島根縣 告示는 일본이 근대국가로서 竹島[독도]를 영유하는 의사를 재확인하고, 이것을 일본의 근대행정 구분 안에 편입한 것이다.

한국측은 島根縣 告示가 비밀리에 행해져서 竹島편입을 일본의 일반 국민들도 알지 못했다고 주장하고 있지만, 이것은 사실과 다른 주장이다. 島根縣 告示는 明治 38년 2월 22일자의 島根縣 縣報에 게재되어 있으며, 또한 같은 해 2월 24일자의《山陰新聞》 제5912호에 위의 고시가 있다는 사실과 그 내용을 보도하고 있다.

한국정부는 이러한 일본 국내의 고시는 외국에 통보되지 않았기 때문에 국제법상 효력을 갖지 않는다고 단정하고 있으나, 국제법상 일반적으로 조약상의 특별 의무를 지는 경우(예컨대 콩고 지역에 관한 1885년의 베를린 의정서)를 제외하고는 영토의 취득을 타국에 통보하는 것을 의무로 하고 있지 않다.

⑨ 한국정부는 전후 연합국에 의한 일본영토 처리 방침을 竹島문제 해결의 중대한 열쇠라고 하고 카이로선언 및 연합국 최고사령부 각서 SCAPIN 제677호 등에 의하여 竹島가 일본으로부터 분리되었다고 말하고 있다. 그러나 전후 일본영토 처리는 샌프란시스코강화조약에 의하여 비로소 이루어진 것이다. 강화조약은 한일합병 직전의 조선이 일본으로부터 분리 독립함을 승인한 것이었으므로, 한일합병 이전부터 일본영토였던 것을 독립한 한국에게 할양하는 의미는 전혀 포함되어 있지 않다.

한국정부는 竹島가 카이로선언에서 말한 □폭력 및 강욕에 의하여 약취한□ 지역이라고 주장하고 있으나, 竹島는 고래부터 일본이 평화리에 공공연히 영유하고 유효하게 경영해온 것이며, 어떠한 외국과도 이것을 두고 싸운 일이 없으므로, 결코 한국으로부터 약취한 것이 아니다.

한국정부는 SCAPIN 제677호 및 1947년 6월 19일자의 □일본에 대한 항복 후의 기본정책□에 기초하여 독도[竹島]의 일본으로부터의 분리가 확정되었다고 주장하고 있지만, SCAPIN 제677호는 포츠담선언 제 8 조를 인용하여 이 지령이 연합국에 의한 일본의 諸小島의 최종적 결정이 아님을 명백히 하고 있으며, 1947년의 대일기본정책은 □항복 후 일본국에 관한 일반적 성명□으로서 어디에서도 독도의 귀속을 구체적으로 확정하지 않았다.

또한 SCAPIN 제677호에서도, 竹島는 조선과는 다른 별개의 대상으로 별개의 항목 안에 규정되어 있으며, 강화조약이 SCAPIN 제677호에 의해 행정 분리된 울릉도·죽도·제주도의 3도에 대해서 일본의 방기를 규정하면서 竹島에 대해서는 어떠한 규정도 하고 있지 않은 것은, 竹島는 일본국이 그 독립을 승인한 □조선□, 또는 일본국이 권리·權原 및 청구권을 방기한 □조선□ 가운데 포함되어 있지 않음을 나타낸다.

그런데 기이한 것은 한국측이 위의 □일본정부 견해 ⑷□에 대하여 정밀한 반박 견해를 발송하지 않은 것이다. 한국정부는 무려 3년 5개월이 지난 후에― 충분한 준비기간이 있었음에도 불구하고―1965년 12월 17일자 구술서로 일본측의 1962년 7월 13일자 구술서(No. 228/ASN)에 대해 답신한다고 하면서 다음과 같이 극히 간단한 구술서를 보내 끝내고 말았다.

과거 여러 차례 논란의 여지 없이 명백히 밝혀진 바와 같이, 독도는 대한민국영토의 불가분의 일부이고 한국의 합법적 영토권 행사 밑에 있다. 독도 영유권에 관련하여 일본정부가 제기한 어떠한 주장도 전혀 고려할 가치가 없다.

그러나 한국정부의 이러한 간단한 구술서로 □일본정부 견해 ⑷□가 충분히 반박된 것은 물론 아니다. 한국정부는 1965년 6월 22일 한일회담 결과 한일기본조약이 체결되고 한일국교정상화가 이루어지게 되었으니 일본의 □독도 영유권 분쟁□ 제기는 이제 없으리라고 생각하고 이 문제를 여기서 종결지으려고 했는지도 모른다.

그러나 만일 그렇게 생각하고 □한국정부 반박 견해 ⑷□를 작성하지 않았다면, 이것은 큰 착각이다. 왜냐하면 한일회담 □합의□ 전과 그 후에도 일본은 계속해서 독도가 일본영토라고 주장하면서 주기적으로 일본 해상보안청 순시선을 파견하여 조사 결과를 한국정부에 통보하고, 독도로부터의 철수와 철거를 요구해왔기 때문이다. 또한 논쟁의 종결을 반론의 여지 없는 정확하고 정밀한 □반박 견해□를 발송하면서 끝내야 후에 재론의 여지가 없기 때문이다.

Ⅹ.  韓·日會談 전후의 獨島 관련 왕복문서와

□일본정부견해④□ 비판

(484) 1964. 3. 3 일본측 口述書(No. 72/ASN)(韓國警察卽時退去 요구)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Korean Mission and, regarding the unlawful occupation by the Korean Government authorities of Takeshima, part of Japanese territory, has the honour to make the following representations:

1. The Japanese Government, on many occasions in the past, pointed out to the Korean Government that, in the light of historical facts and international law, Takeshima is undoubtedly a part of Japanese territory and, at the same time, reiterated the most energetic protest against the unlawful occupation of Takeshima by the Korean Government authorities.

2. In spite of these, when "Hekura", patrol vessel of the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency, visited Takeshima for inspection on January 31, 1964, it discovered that various kinds of structures constructed by the Korean Government on the island still remained there without being removed, and that Korean Government officials were stationed.

3. The Japanese Government considers it deeply regrettable that, in spite of the repeated protests by the Japanese Government, the Korean Government still continues to occupy Takeshima unlawfully. Therefore, the Japanese Government lodges again the most energetic protest with the Korean Government against the unlawful occupation, and demands strongly of the Korean Government immediate withdrawal of the Korean officials from the island and removal of all the structures constructed there.

Tokyo, March 3, 1964.

(485) 1964. 3. 18 한국측 口述書(No. PKM-3)

(일본측 64. 3. 3 口述書에 반박)

The Korean Mission presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, with reference to the latter's Note Verbale No.72/ASN of March 3, 1964, regarding the ownership of Dokto, Korean territory, has the honour to state as  follows:

1. As the Government of the Republic of Korean has repeatedly made it clear on numerous occasion, Dokto is an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Korea and there can do no doubt whatsover about this fact in the light of authoritative historical evidences, geographical realities and international law. The Government of the Republic of Korea, accordingly, cannot recognize any propriety of the protest made by the Japanese Government in the Note under reference against the lawful exercise by the Korean Government of its territorial jurisdiction over the Island.

2. The Government of the Republic of Korea, cannot but express a grave concern over the incident in which the Japanese patrol vessel, "Hekura", engaged in an unlawful investigation of Dokdo which is unequivocally an integral part of the Korean territory as pointed out in the above. Therefore, the Korean Government hereby lodges the most energetic protest with the Japanese Government against such an unlawful act perpetrated by the said Japanese public vessel, and strongly requests the Japanese Government to take immediate and appropriate measures to prevent the recurrence of such a similar incident in future.

March 18, 1964. Tokyo.

(486) 1964. 11. 2 한국측 口述書

(日本外務省 □오늘의 日本□ 책자 내용에 항의)

日外務省 □오늘의 日本□ 冊子 內容中 獨島部分에 對한 抗議 (本文 省略)

(487) 1964. 11. 12 일본측 口述書(No. 475/ASN)

(한국측 64. 11. 2 口述書에 반박)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Korean Mission and, with reference to the latter's Note Verbale No. PKM-12 of November 2, 1964 regarding the denotation of Takeshima in "The Japan of Today", an information material issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affaris, has the honour to state as follows:

The Japanese Government, on many occasions in the past, pointed out to the Korean Government that, in the light of historical facts and international law, Takeshima is undoubtedly a part of Japanese territory (Reference is especially made to the points of view of the Japanese Government on the ownership of Takeshima presented to the Korean side by the Ministry's Notes Verbales dated July 13, 1953, February 10, 1954, September 20, 1956 and July 13, 1962).

In view of the foregoing, the Japanese Government considers that the Korean insistence on this matter is groundless and, therefore, is unable to accept it.

Tokyo, November 12, 1964.

(488) 1965. 4. 10 일본측口述書(No.134/ASN)(韓國警察 卽時退去 요구)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Korean Mission and, regarding the unlawful occupation by the Korean Government authorities of Takeshima, part of Japanese territory, has the honour to make the following representations:

1. The Japanese Government, on many occasions in the past, pointed out to the Korean Government that, in the light of historical facts and international law, Takeshima is undoubtedly a part of Japanese territory and, at the same time, reiterated the most energetic protest against the unlawful occupation of Takeshima by the Korean Government authorities.

2. However, when "Oki", patrol vessel of the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency, visited Takeshima for inspection of February 13, 1965, it discovered that various kinds of structures constructed by the Korean Government on the island still remained unremoved, and that Korean Government officials were stationed there.

3. The Japanese Government considers it highly regrettable that, in spite of the repeated protests by the Japanese Government, the Korean Government still continues to occupy Takeshima unlawfully. Therefore, the Japanese Government lodges again the most energetic protest with the Korean Government against the unlawful occupation, and demands strongly of the Korean Government immediate  withdrawal of the Korean officials from the island and removal of all the structure constructed there.

Tokyo, April 10, 1965.

(489) 1965. 5. 6 한국측 口述書(No. PKM-27)

(일본측 65. 4. 10. 구술서에 반박)

The Korean Mission presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, with reference to the latter's Note Verbale No. 134/ASN of April 10, 1965 regarding the ownership of Dokto, Korean territory, has the honour to state as follows:

1. As the Government of the Republic of Korea had repeatedly made clear on many occasions, in the light of authoritative historical evidences, Geographical realities and international law there can be no doubt whatsoever to the fact that Dokto is an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Korea. Therefore the Government of the Republic of Korea cannot recognize any propriety of such an unfounded protest as made by the Japanese Government of the Note under reference against the lawful exercise by the Korean Government of its territorial jurisdiction over the Island.

2. With regard to the unlawful acts committed under the pretext of the so-called inspection of the Korean territory by the Japanese patrol boat, "Oki", the Korean Government hereby lodges the most energetic protest with the Japanese Government against the illegal acts perpetrated by the said Japanese public vessel, and strongly requests the Japanese Government to take immediate and appropriate measures to prevent the recurrence of such unlawful acts in future.

Tokyo, May 6, 1965.

(490) 1965. 12. 17 한국측口述書(No. PKM-42)

(□日本政府見解④□에 대해 반박)

The Korean Mission presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan and, with reference to the latter's Note Verbale No. 228/ASN dated July 13, 1962, has the honor to state as follows:

As has been made indisputably clear on numerous occasions in the past, Dokto is an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Korea and is under the exercise of its lawful territorial jurisdiction. Any allegation to be made by the Japanese Government with regard to the ownership of Dokto does not deserve any consideration at all.

The Korean Mission avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Ministry the assurance of its highest consideration.

Tokyo, December 17, 1965.

(491) 1969. 10. 28 일본측口述書(No.164/ASN)

(65. 4. 10. 일본측 口述書와 同一)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the Republic of Korea and, regarding the unlawful occupation by the Korean Authorities of Takeshima, part of Japanese territory, has the honour to make the following representations:

1. The Government of Japan, on many occasions in the past, pointed out to the Government of the Republic of Korea that, in the light of historical facts and international law, Takeshima is undoubtedly a part of Japanese territory and, reiterated a strong protest against the unlawful occupation of Takeshima by the Korean authorities.

2. However, when "Hekura", patrol vessel of the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency, made a tour for inspection of Takeshima on August 15, 1969, it was observed that not only various kinds of constructions built by the Government of the Republic of Korea on the island still remained unremoved, but also new installations had been added, and Korean officials were stationed there.

3. The Government of Japan considers it highly regrettable that, in spite of the repeated protests by the Government of Japan, the Government of the Republic of Korea still continues to occupy Takeshima unlawfully. Therefore, the Government of Japan lodges again the strong protest with the Government of the Republic of Korea against the unlawful occupation, and requests the Government of the Republic of Korea to withdraw immediately the Korean officials from the island and to remove all the constructions.

Tokyo, October 28, 1969.

(492) 1969. 11. 25 한국측 口述書(日本巡視船 領海侵犯에 항의)

The Embassy of the Republic of Korea presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affaris and, with reference to the latter's Note No.164/ASN dated October 28, 1969 regarding the ownership of Dokgo, Korean territory, has the honour to make the following representations:

1. As the Government of the Republic of Korea has repeatedly made clear on many occasions, Dokto is an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Korea and is under the exercise of its lawful territorial jurisdiction. The Government of the Republic of Korea, therefore, can not recognize any propriety of such an unfounded protest as made by the Japanese Government in the above-referred Note.

2. The Government of the Republic of Korea takes a serious view on the unlawful acts committed by a Japanese patrol boat under th pretext of the so-called inspection. The Government of the Republic of Korea lodges the most energetic protest with the Government of Japan against the illegal acts perpetrated by the said Japanese patrol veseel, and strongly requests the Japanese Government to take immeditate and appropriate measures to prevent the recurrence of such unlawful acts in future.

Tokyo, November 26, 1969.

(493) 1970. 11. 13 일본측 口述書(No. 163/ASN)(□不法占有□ 계속에 항의)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the Republic of Korea and, regarding the unlawful occupation  by the Korean of Takeshima, part of Japanese territory, has the honour to make the following representations:

1. The Government of Japan, on many occasions in the past, pointed to the Government of the Republic of Korea that, in the light of historical facts and international law, Takeshima is undoubtedly a part of Japanese territory and, reiterated a strong protest against the unlawful occupation of Takeshima by the Korean authorities.

2. However, when "Hekura", patrol vessel of the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency, made a tour for inspection of Takeshima on September 13, 1970, it was observed that various kinds of contructions buit by the government of the Republic of Korea on the island still remained unremoved and that Korean officials were stationed there.

3. The Government of Japan considers it highly regrettable that, in spite of the repeated protest by the Government of Japan, the Government of the Repulbic of Korea still continues to occupy Takeshima unlawfully. Therefore, the Government of Japan lodges again the strong protest with the Government of the Republic of Korea against the unlawful occupation, the requests the Government of the Republic of Korea to withdraw immediately the Korean officials from the island and to remove all the constructions.

Tokyo, November 13, 1970

(494) 1970. 11. 24 한국측 口述書(한국측 69. 11. 25. 구술서와 同一)

The Embasssy of the Republic of Korea presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, with reference to the latter's Note No. 163/ASN dated November 13, 1970 regarding the ownership of Dokto, part of Korean territory, has the honour to make, under the instructions from its home Government, the following representations:

1. As the Government of the Republic of Korea had repeatedly made clear on many occasions, in the light of authoritative historical evidence, geographical facts and international law, there can be no doubt whatsover to the fact that Dokto is an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Korea. Therefore the Government of the Republic of Korea cannot recognize any propriety of such an unfounded protest as made by the Japanese Government in the Note under reference against the lawful exercise by the Korean Government of its territorial jurisdiction over the Island.

2. The Government of the Republic of Korea considers it highly regrettable that the Japanese patrol boat, "Hekura", violated the territorial waters of the Republic of Korea, while engaged in the so-called inspection tour of Dokto on September 3, 1970. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Korea lodges a most energetic protest with the Government of Japan against the illegal acts committed by the said Japanese patrol boat, and strongly requests the Japanese Government to take immediate and appropriate measures to prevent the recurrence of such unlawful acts in the future.

Tokyo, November 24, 1970.

(495) 1971. 9. 6 일본측 口述書(No. 163/ASN)

(일본측 70. 11. 13 口述書와 同一)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the Republic of Korea and, regarding the unlawful occupation by the Korean Authorities of Takeshima, part of Japanese Territory, has the honour to make the following representations:

1. The Government of Japan, on many occasions in the past, pointed out to the Government of the Republic of Korea that, in the light of historical facts and international law, Takeshima is undoubtedly a part of Japanese territory and, reiterated a strong protest against the unlawful occupation of Takeshima by the Korean Authorities.

2. However, when "Nagara", patrol vessel of the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency, made a tour for inspection of Takeshima on July 1, 1971, it was observed that various kinds of constructions built by the Government of the Republic of Korea on the island still remained removed.

3. The Government of Japan considers it highly regrettable that, in spite of the repeated protests by the Government of Japan, the Government of the Republic of Korea still continues to occupy Takeshima unlawfully. Therefore, the Government of Japan lodges again the stron protest with the Government of the Republic of Korea against the unlawful occupation, and requests the Government of the Republic of Korea to withdraw immediately the Korean officials from the island and to remove all the constructions.

Tokyo, September 6, 1971.

(496) 1971. 10. 12 한국측 口述書(71. 9. 6 일본측 口述書에 반박)

The Embassy of the Republic of Korea presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, with reference to the latter's Note No. 163/ASN dated September 6, 1971 regarding the ownership of Dokto, an integral part of Korean territory, has the honour to make, under the instructions from its home Government, the following representations:

1. The Government of the Republic of Korea repeatedly made clear numerous occasions in the past that, in the light of authoritative historical evidence, geographical facts and international law, there can be no doubt whatsover as to the fact that Dokto is an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Korea. The Government of the Republic of Korea cannot, therefore, recognize any propriety of the unwarranted protest by the Government of Japan in the Note under reference against the lawful exercise by the Korean Government of its territorial sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Island.

2. The Government of the Republic of Korea considers it extremely regrettable that the Japanese patrol boat "Nagara" violated the territorial waters of the Republic of Korea, while engaged in the so-called inspection tour of Dokto in July 1, 1971. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Korea is obliged to lodge a most energetic protest with the Government of Japan against the illegal acts committed by the said Japanese patrol boat, and strongly requests the Japanese Government to take immediate and appropriate measures to prevent the recurrence of such an unlawful act in the future.

Tokyo, October 12, 1971.

(497) 1972. 4. 1 일본측 口述書(No. 30/ASN)

(한국의 반항구적 燈台 설치계획에 항의)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the Republic of Korea and has the honour to make the following representations regarding the unlawful occupation by the Korean Authorities of a Japanese territory, Takeshima:

1. The Government of Japan has pointed out to the Government of the Republic of Korea, on many occasions in the past, that Takeshima is undoubtedly a Japanese territory in the light of historical facts and an international law, and has repeated strong protests against its unlawful occupation by the Korean Authorities.

2. Meanwhile, it has been confirmed that the Government of the Republic of Korea is planning to change the lighthouse on Takeshima into a semi-permanent one using the sunlight as power source, and it should be regarded as nothing but an indication of that Government's intention to continue the unlawful occupation of th island for a long period to come.

3. The Government of Japan considers it extremely deplorable that the Government of the Republic of Korea, ignoring the repeated protests by the Government of Japan, should continue to occupy Takeshima unlawfully and attempt to change the lighthouse into a semi-permanent one. Therefore, the Government of Japan lodges afresh a strong protest with the Government of the Republic of Korea against the unlawful occupation and requests that the Korean officials be immediately withdrawn from the island and all the constructions including the lighthouse on the island be removed.

Tokyo, April 1, 1972.

(498) 1972. 5. 15 한국측 口述書(No. PKE-72/05)

(72. 4. 1 일본측 口述書에 반박)

The Embassy of the Republic of Korea presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, with reference to the latter's Note No. ASN/30 dated April 1, 1972 regarding Dokto, an integral part of the Korean territory, has the honour to make, under instructions from its home Government, the following representations:

1. As the Government of the Republic of Korea has repeatedly pointed out to the Government of Japan on numerous occasions in the past, the fact that Dokto is an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Korea is obvious and indisputable in the light of authoritative historical evidence, geographical facts and international law. The Government of the Republic of Korea can not recognize any propriety of the unfounded protest by the Government of Japan in the Note under reference against the lawful exercise by the Korean Government of its territorial sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Island.

2. It is extremely regrettable that the Japanese Government, despite the repeated protests by the Government of the Republic of Korea, should continue to send patrol boats around the territorial waters of the Republic of Korea under the pretext of so-called inspection tour. The Government of the Republic of Korea strongly requests once again the Japanese Government to take appropriate measures to prevent any recurrence of such an unlawful act in the future.

Tokyo, May 15, 1972.

(499) 1972. 10. 26 일본측 口述書(No. 155/ASN)

(71. 9. 6 일본측 구술서와 同一)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the Republic of Korea and has the honour to make the following representations regarding the unlawful occupation by the Korean Authorities of a Japanese territory, Takeshima:

1. The Government of Japan has pointed out to the Government of the Republic of Korea, on many occasions in the past, that Takeshima is undoubtedly a Japanese territory in the light of historical facts and international law, and has repeated strong protests against its unlawful occupation by the Korean Authorities.

2. However, when "Hekura", patrol vessel of the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency, made a tour for inspection of Takeshima on August 22, 1972, it was observed that various kinds of constructions built by the Government of the Republic of Korea on the island still remained unremoved, and that Korean officials were stationed there.

3. The Government of Japan considers it extremely deplorable that the Government of the Republic of Korea, ignoring the repeated protests by the Government of Japan, should continue to occupy Takeshima unlawfully. Therefore, the Government of Japan lodges afresh a strong protest with the Government of the Republic of Korea against the unlawful occupation and requests that the Korean officials be immediately withdrawn from the island and all the constructions on the island be removed.

Tokyo, October 26, 1972.

(500) 1972. 12. 11 한국측 口述書(72. 10. 26 일본측 구술서에 반박)

The Embassy of the Republic of Korea presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, with reference to the latter's Note No. ASN/30 dated April, 1972 regarding Dokto, an integral part of Korean territory, has the honour to make, under instructions from its home Government, the following representations:

1. As the Government of the Republic of Korea has repeatedly pointed out to the Government of Japan on numerous occasions in the past, the fact that Dokto is an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Korea is obvious and indisputable in the light of authoritative historical evidence, geographical facts and international law. The Government of the Republic of Korea can not recognize any propriety of the unfounded protest by the Government of Japan in the Note under reference against the lawful exercise by the Korean Government of its territorial sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Island.

2. It is extremely regrattable that the Japanese Government, despite the repeated protests by the Government of the Republic of Korea, should continue to send patrol boats around the territorial waters of the Republic of Korea under the pretext of so-called inspection tour. The Government of the Republic of Korea strongly requests once again the Japanese Government to take appropriate measures prevent any recurrence of such an unlawful act in the future.

Tokyo, December 11, 1972.

(501) 1973. 4. 25 일본측 口述書(No. P-155)(獨島開發計劃 보도에 항의)

The Embassy of Japan presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, with reference to the survey project for the development of fishing around the area of Takeshima Island which will reprotedly be conducted in the very near future, has the honour, under instruction from its home Government, to state as follows:

If the projected survey is to involve the waters within twelve miles of Takeshima Island, it would constitute the contravention of the provisions that Japan exercises over the waters to that extent the exclusive jurisdiction in matters of fisheries (cf. paragraph 1, article 1 of the Agreement on Fisheries between Japan and the Republic of Korea and the Japanese Government Ordinance concerning the establishment of the fishery limit waters based on the said provisions, and if the survey is to be conducted in Takeshima Island itself or over the waters within three miles of the Island, then it would come into conflict with the position of the Government of Japan that Takeshima Island is a territory of Japan.

The Government of Japan wishes to emphasize that the conduct of a fishing survey by the Republic of Korea in such a manner as may be imcompatible with the established position of the Government of Japan as set forth in the preceding would be liable to stir up the dispute between the two countries over the Takeshima question, thus disturbing the friendly relations between the two countries.

The Government of Japan, therefore, has the honour to honestly request the Government of the Republic of Korea to be good enough to reconsider the matter to see to it that the above-mentioned survey project, if ever carried out, will be limited to the areas of waters not within twelve miles of Takeshima Island.

The Embassy of Japan avails itself of this opportunity to renew the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the assurances of its highest consideration.

Seoul, April 25, 1973.

(502) 1973. 5. 7 한국측 口述書(No. OAT-391)

(73. 4. 25 일본측 口述書에 반박)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of Japan, with reference to the latter's Note No. p-155 dated April 25, 1973 regarding  the reported survey project for the development of fisheries around the Island of Dokto, part of Korean territory, has the honour to state as follows:

As the Government of the Republic of Korea has repeatedly made clear on many occasions, in the light of authoritative historical evidence, geographical facts and international law, there can be no doubt whatsover that Dokto is an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Korea.

The Government of the Republic of Korea, therefore, can not recognize the propriety of such an unfounded protests as made by the Japanese Government in the Note under reference against the lawful exercise by the Korean Government of its territorial sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Island of Dokto.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of Japan the assurances of its highest consideration.

Seoul, May 7, 1973.

(503) 1975. 11. 19 일본측 口述書(No. 229/ASN)

(韓國官憲 卽時退去 및 建物撒去 요구)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the Republic of Korea and, regarding the unlawful occupation by the Korean Authorities of Takeshima, part of Japanese territory, has the honour to make the following representations:

1. On many occasions in the past, the Government of Japan has pointed out to the Government of the Republic of Korea that in the light of historical facts and according to international law Takeshima is undoubtedly a part of Japanese territory, and has repeatedly made strong protests against the unlawful occupation of Takeshima by the Korean authorities.

2. In spite of these, when "Hekura", patrol vessel of the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency, made a tour for inspection of Takeshima on September 9, 1975, it was observed that, on the island, not only various kinds of constructions built by the Government of the Republic of Korea still remained removed, but also new installations had been added, and that Korean officials were stationed there.

3. The Government of Japan considers it extremely regrettable that, in spite of the protests repeated by the Government of Japan, the Government of the Republic  of Korea still continues to occupy Takeshima unlawfully. Therefore, the Government of Japan hereby lodges a strong protest again with the Government of the Republic of Korea against the unlawful occupation, and demands the Government of the Republic of Korea to immediately withdraw the Korean officials from the island and to remove all the constructions there.

Tokyo, November 19, 1975.

(504) 1975. 11. 24 한국측 口述書(75. 11. 19 일본측 口述書에 반박)

The Embassy of the Republic of Korea presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, with reference to the latter's Note No. 229/ASN dated November 19, 1975 regarding Dokto, has the honour to make, under instructions from its home Government, the following representation:

1. The Government of the Republic of Korea repeatedly made it clear on numerous occasions in the past that, in the light of authoritative historical evidence, geographical facts and international law, there can be no doubt whatsover as to the fact that Dokto is an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Korea. The Government of the Republic of Korea cannot, therefore, recognize any propriety of the unwarranted protest by the Government of Japan in the Note under reference against the lawful exercise by the Korean Government of its territorial sovereignty and jurisdiction over the land.

2. The Government of the Republic of Korea considers it extremely regrettable that the Japanese patrol boat "Hekura" violated the territorial waters of the Republic of Korea, and engaged in the so-called inspection tour of Dokto on September 9, 1975. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Korea hereby lodges the most energetic protest with the Government of Japan against the unlawful acts committed by the said Japanese patrol boat, and strongly requests the Japanese Government to take immediate and appropriate measures to prevent the recurrence of such unlawful acts in the future.

Tokyo, November 24, 1975.

(505) 1976. 9. 8 일본측 覺書

(아마추어 移動無線局 설치 및 學術調査 활동에 항의)

1. 8月4日付朝鮮日報紙□7月27日, 17名□韓國□□□□□無線家□□成□□韓國□□連盟獨島(竹島)遠征隊□□墨湖□□韓國政府□海洋警備艇□竹島□到着□□□□□□□□移動無線局□□設置□□旨報□□□□□ □□□ 8月31日付中央日報紙□7月27日, 韓國□□學術調査團□□韓國政府□海洋警備艇□竹島□到着□□旨報□□□□□

2. 日本政□□□□□ □□報道內容□事實□□□□否□□ 韓國側□確認□求□□□□

3. □□□□報道□事實□□□□□□□□□□日本政府□□□□韓國人□□□□□無線家及□韓國□□學術調査團□□竹島□不法□上陸□□□□□□□□□, 韓國政府□公船□□□海洋警備艇□□□□□□□□□無線家及□韓國□□學術調査團□□竹島□輸送□□ □□□支援□□□□□重大□關心□有□□□

□□□韓國政府□行爲□徒來□竹島□關□□紛爭□□□□紛糾□□□□挑發的行爲□言□□□□得□□ 日韓友好關係□□□□□□□極□□遺憾□行爲□□□□ 日本政府□韓國政府□抗議□□□□□□□ □□□遺憾□事件□再發防止措置方□韓國政府□要求□□□

4.日本政府□□□機會□韓國政府□日本政府□累次□□□□□抗議□□□□□□□□□今□□竹島□不法□占據□續□□□□□□□極□□遺憾□□□□□□□□□ □□□重□□同政府□對□嚴重抗議□□□□□□□ 韓國官憲□竹島□□□卽時退去及□同島□□□□一切□建物□撤去□强□要求□□□

(506) 1976. 9 13 한국측 文書(76. 9. 8 일본측 覺書에 반박)

1. 大韓民國 政府가 過去 數次에 걸쳐 거듭 闡明한 바와 같이, 獨島는 歷史的 □據, 地理的 事實 및 國際法에 비추어, 大韓民國 領土의 不可의 一部分이다.

2. 따라서 獨島는 大韓民國의 主權下에 있으며, 大韓民國 政府는, 1976年 9月 8日字 日本 外務省 文書에 言及된 日本政府의 主張에 對하여 何의 妥當性도 認定할 수 없고 또한 그 抗議는 根據가 없는 것임을 通報한다.

(507) 1976. 10. 25 일본측 口述書(No. 247/ASN)

(75. 11. 19 일본측 구술서와 同一)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of the Republic of Korea and, regarding, the unlawful occupation by the Korean authorities of Takeshima, part of Japanese territory, has the honour to make the following representations:

1. On many occasions in the past, the Government of Japan has pointed out to the Government of the Republic of Korea that, in the light of historical facts and according to international law, Takeshima is undoubtedly a part of Japanese territory, and has repeatedly made strong protests against the unlawful occupation of Takeshima by the Korean authorities.

2. In spite of these, when "Kuzuryu", patrol vessel of the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency, made a tour for inspection of Takeshima on August 13, 1976, it was observed that, on the island, not only various of kinds of constructions built by the Government of the Republic of Korea still remained unremoved, but also new installations had been added, and that Korean officials were stationed there.

3. The Government of Japan considers it extremely regrettable at, in spite of the repeated protests by the Government of Japan, the Governent of Republic of Korea still continues to occupy Takeshima unlawfully. In particular, the Government of Japan considers that the setting up of new installations in the island by the Government of the Republic of Korea constitutes an extremely unfriendly action against Japan.

Therefore, the Government of Japan hereby lodges a strong protest again with the Government of the Republic of Korea against the unlawful occupation, and demands the Government of the Republic of Korea to immediately withdraw the Korean officials from the island and to remove all the constructions there.

Tokyo, October 25, 1976.

(508) 1976. 12. 2 한국측 口述書(76. 10. 25 일본측 구술서에 반박)

The Embassy of the Republic of Korea presents its compliaments to the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs and, with reference to the latter's Note No. 247/ASN, dated October 25, 1976 regarding DOKTO, has the honour to state as follows:

1. As has been stated repeatedly on numerous occasions in the past, the Government of the Republic of Korea maintains that, in the light of historical evidences and geographcial facts, and also under the principle of international law,  DOKTO is an integral part of the territory of the Republic of Korea. The Government of the Republic of Korea, therefore, cannot recognize any propriety of the unwarranted protest lodged by the Government of Japan as contained in the Note under reference against the lawful exercise of territorial sovereignty and jurisdiction by the Korean Government over the Island.

2. The Government of the Republic of Korea greatly regrets to note that, as referrred to in the said Note, the "Kuzuryu", a patrol vessel of the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency, made its tour for so-called "inspection" of DOKTO on August 13, 1976, in grave violation of the territorial waters of the Republic of Korea.

3. The Government of the Republic of Korea lodges a firm protest with the Japanese Government against the unlawful act committed by the above-mentioned Japanese vessel and strongly requests that such unlawful acts should not be repeated by the Japanese Government in the future.

Tokyo, December 12, 1976.

[해설]

이 자료는 □일본정부견해④□가 보내진 이후 1976년까지의 독도영유권 논쟁의 왕복문서이다. 한국정부가 □한국정부견해④□를 보내지 않았기 때문에 저자는 이 [해설]에서 □한국정부견해④□를 의제하여 두었다.

일본정부는 한일기본조약 체결 전인 1962년 12월 22일 순시선 오키호를 독도에 파견하여 독도를 순찰한 후 일본영토인 竹島를 한국인들이 아직도 불법 점령하고 있다고 항의하고, 한국인의 철수와 시설물 철거를 요구해왔다. 또한 일본정부는 한국 경상북도 울릉경찰서 소속 순시선 花郞號가 1963년 1월 8일 폭풍으로 島根縣에 표류해왔는데, 일본영토인 竹島로 가는 길에 표류하게 된 것이라고 항의해왔다.

한국정부는 1963년 2월 25일자의 구술서에서, 일본 당국이 화랑호를 구조해준 데 대해서는 감사하지만 독도가 한국영토이므로 일본정부는 항의를 제출할 위치에 있지 않으며, 한일회담이 개최되어 국교정상화가 협상되고 있는 중에 일본 순시선 오키호가 독도 수역을 침입한 것은 우호적인 것이 아니라고 항의하였다.

그러나 일본측은 한국정부의 주장을 일축하였다. 일본정부는 1964년 1월 31일 해상보안청 순시선 헤쿠라호를 독도에 파견하여 순찰하고 한국에 항의해왔으며, 한국정부는 이를 반박하였다. 일본 외무성은《오늘의 일본》이라는 책자를 내 竹島는 일본영토인데 한국이 불법 점령하고 있다는 내용을 게재했으며, 한국정부가 이 내용에 항의하자, 竹島는 일본영토의 불가분의 일부이므로 한국측의 항의를 접수하지 않는다는 회답을 보내왔다. 일본정부는 한일기본조약 체결 직전인 1965년 2월 13일에도 해상보안청 순시선 오키호를 독도에 파견하여 순찰하고 한국의 철수를 요구해왔으며, 한국정부는 이를 반박하였다.

이러한 상태에서 1965년 2월 22일 한일기본조약이 조인되자, 한국정부는 이것으로 일본정부가 독도 문제를 더 이상 거론하지 않으리라고 전제하고, 앞서 말한 1965년 12월 17일자의 간단한 □구술서□를 보내고 끝내려고 한 것같다. 실제로 일본정부는 만 4년간 독도에 순시선을 파견하지 않았다. 그러나 1969년부터는 다시 독도 문제를 들고 나와 일본영토라고 반환을 요구해왔으며, 특히 1969년 8월 15일 光復節을 택하여 해상보안청 순시선 헤쿠라호를 독도에 파견해서 순찰하고 한국인들의 철수와 시설물의 철거를 강력하게 항의 요구해왔다. 한국정부가 이에 반박했음은 물론이다.

그러나 일본정부는 그 이후 해마다 1회 이상씩 해상보안청 순시선을 독도에 파견하여 순찰케 하고 한국의 철수를 요구해오고 있다. 일본정부는 1970년에는 9월 13일 순시선 헤쿠라호를 독도에 파견하여 순찰하고 항의 구술서를 보내왔고, 한국정부의 반박을 받았으며, 1971년에는 7월 1일 해상보안청 순시선 나가라호를 독도에 파견했다가, 한국정부의 반박을 받았다.

일본정부는 1972년 4월에는 한국정부가 독도의 등대를 태양열을 사용하는 반영구적 등대로 교체하려는 계획을 갖고 있음을 확인했는데, 이것은 한국정부가 앞으로도 장기간 독도를 불법 점유할 의사를 표시한 것으로 간주할 수밖에 없다고 강력한 항의를 보내왔으며, 한국정부는 한국영토인 독도에 대한 정당한 주권 행사에 일본측이 간섭함은 유감이라고 반박하였다. 일본정부는 이어서 1972년 8월 22일 해상보안청 순시선 헤쿠라호를 독도에 파견하여 순찰하고 한국인의 철수와 시설물의 철거를 요구했다가, 한국정부의 반박을 받았다.

일본측은 1973년에는 한국정부가 獨島水域漁業開發調査計劃을 갖고 있다고 하는데 이것이 만일 竹島[독도]의 3마일 이내 영해를 포함한 것이라면 일본의 영해를 침범한 것이고, 12마일 이내의 수역을 포함한 것이면 일본의 전관수역을 침범하는 것이라고 항의해왔다. 한국정부는 이에 대해 이것은 한국정부의 정당한 영토 주권의 행사라고 반박하였다.

일본정부는 1975년 9월 9일에는 해상보안청 순시선 헤쿠라호를 독도에 파견하여 순찰시키고 한국정부에게 독도로부터의 철수를 요구했다가, 한국정부로부터 반박과 항의를 받았다.

일본정부는 1976년에는《朝鮮日報》(8월 4일자)에 □한국햄연맹 독도 원정대가 한국정부의 해양경비정편으로 7월 27일 독도에 도착해서 □아마추어 이동무선국□을 설치했다□는 보도와,《중앙일보》(8월 20일자)에 한국의 □학술조사단□이 한국정부의 해양경비정으로 7월 27일 독도에 도착했다는 보도가 있었다고 지적하고, 일본정부는 한국의 아마추어 무선가들 및 학술조사단이 일본영토인 竹島에 불법 상륙했을 뿐 아니라, 한국정부의 公船인 해양경비정이 이들을 지원했다는 사실은 독도 분쟁을 더욱 악화시키는 도발적 행위로서 유감을 표시한다고 항의하였다. 한국정부가 이에 반박했음은 물론이다.

일본정부는 이어서 1976년 8월 13일 해상보안청 순시선 쿠주류호를 독도에 파견하여 순찰하고, 한국 관리들의 철수와 시설물의 철거를 요구해왔다. 한국정부는 독도가 한국영토인데 일본 순시선 쿠주류호가 독도 영해를 침범했다고 항의하였다.

저자가 입수하여 활용할 수 있는 자료는 1976년까지다. 그 이후 일본정부가 매년 해상보안청 순시선을 독도에 파견하여 순찰토록 하고 한국정부에 항의 구술서를 보내오며, 한국정부는 이에 반박하면서 항의 구술서를 보내는 일이 연례행사처럼 반복되어 왔음은, 신문에 보도되는 바 독도 수역에의 일본 선박의 정기적 출현에서 알 수 있다.

이 기간(1976년)까지의 문제의 초점은 □일본정부견해④□(1962년 7월 13일자)에 대해서 당시에 한국정부가 이를 조목별로 정밀하게 반박하고 독도가 한국영토임을 논증하는 □한국정부 견해 ④□를 일본측에 발송하지 못한 점이라고 할 수 있다.

□일본정부견해④□에 대한 비판

지금까지 해설한 바와 같이 독도는 한국영토임이 명백한데도 당시 한국정부가 □일본정부 견해 ④□를 조목별로 반박하지 않은 것은 큰 불찰이라고 볼 수 있다. 그러므로 여기서는 □일본정부 견해 ④□를 비판하면서 독도가 한국영토임을 다시 한번 논증하기로 한다.

① 일본정부는 1656년경 大谷家가 幕府로부터 松島[독도] 渡海免許를 □拜領□했다고 운운하면서 □拜領□을 부각시키고 있는데, 이것은 약간의 함정이 있는 것이다. 당시 한자로 □拜領□은 □절하여 받았다□로 □받았다□, 즉 □拜受□의 뜻밖에 없다. 여기에는 □領地를 받았다□, □領土를 받았다□는 뜻은 전혀 포함되어 있지 않다.

또한 大谷家의 松島[독도] 渡海免許를 증명하는 古文書인 1660년(萬治 3) 9월 5일자 龜山庄左衛門의 서간에는 □竹島內之松島□(울릉도 안의 독도)라고 하여 독도가 울릉도 안에 포함 부속되어 있는 도서임을 강조하여 松島[독도] 渡海免許가 竹島[울릉도] 渡海免許와 동일한 것이며, 竹島 渡海免許를 이미(1618년) 발급받았기 때문에 □竹島內之松島□인 松島 渡海免許가 동일한 大谷家에게 나온 것임을 잘 알려주고 있다. 竹島[울릉도] 渡海免許는 외국 渡海免許였으므로 당연히 松島 渡海免許도 외국 渡海免許였다. 만일 당시 幕府나 大谷家가 松島[독도]를 일본영토로 간주했다면 松島 渡海免許는 불필요했을 것이다. 따라서 일본정부가 1656년경의 松島(독도？竹島)에의 渡海免許를 大谷家에게 발급해준 것은 竹島와 동일하게 松島[독도]를 외국(조선) 영지로 간주했기 때문이다.

또한 일본정부는 18세기 중엽의《竹島圖說》에 □隱岐의 國 松島□ 운운한 기록이 있다고 주장하였다. 일본 私人의 기록이어서 전후 문맥을 보아야지 이 구절만으로는 판단하기 어려운데, 이보다 훨씬 앞선 공식적 일본 문헌기록과 증거 고지도들을 다수 남겨놓고 있어서 이것은 문제가 되지 않는다. 앞서 지적한 바와 같이 雲州의 藩士 齋藤豊仙은 藩主의 명령을 받아 隱岐島를 巡見하고, 관찰한 것과 들은 것을 채록하여 1667년에《隱州視聽合記》를 지어 복명했는데, 이 책에서 일본의 西北境界는 隱州[隱岐島]로써 한계를 삼는다고 명백하게 밝혔다. 이 책은 일본에서는 최초로 松島[독도]와 竹島[울릉도]를 거론한 책인데, 이 최초의 고문헌에서부터 이 두 섬이 고려에 속한 것임을 지리적 거리를 들어 설명하였다. 일본은 松島와 竹島를 최초로 거론한 고문헌에서 松島[독도]가 竹島와 함께 한국영토임을 명백하게 밝힌 것이다.

일본의 고지도를 보면, 18세기의 지도로서는 1785년에 林子平이 일본·조선·중국 등 3국의 국경 구분을 그린 당시의 대표적 지도인〈三國接壤地圖〉에서 국경과 영토를 명료히 나타내기 위해 나라별로 채색을 하면서 울릉도와 독도를 정확한 위치에 그려넣었을 뿐 아니라 두 섬을 모두 조선의 색깔인 황색으로 표시하여 두 섬이 모두 조선영토임을 확인했다. 뿐만 아니라 이〈삼국접양지도〉는 울릉도와 독도의 옆에다 다시 □朝鮮□持□□(조선의 것으로)라는 문자를 적어넣어 울릉도와 독도가 조선영토임을 거듭 강조했다.

또한 역시 같은 18세기 德川幕府 시대의 지도인〈總繪圖〉에서도 국경과 영토를 명백히 구분하기 위해 나라별로 채색을 달리 하면서, 울릉도와 독도를 정확한 위치에다 그려넣고 이름을 밝히지 않은 채 모두 조선의 색깔인 황색으로 표시했다. 이 또한 두 섬이 모두 조선영토임을 나타낸다. 이〈총회도〉는 그뿐 아니라 울릉도와 독도 위에다 다시 □朝鮮□持□□(조선의 것으로)라는 문자를 구태여 적어넣어 이들이 모두 조선영토임을 거듭 밝혔다.

일본정부가 제시한 고지도들은 모두가 울릉도와 독도를 비교적 정확하게 그려서 □지리적 지식□이 있었음을 나타내기는 하지만 영유에 대해서는 어떠한 증명도 해주지 못하는데, 여기서 제시하는 일본의 두 고지도인〈三國接壤地圖〉와〈總繪圖〉는 채색과 문자의 두 가지 방법으로 울릉도와 독도가 모두 한국영토임을 명백하게 증명해주고 있는 것이다.

한국의 고도서로서 일본명 松島(독도·于山島)가 한국영토임을 명료하게 알려주는 것은《세종실록》 지리지,《만기요람》 군정편,《숙종실록》,《삼국사기》 등을 비롯, 그 밖에도 다수가 있다.

1942년에 편찬된《세종실록》 지리지는 강원도 울진현에 속한 우산도[독도]와 무릉도[울릉도]를 설명하면서 신라시대에는 이를 우산국이라고 했다고 기록했다. 1808년 편찬한《만기요람》 군정편에는 □輿地志에 이르기를 울릉도와 우산도는 모두 于山國地이며 우산도는 왜인들이 말하는 松島이다□고 기록하였다. 여기서는 울릉도와 우산도가 모두[皆] 우산국영토였음을 명백히 밝혔다. 또한《숙종실록》 숙종 22년(1696) 9월 戊寅조에도 안용복의 말로 울릉도에 이어서 □松島는 곧 于(子)山島인데 이 역시 우리나라의 땅□이라고 기록되어 있다.《삼국사기》 신라본기 지증왕 13년(512년)조에는 서기 512년 6월에 우산국이 신라에 병합되었다고 기록되어 있으니, 우산국 영토인 울릉도와 우산도(일본명 松島)는 서기 512년 6월부터 한국영토의 일부가 되었음이 명백하다.

② 일본정부는 明治初年(1877∼1878년경)에도 당시 일본 외무성 수뇌부가 독도를 일본영토라고 했다고 주장했는데, 이것은 전혀 사실이 아니다. 당시 일본 외무성은 독도(일본명 松島)가 울릉도(일본명 竹島)와 함께 한국영토임을 명확히 알고 있었다.

《日本外交文書》 제 3 권을 보면 明治정부는 신정부 수립 직후인 1869년(明治 2) 12월 조선 사정을 내탐하기 위하여 외무성 고위 관리들인 佐田白茅·森山茂·齋藤榮 등을 부산에 파견하면서 太政官의 □조사사항 지령□ 승인하에 조사항목을 지시했는데, 그중에 □竹島·松島가 조선 부속으로 되어 있는 始末□(竹島松島朝鮮附屬□相成候始末)이라는 사항이 있다. 佐田白茅·森山茂 등은 이듬해 1870년(明治 3)에 이에 대해 □朝鮮國交際始末內探書□라는 復命書를 제출했는데, 그 내용의 일부에는 다음과 같은 것이 있다.

一. 竹島와 松島가 朝鮮附屬으로 되어 있는 始末.

이 건은 松島는 竹島의 隣島로서, 松島의 건에 대해서는 이제까지 揭載된 書留도 없다. 竹島의 건에 대해서는 元祿度後는 잠시 동안 朝鮮으로부터 居留를 위해 差遣한 바 있다. 당시는 이전과 같이 無人으로 되어 있다. 竹木 또는 竹을 비롯해서 큰 갈대가 자라며 人蔘 등이 자연으로 난다. 그 밖에 漁産도 상응하여 있다고 들었다. (이하 약함)

일본 외무성의 위의 자료는 ㉠ 明治初年에 일본 외무성이 竹島[울릉도]와 松島[독도]가 조선 부속령임을 명확히 알고 그에 대한 조사를 지시했으며, ㉡ 松島[독도]는 竹島[울릉도]의 隣島라는 사실, 즉 독도는 울릉도의 부속도서로 간주되었다는 사실, ㉢ 松島[독도]에 대해서는 그것이 조선 부속령으로 된 경위를 게재한 문서를 일본측에서는 찾지 못했다는 사실, ㉣ 울릉도에 대해서는 그것이 조선 부속령으로 된 경위의 문서가 있으며 현재 무인도라는 사실, ㉤ 울릉도의 물산 등을 보고했음을 알려주고 있다.

일본 외무성과 太政官은 明治初年에 울릉도[竹島]와 독도[松島]가 ㉠ 조선 부속령이고, ㉡ 無主의 도서가 아니며, ㉢ 일본 부속령이 아니고, ㉣ 독도는 울릉도의 隣島로서 울릉도의 부속 도서임을 명료하게 인지하여 그것을 일본정부의 공식문서인《日本外交文書》에 수록하고 있는 것이다.

또 하나의 결정적 자료로서 일본 明治 內務省과 太政官의 1877년(明治 10)의 자료가 있다. 일본 내무성(內務卿 大久保利通)은 1876년(明治 9) 일본 국토의 地籍을 조사하고 정밀한 지도를 편제하는 사업에 임하여 竹島[울릉도]와 松島[독도]를 島根縣의 지도와 地籍에 포함시켜야 할 것인가 않아야 할 것인가에 대한 질의서를 島根縣으로부터 1876년 10월 6일 공문으로 접수하였다. 일본 내무성은 5개월간에 걸쳐 島根縣이 제출한 부속문서뿐만 아니라 일본 元祿年間(조선의 肅宗年間에 해당)에 조선과 교섭한 관계 문서들을 모두 조사해본 후 竹島[울릉도]와 松島[독도]는 조선영토이며 일본과는 관계 없는 곳이라는 결론을 내렸다.

그러나 이것은 중대한 안건이므로 내무성 단독으로 결정하지 않고 이듬해인 1877년 3월 17일 당시 일본의 최고 국가기관인 太政官에게 품의서를 제출하여 그 결정을 요청하였다. 이 품의서를 검토한 후 太政官은 1877년 3월 20일 □품의한 취지의 竹島 외 一島의 건에 대하여 本邦(일본１인용자)은 관계가 無하다는 것을 心得할 것□이라는 다음과 같은 지령문을 내렸다. 여기서 竹島[울릉도] 외 一島는 그 부속문서에 □다음에 一島가 있는데 松島라고 부른다□고 하여 松島임을 밝히고 있다.

明治十年 三月 二十日

大臣(岩倉見視)의 印

별지 내무성 품의 日本海內竹島外一島地籍編纂之件.

위는 元祿 五年 조선인이 入島한 이래 舊政府와 該國(朝鮮１인용자)과의 왕복의 결과 마침내 本邦(일본１인용자)은 관계가 無하다는 것을 들어 상신한 품의의 취지를 듣고, 다음과 같이 指令을 작성함이 가한 지 이에 품의합니다.

指令按

품의한 취지의 竹島 外 一島의 건에 대하여 本邦은 관계가 無하다는 것을 心得할 것.

일본 太政官의 이 결정서는 ㉠ 울릉도[竹島]와 독도[松島]가 조선 영토이며 일본영토가 아니어서 일본은 울릉도와 독도에 관계 없음을 1877년에 재확인하고 결정하여 공문서로 지령했으며, ㉡ 울릉도와 독도가 조선영토라는 이러한 공식 결정을 내리기까지는 島根縣에서 제출한 자료들뿐만이 아니라 德川幕府가 조선과 교환한 왕복문서들을 조사하고 독자적으로 정보를 수집하여 5개월간의 조사와 검토 끝에 내린 결정이었음을 보여주고 있다.

앞서의《日本外交文書》의 □朝鮮國交際始末內探書□와 위의 □太政官 決定書□로서 일본정부가 明治初年에 울릉도와 독도는 조선영토이며 일본영토가 아니라는 사실을 다시 한번 결정했음이 극명하게 증명된다.

일본 海軍省도 1876년에 독도가 한국영토임을 확인하였다. 일본 해군성 수로국은 러시아 군함들과 영국 군함들이 측량하여 작성한 지도들을 번안하고 종합하여 1876년에《朝鮮東海岸圖》를 편찬했는데, 이 지도에서는 독도를 조선영토에 포함시켰을 뿐만 아니라, 독도를 3.5마일 정북 방향에서 그린 그림, 북서 10도 방향 5마일 거리에서 그린 그림, 북서 61도 방향 14마일 거리에서 그린 그림을 마치 사진으로 찍은 것처럼 정확하고 선명하게 그려서 지도의 우단 中下에 게재하였다.

해군성 수로국은 그 후 1877년에《조선동해안도》의 再版을 낸 것을 비롯하여 판을 거듭하면서 1905년까지는 독도를 조선영토로 인지하여《조선동해안도》에 포함시켰다.

일본 陸軍省도 1875년에 독도가 한국영토임을 확인하였다. 일본 육군성 참모국이 1875년(明治 8) 편찬 발행한《朝鮮全圖》를 보면 竹島[울릉도]와 함께 松島[독도]를 우단을 넓혀가며 포함하여 그려서 독도[松島]가 조선영토임을 나타냈다.

이처럼 일본 明治 초기의 태정관·외무성·내무성·해군성·육군성의 자료들이 매우 명료하게 公文書로써 또는 지도로써 독도가 한국영토이며 일본영토가 아니라는 사실을 불을 보듯 밝게 증명해주고 있다.

③ 일본정부는 조선의 고문헌에 울릉도와 우산도가 별개의 두 섬이라는 二島說만 있는 것이 아니라 一島二名說도 병존하고 있으므로 우산도는 오늘날의 독도를 지칭하는 것이 아니라 울릉도의 별칭이라고 주장하였다. 종래 이 문제에 관한 논쟁을 다룬 문서들은《고려사》 지리지나《신증동국여지승람》의 註記에 집착하여 이것을 一島二名說 운운해왔는데, 그 註記에는 □一說 于山 鬱陵本一島□ 운운하였으므로 □本一島說□이라고 부르는 것이 정확한 것이다. 이것은 □본래□ 울릉도를 우산이라고 불렀는데 후에 우산이 지금의 독도를 부르는 이름으로 轉稱되었음을 나타낸다.

우산도가 지금의 독도의 이름으로 전칭된 것은 15세기 초엽 태종·세종조부터이며, 따라서 이 시기 이후에는 鬱陵·武陵·蔚陵·芋陵 등은 모두 울릉도를 가리키고 우산도는 울릉도와 별개인 독도를 가리킨다.《세종실록》 지리지(1432년 및 1454년 편찬),《고려사》 지리지(1451년 편찬),《성종실록》,《동국여지승람》(1481년 편찬),《신증동국여지승람》(1531년 편찬),《숙종실록》,《만기요람》 군정편,《증보문헌비고》(1908년 간행) 등이 본문에서는 모두 울릉도와 우산도를 별개의 두 섬으로 기록하여 우산도를 오늘날의 독도 명칭으로 사용하고 있으며, 이 고문헌의 일부가 註記에서 우산의 명칭이 □본래□ 우산국에서 나온 것임을 부기해두었을 뿐이다. 그러므로 일본정부가 □本一島說□을 태종·세종 이후의 우산도에 적용하여 우산도가 울릉도의 명칭이라고 주장하는 것은 태종·세종 이후의 시대에는 전적으로 잘못된 것이다.

또 일본정부가《신증동국여지승람》의〈八道總圖〉와 강원도 지도에 우산도가 울릉도보다 조선 쪽에 크게 그려져 있으니 울릉도와 별개의 섬으로서의 우산도는 실재하지 않는 架空의 섬이었다고 주장하고 있는 것은 부당한 억지이다. 한국의 고지도에는 우산도를 울릉도의 동□서□남에 그린 지도가 많이 있다. 우산도의 위치를 사실과 달리 울릉도 서쪽 조선 동해안 본토에 더 가까이 그린 것은 지도를 그린 문관들의 지리학 지식의 부족을 나타낸 것이 틀림없다. 그러나 지도 제작술과는 별도로 우산도[독도] 영유 문제만 보면 우산도를 울릉도와 별개의 섬으로〈東國地圖〉,〈朝鮮地圖〉 등의 고지도 안에 포함하여 그려넣은 것은 모두 우산도가 한국영토임을 증명하는 것이다.

당시 지도를 제작한 문관들은 지리학상의 지식이 부족한 상태에서 우산도를 직접 답사한 것이 아니라 과거의 기록과 보고에 의거하여 그려넣은 것이기 때문에 정확한 위치에다 그려넣지 못하고 우산도를 울릉도보다도 본토에 가까이 그려넣은 지도가 있게 된 것이다. 그러나 지리학 지식을 별도로 하고 영유 문제를 중심으로 보면, 울릉도보다 우산도를 본토에 더 가까이 그려넣은 것은 우산도[독도]에 대한 매우 강렬한 영유 의식, 국가의 영유 의사를 나타낸 것이며, 그들은 우산도[독도]를 울릉도와 동일하게 또는 그 이상으로 강렬하게 조선영토로 선언하고 있는 것이라고 볼 수 있다.

일본정부는 우산도를 지금의 독도라고 볼 수 있는가에까지 의심하고 있으나 이것은 간단히 해결될 수 있는 문제이다. 다행히 동해는 지도에 오를 수 있는 섬이 단 2개밖에 없다는 지리적 특성을 갖고 있으며, 그 2개의 섬이 바로 울릉도와 독도이기 때문이다. 그리고 무엇보다도 鄭尙驥(1678∼1752)의〈東國地圖〉, 1822년의〈海左全圖〉, 1846년에 제작된 金大建의〈朝鮮全圖〉를 비롯해서 그 후 발전된 다수의 고지도들은 우산도를 정확하게 울릉도의 동쪽, 지금의 독도의 위치에 그려넣었기 때문이다. 이것은 우산도가 지금의 독도임을 명료하게 증명해주는 것이다.

④ 일본정부는 한국정부가 18세기 德川幕府 시대 일본의 독도에 대한 지리적 숙지를 침략을 위한 渡海라고 주장한 논점이 성립하려면 한국이 일본보다 앞서 이 섬을 실효적으로 경영했음을 입증해야 한다고 주장하였다. 그러나 한국은 서기 512년부터 우산국의 영토였던 울릉도와 독도를 한국영토로 영유하고 경영 지배해왔기 때문에 이것은 논쟁의 여지도 없는 문제이다.

조선왕조는 15세기부터 울릉도와 부속도서인 독도에 대해 空島政策을 채택했는데, 공도정책도 영토관리정책의 일종이며, 영유권을 방기한 것은 전혀 아니다. 공도정책 속에서도 독도를 답사한 기록으로는《성종실록》에 1476년(성종 7) 金自周 등을 파견하여 독도[三峰島]에 다녀오도록 해서 독도를 묘사한 함경도관찰사와 兵曹의 보고가 있다.

울릉도와 독도는 이미 서기 512년부터 한국영토가 되었기 때문에 일본이 18, 19세기에 와서 울릉도와 독도에 대한 지리적 지식이 많다고 할지라도 이것은 일본인들의 해상활동이 이 시기에 한국인들보다 왕성했음을 나타내는 것일 뿐이지, 영유권과는 전혀 관계가 없다. 예컨대 18, 19세기에 오면 울릉도[竹島]에 대한 기록자료가 일본측에 더 많고 일본인들의 울릉도에서의 漁採가 한국인들보다 더 많은데, 이것을 이유로 일본이 울릉도를 일본영토라고 주장할 수 없는 것과 같이 독도를 일본영토라고 주장할 수 없는 것이다. 왜냐하면 이보다 훨씬 이전인 서기 512년부터 한국의 울릉도와 독도에 대한 영유가 확립되어 있었기 때문이다. 15세기에 한국에서 독도를 □우산도□라고 명명한 그 자체가 우산국에서 나온 이름이며, 于山國地는 서기 512년에 신라에 병합되지 않았는가.

⑤ 일본정부는《숙종실록》의 안용복 기사를 허위에 가득 찬 것이며, 일본측과 다르고 또한 일본측 기록이 정확하다고 주장했는데, 일본측의 기록들도 안용복의 渡日이 계기가 되어 울릉도와 독도가 조선영토이고 일본영토가 아니며, 따라서 이 수역에 대한 일본인들의 출어가 금지되었음을 명료하게 기록하고 있다.

예컨대, 일본 明治政府 내무성이 1876년 島根縣의 질품서를 받고 5개월간 조사한 후 울릉도와 독도가 조선영토임을 재확인하고, 일본의 지도와 地籍에 편입하지 않기로 결정하여 그 최종 결정을 太政官에게 품의한 공문서 속에, □竹島 所轄의 건에 대하여 島根縣으로부터 별지의 질품이 와서 조사한바, 該島의 건은 元祿 5년(1692) 조선인이 入島한 이래 별지 서류에 摘採한 바와 같이 元祿 9년(1696) 정월, 舊政府 評議의 旨意에 의하여……元祿 12년(1699)에 이르러 각각 往復이 끝났으며 本邦은 關係가 無하다고 들었지만□이라고 기록하였다. 여기서 안용복이 최초로 渡日한 것은 1692년(元祿 5)이며 그의 도일이 준 충격을 계기로 울릉도와 독도의 영유권이 조선에 있음이 재확인되어 1696년 1월 幕府 評議의 旨意에 의해 일본인들의 울릉도·독도 漁採가 금지되었고, 조선과의 왕복문서 교환은 1699년(元祿 12)에 종결된 것임을 알 수 있다. 당시는 물론이요, 일본정부는 明治시대까지도 안용복의 도일이 울릉도·독도가 조선영토임을 재확인시키는 결정적 계기였음을 기록하고 있는 것이다. 그러므로 일본측은《숙종실록》의 안용복 기사를 허위라고 부인할 하등의 근거가 없다.

⑥ 일본인 武藤平學이 1876년 울릉도[竹島] 이외의 물산이 풍부한 매우 큰 新島를 발견했다고 주장하면서〈松島開拓願〉을 일본 외무성에 제출했을 때, 일본 외무성에서는 □松島가 于山島□라고 주장한 사람이 있었으며, 이를 받아서 田邊 공신국장이 □松島는 우리나라 사람의 명명이지만 그 실은 조선 울릉도에 속하는 우산이다□라고 설명하였다. 武藤平孝가 말한 新島Ａ松島가 天城丸의 현지조사로 울릉도임이 밝혀졌지만 이 착각을 안출한 것은 武藤平孝이고, 여기서 중요한 것은 지금의 독도를 가리킨 일본명 松島가 우산도이고, 그것은 조선영토임을 일본 외무성 관리들이 이때 확인했다는 사실이다. 즉, 일본정부는 이때에도 松島[독도]Ａ리앙꾸르島Ａ于山島Ａ조선영토임을 명백히 확인했던 것이다.

⑦ 일본정부가 1905년 2월 島根縣 告示에 의한 독도의 일본영토에의 소위 □편입□을 정당한 절차를 밟은 것으로 주장하는 것은 일고의 가치도 없는 것이다. 독도는 이미 한국영토였기 때문에 일본의 각의 결정이나 지방 관청의 고시에 의하여 영토편입을 감행할 수 있는 대상이 아니었다. 만일 일본정부의 주장대로 독도가 고래로부터 일본의 영토였다면 새삼스럽게 1905년 2월에 다시 □영토편입□을 할 필요가 없었을 것이다. 또 일본정부의 주장대로 일본이 근대국가가 되어 독도를 영유하는 의사를 재확인하고 근대 행정구분 중에 편입하기 위해서 島根縣 告示를 했다면, 일본의 수백 개의 섬 가운데서 왜 하필 독도에 대해서만 縣의 告示를 했겠는가 ? 또 이 주장은 종래 일본의 땅이 아닌 것을 1905년 1월 □영토편입□하여 島根縣하에 둔다는 일본의 내각회의 결정과 정면으로 모순되는 것이 아닌가 ? 일본정부의 주장은 모두 거짓이다.

일본정부는 독도가 일본영토가 아니었기 때문에 서양인들이 독도를 리앙꾸르(Liancourt)島라고 명명하자 이전의 일본 호칭 松島를 버리고 서양 호칭을 취하여 □리앙꼬島□라고 불렀다. 그러다가, 1904년 2월 러□일전쟁을 도발한 후 일본군이 한반도에 상륙하여 무력으로 대한제국을 위협해서 1904년 2월 23일 □한일의정서□와 8월 22일 □외국인고문 용빙에 관한 협정□을 강제 체결하여 한국정부를 지배할 수 있게 되자, 군사전략에 활용하기 위해 독도가 한국영토임을 잘 알면서도 1905년 2월 한국정부 몰래 약취하여 소위 □영토편입□을 자행하였던 것이다.

일본정부는 한국정부의 항의가 있을까 염려하여 이 □영토편입□ 사실을 한국정부에 통보하지도 않았다. 그리고 1905년 11월 17일 소위 □을사조약□을 강요해서 대한제국의 외교권을 강탈하고 1906년 1월 17일 대한제국 외부를 폐지한 다음 1906년 2월 1일 서울에 통감부를 두어 식민지화정책을 강행한 후인 1906년 3월 하순에야 독도를 답사한 후 울릉도에 들른 島根縣 관리들의 말을 통해 한국측이 처음으로 일본이 1905년에 독도를 영토편입한 것을 알게 했다.

이에 울릉군수 沈興澤은 즉각 □本郡[울릉군] 소속 독도가□ 일본에게 □영토편입□되었다는 소식을 들었다고 강원도관찰사와 중앙정부에 보고했으며, 이 보고를 받은 대한제국 내부대신은 □독도를 일본 속지라고 칭해 말한 것은 전혀 理致가 없는 것(必無其理)□이라고 단호히 부정했고, 의정부 참정대신 또한 독도가 일본 영지라는 일본인의 설은 □전혀 근거가 없는 것□(全屬無根)이라고 항의하여 일본측 주장을 단호히 부정하는 지령을 하달했다. 그러나 이때 이미 한국은 일본정부에 항의 외교문서를 전달할 외교권을 갖지 못한 상태였다. 일본의 이와 같은 독도에 대한 소위 □영토편입□이 □일본의 폭력과 탐욕에 의한 略取□였음은 명백한 것이다.

⑧ 연합국 최고사령부의 SCAPIN 제677호 등에 대한 일본정부의 해석과 주장은 천만부당한 억지이다. 첫째, 일본측이 무엇보다도 먼저 주목해야 할 것은 SCAPIN 제677호에서 연합국 최고사령부가 일본정부의 정치 행정권의 행사 및 행사기도를 정지시킨 특정지역의 집단분류[grouping]이다. 연합국 최고사령부는 이를 (a)(b) (c) 세 집단으로 분류했는데, (a)집단은 울릉도·竹島[독도]·제주도로, 독립한국에 귀속시킬 지역으로 간주되어 주한 미 군정에 이관된 것이다. 연합국 최고사령부의 (a)집단 분류는 1936년의 일본 육군참모본부의 조선지역 분류와 완전히 일치한다. SCAPIN 제677호의 (a)집단이 한국영토로 처리된 것임은 분류표를 보면 누구나 알 수 있다.

일본정부는 SCAPIN 제677호의 제 6 항에 □이 지령 중의 어떠한 규정도 포츠담선언 제 8 항에 언급된 諸小島의 최종적 결정에 관한 연합국의 정책을 표시한 것은 아니다□라는 조항을 들어 이것이 임시조치였음을 주장하고 있다. 그러나 여기서 강조된 것은 □최종적 결정이 아니다□여서 앞으로 □수정하는 지령□을 발표하여 수정할 수 있다는 의미이다. 그런데 연합국 최고사령부는 그 후에도 이를 수정하여 □竹島[독도]를 주한 미 군정 또는 대한민국으로부터 분리하여 일본정부의 정치적 행정적 권력행사 밑에 둔다□는 내용의 각서를 발표한 일이 없으니 독도[竹島]의 한국 귀속은 이때 확정된 것이다. 도리어 연합국 최고사령부는 SCAPIN 제1033호로서 □일본의 어업 및 포경업의 허가구역에 관한 각서□(맥아더 라인 설정？1952년 4월 25일까지 발효)에서 독도를 일본의 어업 허가구역의 外側에 설정했으니, 연합국 최고사령부는 시종일관하여 (a)집단에 속한 독도[竹島]를 한극영토로 간주했음을 알 수 있다.

⑨ 일본정부는 1951년 9월 8일 체결되고 1952년 4월 28일부터 발효된 대일강화조약에서 □일본국은 한국의 독립을 승인하고 제주도·거문도 및 울릉도를 포함한 한국의 모든 권리·권원 및 청구권을 포기한다□고 하여 SCAPIN 제677호에서 분리된 울릉도·竹島·제주도 가운데서 울릉도와 제주도 2島만 거명되었지 竹島에 대해서는 어떠한 규정도 하고 있지 않으니 이것은 竹島를 한국영토에 포함하지 않은 것이라고 주장했는데, 이것은 지나친 억지이다. 연합국 최고사령부에 의해 독도[竹島]를 반환받은 대한민국은 대일강화조약보다 앞서 1948년 8월 15일 수립되어 그 해 10월에는 국제연합의 승인을 이미 받았으니, 만일 연합국이 대일강화조약에서 독도를 대한민국으로부터 분리하여 일본에 귀속시키려면 이 강화조약에서 그러한 규정을 해야 하는 것이고, 만일 그러한 규정이 없으면 SCAPIN 제677호의 규정과 대한민국의 영토가 그대로 승인된 것이다.

독도는 울릉도의 부속도서로서 SCAPIN 제677호에서 이미 반환되어 완전히 해결되었으니 1951년의 대일강화조약에서는 일본에 면한 방향의 대표적인 섬들만 3개 들고 만 것이다. 처음에는 제1차∼제5차에서 명백하게 獨島를 한국영토에 포함시켰다가 일본측의 로비와 독도를 미공군의 기상 및 레이다 관측소기지로 제공하겠다는 일본제의에 넘어간 미국이 제6차 초안에서는 명백하게 獨島를 일본영토에 넣고 한국영토에서 제외시켰는데, 뉴지랜드·영국·오스트랄리아 등 다른 연합국이 미국의 그러한 입장변경이 동북아시아에 영토분쟁의 씨앗을 뿌린다고 반대했으므로, 다시 일본영토에서도 이름을 빼어 對日강화조약에서 獨島이름을 빼서 이 문제를 회피했으므로 SCAPIN 제677호의 규정이 살아나서 대일강화조약에서 독도(獨島)가 거명되지 않아도 울릉도의 부속도서로서 한국영토로 인정된 것이다.

일본정부는 대일평화조약에서 한국영토로 인정한 것은 1910년 8월 당시의 한국영토이고, 그 이전인 1905년에 일본영토로 편입된 독도는 여기에 해당되지 않으며, 독도는 일본이 □폭력 및 강욕에 의해서 약취□한 토지도 아니라고 주장하였다. 그러나 일본 제국주의가 온갖 기만술책을 써서 한국 전국토를 약취하는 과정에서 독도는 한국영토의 일본을 향한 최변방 무인도였기 때문에 5년 먼저 □일본국의 폭력 및 강욕에 의해 약취□된 섬임은 이미 밝힌 바와 같으며, 일본이 폭력·탐욕에 의해 약취한 토지에 대해서 적용하는 연합국 정책의 소급시한은 일본이 제국주의 침략전쟁으로 다른 나라의 토지를 탈취하기 시작한 1895년까지 거슬러올라가니, 1905년 일제에게 침탈당한 독도를 연합국 최고사령부가 한국에 반환한 것은 너무나 당연한 처사였다.

위에서 해설한 바와 같이 독도를 일본영토라고 주장하면서 독도로부터의 한국인 철수와 시설물의 철거를 요구하는 □일본정부견해④□의 논증은 모두 부정확하고 허구적인 것이다. □일본정부견해④□에 대한 반박 논증에서도 명료하게 증명되는 바와 같이 독도는 서기 512년부터 한국영토의 일부였으며, 일본 제국주의가 한국 전 국토를 침탈하는 과정에서 독도가 한국영토의 일본쪽 최변방의 무인도였기 때문에 1910년의 강점에 5년 앞선 1905년에 일제에게 침탈당했던 것이다. 따라서 8□15해방 후 연합국 최고사령부에 의해 獨島가 일본이 폭략과 야욕에 의해 掠取한 한국 땅으로 판정되어 한국에 반환된 것은 너무나 당연한 일이다.

일본정부가 아직도 獨島를 일본영토라고 주장하는 것은 전적으로 부당하며, 일본정부의 그러한 주장은 일본 제국주의자들의 침략정책을 계승하려는 침략적 대외정책이므로 철저하게 비판받아야 할 것이다.

독도영유권 자료를 정밀하게 탐구해 보면 獨島가 역사적으로나 국제법적으로나 韓國領土임은 불을 보듯이 명확한 眞實임이 증명되며 알 수 있는 것이다.