Newsletter

Question:

Gando Treaty celebrated its 100th anniversary in September this year. It is often said that Korea cannot claim Gando as part of its territory if 100 years has passed. Does this opinion have any ground?

Answer:

The international law does not specify the limitation period of a territorial right.

It was known in 2004 that China was distorting Koguryo's history through its Northeast Project. Since then, a lot of measures have poured out and there have been numerous discussions in response to Northeast Project. In this atmosphere, there was a widely-spreading opinion that Korea would have to officially claim its territorial right to Gando because Northeast Project had been intended to claim Gando. 'A Resolution Confirming the Invalidity of Gando Treaty' was submitted in the National Assembly of Korea. While Gando was becoming a hot issue in the nation, an opinion appeared in mass media and on the internet that Korea wouldn't be able to take the land back after 100 years of the treaty. The Gando problem became a matter of urgency. On the 1st of last September, just three days before the 100th anniversary of Gando Treaty, one organization even raised a lawsuit to the International Court of Justice for restoration of Gando in order "to establish a legal ground for Korea to reclaim Gando regardless of the 100 years' limitation period for territorial disputes according to the international law."

Contrary to what has been known to the public, the 100 years' limitation period for reclaiming territorial right to Gando does not have an academic foundation. In other words, the argument is groundless that Gando will permanently become Chinese land unless Korea does not raise its territorial right before the treaty marks its 100th anniversary in 2009. In late 1990's, a civil organization raised this argument in order to attract people's attention to the Gando issue, and this argument has widely spread and recognized as having a ground according to the international law.

Acquisition of a territory is hardly recognized in the international law just because a certain period of time (limitation period) has passed. It is also agreed even among scholars who have claimed the invalidity of Gando Treaty that no rule has been established in the international law as to the limitation period. Portugal's return of Macau to China after 450 years is a historical example that the 100 years' limitation period does not apply.

Further Researches Required on Gando Issues

If it is true that there is no limitation period in claiming territorial right to Gando, will we be able to get back the land as soon as the Gando Treaty is recognized as invalid? The Gando Treaty was invalid of course, because Gando Treaty was made between Japan and China irrespective of our will on the ground of Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty which had been forced by Japan and therefore was invalid. But, Gando will not be included into our land just because Gando Treaty was invalid. For a peaceful solution of the Gando problem, we will need to show the historical and legal grounds for our territorial right to the land, and there should be an agreement between the parties.

Gando is clearly our land according to those claiming 'the invalidity of Gando Treaty' and also to those claiming 100 years' limitation period for our territorial right to Gando. However, weaknesses are found in our claim of Gando considering the results of our past researches. At the basic level, it is not still clearly known about the origin of the name 'Gando' and the extent of the land. Also, there are still a lot yet to be studied such as how the Gando problem began, why border meetings were initiated between Korea and China in 1880s, what was discussed in the border meetings and how Japan became involved in the Gando problem. We can only learn from the 100 years' limitation period theory that our claims should clearly have historical and legal grounds.