Newsletter

NAHF hosted a policy seminar on 'The Peace Line and its Implications Today' in its Large Conference Room at 1 p.m. on Wednesday, January 16, 2012. Celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Peace Line, also known to the Japanese as the 'Syngman Rhee Line,' this seminar consisted of 4 presentations followed by a 5-person panel discussion: the presentations titled "The Peace Line and the Development of International Maritime Law" (Professor Stuart Kaye, University of Western Australia); "How Did the Peace Line Come to Be?"(Researcher Cho Yoon-Soo, Northeast Asia History Foundation); "The Peace Line and its Legal Legacy" (Shin Chang-Hoon, Asan Institute for Policy Studies); "The Peace Line's 60th Anniversary and Changes in Korean Legislature" (Kim Dong-Wook, ROK Navy Operational Command); and the discussion panel of Secretary Lee Seok-Joo of Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Security Guard Manager Kim Byeong-Ro of Korea Coast Guard, Researcher Lee Gyu-Chang of Korea Institute for National Unification, and Researcher Kim Yong-Hwan of NAHF.

"The Peace Line Is Lawful under International Law"

Professor Stuart Kaye, attending through video conference from Australia, said that 'the Peace Line, which led to the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) system of today, served as the milestone and pathfinder for the contemporary international maritime law, and that, in particular, it was reasonable that the Peace Line based on the middle line had minimized the influences of small features.' Professor Kaye expressed his expectation for the NAHF's increased role in advertising this fact that he said was not widely known to Western scholars. NAHF Researcher Cho Yoon-Soo, based on his analysis of the diplomatic documents between Korea and Japan, presented the series of events that led up to the Declaration of the Peace Line. Researcher Shin Chang-Hoon of the Asan Institute for Policy Studies pointed out that the details of the Declaration of the Peace Line, in light of the national practices or the contemporary international maritime law, were consistent with the case made by all coastal countries today. Captain Kim Dong-Wook of ROK Navy Operational Command, introducing the changes in the domestic maritime law made since the declaration of the Peace Line, presented their implications on recent events, including the crackdown on the illegal operations of Chinese fishing boats.

The ensuing discussion was conducted by Secretary Lee Seok-Joo of MOFAT, Security Guard Manager Kim Byeong-Ro of Korea Coast Guard, Researcher Lee Gyu-Chang of Korea Institute for National Unification, and myself. As the rule of taking turns for discussion is absent in the policy seminar, the panel members were free to comment on each of the issues. The gist of their comments is as follows. First of all, according to the comment on the legal status of the Peace Line, the domestic laws enacted after the 1965 Normalization of Korean-Japan Diplomatic Relations, and the agreements between the two countries suggest that the Peace Line has been neither abolished nor gone but dissolved in such laws. Next, in the comment on the significance carried by the Peace Line today, it was explained that while the Korea-China maritime boarder negotiation was underway, the longitude 124°E, the former western limit of the Peace Line was still considered a kind of psychological limit by the Chinese fishing boats. In another comment, it was also argued that the Peace Line was important in terms of national security and unification because it crossed the North Korean region as well, and that it had not been abolished in 1965 but was still active today in the sense of security.

The Venue for Sharing Studies on the Peace Line

Regarding these comments, Professor Keye expressed his relief that there was no detailed explanation about the concept of security within the Declaration of the Peace Line and added that it had been a wise move for the economic development of the future. In other words, declaring the sovereignty of the coastal country over the adjacent seas while tolerating the free passage of ships in international waters was a measure that took the importance of trade into consideration. Research Shin Chang-Hoon, while pointing out that the Peace Line was not mentioned in the ROK's basic position on Dokdo listed in the MOFAT website, viewed that taking a strategic, multi-step approach might be necessary in order to resolve complex issues involving the other party. NAHF Researcher Cho Yoon-Soo, opposing to the case that the Peace Line had been a bargaining chip used in the negotiations with Japan, emphasized that the Peace Line had been an expression of precaution against Japan after the independence and designed to protect the Korean territory. Captain Kim Dong-Wook stressed that just as there was severe crackdown on Japanese fishing boats past the Peace Line into the Korean jurisdiction, there must be stern measures to deal with those attempting to interfere with the crackdown on the illegal operations of Chinese fishing boats and to bring them to justice.

This policy seminar also drew many questions from the audience, including the questions as to the legal effect of the capture of Japanese vessels by the declaration of President Syngman Rhee, and if the current EEZ covering a larger area could be also considered superior to the Peace Line zone in the past in terms of legal aspects. The Q&A session and the ensuing discussion continued long enough to pass the given time and had to be cut short due to the restricted time. The shared recognition that there is a need for further in-depth studies on the Peace Line might be also a great achievement of the seminar.

The significance of this policy seminar may lie in the fact that a third-country scholar presented a view that could refute Japan's case for the illegality of the Peace Line under the international law at the time. Another significance is that the seminar served as an opportunity for the experts from the government, the academia, and the research community to give thoughts together to whether the Peace Line has disappeared into history or is still valid today, and the roles it could play once the three nations of Korea, China, and Japan agree to certain demarcated sea borders. Now that the death of Kim Jong-il late last year has drawn the world's attention to the political situation of the Korean peninsula, it is time for us to reflect on the implications today of the Peace Line included in the 'Declaration of Sovereignty over the Adjacent Seas' promulgated as State Council Notice No. 14 sixty years ago in the midst of the war.