뉴스레터

Our Foundation designated the week around October 25 as a “history week” and pressed for a variety of events related to history and Dokdo. This is not unrelated to the Korean Empire Edict No. 41 enacted on October 25, 1900. Edict No. 41 defined Dokdo as an administrative district of Uldo-gun, becoming the important basis for an argument proving Korea’s ownership of Dokdo. The Foundation’s Dokdo Research Institute also held the 2019 Dokdo Academic Forum during the “history week”. Researchers at the institute made topic presentations with their research related to Dokdo. The forum was intended to look at the “achievements of Dokdo research and inter-disciplinary research tasks” comprehensively through subject presentations on various disciplines, including the history, geography, law, and policies related to Dokdo.

The first presentation was to “introduce data related to Jang Han-sang in documents about Hakseojusonga of the Suncheon Jang family” by researcher Rhee Won-taek.

Contents recorded by Samcheok officer Jang Han-sang in “Ulleungdo Historical Sites” about his defense of Ulleungdo in 1694 have been confirmed through the records of “Gyodongsusagongmanjerok”, “Jeoldogongyangsesilrok”, and “Jeoldogongyangsebimyeong” kept in the Uiseong Jomunguk Museum thus far. However, the presenter had excavated two books related to Jang Han-sang in the Korean Studies Institute, and introduced these. They are “Chunghyomunmurok” and “Jeoldogongyangsesilrok”, donated by the Suncheon Jang family (Hakseojusonga), descendants of Jang Han-sang. To fully understand Jang Han-sang’s “Ulleungdo Historical Sites”, the presenter emphasized the need to comprehensively study the two books kept in the Korean Studies Institute and the three books preserved in the Uiseong Jomunguk Museum.

The second was a topic presentation entitled “Name Issues of Ulleungdo and Dokdo after ‘Shimane Prefecture Notification No. 40’” by researcher Kim Young-soo. The presenter tried to ascertain Japan’s logic and intentions regarding the name changes of Dokdo and Ulleungdo through Japan’s modern and contemporary official documents after the so-called “Shimane Prefecture Notification No. 40” in 1905. As a result, the presenter reached a conclusion that Japan’s naming of Dokdo as “Jukdo” in 1905 was intended to insist that Ulleungdo and Dokdo were the territory of Japan by deliberately causing confusion about the names. Japan had called Ulleungdo “Jukdo” in the past shogunate period. As Ulleungdo became the territory of Joseon thanks to Joseon’s development of Ulleungdo, Japan nonetheless tried to carry its point about the two islands by causing confusion through its grafting of “Jukdo”, Ulleungdo’s name, onto Dokdo.

The third presentation was made by researcher Kim Jong-geun about “Islands in the East Sea appearing in Britain’s nautical charts in the 19th century”. The five islands in the East Sea appearing in Britain’s charts in the 19th century are Fan-ling-tao, Tchian-chan-tao, Argonaut, Dagelet, and Liancourt Rocks. Argonaut had appeared in the charts after 1811, but disappeared from the charts in 1876 completely as its existence was in doubt in the course of the survey by the French and Russians in the early 1850s. Britain’s charts were relayed to Japan and used when the Meiji government drew up its official charts. It is also confirmed that Ulleungdo’s Japanese name changed from “Jukdo” to “Songdo” in the late 19th century, and Dokdo’s name changed from “Songdo” to “Liancourt Rocks”. The presenter said that the changes were not caused merely by confusion about names, but showed Japan’s severance of traditional geographical knowledge about the islands in the East Sea and their acceptance of Western knowledge.

2019 Dokdo Academic Forum

The fourth presentation was made by researcher Chung Young-mi on a “Case study about SCAPIN (Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instruction Note) enforcement procedures”. SCAPIN No. 677 and 1033, which excluded Dokdo from Japan’s ruling territory, are suggested as the significant argument for Korea’s claims over Dokdo. Taking a different approach, the presenter sought to apprehend what SCAPIN meant to Dokdo through the analysis of SCAPIN enforcement procedures. The presenter said that SCAPIN No. 677 held the character of territorial jurisdiction, and showed that the Allies were aware that Dokdo belonged to Korea. The presenter also stressed that Japan’s territorial claim over Dokdo holds no validity, saying that the Japanese government did not take legal action domestically to return Dokdo to Japan’s territory, and the San Francisco Peace Treaty did not take clear measures, either.

The fifth presentation was made by researcher Hong Seong-keun under the topic of “Dokdo bombing incident in 1948 and press reports at home and abroad at the time”. There were more than 300 news stories about how the incident erupted and progressed over the 2 to 3 months after the Dokdo bombing incident on June 8, 1948. At the time of the incident, reporters from across the country happened to be in Ulleungdo and were able to swiftly convey details about the incident. Foreign media as well as U.S. forces were aware of the incident through these accounts. At the time, the press spread the truth of the incident by reporting survivors’ testimonies, the U.S. forces’ announcement, and the reactions from each party and all walks of life from hour to hour. Media companies also contributed a great deal in arousing national interest in the incident while holding fund-raising events for bereaved families of the victims as well as discussion meetings.

The sixth presentation was made by researcher Yu Ha-young about the “Fisheries agreement framework in Northeast Asia”. The 1999 New Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement marked its 20th anniversary since taking effect. When the agreement went into effect, there were fierce arguments as to its influence on claims over Dokdo. In the meantime, although the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea went into effect in 1994, Northeast Asian countries have been establishing an international fisheries order by concluding fisheries agreements instead of accords on exclusive economic zones (EEZs). The presenter sought to scrutinize the similarities and differences between various fisheries agreements in Northeast Asia by introducing the fisheries agreements signed by such Northeast Asian countries as South and North Korea, Taiwan, Russia, Japan, and China.

The latest forum was attended by designated researchers who had been accumulating research achievements related to Dokdo in history, geography, international law, international politics, etc. over a long time. There were active suggestions and requests regarding the need to activate Dokdo research and conduct comprehensive studies; drawing attention among them were proposals to investigate and collect civilian data scattered along the eastern coast and to expand research to include islands other than Ulleungdo and Dokdo. These constructive suggestions and requests remain as tasks to be resolved by researchers of the Dokdo Research Institute. The Dokdo Academic Forum is also quite significant in that it served as an occasion for researchers of the Dokdo Research Institute to share study achievements and develop each research material in depth through active academic exchanges with internal and external experts.