일본의 북방영토 문제와 독도 문제의 차이점

• 영문명: The Difference of Dokdo Issue and Japanese Territory Perception on Kuril Islands
• 발행기관: 영남대학교 독도연구소
• 저자명: 김호동(Kim Ho-dong)
• 간행물 정보: 『독도연구』제8호, 97~119쪽, 전체 23쪽
• 주제분류: 인문학 > 역사학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2010.06.30

영문 초록

‘The Interpretation of Class Learning Instruction Summary’ in ‘Secondary School Class Learning Instruction Summary of Interpretation’ published by Japan Ministry of Education and Science in July 14th 2008 wrote “South Kuril Islands territory is our inherent territory but Russia illegally occupied and we request its return”, adding “we need to strengthen the understanding of the different assertion issue on Takeshima (Dokdo) which has been heated between Korea and Japan as same issue on Kuril Islands territory”, which aim to teach “Dokdo is Japanese inherent territory” at education field and intend to raise perception on Dokdo as “territory dispute region”. We need to advertise the Japanese bad intention and the difference of issues between Dokdo and Kuril islands because Japan MOFA homepage ‘Takeshima site’ and ‘Secondary School Class Learning Instruction Summary of Interpretation’ which propaganda South Kuril Islands territory issue and Dokdo issue as same Japanese inherent territory to Japanese students. In case of ‘South Kuril Islands Territory’ issue, the border was decided by mutual treaty between Japan and Russia but declaration of Dokdo annexation by Shimane prefecture in 1905 ‘terra nullius’ was not notified to Korean government who have direct interest relation and not only listed on government gazette but only announced as ‘internal circulation’. The essence of territorial dispute issue on South Kuril Islands between Japan and Russia is absolutely different to Dokdo issue with Korea by nature. Japan unilaterally annexed Dokdo by force to win at Russo-Japan War. More precisely Dokdo was annexed by Japan by force in strategic value just at time of Japan Sea(East Sea) War with Baltic Fleet so called The Second Pacific Fleet. On the contrary, Kuril Islands territory was Russo-Japan War trophy but it was returned to ex-Soviet by San Francisco Peace Treaty after Japanese defeat at WW II. So the intention of Japan to deal Dokdo issues as same level as South Kuril Islands issue could make the essence of Dokdo issue fundamentally vague. Japan MOFA homepage in ‘South Kuril Islands territory’ site stated “February 7th is The Day of Kuril Islands Territory” as propaganda on front page, but Japan MOFA, as not like ‘Kuril Islands Territory’, could not use the term territory ’ on ‘Takeshima Day’ site which has been declared in February 22nd 2005 by Shimane prefecture. Because Japan recently insisted the theory of ‘Confirmed Territory in mid-17th Century’ instead of ‘1905 terra nullius’. As such, Japanese Takeshima’s ‘inherent territory theory was not confirmed as like that of Kuril Islands territory. The attitude of this analysis might raise a problem if we analyze the partially extracted contents from Japanese territory dispute in the textbook on Kuril Islands territory, Senkaku Islands, and Dokdo. For instance, Japanese textbook in middle school subject society 『新編新しい社会歴史New edited new society and history』(東京書籍、2008. 2.10.) wrote “The victory of Japan at Russo-Japan War stimulated Asian countries such as India and China and they could cheer the hope for national independence and modernization which learned by Japan. On the other side, Japan people could keep pride as a member of world powers and strengthened the mind of Japan supremacy among Asian countries.”(pp. 158~159). These phrases never comment the difference of territory issues between Dokdo as annexed by force to achieve strategic value and Kuril Islands territory as Russo-Japan War trophy in wide perspectives.

목차

1. 머리말

2. 일본 외무성 홈페이지의 ‘북방영토’와 ‘竹島’ 홍보 사이트의 비교

3. 일본 중고등학교 교과서에서의 ‘북방영토’와 ‘독도’ 기술

4. 맺음말

키워드

Dokdo South Kuril Islands territory Takeshima inherent territory theory terra nullius