| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Arthur Dent
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Location: Kochu whirld
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The other important point is this important debate is that islands beyond a certain distance from shore are only claimable as territory if there are resources which allow people to live there permanently. These include land which can be cultivated, as well as a natural supply of drinking water.
Dokdo has neither; which is why neither Japan nor Korea can legally lay claim to the island. It is also why politicians of both countries can safely use it to further their own careers with the full knowledge that this issue will never be resolved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tacitus14
Joined: 10 Nov 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The other important point is this important debate is that islands beyond a certain distance from shore are only claimable as territory if there are resources which allow people to live there permanently. These include land which can be cultivated, as well as a natural supply of drinking water.
Dokdo has neither; which is why neither Japan nor Korea can legally lay claim to the island. It is also why politicians of both countries can safely use it to further their own careers with the full knowledge that this issue will never be resolved. |
Yeah, this is true about claiming dok-do as an island, which dok-do is not. The way to get around this is if you make money off the place than you can claim it as a part of your territory. Hence all the tourism to the islets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wishmaster
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It has always been the Sea of Japan and it will always be the Sea of Japan. If they want to call it the "East Sea" because of propaganda, then that is their choice. But to the rest of the world...it is the Sea of Japan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wishmaster wrote: |
| It has always been the Sea of Japan and it will always be the Sea of Japan. If they want to call it the "East Sea" because of propaganda, then that is their choice. But to the rest of the world...it is the Sea of Japan. |
You are wrong on that. It has been given various names by the surrounding countries. It's the Europeans that started calling it Sea of Japan without caring what the surrounding countries called it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
reactionary
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Location: korreia
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
| Wishmaster wrote: |
| It has always been the Sea of Japan and it will always be the Sea of Japan. If they want to call it the "East Sea" because of propaganda, then that is their choice. But to the rest of the world...it is the Sea of Japan. |
You are wrong on that. It has been given various names by the surrounding countries. It's the Europeans that started calling it Sea of Japan without caring what the surrounding countries called it. |
And they have every right to call it just that in their respective languages. A lot of the names that Korea uses for other countries are not the same as the English (or other language) equivalent. Hoju for Australia? Migook for the USA? etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| reactionary wrote: |
| jvalmer wrote: |
| Wishmaster wrote: |
| It has always been the Sea of Japan and it will always be the Sea of Japan. If they want to call it the "East Sea" because of propaganda, then that is their choice. But to the rest of the world...it is the Sea of Japan. |
You are wrong on that. It has been given various names by the surrounding countries. It's the Europeans that started calling it Sea of Japan without caring what the surrounding countries called it. |
And they have every right to call it just that in their respective languages. A lot of the names that Korea uses for other countries are not the same as the English (or other language) equivalent. Hoju for Australia? Migook for the USA? etc. |
Kind of agree. But there is no one complaining about those names. In this case there is. As in almost all cases nobody outside of the parties involved really hears, or cares, about it until you're in the place involved and how often politicians use it to further their agendas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_naming_dispute#Naming_disputes
There is no point arguing about it with a Korean. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wishmaster
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It doesn't matter, Valmer. The Koreans may bitch and moan about it, but it isn't going to change the fact that to nearly everyone outside of Korea it is the SEA OF JAPAN. And no amount of propaganda is going to change that. Besides, the rest of the world doesn't care if Koreans complain. Who are the Koreans anyway? They aren't a major player in the world. Who really cares what they think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Arthur Dent wrote: |
The other important point is this important debate is that islands beyond a certain distance from shore are only claimable as territory if there are resources which allow people to live there permanently.
Dokdo has neither. |
I wonder where you got this idea.
Dokdo has plenty of fishing around its rocks to support residents.
In any case there are plenty of islands and territories around the world that lack sufficient permanent food resources. Doesn't stop them being owned by various nations, or sustaining people on them by bringing in supplies regularly.
No, I think the criteria for wether it is an island or not is wether it has trees on it or no. If not it has the status of a reef or outcrop. Which is why the Koreans went to great lengths to plant a tree on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthur Dent
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Location: Kochu whirld
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
The UN Site.
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/uncls/uncls.html
http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201833/volume-1833-A-31363-English.pdf
| Quote: |
PART VIII
REGIME OF ISLANDS
Article 121
Regime of islands
1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water,
which is above water at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the
contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. |
Another site which is interesting purely for its physical description of Dokdo itself.
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Dokdo
I was looking for a specific reference to the habitable aspect of islands where it pertains to territorial claims. It specifically referred to the necessity of a natural water source as a prerequisite for habitation and thus claims (by any nation) of territoriality. I had come across it before but cannot find it right now. I believe it was posted on a previous thread on this subject.
The upshot was that neither Korea not Japan could lay claim to the islands nor the resources.
It may also have come up in an article I read about disputes between Denmark and Canada over a small island.
It makes sense really. You can't expect people to live on such an island where there is no natural source of water.
I realize that one can fish for a living on such islands having been in the commercial fishery for years, but without water, an island cannot be considered habitable.
The reference you make to other uninhabitable islands claimed by nations may be accurate. I really have no idea. But I believe this has to do with whether the islands in question lie inside the specific boundaries of the 200 mile limit.
I'll keep looking. At the very least this can be an interesting exercise.
That this is also about potential resources will not make the dispute go away.
Let me know if you find anything of interest with respect to this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatrickGHBusan
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: Busan (1997-2008) Canada 2008 -
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Wishmaster"]It doesn't matter, Valmer. The Koreans may bitch and moan about it, but it isn't going to change the fact that to nearly everyone outside of Korea it is the SEA OF JAPAN. And no amount of propaganda is going to change that. Besides, the rest of the world doesn't care if Koreans complain. Who are the Koreans anyway? They aren't a major player in the world. Who really cares what they think?[/quote]
So basically we should only care about what the powerful nations think. Whatever smaller nations think is pretty much irrelevant.... 
Nice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yingwenlaoshi
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: ... location, location!
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Homer, do you like kimchi? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Arthur Dent wrote: |
| You can't expect people to live on such an island where there is no natural source of water. |
isn't that argument outdated now because you can simply bring in reserves of fresh water from outside? The Korean coastguard survives on there year round quite OK.
| Quote: |
| whether the islands in question lie inside the specific boundaries of the 200 mile limit. |
I'm not sure how far Korean territorial waters legally extend beyond Ulleung-do (although Koreans are enforcing a territorial limit of their own device).
Dodko is situated closer to Korea and other Korean territory than to Japan.
It is 217km from mainland Korea vs 250km from mainland Japan.
It is 87km away from the nearest recognised Korean island of Ulleung, but 157km away from the nearest Japanese island of Oki.
By geographic location it would seem fair and common sense to say it is Korea's. (Although this is hardly a standard applied around the world). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ulsanchris
Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Location: take a wild guess
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| some students asked me if I thought dokdo was korean. I told them it was mine and, therefore, canadian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tefain
Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Location: Not too far out there
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ulsanchris wrote: |
| some students asked me if I thought dokdo was korean. I told them it was mine and, therefore, canadian. |
So, did you get in trouble? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
