ISLANDS IN DISPUTE

A discussion on the territorial disputes in Asia

2011000573Ian In hyuhk Lee

COMM. 6100Advanced Communication

Skills Assignment 3

Waiariki Institute of Technology

19th October 2012

• Nowadays, many countries are in conflict with other countries on territorial issues concentrating on uninhabited islands not based on the ordinary common sense. There only reason why they want these islands is to acquire economical , military advantage. Even though Japanese historical records doesn’t support their claim, Japan is especially in the centre of dispute problem. For instance, Pinnacle islands are controlled by Japan now but in the past, it belonged to China and Taiwan(Diàoyúdǎo In China/Diaoyutai Islands In Taiwan)

• Here are the logical basis. lets have a look what is the main point of crisis and disagreement.

• Furthermore I’d like to share my recommendations for the solutions of this conflict

INTRODUCTION

DIAGRAM OF COUNTRIES DISPUTING ISLANDS

CHINA SOUTH KOREA

TAIWAN JAPAN

Socotra Rock(Under the

control of South Korea)

Liancourt Rock

(Under the control of South

Korea)

Pinnacle Islands(Under the control of

Japan)

• According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a submerged reef can not be claimed as territory by any country. However, China and South Korea dispute which is entitled to claim it as part of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

• In September 2006, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang told reporters that China objects to South Korea's "unilateral" activities in the region, referring to Korean government-built observation facilities on this reef island, which the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman has claimed to be "illegal". It was reported in Korea that "Spokesman Qin Gang mentioned that the two countries never had a territorial dispute over the island.“ On the other hand, Chinese reports notes that Qin Gang said the two countries never had a "territorial dispute," not mentioning any islands.

REASON FOR DISPUTE SOCOTRA

ROCK

• Sovereignty over the islands has been an on going point of contention in Japan–South Korea relations. There are conflicting interpretations about the historical state of sovereignty over the islets. Korean claims are partly based on references to an island called Usan-do, in various medieval historical records, maps, and encyclopedia such as Samguk Sagi, Annals of Joseon Dynasty, Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam, and Dongguk munhon bigo. According to the Korean view, these refer to today's Liancourt Rocks, while the Japanese researchers of these documents have claimed the various references to Usan-do refer at different times to Jukdo, its neighboring island Ulleungdo, or a non-existent island between Ulleungdo and Korea. (The first printed usage of the name Dokdo was in a Japanese log book in 1904.) Other key points of the dispute involve the legal basis which Japan used to claim the islands in 1905, and the legal basis of South Korea's claim on the islands in 1952.

• Although technically still at war with South Korea, North Korea reportedly supports South Korea's claim.

REASON FOR DISPUTE LIANCOURT

ROCKS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liancourt_Rocks_dispute

1785 Japanese Map

• Territorial sovereignty over the islands and the maritime boundaries around them are disputed between the People's Republic of China, the Republic of China (Taiwan), and Japan.

• The People's Republic and Taiwan claim that the islands have been a part of Chinese territory since at least 1534. They acknowledge that Japan took control of the islands in 1894–1895 during the first Sino-Japanese War, through the signature of the Treaty of Shimonoseki. They assert that the Potsdam Declaration (which Japan accepted as part of the San Francisco Peace Treaty) required that Japan relinquish control of all islands except for "the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine", and they state that this means control of the islands should pass to China.

• Japan does not accept that there is a dispute, asserting that the islands are an integral part of Japan.[47] Japan has rejected claims that the islands were under China's control prior to 1895, and that these islands were contemplated by the Potsdam Declaration or affected by the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

REASON FOR DISPUTE PINNACLE

ISLANDS

1876 Japanese Military Map

• China has been publishing information on mass media that the ownership of the island belongs to them.

• China currently however are not aggressive in staking their claim as they face a much bigger problem on the Pinnacle island dispute

• Korea officially still does not recognize their claim.

CURRENT EFFORTS ON RESOLUTION

SOCOTRA ROCK

• Japan wants recognition of their claim and is seeking a decision from the International court on the matter

• Korea’s act of not recognizing the matter is their best response to the dispute.

CURRENT EFFORTS ON RESOLUTION

LIANCOURT ROCK

• Taiwan wants the return of their island as it was occupied by Japan during the first Sino-Japanese War. It has brought its dispute to the International court though there has not been a decision

• China has also followed the actions by the Taiwanese government and brought it up to the International court

CURRENT EFFORTS ON RESOLUTION

PINNACLE ISLANDS

COMMON INTERESTS OF EACH NATION

Oil & Natural Gas

Military Strategic Point

Marine Resources

• Internal waters• Covers all water and waterways on the landward side of the baseline. The coastal state is free to set

laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Foreign vessels have no right of passage within internal waters.

• Territorial waters• Out to 12 nautical miles (22 kilometres; 14 miles) from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set

laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not "innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security.

• Archipelagic waters• The convention set the definition of Archipelagic States in Part IV, which also defines how the state

can draw its territorial borders. A baseline is drawn between the outermost points of the outermost islands, subject to these points being sufficiently close to one another. All waters inside this baseline are designated Archipelagic Waters. The state has full sovereignty over these waters (like internal waters), but foreign vessels have right of innocent passage through archipelagic waters (like territorial waters).

• Contiguous zone• Beyond the 12 nautical mile limit, there is a further 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea

baseline limit, the contiguous zone, in which a state can continue to enforce laws in four specific areas: customs, taxation, immigration and pollution, if the infringement started within the state's territory or territorial waters, or if this infringement is about to occur within the state's territory or territorial waters.[4] This makes the contiguous zone a hot pursuit area.

• Exclusive economic zones (EEZs)• These extend from the edge of the territorial sea out to 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres; 230

miles) from the baseline. Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. In casual use, the term may include the territorial sea and even the continental shelf. The EEZs were introduced to halt the increasingly heated clashes over fishing rights, although oil was also becoming important. The success of an offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico in 1947 was soon repeated elsewhere in the world, and by 1970 it was technically feasible to operate in waters 4000 metres deep. Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to the regulation of the coastal states. Foreign states may also lay submarine pipes and cables.

UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE LAW OF THE SEA III

• Of course, There is no clear and easy way to solve any problem but We could be more close to solution.

• First of all, We have to recognize the fact s exactly as they are and try to find out reasonable basis to come up with a solution.

• Basically, We should try to follow those steps but there are many cases not to be solved easily in the world.

• Therefore, for each dispute there should be a different way of settling the matter between each country.

• Let the International court decide on the matter and have both parties agree to it(Third Party Negotiation), economic sanctions (Including Negotiation through Bargaining Strategy)or else war would be the last option to finally settle the matter .

• Although it has the better claim of the islands, Korea is not comfortable in having the International Court decide on the matter. Korea should stand firm on it’s decision as the owner of the islands(Conflict Avoidance).

RECOMMENDATIONS

Sea of Korea 1809 Japanese

map

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socotra_Rock#Dispute

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liancourt_Rocks#Sovereignty_dispute

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnacle_Islands#Sovereignty_dispute

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea#UNCLOS_III

• http://quovadis.tistory.com/53• http://

luckcrow.egloos.com/2129380

REFERENCES

The Eastern or Corea Sea 1720