개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The main purpose of the Peace Line was to protect Korea’s marine resources around the East Sea from Japan’s reckless over-exploitation of the fishery resources. It was inevitable of the Korean Government to declare the Peace Line so as to protect Korea’s marine resources in a situation, in which the MacArthur line established after World War II to set the limit of Japanese fisheries area would be abolished by the Treaty of San Francisco scheduled to come into effect on April 28, 1952. At that time, in terms of fishing techniques, shipping and shipping tonnage, the gap between Korea and Japan was too harsh.
The secondary purpose was to prevent communist invasion in the final stages of the Korean War. At the same time, the most important, considered by the author, of all the meanings of Peace Line is that Korea could block Japan’s sovereignty claim over Dokdo in advance, and secure sovereign rights and exclusive jurisdiction on the EEZ and continental shelf by this line which included Dokdo in Korean territory.
The significance and value of Peace Line in the development of the Law of the Sea was confirmed by UN Convention on the Law of the Sea(1982). It was a leading and subsequent practice, which shows the surprising insights of a leader to declare maritime sovereign rights up to 200 miles from the coast.
Finally, in a sense, this theme would be a critical examination of Jujii Genji’s critical review of Syngman Rhee line in ?The Final Reports of the second Takesima Study Meeting of Shimane Prefecture?(2012.3).
The secondary purpose was to prevent communist invasion in the final stages of the Korean War. At the same time, the most important, considered by the author, of all the meanings of Peace Line is that Korea could block Japan’s sovereignty claim over Dokdo in advance, and secure sovereign rights and exclusive jurisdiction on the EEZ and continental shelf by this line which included Dokdo in Korean territory.
The significance and value of Peace Line in the development of the Law of the Sea was confirmed by UN Convention on the Law of the Sea(1982). It was a leading and subsequent practice, which shows the surprising insights of a leader to declare maritime sovereign rights up to 200 miles from the coast.
Finally, in a sense, this theme would be a critical examination of Jujii Genji’s critical review of Syngman Rhee line in ?The Final Reports of the second Takesima Study Meeting of Shimane Prefecture?(2012.3).
목차
서론
제1장 해양법의 발전과 평화선의 의의
제2장 평화선 선언의 과정
제3장 평화선의 의미
결론
참고문헌
논문초록
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
일본정부의 ‘이승만라인’ 불법성 주장의 부당성 논증 : 평화선 선언 직후의 일본의회 속기록을 중심으로
崔長根
일어일문학
2012
.05
민주정치와 일본의 독도정책 : 선출인단 이론을 중심으로
김재한
,
조윤수
,
임지혜
한국정치학회보
2013
.12
조어도(센카쿠제도) 분쟁에 관한 중국의 인식 : 독도 영유권 분쟁에의 함의
이성환
일본문화연구
2013
.04
동해표기의 국제법적 고찰 : UNCSGN과 IHO 결의를 중심으로
박찬호
법학연구
2012
.08
일본의 독도 영유권 주장의 정치적 의도 : 자민당 의원들의 ‘울릉도 방문 소동’을 중심으로
이기완
평화연구
2012
.04
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-910-002472462