Assignment3 for Advanced Communication Skills Class

1. Waiariki Institute of COMM. 6100
Technology Advanced Communication Skills
Assignment 3
ISLANDS IN
DISPUTE
A discussion on the territorial disputes in Asia
2011000573
19th October 2012 Ian In hyuhk Lee

2. INTRODUCTION • 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

3. CHINA SOUTH KOREA
Socotra Rock
(Under the control of
South Korea)
DIAGRAM OF
COUNTRIES Liancourt Rock
DISPUTING (Under the control of
ISLANDS South Korea)
TAIWAN JAPAN
Pinnacle Islands
(Under the control of Japan)

4. REASON FOR
DISPUTE SOCOTRA ROCK
• 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.

5. REASON FOR
DISPUTE LIANCOURT ROCKS
• 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.
1785 Japanese Map
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liancourt_Rocks_dispute

6. REASON FOR
DISPUTE PINNACLE ISLANDS
• 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.
1876 Japanese Military Map

7. SOCOTRA ROCK
CURRENT • China has been publishing information
EFFORTS ON on mass media that the ownership of
RESOLUTION 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.

8. LIANCOURT ROCK
CURRENT • Japan wants recognition of their claim
EFFORTS ON and is seeking a decision from the
RESOLUTION International court on the matter
• Korea’s act of not recognizing the
matter is their best response to the
dispute.

9. PINNACLE ISLANDS
CURRENT • Taiwan wants the return of their island
EFFORTS ON as it was occupied by Japan during the
RESOLUTION 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

10. COMMON INTERESTS
OF EACH NATION Military Strategic Point
Oil & Natural
Gas
Marine Resources

11. • 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
UNITED 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
NATIONS 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
CONFERENCE 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
LAW OF THE protection of its security.
SEA III • 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.

12. RECOMMENDATIONS
• 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).
Sea of Korea
1809 Japanese map

13. REFERENCES
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socotra_Ro
ck#Dispute
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liancourt_
Rocks#Sovereignty_dispute
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnacle_Isl
ands#Sovereignty_dispute
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat
ions_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_
Sea#UNCLOS_III
• http://quovadis.tistory.com/53
• http://luckcrow.egloos.com/2129380
The Eastern or Corea Sea
1720