<div dir="ltr">In response to David McCann's comment: The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea ("UNCLOS") provides in pertinent part as follows:<br><br><br> <b><i>PART VIII</i></b><br>
<i><p align="center">Article121</p>
<p align="center">Regime of islands</p>
</i>
<p align="left"><i>1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.</i></p>
<p align="left"><i>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.</i></p>
<p align="left"><i>3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or
economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or
continental shelf.</i></p><p align="left"><br></p><p align="left">It should be clear from Article 121(3) that the Damned Rocks cannot provide the basis for an assertion by a state claiming territorial sovereignty over them with of the [rather expansive (200 mile)] Exclusive Economic Zone [the name of which alone for current purposes should suffice to indicate what is at stake] provided for in Articles 55 et seq. of Part V of UNCLOS, nor for a state's assertion of the [similarly expansive] rights in a related continental shelf in accordance with Articles 76 et seq. of Part VI.</p>
<p align="left">The significance of the dispute over the Damned Rocks between Korean and Japan, at least in current economic terms, thus comes down to the rights that accrue to them under UNCLOS if they are considered to constitute territory of one or the other state. That is spelled out in Articles 2, 3 et seq. of Sections 1 and 2 of Part II as follows:<br>
</p><p align="left"><br></p><br><h3><i><b><p align="center">PART II</p>
</b><b><p align="center">TERRITORIAL SEA AND CONTIGUOUS ZONE</p>
</b></i>
</h3><i><b><p align="center">SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS</p>
</b></i>
<center><i><img src="http://un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/u52.gif" height="13" width="25"></i></center> <i><p align="center">Article2</p>
<p align="center">Legal status of the territorial sea, of the air space </p>
<p align="center">over the territorial sea and of its bed and subsoil</p>
</i>
<p align="left"><i>1. The sovereignty of a coastal State extends, beyond
its land territory and internal waters and, in the case of an
archipelagic State, its archipelagic waters, to an adjacent belt of
sea, described as the territorial sea.</i></p>
<p align="left"><i>2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the territorial sea as well as to its bed and subsoil.</i></p>
<p align="left"><i>3. The sovereignty over the territorial sea is exercised subject to this Convention and to other rules of international law.</i></p>
<center><i><img src="http://un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/u52.gif" height="13" width="25"></i></center>
<i><b><p align="center">SECTION 2. LIMITS OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA</p>
</b></i>
<center><i><img src="http://un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/u52.gif" height="13" width="25"></i></center> <i><p align="center">Article3</p>
<p align="center">Breadth of the territorial sea</p>
</i>
<p align="left"><i>Every State has the right to establish the breadth of
its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles,
measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.</i></p>
So, in other words, what is at stake here in current material terms is whether Korea or Japan gets to control the area of sea extending 12 miles out in all directions from the Damned Rocks.<br><p align="left"><br></p>
<p align="left"> </p><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 6:13 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dmccann@fas.harvard.edu">dmccann@fas.harvard.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Did anyone else happen to see the article in a newspaper recently about the<br>
difference between a rock and an island? It seemed to be sort of a technical<br>
distinction, but with some significant ramifications. As I remember, a rock is<br>
not inhabitable, while an island is. With an "island" go territorial claims, as<br>
for example to fishing or other resources, but with a "rock," no such claims can<br>
be made.<br>
<br>
David McCann<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Quoting Young-Key Kim-Renaud <<a href="mailto:kimrenau@gwu.edu">kimrenau@gwu.edu</a>>:<br>
<br>
> Ok, ok, I stand corrected: I should have said the "the predominant Korean<br>
> position" and not "the Korean position." I was not too far off, though, if I<br>
> was not careful enough in choosing my words. To say what I really meant, I<br>
> could only quote Brother Anthony's earlier posting on this:<br>
> "... Let us not forget that this issue is less about 'nationalism' than it is<br>
> about fishing rights and sea-bed mineral rights, and also about pan-Korean<br>
> unity in the face of what is perceived as ongoing Japanese expansionism. For<br>
> once Seoul and Pyongyang are speaking the same language. It is surely also<br>
> about a sense of frustration at the way the Japanese positions (cf the 'East<br>
> Sea' issue) find so easily such a sympathetic audience worldwide, while<br>
> Korea (as someone has noted) resorts to strident screaming in protest because<br>
> no one seems to be listening.<br>
><br>
> So far as I know, the present blow-up was produced by the publication of<br>
> Japanese school-textbook guidelines, which can only be seen as a form of<br>
> provocation, and Koreans are wondering 'Why now?' That seems a good<br>
> question."<br>
> To respond to your sweeping and accusatory generalization about "distorted<br>
> scholarship" and certain research methods [by some Koreans, I supposed you<br>
> meant] in Korean studies, with not one single reference, is a waste of time<br>
> in my opinion. So, I won't. It is a good thing that you meant no offense to<br>
> anyone. Just one plea--please, let us not essentialize things and groups of<br>
> people. Those days are long gone--at least, I hope so!<br>
> YK<br>
> Young-Key Kim-Renaud, Chair<br>
> Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures<br>
> Professor of Korean Language and Culture and International Affairs<br>
> The George Washington University<br>
> 801 22nd Street, N.W. (Academic Center, Rome Hall 469)<br>
> Washington, DC 20052<br>
> E-mail: <a href="mailto:kimrenau@gwu.edu">kimrenau@gwu.edu</a><br>
> <a href="http://home.gwu.edu/%7Ekimrenau" target="_blank">http://home.gwu.edu/~kimrenau</a>,<br>
> <a href="http://myprofile.cos.com/kimreny76" target="_blank">http://myprofile.cos.com/kimreny76</a><br>
> Tel: (O) 202-994-7107<br>
> Fax: (O) 202-994-1512<br>
><br>
> ----- Original Message -----<br>
> From: Steven Capener <<a href="mailto:sotaebu@yahoo.com">sotaebu@yahoo.com</a>><br>
> Date: Saturday, July 26, 2008 5:24 am<br>
> Subject: Re: [KS] Library of Congress Korean Controversy<br>
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List <<a href="mailto:koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws">koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</a>><br>
><br>
> Dear all,<br>
> Let me start by saying no personal offense is intended to anyone. However, am<br>
> I the only one that finds this recent statement problematic?<br>
> "Your message only supports and reinforces my suspicion and puzzle how<br>
> unsympathetic the international opinion may be to Korea. That some of similar<br>
> voices should come from those who are in Korean studies and should at least<br>
> try to understand the Korean position puzzles me, though."<br>
> There are many reasons why 'international opinion' is often unsympathetic to<br>
> Korea but that would take this discussion in another (probably unproductive)<br>
> direction entirely. The second part of the assertion, however, is very<br>
> relevant to this discussion and is a position I've encountered many times in<br>
> Korean studies. This is the idea that in academic inquiry there is a 'Korean<br>
> position,' not a conclusion naturally arrived at as the result of objective<br>
> research. It is in effect starting with the conclusion one wants and<br>
> researching backwads selectively to demonstrate that conclusion. This<br>
> approach is most obvious in research done in Korea on the colonial period<br>
> (particularly in history and literature). The other problem with this<br>
> statement is the implication of a requirement of loyalty or sympathy to a<br>
> position because it is Korean.<br>
> It seems to me this approach to area studies would be a problem wherever it<br>
> may be applied.<br>
> Respectfully yours,<br>
> Steven D. Capener<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>