[KS] Dok Rocks -- It's the LAW...

Sun Jul 27 23:03:27 EDT 2008

   The article Prof. McCann recalled seeing was Mike Breen's regular column in last Friday's (25 July) Korea Times, headlined "There Ain't No 'Do' in Dok."
   The full text is at http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2008/07/137_28152.html.
   The following excerpt is no doubt the part that piqued Prof. McCann's (and certainly my) interest:

   "...by the definition of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which South Korea and Japan have ratified, Dok is not a 'do' (island). It's rocks. To qualify as an island a rock must be able to 'sustain human habitation,' the law says. 
   "In other words, an inhabitant has to be able to collect water and grow or catch his own food. He can't rely on the weekly ferry from Ulleungdo for his choco pies. Having a maritime police unit and a civilian couple living there does not make the Dok Rocks an island. Nor does having a postal code and SKT connection. Nor, apparently, does the setting up of a desalination plant. Fresh water has to be naturally occurring.
   "You can claim rocks in international waters, but that's all. You can't claim as yours what's around or beneath them. To quote the preamble to the convention, 'Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.'"

Ken Kaliher
Seoul

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Address:  PSC 303, Box 40, APO AP 96204-0040 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Phone:  -82-11-9652-3192 (011- in Korea)
Back-up E-mail:  kenkaliher at hotmail.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Again and again, we start over with North Korea without asking what went wrong the last time or how come we never get past first base." 
  -- British Korea watcher Aidan Foster-Carter, noting that periods of optimism about North Korea are but "false dawns"

----- Original Message -----
From: dmccann at fas.harvard.edu
Date: Sunday, July 27, 2008 19:03
Subject: Re: [KS] Library of Congress Korean Controversy
To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>

> Did anyone else happen to see the article in a newspaper recently 
> about the
> difference between a rock and an island?  It seemed to be sort of 
> a technical
> distinction, but with some significant ramifications.  As I 
> remember, a rock is
> not inhabitable, while an island is.  With an "island" go 
> territorial claims, as
> for example to fishing or other resources, but with a "rock," no 
> such claims can
> be made.
> 
> David McCann
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting Young-Key Kim-Renaud <:
> 
> > Ok, ok, I stand corrected: I should have said the "the predominant Korean
> > position" and not "the Korean position." I was not too far off, though, if I
> > was not careful enough in choosing my words. To say what I really meant, I
> > could only quote Brother Anthony's earlier posting on this:
> > "... Let us not forget that this issue is less about 'nationalism' than it is
> > about fishing rights and sea-bed mineral rights, and also about  pan-Korean
> > unity in the face of what is perceived as ongoing Japanese expansionism. For
> > once Seoul and Pyongyang are speaking the same language.  It is surely also
> > about a sense of frustration at the way the Japanese positions (cf the 'East
> > Sea' issue)  find so easily such a sympathetic audience worldwide, while
> > Korea (as someone has noted) resorts to strident screaming in protest because
> > no one seems to be listening.
> >
> > So far as I know, the present blow-up was produced by the publication of
> > Japanese school-textbook guidelines, which can only be seen as a form of
> > provocation, and Koreans are wondering 'Why now?' That seems a good
> > question."
> > To respond to your sweeping and accusatory generalization about "distorted
> > scholarship" and certain research methods [by some Koreans, I supposed you
> > meant] in Korean studies, with not one single reference, is a waste of time
> > in my opinion. So, I won't. It is a good thing that you meant no offense to
> > anyone. Just one plea--please, let us not essentialize things and groups of
> > people. Those days are long gone--at least, I hope so!
> > YK
> > Young-Key Kim-Renaud, Chair
> > Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures
> > Professor of Korean Language and Culture and International Affairs
> > The George Washington University
> > 801 22nd Street, N.W. (Academic Center, Rome Hall 469)
> > Washington, DC 20052
> > E-mail: kimrenau at gwu.edu
> > http://home.gwu.edu/~kimrenau,
> > http://myprofile.cos.com/kimreny76
> > Tel: (O) 202-994-7107
> > Fax: (O) 202-994-1512
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Steven Capener <
> > Date: Saturday, July 26, 2008 5:24 am
> > Subject: Re: [KS] Library of Congress Korean Controversy
> > To: Korean Studies Discussion List <
> >
> > Dear all,
> > Let me start by saying no personal offense is intended to anyone. However, am
> > I the only one that finds this recent statement problematic?
> > "Your message only supports and reinforces my suspicion and puzzle how
> > unsympathetic the international opinion may be to Korea. That some of similar
> > voices should come from those who are in Korean studies and should at least
> > try to understand the Korean position puzzles me, though."
> > There are many reasons why 'international opinion' is often unsympathetic to
> > Korea but that would take this discussion in another (probably unproductive)
> > direction entirely. The second part of the assertion, however, is very
> > relevant to this discussion and is a position I've encountered many times in
> > Korean studies. This is the idea that in academic inquiry there is a 'Korean
> > position,' not a conclusion naturally arrived at as the result of objective
> > research. It is in effect starting with the conclusion one wants and
> > researching backwads selectively to demonstrate that conclusion. This
> > approach is most obvious in research done in Korea on the colonial period
> > (particularly in history and literature). The other problem with this
> > statement is the implication of a requirement of loyalty or sympathy to a
> > position because it is Korean.
> > It seems to me this approach to area studies would be a problem wherever it
> > may be applied.
> > Respectfully yours,
> > Steven D. Capener
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 