Memo;Survey of India

Survey of India 
The Survey of India (Hindi: भारतीय सर्वेक्षण विभाग ) is India's central engineering agency in charge of mapping and surveying. Set up in 1767 to help consolidate the territories of the British East India Company, it is one of the oldest Engineering Departments of the Government of India

Indian Naval Hydrographic Department
The Indian Naval Hydrographic Department (INHD) functions under the Chief Hydrographer to the Government of India.  The Department, being the nodal agency for Hydrographic surveys and Nautical charting in India, has a very well established organizational setup.  INHD has nine indigenously built modern survey ships including one Catamaran Hull Survey Vessel ((CHSV) fitted with state-of-the-art surveying equipment and a well established 'National Institute Hydrography' which is recognized as the Centre for Imparting Training in Hydrography' for South East Asia by IHO.

The Indian express;India’s official mapmaker does not recognise Sea of Japan, irks Tokyo


1885.La Coree - Paul Tournafond.

La Coree
Paul Tournafond.
Paris, 1885

this book also write it "MER DU JAPON" (Sea of Japan) the sea between Korea,tartary and Japan. Aye, this book published on 1885 , it is earlier than Japan annexed Korea on 1910. So Korean claim which "the name of Sea of Japan established under the colonial rule of Korea", is distorture.


page i
Le royaume de Coree, situe au nord-est de l'asie, se compose d'une presquile de forme oblongue et d'un nombre assez considerable d'iles semees sur toute sa cote ouest.Il est situe entre 33°15’ et 42°25’ de latitude nord, 122°45’ et 128°30’ de longtitude est de Paris. Nous avons vu qu'il est ferme au nord par la fleuve du Ya-lou-Kiang, qu'il est ferme a nord par le fleuve du Ya-lou-kiang, qui vient se jeter a l'oucst dans la mer Jaune, et par le Mi-Kiang, qui se jette a l'est dans la mer du Japon.

La Russie prepare en Orient les fondementals D7un empire vaste. Ses posessions, a I'heure presente, se terminent a la frontiere meme de la Coree, depuis que L'Habilete du general Ignatieff a su arracher a la faiblesse de la Chine la posession des immenses territories de la Mandchourie, que baigne a l'est la mer du Japon.

La coree stored in Koreana museum , published on 1894.



Journal of the American Geographical Society, Vol22,1890.

From Corea to Quelpaert Island: In the Footprints of Kublai Khan
C. Chaillé-Long

Page [218] of 218-266 attached map; Sea of Japan.

Sea of Japan: Sea of Japan
Strait of Korea: Strait of Corea
East Korean sea or gulf  or Broughton Bay; Broughton Bay
Yellow Sea : Yellow Sea

Argonaut Island
Dagelet Island

 this map also write it "MER DU JAPON" (Sea of Japan) the sea between Korea,tartary and Japan. Aye, this book published on 1890 , it is earlier than Japan annexed Korea on 1910. So Korean claim which "the name of Sea of Japan established under the colonial rule of Korea", is distorture.


West Philippine Sea??? No it is South China Sea!

President Aquino newly claimed the name of West Philippne Sea on 5Sep2012 and refutal claim by Communist China on 13Sep.

Aquino signs order on West Philippine Sea
The Philippine Star Updated September 12, 2012 04:30 PM 35 comments to this post

"By virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and by law, do hereby order... The maritime areas on the western side of the Philippine archipelago are hereby named as the West Philippine Sea," President Aquino said in Administrative Order No. 29, signed last September 5. 

China Voice: "West Philippine Sea" re-naming is politically short-sighted By Wang Aihua (Xinhua)
BEIJING, Sept. 13 (Xinhua) -- Despite China urging the Philippines to ease tensions over Huangyan Island and promote bilateral ties, the country has officially named maritime areas near its coast, including part of China's territories in the South China Sea, the "West Philippine Sea."

It is no problem if Philippine use the name of "West Philippine Sea" in their domestic use only.  But it will be troublesome if they claims it in the hydrographic conferences e.g. IHO and so on. It is because IHO already recognize it is "South China Sea" as global standard.

If Korean claim their "East Sea" name on their domestic use ,there would be no problem but they start claim with distorture in the IHO they become problem nation.

On the other hand, , China's claim is groundless too that they claim "incruding part of China's terrotiries in the South China Sea".  Sea name is nothing to do with EEZ or territorial issue.It is just a geographical or hydrographical naming issue.  South Korea claims sea name with territorial issue , the illagally assaulted and illegally occupied by Korea, Takeshima(Liancourt Rocks) ,territory of Japan in Japan Sea.

On Iho there are a Ocean name ,named after both Philippine and China. one is Philippine Sea and the other is South China Sea. Same like Sea of Japan and Strait of Korea.
Below is the International hygrographic Organization Chart S-52 and the suppliment.

49-South China Sea
On the East:  From Tanjong Sambar through the West coast of Borneo to Tanjong Sampanmangio, the North point, thence a line to West Points of Balabac andSecam Reefs, on the West point of Bancalan Island and to Cape Buliluyan, the Southwest point of Palawan, through this island to Cabuli Point, the Northern point thereof, thence to the Northwest point of Busuanga and to Cape Calavite in the island of Mindanao, to the Northwest point of Lubang Island and Point Fuego in Luzon Island, thorugh this island to Cape Engano, the Northeast point of Luzon, along a line joining this cape with the East point of Balintang Island and to the East point of Y'Ami Island thence to Garan Bi, the Southern point of Taiwan (Formosa), through this island to Santryo its North Eastern Point.  

On the North: From Fuki kaku the North point of Formosa to Kiushan Tao (TurnabourIsland) on to the South Point of Haitan Tao and thence Westward on the paralell of 25'24 Nort to the coast of Fukien

56-Philippine Sea

Is that area of the North Paicific Ocean off the Eastern coasts of the Philippne Islands, It is bounded;

On the west By the Eastern limits of the East Indian Archipelago (48) South China Sea 849) and the Eastern China Sea (50) 
On the East By the ridge joining Japan to the Bonin, Volcano and Ladrone (mariana) islands, all these being included in the Philippine Sea

i can understand phlippine's anger against China commie because they got robbed their schaborough reef by China. but Sea name and territorial dispute should be separated.

Also,United States Board of Geo Name recognized South China Sea is "Approved" name.



承政院日記粛宗20年5月24日  南九萬蔚陵島問題




 南九萬曰, 卽見東萊府使狀啓, 則向者倭人來言, 朝鮮人入於五竹島, 此後則無使更入云。彼所謂竹島, 卽我國蔚陵島也。臣見芝峯類說則曰, 倭奴占據礒竹島, 礒竹, 卽蔚陵島也。島一也, 而名稱有異, 彼不曰蔚陵, 而曰竹島者, 此不過厭其有蔚陵之名也。彼漢一出來, 尙可惡說, 再出則其爲害, 將至無窮, 豈不大可慮哉? 臣意則宜遣接慰官, 前去書啓還送事言之。且以回賓作主事, 責之矣。上曰, 予見芝峯類說輿地圖, 則蔚陵島數字缺飄風人所居之地也。倭人所謂竹島, 必是蔚陵島也。其據名稱說, 意慮巧矣。以此責之, 可也。申汝哲曰, 倭人之據名稱說, 其造意之巧險, 於此可見。若不辨別, 任其所爲, 則彼將來據其地, 略無忌心。其爲貽害, 必至無一字缺矣。柳尙運曰, 彼漢, 一向施惡, 使我國之人, 不得接足於其島, 或有入去者, 則彼必捉送致責, 其弊難支矣。上曰, 若無變通之擧, 則必將有如此之弊矣。南九萬曰, 臣於向者, 大關嶺, 望見其地勢, 則其島與蔚珍縣相對, 其中多有崇山峻嶺, 地方可百餘里矣。申汝哲曰, 臣適往觀魚臺, 望見其島, 則其間相距, 不甚遼遠, 視若南山之近矣。問諸漁人曰, 汝等漁於彼乎? 答曰, 彼處, 多有大魚, 故時時往漁矣。且其上, 有大木參天, 竹大如杠, 地且沃饒云。彼若知其可居而來據之, 則其附近三陟·江陵等地, 受害必多, 甚可慮也。南九萬曰, 臣見新羅圖, 則此島, 亦有國名, 降新羅納土貢。高麗太祖時, 島人獻方物, 我太宗朝, 不勝倭患, 遣按撫使, 刷出流民, 而空其地。卽今倭人來據, 非但以祖宗之地, 棄與他人, 將來之患, 有不可勝言者矣。更遣接慰官, 前去書狀還送事, 言之, 何如? 上曰, 前去書狀還送事, 送言, 可也。

鬱陵島関連 朝鮮側史料 備忘録

雪汀詩集卷之七 七言律詩 曺文秀


雪汀詩集卷之七 七言律詩 曺文秀

偶題 以下丹陽錄 b_024_475a


忘窩先生文集卷之三 次寄孝徵 金榮祖


忘窩先生文集卷之三 次寄孝徵 金榮祖


松沙先生文集卷之十七 烈婦裵氏旌閭重修記 奇宇萬


松沙先生文集卷之十七  (奇宇萬)

烈婦裵氏旌閭重修記 a_345_419d

肅宗辛酉。命旌故判事尹趪妻裵氏之閭。判事公當壬辰燹。舟師勤王。已有定筭。先移其家率于竹島。禦賊于蔚島。 賊衆我寡。被執不屈而死。裵夫人聞變號慟。方欲自裁。猝遇賊大罵。雖亂斫而不少挫。竟被害。少女年僅十四。以身翼蔽。同時遇害。二子之立之發方幼。被俘而 去。至倭橋得逃還。收母屍葬於先塋之側。事行在續三綱。曾孫參奉濟民上言。成命始降。表宅以時擧行。參奉公記其事。年久而閭圮。後孫以今年甲寅重修。秀士 哲成,炫植求爲記事之文。宇萬老且病。不堪爲役。而見今壬辰遺種。其禍有浮。三綱絶矣。臣而忘君者。滔滔皆是。夫忠與烈是一致。判事公之臣死於君。裵夫人之婦死於夫。皆足以樹風聲於後世。而及今而重修。道路改觀。或將爲激勵忠義之一大消息歟。然則先旌重修。雖尹氏一家之私。而寔有補於世風不少也。屢欷而

水村集卷之四 임방(任埅)


水村集卷之四 임방(任埅)

追寄通川守黃翰卿 鎭 別語 a_149_093a


恬軒集卷之八 西河任相元公輔 登高丘而望遠海行


恬軒集卷之八/詩 西河任相元公輔著


登高丘而望遠海行 a_148_226a

汾厓遺稿卷二 萊山錄 一


汾厓遺稿卷二/詩○萊山錄 一 

萊館謾吟。 二首。 

萊館謾吟。 二首。 a_129_334a



東里集卷之八 登大關嶺  李殷相

東里集卷之八/詩  李殷相



梨山集 角 :送李秀才天駿歸蔚陵島


梨山集 角 
送李秀才天駿歸蔚陵島 (作者不詳)

細雨初晴夕日低, 故人南去蔚島棲, 亦知求友鶯遷木, 頻 賀歸程鷰蹴泥, 白雲持贈心還鬱, 明月相思意倍悽, 回頭 悵立春天暮, 垂柳藤蔓一樣齊



書蔚陵島圖後 b_019_045c  (著者:申活?)

歲戊申之夏四月旣晦。余往棲于箕城之白巖山。山之絶頂有一菴。名曰桑日。蓋取扶桑日出之義也。觀其東臨大海。一望無際。上天下水。氣像萬千。眞勝境也。遙望東北。有一山聳出於烟海縹緲之中。所謂蔚陵島也。 是日纖雲捲盡。天朗氣淸。玉峀瑤岑。壁立雲表。千奇萬狀。箇箇呈露。或如三軍奮躍。劒戟交森。或如羣鯨噴海。怒鬣縱橫。或如層雲潑墨。疊影紛披。其餘獻奇 於眼前境019_045d界者不可一二計。何造化手段若是之奇巧也。世傳漢武帝求神仙。東廵海上。至碣石而還。安知一時迂怪之輩。指此爲蓬萊。使之候仙於 玆山也邪。噫三十六洞天。無則已。有則此山當爲之第一。若借得一片風帆。使鯤鵬翼舲。鯨鯢皷柁。萬里烟波。一瞬飄到。則紫府丹丘。擧足可躡。夫根月窟。翻 手可攀。蘇仙駕鶴之遊。博望乘槎之問。不期而當我之前矣。然後招王喬訪安期。共坐支機石上。吸盡無限金華。以資桑楡一半糧料。則可以凌霄漢出宇宙。俯視塵 寰。不知隔幾重雲水邪。顧以塵繮縛人。凡骨未蛻。咫尺崑崙。仙路杳茫。誠可以睹北嶽山019_046a靈之譏。發千古眞人之歎矣。雖然與其騁想於無何之 域。而取必於不可必之事。莫如收拾奇觀。幻諸一幅霜綃。掛之中堂。收入雙眸。則十洲三島之勝。自然森列於几案之間。而其得於胷次者。亦將助發吾浩然之氣 矣。豈特巍然其高。坎然其深者。只爲悅目喪心之具而已哉。然則其必有翫而樂之者矣。其必有樂而不知老之將至者矣。於是使山僧摸得一本而藏之。且書四韻詩二 絶。以爲他日遣懷之一資云。

鬱陵島関連 日本史料 備忘録


 西郷南洲書簡集 図書  加治木常樹 編 (実業之日本社, 1911)   



解説 煙台は芝?の別名なり、五年の秋池上四郎より南洲宛の書簡、外務省へ届きたるを、南洲に伝送したるに対し、折返して、地図の事を問い合わせたるなり  





著者     松村松盛 
出版地 (publicationPlace)     東京 
出版者 (publisher)     帝国地方行政学会





1931.5 島めぐり

西亀正夫 著 著者 1883-1945
出版地   東京 出版者  厚生閣書店
日本海の島 鬱陵島 お銭の無い国 獅子をつれて征伐 


1932.偉人伝全集. 第12巻

偉人伝全集. 第12巻

 第11 長崎留守訳時代の岩崎弥太郎

白柳, 秀湖, 1884-1950  東京 出版者 (publisher)     改造社

その頃長崎に白楽と呼ぶ朝鮮人が居て少しは文字を解し酒間の斡旋くらい は出来た。弥太郎はこの白楽と、對週の浪士天草二郎(著者註:多分辮名であらう)と呼ぶものを介して識合になつた。筆談は弥太郎の得意とする所であったか ら、弥太郎はこの白楽からだんだんと朝鮮の事情を知ることが出来た




1887.岡村松太郎編纂‘新撰地誌 (Okamura Matsutaro, New Geography)

巻1:日本総図(vol1: outline map of Japan):日本海(Sea of Japan) 
(stored in Washeda Univ. Library)

1888:青木恒三郎 分邦詳密日本地図

1888:青木恒三郎 分邦詳密日本地図 ;日本海(Sea of Japan)

Btw, Korean media distorts there are Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks(=Takeshima) on this map, is wrong

It is appear that the two island in the sea of Japan, one is Argonaut island and the other is Dagelet-Ulluengdo and It is not Liancourt Rocks on this map.

Google Earth Argonaut-Dagelet-Liancourt Rocks Position check tool; (download; no virus)

Moreover, there are many Japanese map on Meiji era which describes Liancourt Roocks(Takeshima).


1915.韓国痛史(Painful History of Korea)

Painful History of Korea (韓国痛史) by Park Eun-sik(朴殷植)

There are a book titled "Painful history of Korea" by Park Eun-sik who is independent movemennt activist.  Even Korean independentist use the name of Sea of Japan and he distinguish Korean coast and the deep sea -Sea of Japan.

According to the articles by Prof Shimojo and Sen.Sindo, Korean recognizes east coastal water and deep sea are different, east coast and the Sea of Japan witten in Painful History of Korea.


"Korea is the peninsula country at the southeast of Asia. There are east boundary of  Blue Sea which separate to the Sea of Japan, west one  of Yellow Sea,to the China's two proince-Shandong and Jiangsu."

実事求是第35回  竹島問題の封印策としての「東海」呼称について

A Study of the Naming Issue of Japan Sea Yoshitaka Shindo Member of the House of Representatives National Diet of Japan

If someone have a screenshot of Painful history of Korea, pls advice. thank you.

There are another korean records textbook written by Korean before the annexation, which distinguish east coast and the deep sea of Japan Sea.

(新訂)中等萬國新地志 金鴻卿 編纂 廣學書館

第二章 亜細亜  (Second chapter;Asia)
 第一節 総論 (First Section: general)
   沿海 P52 (Coastal sea)
右諸海中、北氷洋 舟編 不通●●●●海●●●日本海.....

Japan Sea, Bol-hae,Yellow Sea, East Sea(*East China Sea?), Korean Sea(another name;Blue Sea) and China Sea (south china Sea*), Gulf of Siam,
in those sea at the north Pacific.................Sea of Japan.

実事求是第35回  竹島問題の封印策としての「東海」呼称について

A Study of the Naming Issue of Japan Sea Yoshitaka Shindo Member of the House of Representatives National Diet of Japan


1903. 韓海通漁指針 (Korean coast Fishery guideline)

1903. 『韓海通漁指針』葛生修亮 (Korean coast Fishery guideline)

This book explains that "East Sea" is just a one part of "Sea of Japan",big marginal sea between Siberial, Korea and Honsyu island of Japan.

East coast is the Coastal area between Tumen_River ,Hamgyong Province to Busan, Gyeongsang Province.

ここ地方は朝鮮西函比利亜及我が本州と相 ?みて、一大内海を形成せる日本海の一部なるが故に、
These region( East Sea) is a one part of Sea of Japan the marginal sea between Korea, Siberia and Honsyu island of Japan, ,

attached map;韓海沿岸略図 (Brief map of Korean coast)
broughton bay- 朝鮮海湾 (Korean sea gulf)

Sea of Japan- 日本海(Sea of Japan)
Yellow Sea- 黄海 (Yellow Sea)

実事求是第35回  竹島問題の封印策としての「東海」呼称について


A Study of the Naming Issue of Japan Sea Yoshitaka Shindo Member of the House of Representatives National Diet of Japan



Answer to the Petition on the Sea of Japan naming issue by WhiteHouse

There are a petition both Japanese and Korean about Sea of Japan naming dispute in White house petition site. Korean abuses fake propaganda about distorted Propagnada of anti-Sea of Japan.
.Unted States replies the answer to Japanese and Korean about single-ocean-name usage policy and Sea of Japan is right term and explained that United States historicall use the name of sea of Japan long years.

White house's statement is reasonable because Commander Mattew Perry aboarding the USS Sasquehana to Japan on 1855 they already use the name of Sea of Japan in their navy chart. Also Korean use the name of Sea of Japan before annexation , e,g their text book published on1895. Those histical records totally denies korean fake propaganda claims which the name of Sea of Japan established after the annexation of Korea.

There are my personal solution against naming dispute of the name of Sea of Japan here.

The text below is the answer to those petition about Sea of Japan and anti-Sea of Japan Quote from:.http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/06/29/response-we-people-petition-sea-japan-naming-issue?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

Response to We the People Petition on the Sea of Japan Naming Issue

By Kurt Campbell
Thank you for using the "We the People" platform to express your views on the usage of the term "Sea of Japan."
View this response in Korean | View this response in Japanese.
It is longstanding United States policy to refer to each sea or ocean by a single name. This policy applies to all seas, including those bordered by multiple countries that may each have their own names for such bodies of water. Concerning the body of water between the Japanese archipelago and the Korean peninsula, longstanding U.S. policy is to refer to it as the "Sea of Japan." We are aware the Republic of Korea refers to the body of water as the "East Sea," and the United States is not asking the Republic of Korea to change its nomenclature. U.S. usage of the "Sea of Japan" in no way implies an opinion regarding any issue related to sovereignty.
We understand that this naming issue is an important and sensitive one for both the Republic of Korea and Japan. I assure you the United States remains committed to our deep and indispensable alliances with the Republic of Korea and Japan, relationships based on shared values and mutual trust. We will continue to work with the Republic of Korea and Japan to address regional and global challenges together.
Kurt M. Campbell is Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Tell us what you think about this petition and We the People.

Korean translation of response:
일본해 명명 표기 관련 위더피플 청원에 대한 회신
작성: 커트 캠벌
"일본해"라는 용어 사용에 관한 귀하의 의견을 밝히고자 “위더피플”의 플랫폼을 이용해 주셔서 감사합니다.
각각의 바다, 또는 해양을 하나의 이름으로 지칭하는 것은 미국의 오랫동안에 걸친 방침입니다. 이 방침은 모든 바다에 적용하므로, 각국의 고유한 수역 이름을 가질 수 있는 다수 국가의 국경에 접하는 경우도 포함합니다. 일본 열도와 한반도 사이에 있는 수역에 관하여, 미국의 오랜 방침은 "일본해"로 지칭하는 것입니다. 우리는 대한민국이 그 수역을 "동해"로 지칭하고 있음을 인지하고 있으며, 미국은 대한민국으로 하여금 그 명명을 변경하도록 요구하지 않습니다. 미국의 "일본해" 명칭 사용은 국가 주권에 관련된 어떤 사안에서 그에 관한 의견을 함축하는 것은 결코 아닙니다.
저희는 이 명명에 관한 사안이 대한민국과 일본 양국에 모두 중요하며 민감한 문제라는 것을 이해하고 있습니다. 본인은 귀하에게 미국은 대한민국 및 일본과의 깊고도 긴요한 동맹 관계와 공유한 가치 및 상호 신뢰를 바탕으로 한 국가 관계를 계속 지켜나갈 것을 이에 분명히 다짐하는 바입니다. 저희는 대한민국 및 일본과 함께 지역적으로나 세계적으로 어려운 문제에 공동으로 대처하는 노력을 계속할 것입니다.
커트 엠. 캠벌은 동아시아 태평양지역 담당 국무부 차관임.

Japanese translation of response:
日本海命名問題に関する 人民陳情に対する回答
各々の海洋を単一の名称で言及することは、米国の長年にわたる方針です。この方針は全ての海洋に適用されており、その中にはこうした水域についてそ れぞれ独自の名称をつけている複数の国々の国境が接している海域も含まれます。日本列島と朝鮮半島の間にある水域については、「日本海」と呼ぶのが長年に わたる米国の方針です。我々は、韓国が同水域を「東海」と呼んでいることに気付いており、米国は韓国にその命名法を変更するよう求めてはいません。米国が 「日本海」という名称を使用することは主権に関連した何らかの問題についての意見を示唆するものではありません。
我々は、この命名問題が韓国と日本両国にとって重要で慎重に扱うべき問題であることを理解しています。米国が韓国と日本との深くかけがえのない同盟 関係、共有する価値観と相互信頼に基づく関係に対するコミットメントを維持し続けていくことを、私は保証します。我々は、地域的・世界的な挑戦課題に共に 対処するため、韓国および日本と協力し続けます。


IHO S-23WG draft summery record


 23 April 2012 1410-1730
The Conference took note of the report.
Report on work to revise IHO Publication S-23 – “Limits of Oceans and Seas”

The PRESIDENT invited comments on the report as a whole and, in particular, on the issues relating to the future of Publication S-23

Captain KORTENOEVEN (Netherlands) reiterated that his country took no position, as before, on the naming of the sea area between the Japanese archipelago and the Korean peninsula.

Dr Shigeru KATO (Japan) (made a statement1.)

IGA FRACHON (France) said that, in the absence of an agreed technical approach, he could not express a view on any specific dispute over the naming of an area. In view of the need for a publication to be used for cartographic and hydrographic purposes, he hoped that the interested parties could resolve their dispute so that consensus could be reached on a new edition of Publication S-23. Given the importance of IHO’s numerous other commitments, he recommended that the resources devoted to the question of updating the publication should be limited until either the dispute had been resolved or a general methodology had been approved.

Ambassador PAIK (Republic of Korea) made a statement1.

Mr. KIM (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) made a statement2.

Rear Admiral ANDREASEN (United States of America) expressed his country’s view that Publication S-23 was an important reference for Member States in the publication of charts and related documentation, for mariners to know which sea areas they were in, and for all those involved in marine Geographic Information Systems. It established the technical boundaries of the areas concerned and, in the absence of a new edition, there could be still further politicization of our work through national adoption of politically derived limits rather than unique water bodies defined by coastal shapes or unique oceanographic character such as the Antarctic Convergence zone limit of the Southern Ocean. The United States does not want to see “no” S-23. He was therefore in favour of pursuing work on the revision of S-23. However, that work had been in progress for 35 years and not a single page had yet been updated. In his country’s view, that reflected badly on IHO, an organization which it held in the highest regard. The United States considers it important to find an acceptable way forward. In view of the failure to revise the publication as a whole he therefore suggested adopting a high-level approach, on a chapter-by-chapter basis, which could lead to the revision of a significant number of chapters. A proposal along those lines would be submitted to the Secretariat for distribution to Member States, and the Conference could decide whether to approve it after the customary 24-hour consideration period.

Mr. NG (China) observed that Member States were clearly committed to the task of finalizing a new edition of Publication S-23, and had devoted a great deal of time, energy and resources to the task. He acknowledged the importance of reaching a consensus on its content and Member States would like to see it updated. However, any agreement reached between coastal States on the naming of a particular area must be respected. In 2005, China and Viet Nam had jointly registered with the United Nations two sets of maps reflecting a mutual agreement on the delimitation of their territorial waters, EEZ and continental shelf, and bearing the names Beibu Gulf/ Băc Bô Gulf. That agreement had not been accepted as evidence of the need to amend the information in S-23. Furthermore, China had registered with the United Nations its own system for the naming of land masses and islands, but that too had been rejected by Members of the Working Group. After nearly four decades of effort, no progress had been made. His delegation would have no objection to the Group continuing its work of revising S-23, but nor would it stand in the way of a decision to scrap the publication.

Colonel ALSHAMSI (United Arab Emirates) suggested giving the countries concerned more time to reach an agreement.

Commander BASHIR (Pakistan) endorsed the previous speaker’s suggestion. The S-23 Working Group had been in existence for only a few years and had met on just two occasions, most of the work having been done through paperwork and electronic communications. That did not suffice for the resolution of such an important and long-standing international issue. The Group should therefore continue its work on Publication S-23, and the countries concerned should have more time and support to present their respective cases and settle their differences.

Rear Admiral GAVIOLA (Peru), suggested that thet the questions presented by the President of the Directing Committee concerning the treatment of Publication S-23 should be put to a vote.

Rear Admiral GUY (Director, IHB), speaking at the invitation of the PRESIDENT, supported the proposal by the representative of the United States. His own view was that any political decision on the naming issue was a matter for the States concerned. Considering that the publication of S-23 reflected on the public image and technical ability of the Organization, it was important at some point to discuss whether it should be abandoned completely and replaced by another publication with terms of reference capable of accommodating disputed issues.

Captain CABELLO (Ecuador) drew attention to the fact that a number of aspects touched on by the Working Group, which was a multilateral body, had been dealt with on a bilateral basis. The countries concerned should settle their differences by consensus and then another working group should be formed.

The PRESIDENT summed up the various viewpoints expressed during the discussion. In the absence of any objection, he took it that the Conference wished to consider the proposal to be submitted by the United States of America, within the statutory 24-hour period.

It was so agreed.

The PRESIDENT closed the meeting at 17:30.

24 April 2012 1400-1730

Captain LOWELL (United States of America) recalled that after the previous day’s discussion on the challenging question of Publication S-23, which in the view of his delegation and many others was important but outdated, the United States had submitted a proposal suggesting a possible way forward. It had hoped that a chapter-by-chapter approach to the revision of S-23 would allow progress to be made on those chapters where there was agreement. Such an approach would depend on the support of all the Member States affected, which however did not appear to be forthcoming. The United States was therefore withdrawing its proposal. It nevertheless remained committed to finding a solution that would allow for the much-needed updating of S-23.

25April 2012 0910-1220

The PRESIDENT asked the Conference whether it wished to continue the discussion on a 4th edition of Publication S-23 in an attempt to reach a consensus.

Mr. HIRAMATSU (Japan) said that neither his Government nor that of the Republic of Korea disagreed with the view of the United States delegation, that Publication S-23 could be revised in a way that would not undermine the document’s integrity. He suggested setting up a working group with the remit of ensuring that the revision process allowed for part or parts of the document to be revised swiftly and flexibly; that it should cover all sea areas around the world; and that all sections of the document would be regarded as integral parts of the whole, regardless of differences in the dates of revision. The proposed working group should try to finish its work in time to report to the 5th Extraordinary International Hydrographic Conference. His suggestion should enable the IHO to overcome the current impasse over the name Japan Sea, as well as to deal with possible future disputes over sea names. He reiterated the importance for Japan of retaining the name Japan Sea. While maintaining its basic position, his Government had accepted the proposal of the President of the Directing Committee in the interests of the IHO as a whole.

While the Conference President then summarized the proposal by Japan, Ms PAIK (Republic of Korea) then requested that the proposal by the representative of Japan be made available in writing. She said that the Republic of Korea had commented upon the basic idea of a chapter-by-chapter revision previously, but it was not clear which parts of the document were being referred to. Given the extensive work already carried out in her country on the new edition, she would prefer it to be published in its entirety.

Mr. AL KIYUMI (Oman) said that before proceeding with a chapter-by-chapter revision, agreement must be reached on the wording of the preamble and the inclusion of the suggested “important notice”.

The PRESIDENT said that as he understood it, the proposal by the delegation of Japan did not include any discussion of the preamble.

Mr. NG (China) asked whether, in reality, continuing the negotiations would serve any useful purpose. The technical significance of Publication S-23 might have been over-emphasized and its increased political sensitivity under-estimated in recent years. It was questionable whether the IHO, as a technical organization, should continue to be involved with a political issue. His own delegation had refrained from making any proposal, in order not to waste more time and resources. The matter had been a bone of contention within the Organization for between 35 and 40 years; it was, therefore, unrealistic to imagine that it could be resolved in a comparatively short time frame. It was time to move on.

Commodore NAIRN (Australia) said he had no objection to either the establishment of a working group, although he would not wish to participate in it, or the suggestion by the representative of China. His country had always striven to ensure that the names and limits of oceans and seas were available in official IHO documents in a consolidated format. Pending a new edition of S-23, Australia had decided to publish its own information about the seas and oceans around Australia. That version was available on the AHO web site, and would remain there until there was a suitable alternative.

Mr. HIRAMATSU (Japan) requested more time for Member States to reflect on the matter before Conference took a decision. He further requested a roll-call vote.

The PRESIDENT agreed to the request for more time, and asked the representative of Japan to prepare a written proposal for consideration by Member States. The discussion would then be suspended and resumed during the afternoon session, at which time the formal proposal would be considered.

Mr. NG (China) observed that in paragraph 10 of document CONF.18/WP.1/Add.1 it was stated that if Member States wished to pursue the development of an up-to-date version of S-23 they should indicate how that could be achieved, noting that options had already been presented in the report. If they did not wish to proceed, then they must decide whether the current, but out-of-date 3rd edition of S-23, which had not been revised for nearly 60 years, could continue to be an active, but ineffective, IHO reference publication, or whether it should be discontinued. Member States had received the document well in advance of the Conference, and had therefore had ample time to form an opinion on the matter.

Captain BERMEJO BARO (Spain) agreed with the previous speaker that a decision on the way forward had effectively been taken already.

The PRESIDENT replied that the proposal by the delegation of Japan would be distributed to the Conference, and the matter would be taken up again during the afternoon session. Consideration of Proposals

25 April 2012 1420-1730
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS (CONF.18/G/02/Rev1) (Agenda item 3) (continued) PRO 9 - SUGGESTION ON THE REVISION OF THE S-23 (CONF.18/G/02/Rev1/Pro 9)

Mr. HIRAMATSU (Japan) introduced his delegation’s Proposal 9, on the revision of S-23. It represented an attempt by his Government to advance the revision of S-23 in a practical and flexible manner. The main aim of the proposal was to establish a small working group, made up of the countries concerned and other interested Member States, to discuss the revision of S-23. He would welcome any suggestions to improve the proposal. He emphasized that Japan was anxious to pursue the discussions with the parties concerned.

The PRESIDENT explained the procedure for proposals submitted during the Conference. The Conference had first to decide whether to consider the proposal. If it decided to take up the proposal, it could then discuss when to deal with it. Mr. KIM (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said he did not support the proposal. With a view to completing the publication of S-23 as promptly as possible, he recommended publishing the fourth draft, leaving the page relating to the Sea of Japan or the East Sea blank. The third edition, which was now out of date, should be abandoned. If agreement could not be reached, another option would be to abolish the S-23 publication in its entirety.

Captain CHEN (China) said that the proposal submitted by the delegation of Japan was very similar to the one submitted earlier in the week by the delegation of the United States. which had since been withdrawn. He welcomed that delegation’s decision to withdraw it. Moreover, the new proposal was not clear. It referred to the format of the revision of the publication, whereas the point at issue was its content. The lack of novelty in the proposal could result in the repetition of arguments already advanced, and he could not support its being considered.

Ms. PAIK (Republic of Korea) agreed. The new proposal was also very similar to a proposal considered at the XVIIth International Hydrographic Conference in 2007. She did not support its being considered by the Conference.

Colonel REGALADO GOMEZ (Cuba) agreed with the previous speaker. The matter at issue was political, and fell outside the remit of the Conference and the IHO. The countries concerned should discuss it and reach an agreement in the framework of the United Nations. His own country had decided that pending agreement on the issue, the area in question would be designated the Sea of Japan/East Sea.

Captain BERMEJO BARO (Spain) suggested taking a vote by a show of hands on whether to consider the proposal.

The PRESIDENT explained the procedure for a simple vote. A roll call would be taken in order to count the number of Member States present and voting. Those in favour of considering the proposal would then be asked to raise their flags, which would be counted. The same procedure would be repeated to count those against and those abstaining. It was not a roll call vote.

Ms. PAIK (Republic of Korea) said that in the absence of express support for the proposal by the delegation of Japan, it was unclear why a time-consuming vote should be held.

The PRESIDENT explained that according to the Rules of Procedure, a vote was necessary when one had been requested by a Member State. The delegation of Spain had suggested taking a vote. Captain

BERMEJO BARO (Spain) pointed out that he had merely suggested a vote by a show of hands, not a roll call vote. A roll call vote could be taken as a last resort if a simple vote did not produce a majority.

Following a count, the PRESIDENT announced that 67 Member States with voting rights were present, making the required two-thirds majority 34 votes.

A vote was taken by a show of hands, the results of which were:
In favour: 1
Against: 4
Abstain: 62
Proposal 9, Suggestion on the revision of the S-23, was not considered.

Dr. HIRAMATSU (Japan) requested a postponement of any further discussion of the S-23 issue until later in the Conference, to allow time for further consultations. The PRESIDENT suggested that the S-23 issue should be taken up at the next session.

It was so agreed.

26 April 2012 0910 -1235
Report on work to revise IHO Publication S-23 – “Limits of Oceans and Seas” (CONF.18/WP/1/Add.1) (continued)

The PRESIDENT said that as no proposals on the agenda item were now before the Conference, and there had not been any positive outcome from the work of the Working Group on S-23, the Conference could not take any decision on the matter, apart from noting the report on work to revise IHO Publication S-23.

Commodore NAIRN (Australia), supported by Rear Admiral ANDREASEN (United States of America), objected to any withdrawal of IHO Publication S-23. No consensus had been reached on the matter.

Ms. PAIK (Republic of Korea) referred to an error in paragraph 5 of the report of the Working Group on S-23.

The PRESIDENT suggested that her delegation submit a reservation concerning that paragraph.

Ms. PAIK (Republic of Korea) said that a reservation would not be appropriate, because the paragraph contained a factual error.

The PRESIDENT OF THE DIRECTING COMMITTEE said that any necessary editorial corrections would be made to the report. Otherwise, it should be borne in mind that none of the work done by the Working Group on S-23, including matters mentioned in its paragraph 5, had yet been considered by Member States.

The PRESIDENT invited the Conference to take note of the report, subject to any necessary editorial corrections.

The Conference took note of the report.

The PRESIDENT said he would take it that the Conference did not wish to take any further decision on S-23 at present.

It was so agreed.

Ms. PAIK (Republic of Korea) said that the discussion on how to proceed with the publication of the new edition of S-23 had been both meaningful and useful. Her delegation much appreciated the support expressed by many delegations concerning the inclusion of the term “East Sea” in the new S-23. The use of that term concurrently with that of “Japan Sea” was the only fair and realistic way forward. Her country would spare no effort to achieve agreement among the parties concerned on the name of the sea area between the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archipelago. She looked forward to the early publication of a new edition of S-23.

Eastern ocean means Pacific Ocean for Japanese.

Japan call "East Sea” for Sea of Japan in the Japan Imperial Military Song?

There are Aikoku Kousin kyoku (愛国行進曲・Patriot march). These days Korean insist that Japanese call it East Sea" for Sea of Japan in the song  (Korea maeil economy news).  It is wrong claim. In Japan, Tokai (東海) means the ocean eastern side of Japan.

In Japan, Tokai (east sea) means Pacific ocean side because it faced to the pacific ocean located on east of J Japan Archipelago.Those place of name which incrudes "East" doesn't mean the "Sea of Japan". those "East" meant the Pacific Ocean side.

Tokai chihou 東海地方 (Eastern ocean region): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C5%8Dkai_region 
Tokai do 東海道 (Eastern ocean road)
Tokai Mura東海村 (Eastern oceana village) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C5%8Dkai,_Ibaraki
Tokai shi 東海市 (Eastern ocean city) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C5%8Dkai,_Aichi

The lyrics of the song says Sun rising from the "eastern "ocean of Japan Archipelago. So the "east ocean" in this song could be the ocean eastern side of Japan, it means Pacific ocean side.

見よ 東海の  空あけて Looki!  the eastern ocean and daybreak
旭日 高く輝けば  The sun rise high and  shinny.   
天地の正気 溌剌と  There are the vivid justice in the sky and land
希望は躍る 大八洲 hope heartbeating,  main eight islands.  
The Main Eight Islands means Japan's main eight islands written in Kojiki. consist of Awaji, Iyo, Oki, Kyuusyuu, Iyo,Tsusima, Sado and Honsyu.

小学校音楽指導書. 実際篇  近森, 一重, 1903

「大八州」は日本のこと。 大は尊称で、八州は日本である。古事記には、「淡道島・伊予の二名島(四国)隠岐島、筑紫島(九州)、伊夜島・津島(對馬)佐渡島・大倭豊秋津島(本土)を大八島といふ」とある。

The news wrongly reported the song is made by Korean Park SiChung.. But. checking the music record it says that this song made by Jpaapnese SetoguchiToukichi. There are a images of the music record and it says made by Japaapnese SetoguchiToukichi(作曲:瀬戸口藤吉)


小学校音楽指導書. 実際篇  近森, 一重, 1903

因に、選者は次の諸氏である。(歌詞)  【省略】...(作曲)内閣情報部 陸軍軍楽隊長岡田国一 海軍軍楽隊長長内藤清五 橋本国彦 堀内敬三 信時潔 山田耕作 小松耕輔 近衛秀鷹 

In addition,Kim munguil told  no Japanese use the name of Sea of Japan, is wrong. Japanese already use the Japan Sea in the text book 1870's.












ソース:毎日経済(韓国語) [日帝が呼んだ戦時動員歌謡に'東海(日本海)'表記]

%EC%98%88%20%EC%A3%BC%EC%9A%94%EA%B8%B0%EC%82%AC&year=2012&no=314912&selFlag= sc&relatedcode=&wonNo=&sID=507 




見よ 東海の  空あけて 
旭日 高く輝けば 
天地の正気 溌剌と
希望は躍る 大八洲 

S14.1939.小学校音楽指導書. 実際篇  近森, 一重,
「大八州」は日本のこと。 大は尊称で、八州は日本である。古事記には、「淡道島・伊予の二名島(四国)隠岐島、筑紫島(九州)、伊夜島・津島(對馬)佐渡島・大倭豊秋津島(本土)を大八島といふ」とある。

この曲の作曲者は朴是春だが、作詞家 は「内務部情報課選定」と明示されている。 





S12.(1937)11.10.(A06031021800)週報 第56号 P2 (アーカイブ内の6ページ目)

愛国行進曲懸賞募集 当選歌詞発表について 

S12.(1937)12.15.(A06031022400)週報 第62号  P41
愛国行進曲なる 内閣情報部 

S14.1939.小学校音楽指導書. 実際篇  近森, 一重,

因に、選者は次の諸氏である。(歌詞)  【省略】...(作曲)内閣情報部 陸軍軍楽隊長岡田国一 海軍軍楽隊長長内藤清五 橋本国彦 堀内敬三 信時潔 山田耕作 小松耕輔 近衛秀鷹 。

http://kindai.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/1121376 等の譜面には、「内閣情報部選定」との記載が有るのみですが、




S-23 working group disbanded

Last nite i checked IHO page and S-23WG is not on the chart which had used to be there.

existing IHO bodies:http://www.iho.int/srv1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=404&Itemid=362.

checking the Disbanded IHO Bodies on the upper leftside icon there are list of disbanded bodies and it incrudes S-23WG(Working Group), for the revised devision of S-23 (Limits of Oceans and Seas (1953).





日本は「日本海」の単独表記の主張を正当化しており、藤村内閣官房長官は「『日本海」は国際的に確立された唯一の『呼称』であり、 『原則の問題』と主張したが、これはまさに荒唐無稽な詭弁(きべん)であると批判した。
 同紙は、日本は明治維新以来、私たちの国の植民地化政策を段階的に推進する過程において、「朝鮮東海」を「日本海」と歪曲したと主張。 破廉恥なことに、1929年には植民地宗主国の地位を悪用し、「朝鮮東海」を「日本海」と国際水路機関に登録したと指摘した。

そもそも韓国併合以前にEast SeaやEast Sea of Korea(朝鮮東海)と記載された海図はありません。 大韓帝国ですら併合以前に「日本海」を使っていました。(Korean use the name of "Sea of Japan" before annexation " 国際的にもラペルーズやクルーゼンシュテルン以降、ペリーの時代も含めて「日本海」が既に日韓併合以前に定着していました。
Age of Voyage of Discovery around Sea of Japan  1780-1830  Pilot ,Hidrographic magazine ,and Admiraly Chart 、Geography gazette and Sea of Japan, Strait of Corea, and Brougthon bay. 1850's~ 
確かに1700-1800年前半の古地図にはSea of KoreaやEastern SeaやOriental SeaやJapan Seaなどがありますし、外務省が認めています。しかし”East Sea"や”East Sea of Korea"などというものはありません。おそらくはSea of KoreaとEast Seaを混ぜた造語なのではないでしょうか。 また、外務省古地図調査結果により、1800年台前期に日本海呼称がほぼ定着した結果を発表しています。




また、日本海と接している沿岸部の距離は大雑把にGoogle Earthで測りましたが、

ロシア 1773KM(帰属未確定の南樺太地域(約400KM)は除く)
日本 2.373KM
韓国・北朝鮮 1328KM


19 アイリッシュ海l (ブリテン島とアイルランドの間)

21 英国海峡:(ヨーロッパ大陸とブリテン島の間)
27  カリブ海 (南アメリカとカリブ諸島の間)
42 ラッカディブ海 (Between インドとラッカディブ諸島の間)

65 ソロモン海 (ニューギニア島とソロモン諸島の間)
66 ビスマルク海 (ニューギニア島とビスマルク諸島の間)


韓国・北朝鮮の反日プロパガンダの一環である日本海呼称問題における捏造ゲームに絶対に妥協してはなりません。それは、韓国・朝鮮の歴史歪曲を是認することになるからです。そもそも、日本が「朝鮮東海」という存在が確認されない名称を「日本海」に変更したという事実はありませんし、これは領土膨張野望は関係ありません。どちらかというと西洋が日本海と使用していた基準をそのまま取り入れたに過ぎません。 北朝鮮や韓国は歴史歪曲の反日プロパガンダを国内・海外であおっていますが、これらが領土拡張野望の結果として侵略し強奪した島根県竹島の侵略正当化のための口実と考えているからこそ、また、北朝鮮は工作船で日本海を渡り、その目的が邪悪な領土拡張や攻撃準備の野望を持っているからこそ、このような考えが浮かぶのでしょうか? 
北朝鮮 工作船 http://gunnzihyouronn.web.fc2.com/kousaku/kousakusenn.htm




こ れは、そもそも朝鮮王朝は、歴史的に鎖国をしていた関係上、西洋を中心とした先進的な地理学の成果がまったく入ってこなかったわけで、まあ、これらが入り 始めるのが1880年くらいからなのでしょうか?なのですが、成果が入ってきてからは何の疑問も無く国際名称として朝鮮側も日本海を使用してきました。

我が国で出版、発行された古書や地図にはもちろん、我が国を探険し、往来した外国の探険家と地理学者らが出版した古い文献や地図にも、「日本海」という 名称は表記されていない。我が国の東方の海の名称は、数千年前から「東海」と呼ばれてきた。国外では、その名称を「朝鮮海」「朝鮮東海」、または「高麗 海」「高麗東海」と呼んだり表記してきた。

Korean use the name of "Sea of Japan" before annexation "
朝鮮を旅行した有名人にイザベラバードが居ますが、彼女の書いた「Korea and her neighbors;」

これらの事実から、我が国を探険し、往来した外国の探険家と地理学者らが出版した古い文献や地図にも、「日本海」という 名称は表記されていない。 というのは嘘であることがわかります。

日 本と欧州で出版された数多くの古い地図では、本州と四国、九州の東方の海を「日本海」と表記した。1715年にドイツ、オランダの地図製作者たちが作っ た地図に、まさしくそのように表記されている。1816年に出版された日本地図にも、「日本海」という名が太平洋側に表記されている。




また、古地図における「朝鮮海」は、「朝鮮海峡」の名称がまたこれラペローズ以降に採用されることで、次第にBroughton Bay=東朝鮮海に継承されていきます。
The Process Mer Du Coree become Broughton Bay, TongJoseonMan today.
20世紀に我が国を軍事的に占領した日帝は、1929年に行われた国際水路会議で朝鮮東海を「日本海」と表記するよう狡猾に策動した。これが、日帝が朝 鮮という国名を地図からも永遠になくしてしまおうとする悪らつな策動の一環として行われたというのは言うまでもない。

Korean use the name of "Sea of Japan" before annexation "

朝 鮮東海に対する「日本海」表記問題は国際的に認められていない。世界的に最も優れたものとして認められ、英語圏で最も長い歴史をもつ英国のブリタニカ 百科事典(2007年版)が朝鮮東海を「東海」と表記した事実からもそう言える。これまで朝鮮東海を「日本海」と表記していた同百科事典はことし、朝鮮東海を「東海」という名称で表記した。


日 本が我が国の神聖な固有の領土である独島(日本名・竹島)を「日本の島」であると主張するのも、朝鮮再侵略の悪巧みによるものである。言い換えれば、日 本は独島を「日本の領土」、朝鮮東海を「日本海」として合法化し、それを足場にして朝鮮再侵略野望を実現しようと企んでいる。

竹 島が朝鮮王朝・大韓帝国時代を通じて韓国による「実行支配」がなされた記録は無く、韓国・朝鮮側最大の根拠「ウサン島が独島である」というのが歴史歪曲で あることが判明していますので、まあ、この主張も無理があります。 それに日本自身、朝鮮再侵略なんか考えていません。 それどころか軍国主義なのは核武装・工作船の北朝鮮や竹島侵略犯罪国家の韓国であり日本ではありません。


First Post on 26Apr2012

2012.04.25 「日本海」表記 米連邦議員の「東海併記」支持増える 韓国紙

2012.03.12 韓国人の力…“東海併記”の方向に動く米議会
ドナルド・マンズロ 共和党 イリノイ州 米連邦下院外交委員会アジア太平洋環境小委員長
エニ・ファレオマバエガ議員 民主党、アジア太平洋小委民主党幹事

2012.01.16 米バージニア州が「東海」併記を推進
デーブ・マースデン (民主党 ヴァージニア州)

2011.11.30 アメリカ韓人会、東海併記請願のためクリントンとの面談を要請
マーク・カーク  共和党イリノイ連邦上院議員

日本メディアが報じない「日本海呼称問題」 韓国の4つの主張検証

【動画追加】日本メディアが報じない「日本海呼称問題」 韓国の4つの主張検証 【朝ズバッ!】


1895.Fur seal arbitration. Proceedings

Fur seal arbitration. Proceedings (1895)

Text;Sea of Japan
Arrowsmith's Chart of the Pacific Ocean. This is a large and important Map in nine sheets, specially devoted to the Pacific Ocean. Originally published in 1798. This edition with corrections to 1810. The northern edge of the Map runs about latitude 62 degrees north, and it includes the greater part of Behring Sea but shows it as a large blank unnamed space. Bristol Bay alone is rather prominently named. By constrast, the Sea of Okhotsuk: Sea of Japan, and other enclosed seas are names.

*it is interesting text in the followwing page they said Sea of Corae is Yellow SeaSea of Japan is Sea of Japan.
Senator MORGAN,- I meant to state the attitude of the United States Government towards that country- they claimed no Treaty right of going through the Straits of shimonoseki at all. They claimed it on the ground that it was part of the high sea, because it was a strait connectiong two great seas- the Sea of Japan on the south, and they Yellow Sea, I think it was, or the Sea of Corea on the north. 

The Russian fur-seal islands (1896)

text; the Japan Sea
+7.1' was fpimd at 25 meters and +4.3' at 50 meters. We jave jere absolutely the same phenomenon as in the Japan Sea, viz, that the cold water predominates in the lower beds of the western portion of the sea. the identical phenomenon has been observerd in the Okhotsuk Sea and the Straits of Tartary.


1878.History of the American whale fishery from its earliest inception to the year 1876 (1878)

History of the American whale fishery from its earliest inception to the year 1876 [microform] (1878)
Author: Starbuck, Alexander, 1841-1925 Subject: Whaling; Baleines

text: Japan Sea

Japan Sea......Dec.30.........Bought from Sag Harbor 1849;sailed October 17; returned December 6. leaking 2.000 strokes in 24 hours; lost in iee near East Cape 1851.

Japan Sea Oct.4 Aor 22.1851   69  2107 13800


Pacific Ocean...Nov. 13...Captain Champlin died in Japan Sea 1858; sent home 200 sperm, 300 whale, 3675 bone,; condemned at Honolulu 1859.


The solution of Sea of Japan naming dispute

My personal opinion about Sea of Japan naming dispute

1. South Korea must appologizes to Japan for distorting the story the name of Sea of Japan ,the distorted story it is establihed during  Japan's annexation of Korea and expansionism. Korea abused anti-japan brainwash propaganda with fabricated story.

2. It is impossible  to divide Sea of Japan two zone because Sea of Japan is marginal sea and there are no prominent obstruction under the sea between Japan Archipelago and East coast of Korean peninsula. peninsula. 

3.Japan and Korea agrees the name of "Sea of Japan" as a international standard name and nautical chart name.

4.Japan and Korea agrees the name of "Strait of Korea" as a international standard name, which is named as Tsusima Strait in Japan, which had been in common on nautical chart after La Perouse's discovery tour on the Sea of Japan

5.In English articles or texts use "Sea of Japan" in general topics and use "East coast of Korea (or East coast of Korean peninsula) on the Sea of Japan" the topic about nearby east coast of korean peninsula. East Sea doesn't mean the full marginal sea area of Sea of Japan rather than it is just a one of the western part  of the Sea of Japan.  Also, East Sea is "East China Sea"in common  so that we dont use  the term of "East Sea" for east coast of Korean peninsula in English.

6.Tsushima Strait for Japanese and East Sea for Koreans, both sides don't protest those domestic usage each other.



3.海図では植民地支配以前に、そして韓国併合以前に既に世界で使用されていた呼称”Sea of Japan"を引き続き国際表記することに日本と韓国は異議を唱えないし、名称変更に就いて如何なる提案も今後一切行わない。

4.海図ではLa Perouseの日本海調査以降m”Sea of Japan"とほぼ同時期に定着したもうひとつの海の名称”Strait of Korea"、これは日本では対馬海峡と呼ぶが、それを国際表記することに日本と韓国は異議を唱えないし、

5.学術的な記事のみならず、一般的な記事では日本海を使う。ただし、韓国東沿岸部での自称を表現するときは、(日本海の)”朝鮮半島東岸部”と言う表現を用いることを努力する。ただし、韓国国内の報道ではその朝鮮半島東岸部に当たる英訳”East Koast of Korean peninsula”を東海と言う国内名称で呼ぶことには問題がないと考える。東海は広大な日本海のを構成する西の一部分である。しかし、日本海は東海の一部ではない。また、East Seaという言葉は一般に英語では東シナ海(East China Sea)をさす。


No sea change for East Sea By Andrew Salmon

There are a essay by   on Korea times titled "No sea change for East Sea"   By Andrew Salmon
04-30-2012 17:27






Report on work to revise IHO Publication S-23 – “Limits of Oceans and Seas”




9. The work of the S-23 WG and the positions expressed by various members of the WG have been affected significantly by diplomatic lobbying of the interested States. The highly political nature of the issue is, to a large degree, overwhelming the technical purpose of the publication and of the Organization. Based on the history of efforts over the last 20 years to find a way forward in naming this sea area, it has to be recognized that a new edition of the publication S-23 can not be progressed until an agreement between the interested States is reached. This position has been reflected most recently in the responses expressed by various Member States to CL 24/2012.

10. In the circumstances, noting the lack of any significant progress made over such a considerable number of years and considering that the proposals of the S-23 WG have not been accepted by Member States as indicated in CL 38/2012 the question that now has to be asked is whether Member States still wish to pursue the development of an up-to-date edition of S-23

If the answer to this question is YES, then Member States must be prepared to indicate how this can now be achieved. 

If the answer is NOthen Member States must decide 
  whether the current but out of date 3rd edition of S-23, which has not been revised for nearly 60 years, will continue to be an active, but ineffective, IHO reference publication 


  whether the publication should be discontinued

In deciding the way forward, Member States should also consider the adverse effect on the reputation and the credibility of the Organization and its publications if it is unable to resolve this matter after so long.

Referemce:CL24/2012  2012/02/20

reference:CL38/2012 2012/03/30

 Item 4. As there has been no consensus between the members of the S‐23 WG on the issue of naming the sea area between the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archipelago, what are your views on possible ways
forward for progressing a new edition of S‐23?

• Thirty‐one (31) Member States provided comments to the question of possible ways forward for progressing a new edition of S‐23. Eleven (11) Member States did not comment. Twenty‐two (22) Member States indicated that the concerned States must continue their efforts to find a common accepted way to name the sea area in question, some of them indicating views on how the issue could be handled. It may be noted that three (3) Member States indicated that the updating of S‐23 should be considered on a regional level or chapter by chapter;