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