| bibo:abstract |
I. Introduction
II. The History behind the Name “East Sea”
III. Heated Debates at IHO
Ⅳ. Contents and Significance of the Report on the Informal Consultation Process for the Future of S-23
I. Introduction
In the Northeastern end of the Eurasian Continent, there lies a body of water which is a marginal sea of the Western Pacific Ocean and encircled by the Korean Peninsula, Russia's Maritime Territory, and the Japanese archipelago including the Island of Sakhalin. This sea area connects to the Sea of Okhotsk through the Tatar Strait in the north and the South Sea of Korea and the East China Sea through the Korea Strait in the south. The sea was called the “East Sea(東海)'' from times predating the Three Kingdoms Period(三國時代), and the name was never questioned. Not a few people around the world know the sea by the name of “Sea of Japan.” We cannot, however, overlook the implications and significance of a name or expression. Against this background, the Korean government has consistently asserted, at many levels, the inappropriateness of the name “Sea of Japan” and pushed for the use of the name “East Sea.” But such assertions were never enough to refute Japan's claim that was based on the international standardization adopted during the period of Japanese colonial occupation of Korea. However, the recent Assembly of the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) adopted the Report on the Informal Consultation for the Future of IHO's publication (S-23) “Limits of Oceans and Seas” which has been used by Japan as the basis for international standards. According to the Report, a new standard (S-130) is expected to be implemented and could provide a turning point in Korea’s effort to promote the wider use of “East Sea.”
II. The History behind the Name “East Sea”
Korea, surrounded by the sea on three sides, always had a great interest in seas throughout history. The body of water located to the east was referred to as the “East Sea.” The name East Sea first appears in Korean historical literature “The History of the Three Kingdoms (Samguk Sagi)” in the section on Goguryeo’s founder King Dongmyeong (三國史記 高句麗本紀 始祖 東明王). Thus, East Sea is a long-standing name that dates back to as early as 59 BC. While the name has such a long history, there are not many ancient Korean maps that marks seas with proper and precise names, owing to the fact that Korea was basically an agro-centric society. The name East Sea, however, appears more frequently in historical records as we approach modern times.
From the 15th century to the end of the age of geographic discovery in the late 18th century, the geographical names on numerous maps around the world varied greatly depending on the results of an exploration, the cartographer, the map publisher, and the scale or purpose of the map. In this respect, there are practical limitations in tracking the systematic evolution of the name East Sea by studying old maps of the western world. It took quite a long time for the geographical boundary of the “East Sea” to be accurately delineated in world maps. In addition, the names for the East Sea were not fixed and underwent numerous changes according to the general perception toward the sea area and acquisition of relevant information. In the 1600s, as coastlines were more accurately drawn, names for seas and oceans also became more varied and specific. Most maps, until the end of the 17th century, marked the East Sea as “Oriental Sea.” In the 18th century, when astronomy and geography developed into scientific disciplines, the East Sea, once loosely called the “Oriental Sea,” began to be specifically called the “Sea of Korea.” Up until the early 19th century, the name “Sea of Korea (Corea)” was widely used in western maps.
Although Japan was a nation composed of many islands, early maps of Japan did not specifically mark the names of seas due to the influence of oriental thinking. In fact, the name “Sea of Japan” is rarely found. Claims are made that “Sea of Japan” was first used in 1602 by Matteo Ricci in his Kunyu Wanguo Quantu(坤與萬國全圖, The Map of the World). However, this map itself contains many errors, because it disproportionately focused on Japan. Furthermore, after appearing once in Ricci’s map the name does not appear for a long time. It was only in the 19th century that Japanese maps started to mark East Sea with a name. During this time, the “Sea of Japan” was not used exclusively but in parallel with “Sea of Joseon.” Then, “Sea of Japan” started to be established from the late 19th century when Japan emerged as a regional power with imperialistic beliefs that justified colonial aggression.
III. Heated Debates at IHO
In June 1919, the 1st International Hydrographic Conference was held in London in order to ensure safe navigation by promoting uniformity in nautical charts and publications produced by various countries and to promptly exchange hydrographic information among member states. Two years later, in 1921, the International Hydrographic Bureau was established. Although, the naming of seas was not the main work of the International Hydrographic Conference, names were necessary to publish nautical maps for safe navigation. For this reason, in accordance with the Resolution (Section IV-B) adopted at the 1919 London Conference, each country submitted materials on the limitations of the seas to the International Hydrographic Bureau. At the time, Korea was under Japanese colonial rule and was therefore unable to attend the Conference to present an opinion, whereas Japan was a permanent member of the Executive Council of the League of Nations (LN) and exercised great influence in the international community. In 1929, Japan registered the East Sea waters as “Japan Sea” in accordance with the Resolution and asked the opinions of its member states. At that time, the Korean peninsula, Manchuria and parts of Sakhalin were occupied by the Japanese Empire, thus there were no objections. Under such circumstances, the IHO Conference in Monaco in 1929 released Publication S-23 titled “Limits of Oceans and Seas.” S-23 divided the world's seas into 66 sea areas that were delimited and given names. This publication was the first attempt by an international organization to name bodies of water and served as an important source of reference for the names and/or limits of oceans and seas. In S-23, the East Sea area which is listed as No. 52, is designated as “Japan Sea.”
After joining IHO in 1957, Korea officially raised the issue of using “Japan Sea” as the sole name for this sea area at the 15th Conference in 1997. Throughout the following discussions on revising S-23, Korea asserted the principle that “East Sea” is the only rightful name to designate this body of water, and advocated the concurrent use of “East Sea” and “Japan Sea” until an agreement is reached upon a single common name as recommended by the IHO Technical Resolution. The Resolution recommends that where two or more countries share a given geographical feature (such as, for example, a bay, strait, channel or archipelago) under a different name form, they should endeavor to reach agreement on fixing a single name for the feature concerned. If they have different official languages and cannot agree on a common name form, it is recommended that the name forms of each of the languages in question should be accepted for charts and publications unless technical reasons prevent this practice on small scale charts. e.g. English Channel/La Manche is a case that applies A4.2.6 of the IHO Technical Resolution.
Changes in the international environment such as the advancement of science and navigation technologies necessitated a revision of the S-23 which had served as a source of reference in the argument for the sole use of “Sea of Japan.” The 11th IHO Conference(1977) took the decision to revise the outdated 3rd Edition of S-23 and publish a new Limits of Oceans and Seas. A Working Group(WG) was formed of eight countries (UK, France, Germany, Chile, Japan, Argentina, Soviet Union, USA). Accordingly, a draft revision of the 4th edition of S-23 was prepared. The draft had maps for each sea area inserted and the East Sea area was marked as “Japan Sea,” and was rejected after being put to a vote by member states in 1986. As the publication of the revised edition was delayed, various attempts were made at the 15th Conference (1997), such as commissioning the revision to external sources. In August 2002, the Council circulated a draft of a revised S-23 which reflected the discussions that took place up to date and left the East Sea area blank. However, Japan waged a campaign against voting on the draft S-23 revision, and the plan to vote on the draft the following month was cancelled. From September 2003 to January 2008, bilateral consultations between Korea and Japan were held six times under the arrangement of the IHO, but no agreement was reached due to Japan's uncompromising stance. At the 17th Conference in 2007, a “Two-Volume Approach” was proposed. This approach meant that the agreed parts would be published first and the non-agreed parts published later when an agreement was reached. Korea accepted the proposal but Japan rejected it, once again blocking the progress of the revised Edition of S-23. On the other hand, the S-23 Working Group was launched in 2009 following the proposal of the IHO Council. At the final stage of discussions, a proposal was made to “include the name ‘Sea of Japan’ in the main text and ‘East Sea’ in an Annex,” but, this time Korea opposed. Tired by the repeated failure to reach a consensus through the S-23 WG and the tedious diplomatic war between Korea and Japan, other member states went as far as agreeing at the 18th IHO Conference in 2012 to not take any further action regarding S-23 revision.
In April 2017, the 1st Assembly was held in accordance with the revised IHO Convention. The Assembly adopted as a consensus the Korean government’s proposal to “task the Secretary-General to facilitate an informal consultation process regarding the future of S-23 among interested Member States, including determining mutually agreed modalities of work, and to report the result of the consultations to the Assembly at the next ordinary session.” Despite the decision, Japan initially showed reluctance to engage in consultations or negotiations. Japan eventually participated in the consultation process saying that although it refuses to discuss Korea's demand for dual use of “East Sea” and “Sea of Japan” it would “as a responsible member of IHO, make constructive contribution to the informal consultation process.” Finally, in 2019, two informal consultations were held between Korea, Japan, North Korea (parties), and the US and the UK (observers), and a report was prepared on the results of the process in the name of the Secretary-General. At the 2nd IHO Assembly, which took place by videoconference for three days from November 16, 2020, the proposal made in the “Report on the Informal Consultation Process for the Future of S-23” was adopted by consensus, thanks to the strong leadership of Secretary General Mathias Jonas. After the Assembly, the report was followed up with post procedures, including the circulation of the draft minutes, and officially adopted without amendments on December 1.
Ⅳ. Contents and Significance of the Report on the Informal Consultation Process for the Future of S-23
The biggest stumbling block in negotiations on the naming of “East Sea” has been IHO’s S-23 which solely used the name “Japan Sea” from its 1st Edition (1929) to the current 3rd Edition (1953). The publication was one of the main sources of reference for Japan's claim that “the ‘Sea of Japan’ is the only internationally established name' in the international community. As mentioned above, the Korean government has continuously raised the issue of revising S-23 since 1997, but negotiations could not move forward due to Japan's reticent stance to keep the “Sea of Japan” as the only name and the reluctance of many member states who did not want to get embroiled up in this sensitive issue between Korea and Japan. Despite such challenges, the Korean government stressed the need to revise S-23 at the 2014 Extraordinary Assembly. While strategically making no mention of the East Sea, Korea persuaded the member states by reiterating how the document had become increasingly mismatched with reality over six decades, and that if revision efforts stopped, the document might as well be discarded. The argument effectively led to the Informal Consultation Process and its Report which IHO Secretary-General described as the “last chance” for S-23 revision.
The main content of the recently adopted Secretary-General's Report on the Informal Consultation Process for the Future of S-23 are as follows 1) Develop a dataset named “Polygonal demarcations of global sea areas” to designate geographic sea areas by a system of unique numerical identifiers only, and profile or adapt appropriate IHO S-100-based standards through a new S-130 dataset, to facilitate the digital provision of the “Polygonal demarcations of global sea areas” 2) Note that S-23 is kept publicly available as part of existing IHO publications to demonstrate the evolutionary process from the analogue to Geographic Information Systems 3) Consider, if and when necessary, the development of basic guidelines for the allocation and display of attributes of sea areas to be applied to Geographic Information Systems.
In line with the recent development of technologies relevant to the 4th industrial revolution, such as Artificial Intelligence, IOT and Big Data, the IHO is developing the S-100 Universal Hydrographic Data Model to implement its e-Navigation strategy which enables the efficient use of hydrographic information and electronic collection, linkage, and display of navigational data. The S-100 Universal Hydrographic Data Model supports digital hydrographic data products based on the Universal Hydrographic Data Model used for various maritime activities. It is framework document that defines how to develop specifications for digital products and services for the hydrography, maritime and GIS(geographic information system) communities. For example, S-101 is for Electronic Navigational Chart, S-102 for Bathymetric Surface, S-111 for Surface Currents, and S-112 for Dynamic Water Level. In response to this report from the Secretary-General, IHO decided to develop a digital S-130 as part of the S-100 series. S-130 will mark sea areas by a system of unique numerical identifiers and without any geographical names.
Lastly, with respect to the development of guidelines for displaying information on the attributes of sea areas, the current plan on the new standard precludes the use of geographical names. But future demand for attribute information (e.g. legal status of water bodies, etc.) - such as names used in the Geospatial Information System (GIS) – could increase in which case relevant guidelines will be developed separately.
With the recent decision to develop a new standard (S-130), the status of S-23, which only uses the name “Japan Sea,” has been downgraded, given the common understanding that the S-23 is no longer a valid standard.
In addition, in keeping with the times and the transition to digital charts, S-23 which hindered the wider use of “East Sea” has been effectively disposed, thereby paved the way for a new framework to enable a wider use of “East Sea.” We did in fact make tangible progress in promoting the “East Sea” name even under the S-23 which only provided for “Japan Sea.” Now, under the new S-130, a more favorable condition has been created to further expand the use of “East Sea” and afford it an equal standing with “Sea of Japan.”
The decision of the IHO Assembly is not perfectly consistent with the existing position of Korea which had sought the concurrent use of East Sea and Sea of Japan. Nevertheless, it is apparently a realistic and reasonable compromise that reflects the positions of Korea and Japan in a balanced manner. In other words, considering the unlikelihood of Japan agreeing to S-23 revision, the absence of an alternative, and the unlikelihood of scrapping S-23, it was necessary to find a solution to the problem outside the existing framework of S-23 revision or disposal. In addition, considering that most of the alternatives discussed so far attached unequal statuses to “Sea of Japan” and “East Sea,” or considering that they were only temporary solutions rather than a permanent solution, the recent Secretary-General's Report is evaluated as a compromise for the two countries.
Apart from the outcome of the recent Assembly, we still need to continue the effort to promote the wider use of “East Sea.” Japan has also expressed support for S-130, since it will facilitate hydrography-related work. Therefore, future negotiations on this matter will require us to take a pragmatic approach based on reason and logic.
* Attached the File
|
