@article{ART002025266},
author={Choi Jang-Keun},
title={The analysis of Shimozyo Masao"s concept on Dokdo territory},
journal={Journal of Japanese Culture},
issn={1226-3605},
year={2015},
number={66},
pages={427-449},
doi={10.21481/jbunka..66.201508.427}
TY - JOUR
AU - Choi Jang-Keun
TI - The analysis of Shimozyo Masao"s concept on Dokdo territory
JO - Journal of Japanese Culture
PY - 2015
VL - null
IS - 66
PB - The Japanese Culture Association Of Korea (Jcak)
SP - 427
EP - 449
SN - 1226-3605
AB - The Takeshima issue between Korea and Japan came after World War II. Japan admitted to South Korea the effective jurisdiction of Dokdo in the Korean-Japanese normalization treaty, 1965. The issue of Takeshima was quiet up until today. The New Fisheries Agreement between Japan and Korea was signed in 1998. It was not a convention on territory but an agreement on fisheries. However, Shimozyo Masao insisted that it was on Dokdo territorial agreement. He argued that Dokdo is Japanese territory, and that the relationship between South Korea and Japan is very bad. This study analyzes Shimozyo Masao's perception on the Takeshima problem and his perception of history. The study of Shimozyo Masao did not get recognized for academic studies. So he proposed a workshop on Takeshima issues. He moved the governor of Shimane Prefecture. He also moved some congress members of the Shimane Prefecture. He suggested the ordinance of the ‘Day of the Takeshima.' He persuaded the lawmakers of Shimane Prefecture. He also persuaded the Japanese Foreign Ministry through the Congress. He finally moved the Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. His logic on the Takeshima issue is not originally his. His logic is the studies of Okuhara Hekiun, Kawakami Kenzo, and Tamura Seizaburou. Shimozyo Masao premised that Takeshima is the territory of Japan. He denied that Dokdo is Korean territory. He deliberately incorrectly interpreted historical data. He completely denied the logic of South Korea, China and Russia. Therefore, his logic is not logical. It is not objective. It is unfair. It is not academic.
KW - 죽도문제(Takeshima Problems);독도이슈(Dokdo Issues) 시모조 마사오(Shimozyo Masao);한일관계(History of Japan– Korea relations);한국영토(Korean Territory)
DO - 10.21481/jbunka..66.201508.427
ER -
Choi Jang-Keun. (2015). The analysis of Shimozyo Masao"s concept on Dokdo territory. Journal of Japanese Culture, 66, 427-449.
Choi Jang-Keun. 2015, "The analysis of Shimozyo Masao"s concept on Dokdo territory", Journal of Japanese Culture, no.66, pp.427-449. Available from: doi:10.21481/jbunka..66.201508.427
Choi Jang-Keun "The analysis of Shimozyo Masao"s concept on Dokdo territory" Journal of Japanese Culture 66 pp.427-449 (2015) : 427.
Choi Jang-Keun. The analysis of Shimozyo Masao"s concept on Dokdo territory. 2015; 66 : 427-449. Available from: doi:10.21481/jbunka..66.201508.427
Choi Jang-Keun. "The analysis of Shimozyo Masao"s concept on Dokdo territory" Journal of Japanese Culture no.66(2015) : 427-449.doi: 10.21481/jbunka..66.201508.427
Choi Jang-Keun. The analysis of Shimozyo Masao"s concept on Dokdo territory. Journal of Japanese Culture, 66, 427-449. doi: 10.21481/jbunka..66.201508.427
Choi Jang-Keun. The analysis of Shimozyo Masao"s concept on Dokdo territory. Journal of Japanese Culture. 2015; 66 427-449. doi: 10.21481/jbunka..66.201508.427
Choi Jang-Keun. The analysis of Shimozyo Masao"s concept on Dokdo territory. 2015; 66 : 427-449. Available from: doi:10.21481/jbunka..66.201508.427
Choi Jang-Keun. "The analysis of Shimozyo Masao"s concept on Dokdo territory" Journal of Japanese Culture no.66(2015) : 427-449.doi: 10.21481/jbunka..66.201508.427
