본문 바로가기
  • Home
Basic Search

Institutional Politics of Naming Disputes in the Reform of the IHO S-23 Framework : Agenda-Setting and Strategic Interaction in the East Sea/Sea of Japan Dual Naming Negotiations

Park, Chang-Gun 1

1국민대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

This study aims to reconceptualize the East Sea/Sea of Japan naming dispute not as a simple conflict over geographical labeling, but as an institutional–political contest over the formation of international standards and the allocation of rule-making authority within the framework of the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO). While previous studies have primarily focused on historical legitimacy, diplomatic persuasion, or technical issues in cartography, this research shifts the analytical focus to the distribution of authority in constructing and governing international standards. In doing so, it proposes an analytical shift from the question of “which name to use” to an examination of the institutional structures through which standards are formed and maintained. To this end, the study first analyzes the historical formation of the S-23 framework and the knowledge–power dynamics embedded in its standardization process. Second, it compares the dual naming strategies pursued by Korea and Japan since the 1990s, particularly within the IHO and the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN). Third, it demonstrates that the introduction of the S-130 digital marine geospatial information framework in 2020 has fundamentally reconfigured the unit of contestation—from a binary debate of “single naming versus dual naming” to a competition over data-layer structures and the authority to design and manage standards. The findings suggest that the S-130 system structurally incorporates the possibility of dual naming, thereby transforming the dispute from a zero-sum conflict into a long-term competition over visibility and accessibility within digital standard systems. Accordingly, Korea’s future strategy should move beyond historical and diplomatic arguments toward strengthening institutional capacities, including participation in standard governance, metadata design, and collaboration with digital platforms. By reconceptualizing naming disputes from the perspective of international standard governance, this study provides both theoretical contributions and policy implications for understanding the evolving nature of geopolitical contests in the digital era.

Statistics

  • 8 Viewed
  • 4 Downloaded

Tools

Issue List

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2024 are currently being built.

Basic Search Advanced Search