간도영유권을 둘러싼 법적 제문제

Some Legal Issues on the Territorial Sovereignty over Gando(Jiandao)

Gando(Jiandao) refers to a certain area between the Tomun(土門) River and the Tumen(豆滿) River which had been reclaimed to settle by ethnic Koreans. A territorial dispute on this area was stemmed between Joseon(former Korea) and Qing(former China) in 1880s. It caused from the ambiguity in the original Sino-Korean boundary agreement. In 1712, a spot at Baekdu Mountain was decided, and a stele was erected as a boundary marker. Over the next year, a fence was built to demarcate the areas where the Tomun(土門) River, which is a tributary of the Songhua River, ran underground. In 1880s the Qing government, considering the Tomun River of the stele as the Tumen River, proclaimed that ethnic Koreans who had settled the area between the two Rivers should decide to be naturalized in Qing or repatriate to Joseon. The Joseon Government protested officially about the Qing’s action. In this way the territorial dispute over Gando between Korea and China took place. Joseon and Qing officials met in 1885 and 1887 to resolve the dispute, but with little result. Afterwards the Gando Convention and the Manchuria Convention between Japan and China was concluded at a time in 1909, in the process of Japan’s invasion into Manchria. The Manchuria Convention grants the rights and interests in railway constructiong or mining in Manchuria to Japan and the Gando Convention demarcates the boundary between Korea and China as the Tumen(豆滿) River. In the chinese point of view, the Gando Convention is regarded as the legal basis of modern boundary between Korea and China. But the Gando Convention was concluded between Japan and China to resolve the Gando dispute between Korea and China. This odd structure of the Convention is legally based on the 1905 Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty. It is known that Japan deprived Korea of the rights of diplomacy with the treaty. This treaty has never ratified by the Korean Emperor Gojong. It means that treaty did not come into existence, so it could not become effective. Futhermore, the Japanese officials used military coercion to the Korean cabinet members to forcibly conclude the treaty. These are why the 1905 Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty is null and void. So the Gando Convention concluded by Japan is also null and void because it was based on the Protectorate Treaty which is legally invalid. As the result modern-day China’s territorial sovereignty over Gando has no legal title at all. In the legal point of view, the Gando dispute still remains unsolved. By the way, modern-day Korea government has not yet protested that the China’s occupancy of Gando is with no legal title and not urged to demarcate a new boundary which would be respected by both of the two countries. The absence of protest by Korea government would not give an effect that China has the legal title over Gando by the prescription theory. Because There found any rule of the prescription in international positive law. But it is obvious that the absence of protest will not give any positive effect to Korea. In the meantime North Korea and China in secrecy concluded a boundary treaty in 1962. There are no doubt that this boundary treaty is perfectly valid between the two parties. But it is not clear whether the reunified Korea in the future shall succeed to the boundary treaty. There is no general rule in international law, including the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties. This Vienna Convention itself has not ratified by 20 countries so far and there is no rule to apply to the case of the reunification of the divided countries. furthermore, neither South Korea, North Korea nor China is the party of the Vienna Convention. And state practice in international society concerning succession of states in respect of treaties vary from the cases.