Dispute over Diaoyudao (Senkakuretto) and Its Implications for Dokdo ― Conflicts over History, Relevant Names and Boundaries ―

이창위 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2019 서울법학 Vol.27 No.3

This study surveys the issue of Diaoyudao out of Japan's several territorial disputes, laying stress on geographical names, history, state position, boundaries, and its implications for Dokdo. Today, both China and Japan continue to have a variety of opposing opinions in connection with the territoriality over Diaoyudao. From the perspective of a third party, it may not be easy to regard the opinion of a state party as appropriate. However, provided that one considers the historical aspects only, it seems hard to deny that the Chinese opinion is more persuasive. Since 1971, the territorial dispute over Diaoyudao between China and Japan has been one of the most difficult disputes in the world, as the islands are located in the area rich in hydrocarbon resources as well as strategically important for both countries. China and Japan stick to their respective opinions that the territoriality of its own country over the islands is unquestionable under international law or from historical point of view. As there is a great difference of opinions between the two states, the propriety of territorial dispute around these islands does not look to be resolved in the near future. Anyway, we cannot help paying sharp attention to the progress of this dispute. It is because there is considerable similarity between the territorial dispute over Diaoyudao between China and Japan, and the Dokdo issue between Korea and Japan in many respects. So, after examining relevant historical and legal issues relating to this dispute, we should prepare for the incessant Japan's territorial claim over Dokdo. Japan holds a view that keeping occupation over its own territory is the best policy, whereas it insists that it should keep raising objections to other countries' occupation of the disputed territories. Thereupon, we should have a deep understanding of Japan's self-contradictory attitude towards relevant territorial disputes, and then we should work out a rational countermeasure with regard to Dokdo based on cool judgment.

특집1 : 동북아시아의 영토문제 ; 중,러 영토분쟁의 해결: 그 타협의 원칙과 독도

윤태룡 ( Tae Ryung Youn ) 한국민족연구원 2013 민족연구 Vol.0 No.53

The historic 2005 Sino-Russian Vladivostok Treaty brought an end to their territorial disputes that had lasted for three centuries. The fact itself that such a longtime historical dispute was settled at all is remarkable. During the Cold War. China and Russia were once on the verge of all-out war in March 1969 when they clashed on Zhenbao Island [Damasky Island] in the Ussuri River. Further clashes in August 1969 along the western section of the Sino-Soviet border in Xinjiang heightened tensions to the extent that the possibility of even a nuclear war was raised. All the more because such a thorny relationship did they experience, the Sino-Russian case is interesting and worthy of scholarly attention [as a clear counterevidence against Ron Hassner`s intractability thesis on “time and the entrenchment of territorial disputes”]. This paper, by focusing on a successful case of resolution of Sino-Russian territorial conflicts, tries to get some hopeful suggestions for the ongoing territorial disputes in East Asian international relations, including Korea-Japan territorial disputes. The successful termination of the Sino-Russian territorial disputes itself is not only remarkable, but also is providing hopes for the states and people who are now suffering from territorial disputes, The story of Sino-Russian success in resolving territorial disputes seems to provide the following theoretical or policy implications; [11 The Sino-Russian case suggests that political leadership is very important and a negative bilateral history does not necessarily determine the future of the two countries in a negative way: [21 As Gorbachev demonstrates. unilateral concessions made by a willful political leader could redirect history; 13] Fairness represented by “fifty-fifty” principle is important in solving territorial issues; [4] “Fifty-fifty” principle should not be mechanically applied, but should be applied flexibly: [5) One paradox of Sino-Soviet case is that they were successful in resolving the territorial disputes rather because there are so many flashing points along their border, which made it possible for them to “give and take” more easily and more often than Korea?Japan case, for instance.

중-러 영토분쟁의 해결: 그 타협의 원칙과 독도

윤태룡 사단법인 한국민족연구원 2013 민족연구 Vol.0 No.53

The historic 2005 Sino-Russian Vladivostok Treaty brought an end to their territorial disputes that had lasted for three centuries. The fact itself that such a longtime historical dispute was settled at all is remarkable. During the Cold War, China and Russia were once on the verge of all-out war in March 1969 when they clashed on Zhenbao Island (Damasky Island) in the Ussuri River. Further clashes in August 1969 along the western section of the Sino-Soviet border in Xinjiang heightened tensions to the extent that the possibility of even a nuclear war was raised. All the more because such a thorny relationship did they experience, the Sino-Russian case is interesting and worthy of scholarly attention (as a clear counterevidence against Ron Hassner’s intractability thesis on “time and the entrenchment of territorial disputes”). This paper, by focusing on a successful case of resolution of Sino-Russian territorial conflicts, tries to get some hopeful suggestions for the ongoing territorial disputes in East Asian international relations, including Korea-Japan territorial disputes. The successful termination of the Sino-Russian territorial disputes itself is not only remarkable, but also is providing hopes for the states and people who are now suffering from territorial disputes. The story of Sino-Russian success in resolving territorial disputes seems to provide the following theoretical or policy implications; (1) The Sino-Russian case suggests that political leadership is very important and a negative bilateral history does not necessarily determine the future of the two countries in a negative way; (2) As Gorbachev demonstrates, unilateral concessions made by a willful political leader could redirect history; (3) Fairness represented by “fifty-fifty” principle is important in solving territorial issues; (4) “Fifty-fifty” principle should not be mechanically applied, but should be applied flexibly; (5) One paradox of Sino-Soviet case is that they were successful in resolving the territorial disputes rather because there are so many flashing points along their border, which made it possible for them to “give and take” more easily and more often than Korea-Japan case, for instance.

[학위논문 소개] ICJ의 영토분쟁 사건에서의 증거의 유형과 증명력 평가

김원희(KIM, Won Hee) 국제법평론회 2013 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.38

The present study aims to describe and analyze the law of evidence in the territorial disputes before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The purpose of the study is to provide a comprehensive overview of the law of evidence in the territorial disputes before the ICJ, to clarify and critically comment on it, and to counter argue against some criticism that the ICJ is unable and unwilling to carry out investigation into those complicated and specialized factual situations. To this end, the study analyses the Statute of the ICJ, Rules of Court, Practice Direction and the instruments on the procedure of the ICJ and the case law in territorial disputes as well as those cases which evidentiary issues were significantly dealt with before the ICJ. These include the case law of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), but the case law of international arbitration will be excluded because the law of evidence before international arbitration would not only vary according to special agreement between contesting parties but also be temporary in nature. In recent years, some commentators criticize that the ICJ has been very reluctant to make use of its powers to investigate disputed facts, misinterpreted evidence which would be rather decisive for the resolution of the case and given the weight to the evidence from unreliable sources. Besides, even the Judges of the ICJ often have raised some doubts about evidentiary issues in their dissenting or separate opinions. More often than not, the ICJ has been criticized for the lack of transparency of its approach to evidence and fact-finding. Some Judges, scholars and practitioners have expressed disappointment that the ICJ has not explained how the Court has evaluated specific items of evidence or how it has reached its conclusions on disputed fact. But it is doubtful to what extent the criticism would be tenable considering the development of evidentiary practice before the ICJ and whether the same criticism can be applied to the law of evidence and evidentiary practice in the territorial disputes before the ICJ. It is true that most of critics were from common law countries or given legal education in those countries. The critics also have focused on the Court's appreciation of evidence which is based on 'l'intime conviction du juge', the evidentiary system from civil law countries. In fact, in territorial disputes, the admissibility and evaluation of evidence have played a crucial role to decide which contesting parties have proved so-called 'relative title'. As it is suggested that the distribution of burden of proof or appreciation of evidence in territorial disputes have influenced considerably the outcome of the proceeding, the importance of the law of evidence before the ICJ cannot be overemphasized. Therefore the study delves into those evidentiary issues such as admissibility of evidence, burden of proof, types of evidence in the territorial disputes, evaluation of evidence. Chapter 2 considers the source of the law of evidence as well as the general principles of the law of evidence before the ICJ; the principle of wide and free admissibility and some limitations on it. Chapter 3 examines the burden of proof before the ICJ, which follows the usual rule where the party presenting an allegation will bear the burden of establishing it, but the question of the standard of proof is far more controversial in the ICJ. It also discusses the standard of proof in the territorial disputes comparing with those in other cases. Chapter 4 tries to classify the types of evidence frequently presented and dealt with in territorial disputes. It gives an overview of the concept and functions of documentary evidence, witness evidence, expert evidence and electronic evidence by reviewing the case law of the ICJ. Chapter 5 provides a critical overview of the Court's approach to the task of evaluating evidence in the territorial disputes. After the Nicaragua case in 1986, th

독도분쟁의 쟁점과 전망 ; 독도문제의 국제분쟁론적 분석: 국제분쟁사례 측정지표의 적용을 중심으로

배진수 ( Chin Soo Bae ) 단국대학교 분쟁해결연구센터 2006 분쟁해결연구 Vol.4 No.1

본 연구는 국제분쟁론에서 주로 활용되어 온 분쟁의 측정사례들을 통해 독도 (가상) 분쟁의 심각성 정도는 어느 정도이며, 분쟁의 발발가능성은 얼마나 임박한 것인지, 또한 미국의 이해 관계 차원에서 독도문제 는 과연 얼마나 중요한 것인지 등을 삼펴봄으써독도문제의 해결전망을 국제분쟁론적 측면에서 분석해보았다. ICB(세계위기 데이터뱅크) 분쟁심각성지수(Index of Severity)의 총6가지 지 표에 의거 측정해 본 (독도가상)분쟁의 심각성지수는10점 만점에 3. 29인 것으로 나타났으며 이 측정값은 1946년 이래 발발한 총57건의 세계 영토분쟁 사례들과 비교할 때 높은 편인 제16위 에 해당된다는 사실도 아울러 도출하였다. 또한 분쟁 발발가능성의 7가지 측정지표를 통해 동아시아 14711 잠재적 분쟁지 역들의 발발 가능성과 비교한결과, 독도분쟁은 대만해협과중국내 신강위구르?티벳자치구 빛 센카쿠제도 분쟁 다음인 다섯 번째로 발발가능성이 높은 것으로 나타나 향후 중국관련분쟁들의 발발이 곧 독도분쟁의 발발 임박성을 예고하는 “yellow sign” 의 역할을 하게 될 것임을 도출하였다. 마지막으로, IBRU(세계영토·경계선분쟁 연구단처9에서 환용한AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process: 계층분석적 의사결정 방법) 평가결과, 평가대상인 총42개의 세계 영토?경계선 분쟁사례 중 독도영유 권분쟁은 미국의 이해관계도 수준에서 제4위의 상당히 높은 분쟁지역인 것으로 나타나 향후 독도문제가 국제분쟁화될 경우 국제적인 개입의 여지가 클 것으로 예상되었다. This article tries to analyze the degree of severity and probability of Dokdo Island dispute between Korea and Japan, by employing several relevant indicators which have been developed and utilized in measuring the international dispute cases. Firstly, this study measures the severity of possible Dokdo Island dispute via the severity index developed by ICB(International Crisis Behavior) Project, and its severity score results in a score of 3.29 based on 1-10 scale. Furthermore, this score of 3.29 was found to be fairly high in case of comparing with the other 56 territorial disputes. Secondly, this study measures the probability of military conflict for the 14 potential dispute cases including Dokdo in the region of East-Asia, and found the probability of Dokdo dispute to be the 5th, behind Senkaku Island dispute between China and Japan, for the total 14 cases. This result shows that Senkaku island dispute could be a yellow-sign against the probable Dokdo island dispute between Korea and Japan. Finally, this study introduces the AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process) results regarding the degree of prominence and US interest in a given dispute case. This result shows that the degree of US interest for Dokdo island dispute is 4th highest for a total of 42 international territorial dispute cases, implying the high probability of international involvement in a future Dokdo dispute case between Korea and Japan.

동아시아 영토갈등의 해결을 위한 레짐의 가능성과 한계 : 국제레짐에 대한 이론적 고찰의 적용

이성우 한국외국어대학교 국제지역연구센터 2012 국제지역연구 Vol.16 No.2

This will seek for the counter measures against the Japanese aggressive stance on the territorial dispute on Dok-do by utilizing the findings accumulated by the previous historical and positivistic researches. From an academic perspective, it is worth to discuss a theoretical possibility of creating, maintaining, and revising international regime in terms of a new East Asian order. Accordingly, this will discuss a new model for resolving the chronic territorial dispute in East Asia. With a macroscopic perspective, this will provide an alternative to resolve the territorial disputes among the relevant parties. With a microscopic perspective, Korea can utilize the same model for the relevant parties to resolve the territorial dispute with Japan. In terms of geopolitical consideration, it is improbable that a new international regime in East Asia can revise the status quo. Regarding the territorial dispute, actual control has been regarded as the most effective international regime. A country who challenge the actual control over the dispute area used to raise a disagreement on the actual control in order to revise the current situation. Concerning the Dokdo dispute, it could be disadvantageous for Korea to sensitively react to the Japanese argument on Dokdo since Japan has intended to turn Dokdo as a conflictual area. Due to these nature, a desirable reaction could be a positive but silent diplomacy to Japan as an effective diplomacy. First step for an effective diplomacy is creating an informal conference discussing the territorial dispute among East Asian countries. Once an informal conference is organized, the body can be developed into a consultative group and ultimately into an international organization with enforcing power. Through operating the international organization, member countries ensure the actual control as a fundamental principle on the territorial disputes. 본 연구는 독도에 대한 한국의 영유권 문제에 대하여 이루어진 실증적·고증적인 선행연구를 기초로 하여 이러한 연구결과를 활용하여 독도에 대한 일본의 야심에 대한 대응방안을 모색하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 학술적으로 동아시아의 새로운 질서형성에 대한 가능성에 비추어 볼 때 레짐의 형성, 유지, 변경이라는 것은 논의의 필요성이 있다. 따라서 본 연구는 동아시아의 새로운 질서형성과 관련하여 영토갈등에 대한 새로운 갈등해결의 모델을 제시하는 것을 주된 연구의 목표로 한다. 장기적으로는 동아시아 국가들 사이에 영토문제에 대한 대안을 제시하고 한국의 입장에서는 동아시아 영토문제 해결의 틀에서 독도문제를 해결하는 정책대안을 모색하는 것을 목표로 논의를 전개한다. 동아시아에서 영토문제 해결을 위한 새로운 레짐을 형성하여 현상을 변경하려는 시도는 국제정치현실과 거리가 있다. 동아시아 영토갈등에 대해서 현재 국제사회에서 유효한 레짐은 실효적 지배이다. 실효적 지배 레짐을 변경하려는 시도는 실효적 지배를 실행하고 있는 국가의 영유권에 대하여 주기적으로 이의를 제기하여 현상을 변경하려고 한다. 한국은 독도 영유권 문제와 관련하여 일본의 주장에 과민한 대응은 독도를 분쟁지역으로 끌고 가려는 일본의 전략에 말려드는 가능성이 있다. 이를 고려할 때 한국에게 바람직한 대응은 적극적인 조용한 외교’가 ‘효과적 외교’이다. 효과적인 외교의 일차적 목표는 동아시아의 영토문제를 논의할 수 있는 회의체의 구성이다. 일단 회의체가 구성되면 이를 협의체로 발전시키는 것을 목표로 설정하고 궁극적으로는 일정한 강제력을 가진 국제조직으로 발전시킨다. 회의체를 운영하는데 있어서 목표는 실효적 지배가 영토문제에 대한 원칙임을 다수의 국가를 통해서 확인해 나가는 것이다

ICJ의 영토분쟁 사건에서의 입증책임과 입증의 정도

김원희(KIM Wonhee) 대한국제법학회 2014 國際法學會論叢 Vol.59 No.4

ICJ에 회부된 영토분쟁 사건에서 입증책임과 입증의 정도에 관한 증거법 원칙 및 규칙은 분쟁당사국들 간에 중요한 다툼의 대상이 되어 왔다. 영토분쟁 사건에서는 장기간의 복잡한 역사적 사실관계가 다투어지고 자국의 영유권 주장을 뒷받침하기 위해 막대한 분량의 증거가 제출되는 경향이 있다. 분쟁당사국들은 다툼이 있는 중요한 사실관계에 관하여 대부분 상대방에게 입증책임의 분배에 관한 원칙의 설정과 적용은 ICJ의 중요한 과제고 대두되어 왔다. 또한 영토분쟁에서 당사국들은 미세한 관련성만 있어도 영유권 주장의 증거로 제출함으로써 막대한 분량의 증거를 제출하고 있는데 과연 어느 정도로 주장사실을 입증해야 영토권원이 입증된 것으로 인정 할 수 있을 것이지도 중요한 다툼의 대상이 되어 왔다. 이 논문에서는 ICJ의 영토분쟁 사건에서 적용되는 입증책임과 입증의 정도에 관한 증거법 규칙과 사법관행을 규명하고자 하였다. 이를 위하여 우선 국내의 증거법 체계에서 규율되고 있는 입증책임과 입증의 정도의 개념을 살펴보고, ICJ의 소송절차에서 일반적으로 적용되고 있는 입증책임과 입증의 정도에 관한 규칙과 사법관행을 검토하였다. 영토분쟁 사건에서 ICJ는 ″주장자 입증책임 원칙″에 따라 소송절차에서 각 쟁점마다 실질적인 주장자가 어느 국가인지를 판별하여 입증책임을 분배하고 있다. 또한 ICJ는 입증기준과 관련하여 영미법계 국가에서 발전된 계량화된 입증기준을 적용하지 않고 세계의 주요 문명형태 및 법체계를 대표하는 ICJ 재판부의 내적 확신에 따른 주관적 판단의 무제로 보고 있다. 입증책임과 입증의 정도에 관하여 ICJ가 설정한 유연하고 개방적인 증거법 규칙은 주권 국가를 소송당사자로 하고 강제적인 증거조사 권한이 없는 국제재판의 한계와 특성을 반영하고 있는 것이다. It has been seriously disputed among contending parties in the territorial disputes before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) what the law of evidence relating to the burden of proof and standard of proof should be applied. In most of the territorial disputes before the ICJ, the contending parties have a tendency not only to dispute as to the complex historical facts with regard to the territory, but also to present as much materials and evidence as they can. One of the main tasks of the ICJ in the territorial disputes is to establish the principle and rule of distributing the burden of proof and to apply the rule in the specific items of territorial claims, because the contending parties are arguing that the other parties should bear the burden as to main relevant facts in the dispute. Moreover, considering the enormous evidence presented by the contending parties to support their territorial claim, the parties have also keen interests in how they can meet the standard of proof by the ICJ in the territorial disputes. This article examines the rule and principle of the law of evidence with special reference to the burden of proof and standard of proof in the territorial disputes having been established and applied by the ICJ. The article contends that the ICJ has devised and applied a set of evidentiary rules which are applicable to the territorial disputes among the sovereign states. With regard to the burden of proof, the ICJ has been consistently applied the principle of actori incumbit onus probandi to identify the real claimant on the specific claims relating to the disputed territory. Moreover, the ICJ neither adopted a specific standard of proof nor the notion of a hierarchy in determining the standard of proof such as so-called ″Bayesian Theory″ in the United States of America. This article argues that the ICJ has developed the law of evidence in territorial disputes in a more flexible way to reconcile the needs for sound administration of international justice and legal certainty for the contending parties.

Putin’s Foreign Policy towards Japan(2000-2008) - The Issue of Territorial Dispute : 푸틴의 대일본 외교정책(2000-2008): 영토문제를 중심으로

CHOI Tai-Kang(최태강) 신아시아연구소(구 신아세아질서연구회) 2008 신아세아 Vol.15 No.2

이 논문은 푸틴시대 일본과 영토문제에 대한 러시아의 정책을 분석한 것이다. 러시아와 일본은 푸틴 집권기간 동안 영토 분쟁에 있어 서로 입장차이를 좁히는데 실패했다. 러시아의 정책은 영토 문제에 대해 일반적인 접근방법에 있어 변화하지 않았다. 일본의 기본 목표도 영토문제에 접근하는데 있어 자신들의 입장을 유지했다. 양국은 서로 이익의 균형에 입각한 합리적 타협안을 찾지 못했다. 이것은 조만간 이 문제를 해결한다는 것은 매우 어렵다는 것을 의미한다. 따라서 본 논문는 양국간 영토분쟁을 해결하는 하나의 방법을 제시하고자 한다. 첫째, 어떤 영토협상도 장기전략을 토대로 문제를 풀어 나아가야 한다. 점진적으로 이 문제를 해결하는 것이 현실적인 접근방법이다. 양국은 서로 이익을 볼 수 있는 방법으로 협상이 추진된다면 영토문제에 진전이 있을 것이다. 둘째, 양국은 상호 신뢰를 구축하는 노력을 지속적으로 추구해야 한다. 셋째, 양국은 영토문제에 좀 더 건설적인 접근방법을 채택해야 하고, 상호 양보를 위한 준비도 되어 있음을 보여주어야 한다. 마지막으로 외교협상에서 인내는 영토문제를 해결하기 위한 양국간 협상과정에서 여전히 지금도 유효한 것이다. This paper examines Russia"s policy towards the territorial issue with Japan during the Putin Era(2000-2008). Both states have failed to narrow differences over the disputes during the Putin regime. Russia"s policy did not change the general attitude towards the territorial issue. Japan"s basic goal also remained unchanged. Both sides did not find a reasonable compromise on the basis of a balance of bilateral interests. That means it is very difficult to resolve the issue in the near future. Thus, I would like to suggest a way of settling the territorial dispute between Russia and Japan. First, any territorial negotiations must be based on long-term strategies. Gradualism represents a realistic approach, they will only make progress in the territorial disputes if they do so in a way that benefits both countries. Second, they must persist in efforts to build mutual trust. Third, they should adopt a more constructive attitude to the territorial problem and show readiness for mutual concessions. Finally, patience in diplomatic negotiations is still valid today in the process of negotiation between Japan and Russia for resolving the territorial dispute.

Why do Territorial Disputes Escalate? A Domestic Political Explanation for the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands Dispute

조현주,최아진 인하대학교 국제관계연구소 2016 Pacific Focus Vol.31 No.2

Why has the Senkaku/Diaoyu territorial dispute escalated recurrently? This study examines the sources of the 2010 and 2012 escalations in territorial disputes over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. We review existing explanations and their limitations and introduce new hypotheses based on the effect of political leaders’ interests in the escalation of territorial disputes. We argue that when competition among leaders intensifies or leaders’ political vulnerability increases, it is more likely that leaders who are seeking to retain or take office will behave more assertively in claiming rights over territories; therefore, a territorial dispute is more likely to escalate. We find that when Japanese leaders have needed to strengthen their political position during elections, they have adopted aggressive strategies in the dispute to avoid criticism from both the public and political oppositions about their weak postures against China. In China, the succession process has intensified political struggles and has led leaders to pursue a hardline policy with respect to the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute. The Chinese government and the media have also fueled anti-Japanese protests to increase internal cohesion for successful leadership transition. This study not only provides a domestic political explanation for the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute, but also serves as supporting evidence or process tracing for the theoretical proposition that leadership change is associated with the escalation of territorial disputes.

A Critical Understanding on the Territorial Disputes of East Asia

Jong Seok PARK 세계환경사회거버넌스학회 2015 World Environment and Island Studies Vol.5 No.2

Territorial Disputes proceed basically based on the “power”, and in the process various “logics” are mobilized by both sides. By the way, those logics are “political”, in the sense that their conclusions are not drawn out through sound reasoning, but decided in advance and then necessary logics are mobilized. People showing this kind of attitude most vividly are politicians representing their country. By the way, ordinary people living in each country engaged in a territorial dispute usually, consciously or unconsciously, adopt the patriotic logics that their politicians and intelligentsia offer. It seems that two factors are influential in this phenomenon. One is the “ontological” aspect, that is, each person is a component of the nation engaged in the win-or-lose territorial dispute. The other is the “epistemological” aspect, that is, he is situated in the limited information. We need to pay attention that logics offered in the process of territorial disputes by this kind of patriotic politicians and intelligentsia are not constructed from the fair viewpoint, but “edited” intending to lead to the conclusion favorable to their country. So the people of the relevant country who live in the situation where they are exposed to and accept the patriotic logics often think that the position of his own country is “vividly” right. Then, they easily think the opponent is a “bad” country which purports unreasonable logics. In the territorial dispute, if both countries try to secure momentum by uniting each people to be prepared to fight to the death, the dispute is easily escalated to the limit. Of course, this kind of phenomenon works towards the direction of worsening their mutual relationship. The position each country takes in a territorial dispute, from the viewpoint of each country, is “patriotic”. But from a wider viewpoint, we can say that it is based on “national egotism”. The alternative to this kind of vicious cycle is that more and more people will escape from the “political” viewpoint and take the “critical” viewpoint and then try to dissuade the government and the ordinary people of each country from behaving excessively obsessed with its national egotism respectively.