http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 안드레에프파블로비치 (검색결과 1 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
Kuril Islands dispute – From the viewpoint of Russia
안드레에프파블로비치,이주만 영남대학교 독도연구소 2015 독도연구 Vol.- No.18
This article is devoted to the central problem of modern relations between Russia and Japan, namely the question of the state affiliation of four Islands: Kunashir, Iturup, Shikotan and Habomai, which Japan considers its Northern territories illegally occupied by Russia, and Russia – the territory inherited by agreement with the allies in the World War II. The relevance of the material is confirmed by the fact that the two countries have still not signed a Peace Treaty that, despite the existence of diplomatic relations and certain economic contacts, prevents the full cooperation between Russia and Japan. The aim of this paper was the coverage of Russian public opinion on this issue in general and specific reasoning that the Russian side represented by public and political figures, historians and political scientists put forward during the discussion. Based on the material of several scientific works and publications in the media, the article highlights the history of the development of the Kuril Islands by the Japanese and the Russians, from the XVII century; describes how, under a number of treaties between Russia and Japan, different sites passed from one country to another; explores the nature and causes of the current territorial dispute. The basis of Russian policy towards the discussed problem, as the paper shows, is the position on the groundlessness of the thesis of the Kuril Islands as the native Japanese lands, the injustice of the Portsmouth Peace Treaty between Russia and Japan and, as a consequence, the validity of the Soviet response requirements of territorial reparations after the World War II. The main aspect of Russia’s position is that Japan, in accordance with the San Francisco Treaty of 1951, renounced all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, which, in the opinion of the Russian side, include four of the discussed islands, while contemporary statements by Japanese politicians about the fact that Japan never considered them Kuriles (Tisima), are questionable, as shown in the article. However, it is stated that the Kuriles were not expressed by name in the San Francisco Treaty, and that was the basis for a broad interpretation of the terms of the contract. The solution the authors see in constructive negotiations between the two countries, which could lead to a mutually beneficial result, or, as Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said in his interview with a Japanese newspaper, hikiwake, that means draw.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
