• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.48 no.6
• /
• pp.914-928
• /
• 2013

Establishment of limits and names for oceans and seas is necessary for a safety of navigation. Even if there are no national and international standard for the delimitation of sea boundaries, we can take guidelines for the delimitation of sea boundaries through the analysis of IHO official publications, Limits and Names for Oceans and Sea; S-23. This paper shows the changes of the spatial limit of seas since first edition publication, and the standards for a delimitation of oceans and seas were analyzed using S-23 4th edition draft(2002) in terms of physical geographic features. The generic terms of S-23 include Ocean, Sea, Channel, Passage, Strait, Sound, Gulf, Bay and Bight, and each generic term shows hierarchical structures. Several seas show different characteristics compared with definitions of IHO dictionary. Sea boundaries are delimited by longitude and latitude, cape, river mouth, sandbar, and so on. Undersea features such as a shelf, trench, trough, rise, bank and reef are also important features for delimitation of sea boundary. Especially, seas that are delimited by undersea feature are mainly located Arctic and Southern ocean area in S-23 4th edition. Advanced knowledge of marine science with a technical advance might affect to delimit for sea boundary.

• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.42 no.5
• /
• pp.745-760
• /
• 2007

This study aims to categorize and analyze internationally standardized sea names based on their origins. Especially noting the cases of sea names using country names and dual naming of seas, it draws some implications for complementing logics for restoring the name East Sea. Of the 110 names for 98 bodies of water listed in the book titled Limits of Oceans and Seas, the most prevalent cases are named after adjacent geographical features; followed by commemorative names after persons, directions, and characteristics of seas. These international practices of naming seas are contrary to Japan's argument for the principle of using the name of archipelago or peninsula. There are several cases of using a single name of country in naming a sea bordering more than two countries, with no serious disputes. This implies that a specific focus should be given to peculiar situation that the name East Sea contains, rather than the negative side of using single country name. In order to strengthen the logic for justifying dual naming, it is suggested, an appropriate reference should be made to the three newly adopted cases of dual names, in the respects of the history of the surrounding region and the names, people's perception, power structure of the relevant countries, and the process of the standardization of dual names. In order to endow East Sea with the meaning of the east of the Eurasian continent, westerners' perception on the Far East should be elaborated in more detail.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.45
• /
• pp.60-90
• /
• 2019

The use of the high seas are supported by the two pillars of customary principles --the freedom of navigation and the flag state control on its vessels, which are codified in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. There have been attempts to limit and retrain the two pillars as maritime regimes are newly created to address new maritime threats, while coastal stares' control over the seas expand. The pillars have been created over thousands years since human beings took to the sea and have served as a foundation to use the oceans peacefully and orderly. Therefore, any retreat or exception from these principles would undermine the fundamental framework for the use of the oceans and eventually these regimes would be subject to control of maritime powers. In conclusion, new maritime regimes such as the sanction measures on North Korea should be enforced within the framework of international law and comply with the fundamental principles such as innocent passage and the freedom of navigation at the high seas.