• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.175-186
• /
• 2006

There are disputes for oil and gas development between China and Japan in the East China Sea. These involve the area where China is already carrying out activities of oil and gas development and where Japan is proclaiming its EEZ. China insists that the Chinese activities on oil and gas development area are being carried out within the Chinese jurisdictional waters even if the median line principle of Japanese proclamation is applied in delimitation. Indeed, the permit for Japanese development is causing disputes between China and Japan because its permit allows development in the waters adjacent to Chinese development area. h the event, the core of this dispute around the oil and gas field in the East China Sea relates to issues of maritime boundary delimitation and issues of resources acquisition with both states. Chinese policy on oil and gas development is to first consider development issues in accordance with a median line principle where waters toward to China from the median line should be developed by China and the area toward Japan from the median line within the Chinese continental shelf should be jointly developed. However, the Japanese position is that the East China Sea should be jointly developed, and Japan hopes to eventually convince China to accept its median line delimitation. With on-going development of such issues, Korea should establish a strategy of negotiation based on analyses of resource distributional conditions and other strategic factors in the Korean delimitation area. In particular, Korea should prepare and make the best use of joint development zone established in an agreement between the ROK and Japan concerning the development of the southern part of continental shelf adjacent to both states.

• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.669-678
• /
• 2004

Coastal states are adopting maritime boundary delimitation as their primary maritime policy because maritime jurisdiction directly relates to vast economic interest. This becomes specially important and sensitive when complex maritime boundary issues are involved between neighboring coastal states. China has not actively carried out nor declared maritime boundary delimitation until recently with any country except Agreement between China and Viet Nam on the demarcation of the territorial water, the exclusive economic zones and the continental shelf of China and Vet Nam in the Gulf of Tonkin on 25 December 2000 (hereinafter, the Gulf of Tonkin Agreement). The principles that governs maritime boundary delimitation are to consider primarily an agreement between States concerned, however, if no agreement can be reached, all relevant circumstances are considered to achieve an equity between concerned States. Relevant circumstances are length of coastline, form of coastline, existence and position of island or islands, speciality of geology/topography, and factor of economy and deffnce. Factors which sinologists are considering in regard to continental shelf delimitation of the Yellow Sea are as follows; i) geographical factor, ii) geological factor, iii) topographical factor, iv) environment and ecological (factor, v) historic interest, and vi) social and economic interest. The 'Gulf of Tonkin Agreement' is completed by basically applying the principle of delimitation according to median line which seems that China has adopted the maritime boundary delimitation principle of 'half and half' which was the intention of chinese government. At the same time, China recognized Viet Nam's dominion and sovereign right over the partial exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of Dao Bach Long Vi in Gulf of Tonkin. This case can be considered as an example of mutual concession or compromise in delimiting maritime boundary for states of concerned.

• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.45 no.3
• /
• pp.414-429
• /
• 2010

With regard to Ieodo, South Korea and China argue that Ieodo belongs to their territory respectively, considering its history. However, both parties haven't suggested concrete evidence to support their argument. Even if they suggest corroborative facts, they are distorted or exaggerated like myth. Therefore, it is important by what side primitive title and effective control are exercised in settling the problem of Ieodo. The issue was to suggest coherence logic by finding concrete geographical facts in the East China Seat the time of applying a method of boundary decision followed by the marine act, namely principle of median line and principle of equidistance. China has argued that China should occupy most of continental shelf in the East China Sea on the basis of silt, a deposit of the continent. However, the base of the East China Sea is a part of Eurasian Plate. In addition, a geographical contribution to formation of the continent shelf by the Korean Peninsula is equal to the Chinese Continent. Ieodo is 'Island of mythos' in China, but is 'Island of legend' suggested by concrete facts in South Korea. Therefore, its cultural titile and primitive title are belonged to South Korea, before its historical title.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.13 no.9
• /
• pp.4531-4536
• /
• 2012

Objective: To study synergistic effects of nedaplatin and cisplatin on three human carcinoma cell lines (esophageal carcinoma cell line Eca-109, ovarian carcinoma Skov-3 and cervical carcinoma Hela). Methods: Inhibition effects were evaluated by MTT assay and cell apoptosis was detected by flow cytometry. In addition, changes of Ki-67, Bax and Bcl-2 at mRNA and protein levels were quantified by RT-PCR and Western blotting. Results: Growth inhibition in each cell lines was dose-dependent after exposure to nedaplatin or cisplatin alone. The interaction of the two drugs was synergistic at higher concentrations according to the median-effect principle. The inhibition rates with nedaplatin, cisplatin and combined treatment were $41.9{\pm}4.1%$, $47.4{\pm}2.9%$, $52.5{\pm}0.9%$(Eca-109), $39.0{\pm}1.26%$, $45.0{\pm}1.45%$, $56.2{\pm}1.44%$ (Skov-3) and $44.8{\pm}2.11%$, $46.9{\pm}0.99%$, $56.6{\pm}1.83%$ (Hela) respectively, with increase in apoptosis. Compared with the nedaplatin or cisplatin alone treatment group, the combinative treatment group's Ki-67 and bcl-2 mRNA (protein) expression was decreased while that of Bax mRNA (protein) was increased. Conclusion: Compared to the effects of nedaplatin or cisplatin alone at high concentrations, combination of nedaplatin and cisplatin at low concentrations proved to be much more effective for inhibition of proliferation and the induction of apoptosis in the Eca-109, Skov-3 and Hela cell lines.