By Kim Yong-hwan
South Korea marked the 60th anniversary of the Presidential Proclamation of Sovereignty over Adjacent Seas on Jan. 18. Through the proclamation in 1952, the government declared both at home and abroad its will to safeguard maritime rights and interests around the Korean Peninsula.
The Korean government declared the Peace Line maritime boundary, which extended to China and the Soviet Union. The boundary was also called the Rhee Line named after then-President Syngman Rhee. Despite the 1950-53 Korean War, the Seoul government did its best to ensure enforcement to prevent foreign vessels from fishing illegally in Korean waters.
In the 1950s, the international community was divided over to what extent a coastal state was able to exercise its jurisdiction over its adjacent seas. The Korean government thus announced the Peace Line after studying the Truman Proclamation of 1945 concerning the continental shelf and similar examples from other countries, including Argentina, Panama, Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Peru and Ecuador.
However, the Japanese government quickly protested what it considered to be South Korea’s unilateral action, claiming that the maritime boundary constituted a contravention of international law. Was the neighboring country’s argument correct?
The Northeast Asian History Foundation in Seoul held a seminar last month to examine the Peace Line. During the seminar, professor Stuart Kaye of the University of Western Australia stated that the line can be seen as a “milestone” and a “pathfinder” in the modern international law of the sea, laying the groundwork for the creation of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
Kaye suggested that the Peace Line was rational even in light of today’s international law because it was delineated based upon a median line and minimized the legal effects of small islands in the East Sea when drawing the maritime boundary with Japan.
Accordingly, the Peace Line has contributed since 1952 to setting an international standard for the scope of a coastal nation’s jurisdiction over its adjacent waters. The line was not proclaimed arbitrarily without guiding principles or standards.
As Japan referred to the Peace Line as the Rhee Line, the use of the different name showed that there was a wide difference in understanding over the delimitation between the two countries. Before the Peace Line, the American government had introduced three different maritime boundaries in the region. These were known as the MacArthur Line, the Clark Line, and the Acheson Line. These three boundaries were named after an American government official and two military officers.
South Korea emphasized that the Peace Line was to prevent maritime disputes with Japan and develop better bilateral ties for the future. However, Japan dismissed it as being for military purposes, calling it the Rhee Line as if trying to hint at the aforementioned boundaries introduced by the American government.
Risking conflict with Japan, South Korea instituted the Peace Line in order to protect marine resources as well as to ensure security around the peninsula. It was introduced amid fears that “conservation lines” such as the MacArthur Line and the Clark Line, which helped protect the peninsula from predatory fishing by Japanese and from the expansion of communism, might disappear when the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into force in April 1952.
The Peace Line reflected Korea’s historical experience of not receiving assistance from the international community when Japan forcefully made the country its colony in 1910. It also echoed concerns that the newly independent nation’s territorial integrity might be threatened by powerful neighboring countries.
South Korea’s security situation today may resemble that of 1952 as the nation is still technically at war with North Korea and maritime boundaries with Japan and China remain unsettled. In December, a South Korean coastguard died while protecting the country’s maritime territory from Chinese fishermen engaged in illegal fishing in the Yellow Sea. South Korean waters are still not free from predatory fishing.
I believe it is necessary to consider further the implications for today of the Peace Line. These may include risking conflict with neighboring powers, balancing national interests with principles and seeking peaceful relations in Northeast Asia.
Kim Yong-hwan is a researcher at the Northeast Asian History Foundation. He may be contacted at kyh161@daum.net.