竹島

>竹嶋への渡海免許は存在していたと思います。しかしその渡海免許は、米子の
>商人たちが鬱陵島での漁に同業者が参入することを防ぐことを目的としたもの
>です。
幕府の権威による独占的な開発権を得て、実際に独占的に開発した。村川らはその渡海許可に全く疑問を抱かず、幕府による独占的渡海権の付与を漁に必要不可欠なものと認識していた。また、その間に他国により競合する主権の主張もなされなかった。まさに、国際法における実効支配そのものです。


・That the King's claims amounted merely to pretensions is clear, for he had no permanent contact with the country, he was exercising no authority there. The claims, however, were not disputed. No other Power was putting forward any claim to territorial sovereignty in Greenland, and in the absence of any competing claim the King's pretensions to be the sovereign of Greenland subsisted.


・There remains the question whether during this period, i.e. 1814 to 1915, she exercised authority in the uncolonized area sufficiently to give her a valid claim to sovereignty therein. In their arguments, Counsel for Denmark have relied chiefly on the concession granted in 1863 to Tayler of exclusive rights on the East coast for trading, hunting, mining, etc. The result of all the documents connected with the grant of the concession is to show that, on the one side, it was granted upon the footing that the King of Denmark was in a position to grant a valid monopoly on the East coast and that his sovereign rights entitled him to do so, and, on the other, that the concessionnaires in England regarded the grant of a monopoly as essential to the success of their projects and had no doubt as to the validity of the rights conferred.