竹島

国際法基準で実効支配の根拠となるから、別に韓国基準で判断する必要性がないんだわ。

・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.

＞渡海禁止としていますのでなおさらですよ。
渡海禁止は竹嶋（鬱稜島）ね。