攀 * 이 논문은 2006년도 중앙대학교 교내 학술연구비 지원에 의해 작성된 것임.Legal Status of Eastern Greenland Case and its Relevancy on the Territorial Dispute over Dokdo : Focusing on the principle of “acquiescence”Jhe, Seong-Ho In 1933, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) has ruled in the Legal Status of Eastern Greenland Case that two conditions must be met if a nation wishes to establish sovereignty over a certain territory. One is intent and will to act as a sovereign, while the other is the actual exercise of such authority. Also the PCIJ determined that Norway’s failure to raise a diplomatic objection to Denmark’s territorial claim could be regarded as acquiescence in or implicit consent to forsaking her rights to oversee Greenland as a lawful owner.So far, international courts have held that territorial sovereignty is determined not only by a territorial title, but also by the continuous and effective control of territorial power. Acquiescence or implied recognition rule formulated in the well-known case is relevant to the pending issue of Territorial Claims over Dokdo existing between Korea and Japan. Taking account of the jurisprudence laid out by the PCIJ in the Legal Status of Eastern Greenland Case, whenever the Japanese attempt to damage the ROK’s full exercise of territorial sovereignty over Dokdo, be it official governmental measures or civilian action, the South Korean government must firmly object to such actions. In conclusion, acquiescence in Japanese actions can bring about weakening South Korean territorial power seriously.