바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

  • P-ISSN0023-3900
  • E-ISSN2733-9343
  • A&HCI, SCOPUS, KCI

ISSN : 0023-3900

Article Contents

Next
e-Submission

Vol.50 No.4

Citation Share

Discussions Concerning the Legality of the 1910 “Annexation” of Korea by Japan

Korea Journal / Korea Journal, (P)0023-3900; (E)2733-9343
2010, v.50 no.4, pp.13-41
https://doi.org/10.25024/kj.2010.50.4.13

(2010). Discussions Concerning the Legality of the 1910 “Annexation” of Korea by Japan. Korea Journal, 50(4), 13-41, https://doi.org/10.25024/kj.2010.50.4.13

Abstract

The legality of Japan’s “annexation” of Korea under international law is an issue which forms the starting point and foundation of the bilateral relations between Korea and Japan. Therefore, it has been the object of acute confrontation between the two states. The so-called Japanese legal responsibility for its colonial rule over Korea is directly affected by the answer to the issue. Theoretically speaking, this legality should be judged solely on the basis of the validity of the 1910 Annexation Treaty between Korea and Japan. However, discussions concerning this issue also cover the validity of a series of other treaties concluded in the process of Japanese plundering of the sovereignty of Korea from 1904 to 1910. The argument for the invalidity of these treaties relating to the “annexation" of Korea is grounded on two major points: firstly, the 1905 Treaty and the 1910 Annexation Treaty were concluded in coercion; and secondly, several of these treaties have formal and procedural defects. Examining the two points, this paper concludes that the treaties relating to the “annexation” of Korea borrowed the mere appearance of treaties and therefore cannot be deemed to be valid.

keywords
annexation of Korea, treaty, Eulsa Treaty, Annexation Treaty of Korea, coercion, ratification, entrustment of full power, principle of intertemporal law

Reference

1.

Ariga, Nagao 有賀長雄. 1906. 『保護國論』(The Theory of Protectorate). Tokyo: Waseda University Press.

2.

Chang, Bak-Jin. 2008. “Hanil hoedam-eseoui gibon gwangye joyak hyeongseong gwajeong-ui bunseok: Je 2 jo ‘Gujoyak muhyo johang’ mit je 3 jo ‘Yuil hapbeopseong johang’-eul jungsimeuro” (An Analysis on the Formation Processes of the Treaty on Basic Relations between the Republic of Korea and Japan in the South Korea-Japan Normalization Talks: Focusing on Article 2 and Article 3). Gukje jiyeok yeongu (International Area Review) 17.2: 1-39.

3.

Choi, Jong-go, and Nam Hyosun, trans. 1995. “Daehanjeguk-ui gukjebeopjeok jiwi” (The Status of the Empire of Korea under International Law). In Ilbon-ui daehanjeguk gangjeom (The Forced Occupation of Korea by Japan), edited by Lee Tae-Jin. Seoul: Kachi.

4.

Duus, Peter. 1995. The Abacus and the Sword: The Japanese Penetration of Korea 1895-1910. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

5.

Harada, Damaki 原田環. 2004. 「第二次日韓協約調印と大韓帝皇帝高宗」(Conclusion of the 2nd Japan-Korea Agreement and Korea’s Emperor Gojong). 『丘 術論集』24.4: 141-172.

6.

Kang, Seong-eun. 2008. 「一次史料から見た「乙巳五條約」の强制調印過程」(The Eulsa Five-Article Treaty and the Process of Conclusion by Force, Seen through the Primary Sources). In 『韓國倂合と現代』(The Annexation of Korea and Modern Times), edited by Sasagawa Norikatsu and Lee Tae-Jin. Tokyo: Akashi Shoten.

7.

Kim, Chang-rok. 2001. “1900 nyeondae cho hanilgan joyakdeul-ui ‘bulbeopseong’” (“Illegality” of the Korea-Japan Treaties in the Early 1900s). Beop-gwa sahoe (Law and Society) 20.1.

8.

Lee, Keun-Gwan. 2003. “Gukje joyakbeopsang gangbak iron-ui jaegeomto: Ilbon-ui hanguk byeonghap-gwa gwallyeonhayeo” (Reexamination of Theories of Coercion in International Treaty Law). In Hanguk byeonghapui bulbeopseong yeongu (Studies on the Illegality of the Annexation of Korea), edited by Lee Tae-Jin et al. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.

9.

Lee, Sang Chan. 2007. “Juhan ilbon gongsagwan girok-gwa ilbon woegyo munseo-ui eulsa joyak gwallyeon girok-ui jaegeomto” (Reexamination of the Records on the Eulsa Treaty in the Records of the Japanese Legation in Korea and Japanese Diplomatic Documents). Gyujanggak (Palace Library) 30 (June).

10.

Lee, Tae-Jin. 1998a. 「韓倂合は成立していない一日本の大韓帝国国権侵奪と条約強制(上)」 (The Annexation of Korea Was Not Established: Japan’s Usurpation of the Sovereignty of the Empire of Korea and the Treaty by Coercion, Part 1).『世界』(The World) 650 (July): 300-310.

11.

____________. 1998b. 「韓倂合は成立していない—日本の大韓帝国国権侵奪と条約強制(下)」(The Annexation of Korea Was Not Established: Japan’s Usurpation of the Sovereignty of the Empire of Korea and the Treaty by Coercion, Part 2).『世界』(The World) 651 (August): 185-196.

12.

____________. 1999. 「韓国侵□に関連する諸条約だけが破格であった」(Only Treaties Relating to the Invasion of Korea, Violated Formal Requirements). 『世界』 (The World) 659 (March): 249-268.

13.

____________. 2000a. 「□式条约で国権を移譲できるのか―海野教授の批□に応える(上)」 (Is It Possible to Transfer the Sovereignty in a Summary Arrangement?: In Response to Professor Unno’s Criticism, Part 1). 『世界』(The World) 674 (May): 246-255.

14.

____________. 2000b. 「□式条约で国権を移譲できるのか―海野教授の批□に応える(下)」 (Is It Possible to Transfer the Sovereignty in a Summary Arrangement?: In Response to Professor Unno’s Criticism, Part 2). 『世界』(The World) 674 (June): 272-281.

15.

____________, ed. 2001. Hanguk byeonghap, seongnip hajianatta (The Annexation of Korea Was Not Established). Seoul: Taehaksa.

16.

____________. 2003. “1904-1910 nyeon hanguk gukgwon chimtal joyakdeul-ui jeolchasang bulbeopseong” (Procedural Illegality of Treaties to Usurp the Sovereignty of Korea in 1904-1910). In Hanguk byeonghap-ui bulbeopseong yeongu (Studies on the Illegality of the Annexation of Korea), edited by Lee Tae-Jin et al. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.

17.

____________. 2005. “1905 nyeon ‘bohojoyak’-e daehan gojong hwangje-ui hyeopsang jisiseol bipan” (Did Emperor Gojong Order Negotiations for the Conclusion of the “1905 Treaty”?). Yeoksa hakbo (Korean Historical Review) 185: 107-140.

18.

Nishiyotsutsuji, Kimitaka 西四辻公堯. 1930. 『韓末外交秘話』(Untold Stories of Foreign Relations during the Late Korean Empire Period).

19.

Oppenheim, L. 1905. Peace. Vol. 1 of International Law, A Treatise. London, New York and Bombay: Longmans, Green, and Co.

20.

Paik, Choong-Hyun. 1996. “Gukjebeop-euro bon 1990 nyeondae hanil joyakdeul-ui munjejeom” (Issues of Korea-Japan Treaties of the 1900s in the Light of International Law). Hanguksa simin gangjwa (The Citizens’ Forum on Korean History) 19.

21.

____________. 2003. “Ilbon-ui hanguk byeonghap-e daehan gukjebeopjeok gochal” (An Analysis of Japan’s Annexation of Korea in the Light of International Law). In Hanguk byeonghap-ui bulbeopseong yeongu (Studies on the Illegality of the Annexation of Korea), edited by Lee Tae-Jin et al. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.

22.

Park, Jin-Hee. 2005. “Gukje gwangye-ui byeondong-gwa hanguk-ui jillo: Hanguk-ui daeil jeongchaek-gwa je 1 cha–je 3 cha hanil hoedam” (Change in International Relations and the Future Path for Korea: Korea’s Policy toward Japan and the First to Third Round of Korea-Japan Talks). Sarim (The Historical Journal) 25.

23.

Park, Pae-Keun. 2003. “Hanguk byeonghap gwallyeon joyak yumuhyoron-ui uiui-wa hangye” (The Meaning and Limitations of the Arguments concerning the Validity of the Treaties Related to the Annexation of Korea by Japan). Beophak yeongu (Journal of Legal Studies) 44.

24.

____________. 2009. “Sijebeopjeok gwanjeom-eseo bon hanguk byeonghap gwallyeon joyak-ui hyoryeok: joyak chegyeol-ui hyeongsik-gwa jeolchareul jungsimeuro” (Validity of the Treaties Related to the Annexation of Korea Re-examined: A Review on the Form and the Procedure of Treaty Making from the Perspective of Intertemporal Law). Gukjebeop hakhoe nonchong (Korean Journal of International Law) 54.2: 91-118.

25.

____________. 2010. “Hanguk byeonghap joyak-ui hyoryeok-gwa gukga daepyoui maesu” (The Validity of the Treaties Related to the Annexation of Korea by Japan and Corruption of a State). Seoul gukjebeop yeongu (Seoul Journal of International Law) 17.2: 155-178.

26.

Rey, Francis. 1906. “La situation internationale de la Corée.” Revue générale de droit international public 13.

27.

Rousseau, Charles. 1970. Droit International Public. Tome I: Introduction et Sources. Paris: Editions Sirey.

28.

Sakamoto, Shigeki 坂元茂樹. 1995. 「日韓保護條約の效力:强制による條約の觀点から」 (Validity of the Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty: From the Perspective of the Treaty by Coercion).『法學論集』(Law Review of Kansai University) 44(4/5 combined).

29.

Sasagawa, Norikatsu 笹川紀勝. 1999. 「日韓における法的な「話対」をめざして」(Aiming at Legal Conversation between Japan and Korea).『世界』(The World) 663 (July).

30.

____________. 2008a. 「傳統的國際法時代における日韓條約(1904-1910)—條約强制をめぐ る法的な論爭点」(Japan-Korea Treaties in the Period of Traditional International Law (1904-1910)—Legal Issues over the Coercion of a Treaty). In 『韓國倂合と現代』(The Annexation of Korea and Modern Times), edited by Sasagawa Norikatsu and Lee Tae-Jin. Tokyo: Akashi Shoten.

31.

____________. 2008b. 「ヒトラ一の條約强制と現代的な「國家に對する强制」—韓國保護條約の位 置付けのために(The Treaty Forced by Hitler and “Coercion of a State” in the Modern Sense-For the Positioning of the Protectorate Treaty of Korea). In 『韓國倂合と現代』(The Annexation of Korea and Modern Times), edited by Sasagawa Norikatsu and Lee Tae-Jin. Tokyo: Akashi Shoten.

32.

Sasagawa, Norikatsu, and Lee Tae-Jin, eds. 2008.『韓國倂合と現代』(The Annexation of Korea and Modern Times). Tokyo: Akashi Shoten.

33.

United Nations. Reports of International Arbitral Awards. Vol. II.

34.

Unno, Fukuju 海野福壽. 1999a. 「日本の韓國保護から倂合へ」(From the Protection to the Annexation of Korea by Japan). 『明治大學人文科學硏究所紀要』(Memoirs of the Institute of Humanities, Meiji University) 45.

35.

____________. 1999b. 「韓倂合の歷史認識—李敎授「韓合不成立論」を再討する」(Historical Consciousness of the Annexation of Korea: Reexamination of Professor Lee’s Theory of the Non-establishment of the Annexation of Korea). 『世界』(The World) 666 (October): 260-274.

36.

____________. 2005. 「第二次日韓協約と五大臣上疏」(The 2nd Japan-Korea Agreement and the Five Ministers’ Memorial to the Throne). 『丘術論集』25.3: 109-143.

Korea Journal

e-Submission OA Policy