조일수호조규 부속조약의 재검토

Abstract

In August 1876, Miyamoto Okadzu, the commissioner of Japan, and Jo In-hee, the Chief Delegate of Joseon, signed on the Additional Articles and Trade Regulations of the Japanese-Korean treaty. Additionally, a duty-free agreement was fixed in the form of an official letter from Miyamoto to Jo In-hee. Previous studies often consider the duty-free trade and permission to Japanese currency in open ports as a typical unequal article among the Japanese-Korean treaty, along with the unilateral consular jurisdiction. However the duty-free trade was a temporary deal to promote trade commerce, and the trade settlement was made by Joseon coins (Sangp’yŏngt’ongbo). Japanese currency were solely received by Japanese merchants, restrictively in the open ports, since Korean merchants, who’s business was mainly intended for the interior, preferred Joseon coins. Previous studies which emphasizes the ‘inequality’ of the Japanese-Korean treaty in 1876, tend to miss the overall aspect of the Additional Articles and Trade Regulations. Miyamoto Okadzu was the first Japanese diplomat who had audience with King Gojong. And contrary to popular conception, at that time, Miyamoto brought several new books such as Elements of International Law, which Joseon government readily accepted. Moreover, Miyamoto took a conciliatory stance during the negotiation between Japan and Joseon. He was aware of the fact that Joseon government opposed to accept controversial issues, such as Seoul-based legation or allowing trade at the inland area. He also discussed open port candidates in terms of promoting trade commerce. Miyamoto’s stance are well contrasted with Hanabusa Yoshimoto, who mostly focused on the political and strategic value of Joseon. Hanabusa determined to open Wŏnsan and Inch’ŏn to check Russia and China’s influence, and unilaterally pushed Seoul-based legation to extend political influence over Joseon. This hard-line caused Imo Military Rebellion(Military Riot of 1882), which halted Hanabusa’s policy towards Joseon. After the Imo Military Rebellion, acting minister Gondo Masuki recommended Miyamoto Okadzu as successor, by reason of his popularity among Joseon. However Japanese government appointed Takejoe Shinichiro upon consideration of relations with China than Joseon. Considering that Imo Military Rebellion frustrated the effort Joseon made to modernize autonomously, Miyamoto’s policy towards Joseon which in contrast to Hanabusa’s, is necessary to reassess.