만국공법과 자연법론의 상관성 연구: 중국어 번역어휘와 번역방법을 중심으로

Abstract

William A.P. Martin, who translated the international law and made an important contribution to the transformation of East Asia from tribute order to international law order, was criticised as he had a bias to the natural law. The two main ideological and theoretical schools of thought in the development of modern international law are natural law theory and legal positivism. While natural law theory views law as originating from the reason and ethics inherent in human beings, just like the law of objective nature, legal positivism views law as developing on the basis of mutual consents and positive agreements without presupposing such a priori conditions or ethics. These two legal philosophical positions has been as opposed to each other as water and oil from the beginning of the modern era. Wan guo gong fa(萬國公法), which was translated in the mid-19th century, was in the midst of the transition from natural law to legal positivism. As a result, researchers of international law and East Asian political diplomacy have often evaluated Wan guo gong fa as a problematic work with limitations and errors, such as a failed translation or mistranslation that was biased toward natural law theory. In particular, this kind of evaluation began to emerge in Japan as early as the early 20th century, and the negative evaluation of Wan guo gong fa as mistranslation is mainly seen in the works of people such as Takeki Osatake (1880~1946), who was a former court officer and Meiji cultural researcher, and in Kim Yong-koo's works in Korea. This article examine whether such misinterpretations bias to natural law are present in Wan guo gong fa, and explore issues such as how such interpretations come about, and whether there is a connection between the Wan guo gong fa and natural law.