1910년 한․일강제 병탄조약의 불법성, 무효성의 고찰
A Study on the Invalidity & Illegality of "the Treaty of Japan's Annexation of Korea in 1910"
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article examines the invalidity and illegality of "the Treaty of Japan's Annexation of Korea in 1910" from the perspective of international treaty theories. The above 1910 treaty failed to fulfill the requirements for the validity of international treaties. The reason are as follows: coerced conclusion of the treaty under the demonstration of Japanese military power, threats up to the point of annexation, ommission of the Korean emperor's signature and seal on the original treaty document and non-existence of the ratification of the treaty. However, controversies on the legal status and interpretation of the treaty still exist between Korea and Japan. There are two legal issues in this regard. One is about the validity of the 1910 treaty itself and the other is concerning the agreement of 1965 between Korea and Japan on the validity of the 1910 Treaty. The former involves whether the 1910 Treaty is effective or not based on historical facts and law and the latter deals with the agreement that was made between the two countries on the Treaty's validity. In case of the former issue, scholarly opinions are divided depending on the application of intertemporal law. The customary international law at that time stipulated, "A treaty concluded with one contracting nation forcing its counterpart is effective, but a treaty concluded with one contracting nation forcing the leader of its counterpart is ineffective." However, it would be actually impossible to distinguish the treaty forcing its counterpart nation from the one forcing its leader. Furthermore, the support for the theory distinguishing the coercion of the state and coercion of a representative gradually weakened during the inter-war period (1918-1939). When it comes to the 1910 treaty, opinions on both sides are mixed. Therefore, the 1910 treaty is ineffective. For the latter issue, the key matter is the starting point of the nullity of the 1910 treaty according to the agreement in 1965 between Korea and Japan. With regard to the effectiveness of the 1910 Treaty, Korea and Japan agreed in the Article 2 of the "1965 treaty on Basic relations between Korea and Japan that "it is confirmed that all treaties or agreements concluded between the Empire of Korea and the Empire of Japan on or before August 22, 1910 are already null and void."Yet there are two conflicting interpretations on this article. The Korean government asserts as follows: "in principle, the expression 'null and void' in itself means ineffective 'from the bottom up' unless otherwise provided, and the term 'already' stresses the phrase 'null and void.'" The foundation for this interpretation is that the treaty is "the result of the Japanese invasion in the past." On the other hand, Japanese Government has other interpretation on this article as follows: " 'Already null and void' is no more than a description of the fact that it had already become void by the present time. ... and The Annexation Treaty lost effect on August 15, 1948 when Korea became independent."In conclusion, regarding the invalidity of the 1910 Treaty according to the agreement of the Article 2 in the 1965 Basic Treaty, 1) the 1910 Treaty was null and void from the very beginning, 2) therefore, the Japanese colonial rule for 35 years was illegal. Meanwhile, there has been a noticeable change in Japanese government's interpretation of the 1965 Basic Treaty since 1995. In the statement made by Prime Minister Murayama on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the war’s end, the Japanese government expressed its "feelings of deep remorse" and stated its 'heartfelt apology" with regard to the 'irrefutable fact of history," that Japan, "through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of the Asian nations."Nevertheless, there has been no fundamental change in the stance of Japan on the treaty. Japanese Government should remember the World Conference against Racism 2001 held in Durban, South Africa, which dealt with the legal obligation for colonial rule as an important agenda.
Abstract
This article examines the invalidity and illegality of "the Treaty of Japan's Annexation of Korea in 1910" from the perspective of international treaty theories. The above 1910 treaty failed to fulfill the requirements for the validity of international treaties. The reason are as follows: coerced conclusion of the treaty under the demonstration of Japanese military power, threats up to the point of annexation, ommission of the Korean emperor's signature and seal on the original treaty document and non-existence of the ratification of the treaty. However, controversies on the legal status and interpretation of the treaty still exist between Korea and Japan. There are two legal issues in this regard. One is about the validity of the 1910 treaty itself and the other is concerning the agreement of 1965 between Korea and Japan on the validity of the 1910 Treaty. The former involves whether the 1910 Treaty is effective or not based on historical facts and law and the latter deals with the agreement that was made between the two countries on the Treaty's validity. In case of the former issue, scholarly opinions are divided depending on the application of intertemporal law. The customary international law at that time stipulated, "A treaty concluded with one contracting nation forcing its counterpart is effective, but a treaty concluded with one contracting nation forcing the leader of its counterpart is ineffective." However, it would be actually impossible to distinguish the treaty forcing its counterpart nation from the one forcing its leader. Furthermore, the support for the theory distinguishing the coercion of the state and coercion of a representative gradually weakened during the inter-war period (1918-1939). When it comes to the 1910 treaty, opinions on both sides are mixed. Therefore, the 1910 treaty is ineffective. For the latter issue, the key matter is the starting point of the nullity of the 1910 treaty according to the agreement in 1965 between Korea and Japan. With regard to the effectiveness of the 1910 Treaty, Korea and Japan agreed in the Article 2 of the "1965 treaty on Basic relations between Korea and Japan that "it is confirmed that all treaties or agreements concluded between the Empire of Korea and the Empire of Japan on or before August 22, 1910 are already null and void."Yet there are two conflicting interpretations on this article. The Korean government asserts as follows: "in principle, the expression 'null and void' in itself means ineffective 'from the bottom up' unless otherwise provided, and the term 'already' stresses the phrase 'null and void.'" The foundation for this interpretation is that the treaty is "the result of the Japanese invasion in the past." On the other hand, Japanese Government has other interpretation on this article as follows: " 'Already null and void' is no more than a description of the fact that it had already become void by the present time. ... and The Annexation Treaty lost effect on August 15, 1948 when Korea became independent."In conclusion, regarding the invalidity of the 1910 Treaty according to the agreement of the Article 2 in the 1965 Basic Treaty, 1) the 1910 Treaty was null and void from the very beginning, 2) therefore, the Japanese colonial rule for 35 years was illegal. Meanwhile, there has been a noticeable change in Japanese government's interpretation of the 1965 Basic Treaty since 1995. In the statement made by Prime Minister Murayama on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the war’s end, the Japanese government expressed its "feelings of deep remorse" and stated its 'heartfelt apology" with regard to the 'irrefutable fact of history," that Japan, "through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of the Asian nations."Nevertheless, there has been no fundamental change in the stance of Japan on the treaty. Japanese Government should remember the World Conference against Racism 2001 held in Durban, South Africa, which dealt with the legal obligation for colonial rule as an important agenda.
참고문헌 (60)
- 강종일, "고종의 대미외교" (2006), 일월서각
- 김창록, "법사학적 관넘에서 본 1910년 조약", 일본의 한국병합에 관한 국제법적 조명, 국제학술회의, pp.268~269 (2009), 동북아역사재단
- 도시환, "1910년 ‘한·일병합조약’의 국제법적 재조명", 외법논집, 34(1), pp.355~372 (2010), 법학연구소
- 박배근, "시제법적 관점에서 본 조약체결의 형식과 절차-한국병합 관련 ‘조약’ 유무효론 평가를 위한 일고-", 일본의 한국병합 효력에 대한 국제법적 재조명, 동북아역사재단 국제학술회의 자료집, pp.341~342 (2009)
- 박배근, "韓國倂合關聯‘條約’ 有無效論의 意義와 限界", 법학연구, 44(1), pp.377~ (2003)
- 박배근, "일본국제법학회지에 나타난 한국침탈 관련 연구의 내용과 동향- 보호국논쟁을 중심으로. in: 한일간의 역사현안의 국제법적 재조명" (2009), 동북아역사재단
- 백충현, "일본의 한국병합에 대한 국제법적 고찰. in: 한국병합의 불법성 연구", pp.218~219 (2003), 서울대학교 출판부
- 배재식, "한일기본조약연구 -제2, 3조의 규정내용을 중심으로-", 국제법학회논총, 15(1), pp.259~ (1975)
- 사카모토 시케키, "일한은 구조약 문제의 함정에 빠져서는 안된다. in: 한국병합성립하지 않았다", pp.77~100 (2001), 태학사
- 이근관, "국제법상 강박이론의 재검토 -일본의 한국병합과 관련하여-. in: 한국병합의 불법성연구", pp.243~286 (2003), 서울대학교출판부
- 이근관, "일본의 한국병합에 대한 국제법적 검토-병합의 불법성 여부와 ‘청구권협정’을 중심으로", 일본의 한국병합조약의 효력에 대한 국제법적 재조명, 국제학술회의 자료집, pp.228~229 (2009), 동북아역사재단
- 이상찬, "한국 황제는 통치권 양여 조약안을 재가하였는가?. in: 1910년 ‘한일병합조약’의 역사적 진실규명과 국제법적 평가", 제3회 역사NGO세계대회 자료집, pp.31~42 (2009), (사) 평화통일시민연대
- 이장희, "한일청구권협정의 재검토와 개정방향", 외법논집, 3, pp.117~132 (1996)
- 이장희, "한일간의 국제법적 현안문제" (1998), 아시아사회과학연구원, 도서출판 아사연
- 이장희, "1910년 ‘한일병합조약’의 법적 유효성‘, 기조연설, 1910년 ‘한일 병합조약’의 역사적 진실규명과 국제법적 평가", 한일 NGOs 국제학술 세미나 자료집, pp.15~16 (2009), (사) 평화통일시민연대
- 이장희, "일본의 전쟁책임에 대한 법적 청산. in: 한일역사관련 국제법논문집" (2006), 동북아평화를 위한 바른 역사기획단
- 李泰鎮, "韓国併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-(上)․(下)", 世界, (650), pp.300~310 (1998)
- 李泰鎮, "略式条約で国権を移譲できるのか--海野教授の批判に応える(上)(下)", 世界, (674), pp.246~255 (2000)
- 李泰鎮, "한국병합은 성립하지 않았다, 약식조약으로 어떻게 국권을 이양하는가?. in: 한국병합, 성립하지 않았다", pp.29~76 (2001), 태학사
- 李泰鎮, "공포 칙유가 날조된 ‘일한병합조약’. in: 일본의 대한제국 강점" (1995), 까치
- 이태진, "韓国併合100年と日本人", 思想, (1029), pp.247~ (2010), 岩波書店
- 이태진, "1905년 보호조약의 불법성 - 그 은폐의 늪", 일본의 한국병합조약의 효력에 대한 국제법적 재조명, 국제학술회의 자료집, pp.51~84 (2009), 동북아역사재단
- 海野福壽, "韓國倂合史の硏究" (2000), 岩波書店
- 海野福寿, "韓国併合の歴史認識―李教授「韓国併合不成立論」を再検討する", 世界, (666), pp.261~262 (1999)
- 坂元茂樹, "日韓保護条約の效力-強制による条約の観点から", 法学論集, 44(4), pp.350~ (1995), 関西大学
- 有賀長雄, "保護國論" (1906), 早稲田大学出版部
- 秋山雅之助, "國際公法完" (1893), 有斐閣書房
- 倉知鐵吉, "國際公法完" (1899), 日本法律学校
- 有賀長雄, "國際公法完" (1901), 東京専門学校出版部
- 立作太郞, "平時國際公法下, 謄写版" (1913), 東京帝国大学講義
- 高橋哲哉, "戰爭責任論" (2005), 講談社
- 大藏省印刷局, "日韓条約と国内法の解説", 時의の法令, pp.52~63 (1965)
- 大藏省印刷局, "日韓条約と国内法の解説", 時의の法令, pp.52~63 (1965)
- Francis Ray, "대한제국의 국제법적 지위”, 李泰鎮 편, 『일본의 대한제국 강점 - “보호조약”에서 “병합조약”까지", pp.308~311 (1995), 까치
- Arendt,Hannah, "Eichmann in Jerusalem; A Report on the Banality of Evil", pp.5~ (2006), Penguin Classic
- Bluntschli, J. C., "Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilisierten Staaten", pp.240~ (1872), C. H. Beck'schen Buchhandlung
- 48th Session, Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, "E.G. House of Representatives", ~ (1965)
- House of Councilors 150th Session, Plenary Meetings, , 18~19, pp.No.8 (1965)
- Grosch, Georg, "Der Zwang im Völkerrecht", pp.76~97 (1912), M. & H. Marcus
- von Glahn, Gerhard, "Law among Nations, 4th ed", pp.498~505 (1984), Macmillan
- Hofmann, Rainer, "Compensation for Victims of War - German Practice after 1949 and Current Developments", 國際法外交雜誌, 105(1), pp.37~38 (2006)
- Jennings, "Oppeenheim's International Law, Ninth ed. Volume 1, Peace", pp.1284~1291 (1992), Longman
- McNair, Arnold, "Law of Treaties", pp.207~ (1961), Clarendon Press
- Neubecker, F. K.1, "Zwang und Notstand in rechtsvergleichender Darstellung", pp.134~163 (1910), A. Deichert
- Nelson, Frederik Melvin, "Korea and the Old Orders in Eastern Asia", pp.255~ (1967), Russel & Russel
- Oppenheim,L., "International Law, A Treatise, Vol. I Peace", pp.528~533 (1905), Longmans, Green, and Co.
- Rozakis, Christos L., "The Concept of Jus Cogens in the Law of Treaties", pp.97~ (1976), North-Holland
- Rousseau, Charles, "Principes généraux du droit international public", pp.342~349 (1944), Pedone
- Reuter, Paul, "Introduction to the Law of Treaties", pp.134~135 (1989), Pinter
- Shinclair, Ian, "The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2nd ed", pp.159~160 (1984), Manchester University Press
- SAKAMOTO, Shigeki, "The Validity of the Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty", Kansai University Review of Law and Politics, 18, pp.45~49 (1997)
- Schoen,Paul, "Erzwungene Friedensverträge", Zeitschrift für Völkerrrecht, 21, pp.277~278 (1937)
- Schroeder,Meinhard, "Treaties,Validity. in: Encyclopedia of Public International Law,Vol.7", pp.511~ (1984), North-Holland
- Shaw, Malcolm N., "International Law", pp.636~641 (1977), Cambridge University Press
- Tavernier,Paul, "Recherches sur l'application dans le temps des actes et des règles en droit international public: problèmes de droit international ou de droit transitoire" (1970), Librairie gnrale de droit et de jurisprudence
- Tunkin, G.I., "International Law", pp.169~ (1986), Progress
- Viliger,Mark E., "Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties", pp.125~132 (2009), Martinus Nijhoff Publisher
- Woolsey, Theodore D., "Introduction to the Study of International Law", 184~ (1874)
- Wenner, Giovanni, "Willendmaengel im Voelkerrecht, Zuericher Studien,zum Internationalen Recht, Nr.2", pp.120~125 (1940), Polygraphischer Verlag AG
- Weinschel, Herbert, "Willensmaengel im Voelkerrecht Vertraege", Zeitschrift fuer Voellkerrecht, 15, pp.450~ (1930)