총동원체제하 직업소개령과 일본군 위안부 동원 - 제국 일본과 식민지 조선의 차별적 제도운영을 중심으로 -

Abstract

A major point of dispute regarding Japanese military sexual slavery is whether ‘compulsory mobilization of sex slave by Japan government’ was or was not. Japan has said that compulsory mobilization was committed by civilian, and that has no relation with government. Even those who are insisting there was compulsory mobilization of sex slave for Japanese Imperial Army have explained that only by the private companies, there had been illegal businesses, such as trafficking in female, employment fraud. But there was Japanese government’s comprehensive involvement, that is, the government’s connivance at those war crimes because it is almost impossible to mobilize minions of sex slaves only by the power of several civilian companies. The purpose of this study is to disclose Japanese mobilization system for sex slave. For this goal, the difference of system in implementing the act of employment/general mobilization both in Japan and in Chosun is detected, and causal relationship between the agent of human resources/ employment agency, so called ‘civilian company’ in Japan and administrative authority/ bureaucracy in Chosun is analyzed. In Japan, act of employment was enforced in the way of establishing social security network in order to avoid social bad effect. But in Chosun, without that social networking, the aim itself-gathering labour force- of the act was the only one reason to implement the law. Therefore, the case such as Ha Yoon Myeung was an inevitable consequence. The police made Ha Yoon Myeung case bigger on purpose so that they could figure out the actual condition of female trafficking and the information about the agency as well as the number of Gisaeung, pre-gisaeung, barmaid, and prostitute quarter, all of which had been deliberately ignored till that time by the police. It can be guessed that those wholesale inspections were preparatory work for sex slave mobilization. On January 1940, 「act of employment of Chosun」 was enacted. The law of employment of Japan was not allowed to introduce the job of geisha or barmaid, but the act of Chosun had an additional rule identifying the agent of geisha business so that recruiting them could be run legitimately. Besides, revising the rule of prohibition of sideline made it possible for the agent who run geisha business to introduce and recruit workers. Consequently, the revision provided remarkable convenience to the (civilian) businessmen who run prostitute quarters in Japan or in Chosun and also run brothels for the Japanese Army with recruiting workers-“comfort wormen” in Shanghai or Nanjing After 1941, as the mobilization of labor force became gradually decreased, Japan revised the act and managed to recruit through the newspaper advertisement. Job of “comfort women” also included. Because without the permission from the Japanese Chosun Government-General, Do-Governer, and the Police, it was impossible to advertise through newspapers and do recruit, they must have been involved in recruiting “comfort women” in Chosun, not only in the process of administration but also actual recruitment. It is a counterargument to deflect the opinion that the enforced mobilization of sex slave-“comfort women” in Chosun was executed illegally only by private, civilian company. 「The law of employment」 of Japan and 「The act of employment」 did not show many differences in literary, but the implement of each looked very different. When it goes to ordinance, the act allows many exceptions, which caused wide scope of flexibility in implementing the act in Chosun so that some other power, not by ‘the law’, easily introduced. Japan Government thought, “in case of Chosun, the bureaucrats are stronger than expected so the most effective way is to let it be done by them,” and established oppressive system using bureaucracy. Making loose laws, which make it possible to employ expediency, or to tolerate unlawful commitment in order to meet the political goal, was a “crack” in Japanese Empire governance. This “crack” was one cause of the toleration about illegality, expediency, and compulsion. It was possible because Chosun was a colony, and this is the colonial oppression.