조선통치관계자와 한일교섭

Abstract

The Chapter of Joseon in the 『Historical Research on Japanese’ Overseas Activities』 compiled by the Japanese government as a ‘subsidiary task’ of the project to estimate returnees’ overseas property was drawn up by the persons concerned in the rule over Joseon, so it had a strong feature as a report on the final accounts regarding their rule over Joseon. The Chapter of Joseon in the 『Historical Research』 dotted with ‘the theory of just rule’, ‘the theory of dispensation’, and ‘the theory of modernization’ was reflecting the understanding of colonies shared by the persons concerned in the rule over Joseon, and had become the logic of the Japanese party refuting Korean side’s argument in the process of a Korea-Japan negotiation. Taking the outbreak of the Korean War, lift of purges from public service, conclusion of a peace treaty, and preliminary negotiations between Korea and Japan as the opportunity, the persons concerned in the rule over Joseon exchanged opinions with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and gave advice to the government representatives and the persons in charge of the conference about the rule over Joseon. In addition, at the early stage of the Korean-Japanese conference, when the matter of the rule over Joseon became an issue of the Korean-Japanese conference, they repeated their stance of affirming their rule over Joseon. When ‘Kubota’s comment’ came into question in the third conference, they stated their views that they didn’t need to be prudent waiting for the time during the conference while making an issue of the Korean party’s attitude in the negotiation. Later, when Prime Minister Kishi withdrew Kubota’s comment and property claims to Korea, dispatched Yasugi as a special envoy and offered a public apology, the persons concerned in the rule over Joseon fiercely refused them, and even insisted on the delay of the Korean-Japanese conference. Then, when Lee Seung-man administration collapsed and a new administration was established, they retracted the previous passive stance regarding the conference, and actively approached the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the ambassador to Japan expecting agreement with the Korean-Japanese conference. Moreover, they submitted six items in total that were more forward-looking than the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ proposal to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tanaka Takeo’s name, a president of the Central Japanese-Korean Association, and also asked Reischauer, an ambassador to Japan, for the arbitration between Korea and Japan..