한국에 대한 일본의 보호국체제 논의와통감부 초기 권력 구조의 형성

Abstract

This study analyzes Japan’s discourse on the Protectorate established between Korea and Japan under the Eulsa Treaty(the Second Japan-Korea Agreement) of 1905, and examines the process of forming the early power structure of the Residency-General. Under modern international law, a protectorate system refers to a political arrangement in which the protected state delegates its diplomatic authority to the protecting power, thereby assuming a semi- sovereign status. The system is characterized by its ambiguity and diversity of forms. Before and after the Russo-Japanese War, Japanese international law scholars actively discussed various models of a protectorate system over Korea. Ariga Nagao(有賀長雄) emphasized the fluidity of the protectorate framework, suggesting that Korea might either regain its independence or decline into colonial subjugation. By contrast, Tomizu Hirondo(戶水寬人) and Tachi Sakutaro(立作太郞) regarded the protectorate system as a transitional form of domination leading toward colonial annexation. Notably, Ariga’s theory of the protectorate played a significant role in moderating domestic resistance to the Eulsa Treaty within Korean society. It offered a rationale for accepting the reality of a protectorate while sustaining a hope for the eventual restoration of independence. The Eulsa Treaty itself failed to stipulate the reciprocal rights and obligations between the protecting power, Japan, and the protected state, Korea. Instead, it merely specified Japan’s right to represent Korea in foreign affairs, thereby leaving ample room for Japan to expand its influence through unilateral interpretation. Taking advantage of this ambiguity, Ito Hirobumi(伊藤博文), the first Resident-General, immediately began to intervene in Korea’s internal administration, establishing a power structure in which the Residency-General occupied a position superior to the Korean government. This process is symbolically illustrated in the Residency-General’s response to the collective withdrawal of the Korean imperial government’s overseas students. Under the pretext of representing Korea’s foreign affairs, the Residency-General intervened in matters that clearly fell within Korea’s domestic jurisdiction－namely, the supervision of Korean students abroad. Ito replaced the Korean Ministry of Education’s official responsible for student oversight with Kurachi Tetsukichi(倉知鐵吉), a Counsellor of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs who simultaneously served as Secretary of the Residency-General, and delegated relevant authority to him. Kurachi, empowered concurrently by the Japanese government, the Residency-General, and the Korean government, resolved the student issue. This case vividly demonstrates how the Residency-General extended its role from representing Korea’s diplomacy to intervening in its internal administration, thereby consolidating its authority and status. Ultimately, as Tomizu and Tachi had argued, the protectorate system functioned as a transitional form of control paving the way for Japan’s annexation of Korea.