『대한협회회보』의 국가관과 ‘복종’ — 어휘사와 개념사적 관점에서 —

Abstract

This paper examines the view of the state as presented by Daehanhyeophoe- Hoebo (Korean Association Journal, 1908-1909) which was built on a particular interpretation of Deutschen Offentliches Recht (German Public Law) and Western politics. The use of the term “Bokjong (복종, servitude)” is employed as a means to investigate this perspective. After the formation of the Korean Empire (大韓帝國), most reformist officials were sent into exile in Japan, where many of them studied public law as articulated by such German-speaking jurists as J.C. Bluntschli and Georg Jellinek. Following the establishment of a Japanese Protectorate on the Korean Peninsula, in 1905, these exiles returned to Korea and translated or retranslated various books about public law；Daehanhyeophoe-Hoebo was the forum in which they expressed their ideas. Ironically, it was just at the time when the Korean Empire had hardly any possibility of surviving as an independent nation that such discussions on the modern nation-state system were at their most vigorous. Articles in Daehanhyeophoe-Hoebo which dealt with the nature of the state make frequent reference to Bluntschli and Rousseau, from which it is clear that the Korean writers accepted this foreign discourse, and also adapted it. They proposed the incorporation of nation, monarch and people into a constitutional monarchy, which they justified in legal terms. The contributors to Daehanhyeophoe wanted to create institutional legal structures to restrict the power of the King, and to secure the rights and freedoms of the people, which they hoped would facilitate the creation of a system based on party politics. Actually, they were struggling to obtain power at a time when the political situation was rapidly changing. In these discussions on the relationship between the nation and the society, and between the law and the people, an interesting term was often used which sheds some light on these struggles：“Bokjong (복종, servitude),” can be translated as “servitude” but in fact this expression has a complex field of meaning, with the context implied by the Chinese characters suggesting more than mere compulsory submission.