지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
One of the biggest issues which emerged during the negotiations leading up to the Korea-Japan Treaty of 1965 was that of war reparations. While the Korean government was intent on receiving war reparations from Japan, the Japanese government refused to pay such compensation on the grounds that it had already been forced to abandon its public and private properties in Korea.
This issue had its origins in the fact that Japan did not fundamentally recognize Korea as one of the victorious powers. This Japanese refusal was in turn based on the Allied Powers failure to recognize Korea as one of their own, which allowed Japan to argue that Korea was simply one of its former territories. Such a perception is evident in the stance adopted by both the Allied Powers and the Japanese government after 1945. As a result. Korea not only found itself excluded from the Treaty of San Francisco, but unable to secure war reparations from Japan.
This problem continued to fester as a result of the policies adopted by the U.S. Military Government which ruled over Korea from 1945 to 1948. In accordance with Ordinance No. 33 the U.S. Military Government seized all Japanese public and private properties in Korea. Ownership of these properties was transferred to the Korean government upon the establishment of the Republic of Korea. Although the U.S. argued that the validity of the U.S, Military Governments ordinance was supported by Article 4b of the Treaty of San Francisco. However. it later, in the face of the vehement and diametrically opposed interpretations of the Korean and Japanese governments, obscurely began to state that the issue should be decided through negotiations between the two governments.
Eventually, an ambiguous agreement was reached in terms of the Korean governments demand for war reparations from Japan, with Korea interpreting the funds provided as war reparations, while Japan argued that these were in fact economic assistance. However, this ambiguous agreement continues to create problems all the way down to the present as far as individual compensation for the victims of the war is concerned. In addition, the gap which exists between subjugated nations such as Korea and colonial powers such as Japans evaluation of the colonial era, has been one of the major reasons why this issue has yet to be resolved.
This issue had its origins in the fact that Japan did not fundamentally recognize Korea as one of the victorious powers. This Japanese refusal was in turn based on the Allied Powers failure to recognize Korea as one of their own, which allowed Japan to argue that Korea was simply one of its former territories. Such a perception is evident in the stance adopted by both the Allied Powers and the Japanese government after 1945. As a result. Korea not only found itself excluded from the Treaty of San Francisco, but unable to secure war reparations from Japan.
This problem continued to fester as a result of the policies adopted by the U.S. Military Government which ruled over Korea from 1945 to 1948. In accordance with Ordinance No. 33 the U.S. Military Government seized all Japanese public and private properties in Korea. Ownership of these properties was transferred to the Korean government upon the establishment of the Republic of Korea. Although the U.S. argued that the validity of the U.S, Military Governments ordinance was supported by Article 4b of the Treaty of San Francisco. However. it later, in the face of the vehement and diametrically opposed interpretations of the Korean and Japanese governments, obscurely began to state that the issue should be decided through negotiations between the two governments.
Eventually, an ambiguous agreement was reached in terms of the Korean governments demand for war reparations from Japan, with Korea interpreting the funds provided as war reparations, while Japan argued that these were in fact economic assistance. However, this ambiguous agreement continues to create problems all the way down to the present as far as individual compensation for the victims of the war is concerned. In addition, the gap which exists between subjugated nations such as Korea and colonial powers such as Japans evaluation of the colonial era, has been one of the major reasons why this issue has yet to be resolved.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 청구권 문제의 기원 1 - 한국의 독립운동에 대한 인식
Ⅲ. 청구권 문제의 기원 2 - 미군정 법령 33호
Ⅳ. 청구권 문제의 기원 3 - 일본의 사유재산에 대한 청구권 요구와 미국의 딜레마
Ⅴ. 식민지에 대한 인식의 차이 - 결론을 대신하여
〈ABSTRACT〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
戰後 韓日관계와 샌프란시스코 平和條約
한국사연구
2005 .12
-
한일회담에서 나타난 일본의 식민지지배 인식
한국사연구
2005 .12
-
언론을 통해 본 한일협정 인식 50년
역사비평
2015 .05
-
Treaties Leading to Japan’s Annexation of Korea : What Are the Problems?
Korea Journal
2016 .12
-
1910년 한일조약에 대한 법사학적 재검토
동북아역사논총
2010 .09
-
한국 강제병합 과정에 대한 재조명 : 한일구조약의 불법·무효성에 관한 법학적 연구
동북아역사논총
2010 .09
-
Korea and Japan
Korea Journal
1967 .08
-
[특집2 : 1960년대 한반도와 국제정세] 한·일협정 체결과 '지역통합전략'의 현실화 - 한·미·일 3국의 인식과 대응을 중심으로 -
역사와현실
2003 .12
-
한일협정 후 한국 지식인의 일본 인식
동북아역사논총
2011 .09
-
러일전쟁 이후 일본의 한국식민론과 식민주의적 문명론
동양사학연구
2006 .03
-
일본의 조선 강점기 성노예제에 대한 국가책임의 해법
일본문화학보
2014 .11
-
특사 태프트의 제2차 대일방문과 미일조약체제, 1907~1908 : 한국병합을 중심으로
동북아역사논총
2010 .09
-
러일전쟁 기간 국제관계와 한국—포츠머스 조약을 중심으로—
史叢(사총)
2012 .01
-
아시아-태평양전쟁과 한국의 주권회복
한국학(구 정신문화연구)
2005 .12
-
해방과 한국의 정치적 개신교
신학논단
2012 .09
-
한국 지식인의 대일인식과 한일회담
한국사연구
2005 .12
-
韓日兩國의 歷史認識問題
사학연구
2003 .12
-
독도 영유권에 대한 전후 연합국의 영토처리
일본문화학보
2020 .05
-
일본의 전후처리 외교 연구:대 아시아 전후 배상정책의 구조와 함의
日本學硏究
2007 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-911-002267695