메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류
인문학
인문학 일반 역사학 철학 종교학 어문학 기타 인문학
사회과학
사회과학 일반 경영학 관광학 교육학 군사학 문헌정보학 법학 사회학 신문방송학 심리과학 정치외교학 지리학 행정학 경제학 무역학 인류학 기타 사회과학
자연과학
자연과학 일반 물리학 생물학 생활과학 수학·통계학 천문학 지구과학 화학 기타 자연과학
공학
공학 일반 건축공학 기계공학 산업공학 재료·에너지공학 전기전자공학 조선해양공학 화학공학 컴퓨터학 기타공학
의약학
의학 일반 간호학 수의학 약학 한의학 기초의학 임상의학 기타 의약학
농수해양학
농수해양학 일반 농학 수산학 식품과학 임학 축산학 해상운송학 기타 농수해양학
예술체육학
예술 일반 디자인 미술 미용 사진 음악학 의상 체육 공연매체예술 기타 예술체육학
복합학
학제간연구 과학기술학 뇌인지과학 기술정책 기타 복합학

ENG

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 외법논집 외법논집 제34권 제4호
발행연도
2010.1
수록면
17 - 37 (21page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
This article examines the invalidity and illegality of "the Treaty of Japan's Annexation of Korea in 1910" from the perspective of international treaty theories. The above 1910 treaty failed to fulfill the requirements for the validity of international treaties. The reason are as follows: coerced conclusion of the treaty under the demonstration of Japanese military power, threats up to the point of annexation, ommission of the Korean emperor's signature and seal on the original treaty document and non-existence of the ratification of the treaty. However, controversies on the legal status and interpretation of the treaty still exist between Korea and Japan. There are two legal issues in this regard. One is about the validity of the 1910 treaty itself and the other is concerning the agreement of 1965 between Korea and Japan on the validity of the 1910 Treaty. The former involves whether the 1910 Treaty is effective or not based on historical facts and law and the latter deals with the agreement that was made between the two countries on the Treaty's validity. In case of the former issue, scholarly opinions are divided depending on the application of intertemporal law. The customary international law at that time stipulated, "A treaty concluded with one contracting nation forcing its counterpart is effective, but a treaty concluded with one contracting nation forcing the leader of its counterpart is ineffective." However, it would be actually impossible to distinguish the treaty forcing its counterpart nation from the one forcing its leader. Furthermore, the support for the theory distinguishing the coercion of the state and coercion of a representative gradually weakened during the inter-war period (1918-1939). When it comes to the 1910 treaty, opinions on both sides are mixed. Therefore, the 1910 treaty is ineffective. For the latter issue, the key matter is the starting point of the nullity of the 1910 treaty according to the agreement in 1965 between Korea and Japan. With regard to the effectiveness of the 1910 Treaty, Korea and Japan agreed in the Article 2 of the "1965 treaty on Basic relations between Korea and Japan that "it is confirmed that all treaties or agreements concluded between the Empire of Korea and the Empire of Japan on or before August 22, 1910 are already null and void."Yet there are two conflicting interpretations on this article. The Korean government asserts as follows: "in principle, the expression 'null and void' in itself means ineffective 'from the bottom up' unless otherwise provided, and the term 'already' stresses the phrase 'null and void.'" The foundation for this interpretation is that the treaty is "the result of the Japanese invasion in the past." On the other hand, Japanese Government has other interpretation on this article as follows: " 'Already null and void' is no more than a description of the fact that it had already become void by the present time. ... and The Annexation Treaty lost effect on August 15, 1948 when Korea became independent."In conclusion, regarding the invalidity of the 1910 Treaty according to the agreement of the Article 2 in the 1965 Basic Treaty, 1) the 1910 Treaty was null and void from the very beginning, 2) therefore, the Japanese colonial rule for 35 years was illegal. Meanwhile, there has been a noticeable change in Japanese government's interpretation of the 1965 Basic Treaty since 1995. In the statement made by Prime Minister Murayama on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the war’s end, the Japanese government expressed its "feelings of deep remorse" and stated its 'heartfelt apology" with regard to the 'irrefutable fact of history," that Japan, "through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of the Asian nations."Nevertheless, there has been no fundamental change in the stance of Japan on the treaty. Japanese Government should remember the World Conference against Racism 2001 held in Durban, South Africa, which dealt with the legal obligation for colonial rule as an important agenda.
#한일 병합조약 #무효성 & #amp # 불법성 #시제법 #이미 무효 #already nulll and void) #1965년 기본 조약 #더반 #식민지 법 #Japan's Annexation #Invalidity & #amp # Illegality #Inter-Temporal Laws #Already Null and Void #1965 Basic Treaty #Durban #Colonial Rule

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (44)

참고문헌 신청
/ 1965 / House of Councilors 150th Session, Plenary Meetings : 18 ~ 19 google schola Arendt,Hannah / 2006 / Eichmann in Jerusalem; A Report on the Banality of Evil / Penguin Classic : 5 ~ google schola Bluntschli, J. C. / 1872 / Das moderne Volkerrecht der civilisierten Staaten / C. H. Beck'schen Buchhandlung : 240 ~ google schola E.G. House of Representatives / 1965 / 48th Session, Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs google schola Francis Ray / 1995 / 대한제국의 국제법적 지위”, 李泰? 편, 『일본의 대한제국 강점 - “보호조약”에서 “병합조약”까지 / 까치 : 308 ~ 311 google schola

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0