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
김창록 (경북대학교)
저널정보
한일민족문제학회 韓日民族問題硏究 韓日民族問題硏究 제35호
발행연도
2018.1
수록면
213 - 244 (32page)

이용수

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

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
The purpose of this article is to examine the rulings sentenced on May 24, 2012 by the Supreme Court of Korea, which are newly-highlighted in 2018. The rulings were on lawsuits filed by victims who had been forced into compulsory labor by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Nippon Steel Corporation in the Japanese colonial period. The first meaning of the Supreme Court’s ruling is that it clearly outlines the scope of the rights settled by the ‘Claims Agreement’ in 1965. The Supreme Court ruled that the “‘Claims Agreement’ is not a negotiation for claiming the Japanese colonial rule, but for resolving the financial and civil bond-debt relationship between Korea and Japan based on Article 4 of the San Francisco Treaty by political agreement”, and that “it is difficult to say that the right to claim for damages arising from anti-humanitarian torts or directly linked to the colonial rule was included in the scope of the ‘Claims Agreement.’ ” This declaration of the Supreme Court ruling is reasonable in light of international law standards for the interpretation of treaties. The second significance of the Supreme Court’s ruling is that it clearly declares that the compulsory mobilization, including forced emigration and forced labor, has not been settled by the ‘Claims Agreement’. The Supreme Court ruling declared that the compulsory mobilization was a anti-humanitarian tort or illegal acts directly linked to the colonial rule and it was not settled by the ‘Claims Agreement’. This declaration of the Supreme Court, which articulates that Japanese ‘National Mobilization Law’ and ‘Conscription Ordinance’ were not valid because they were not compatible with the constitutional spirit of the Republic of Korea; that the forced emigration and forced labor of Japanese government and companies were not ‘legal conscription’ but ‘illegal compulsory mobilization’; and that the ‘illegal compulsory mobilization’ problem was not settled by the ‘Claims Agreement’, is reasonable in light of the preamble, Article 100 and Article 101 of 1948 Constitution and the preamble of the present Constitution. The third and largest significance of the Supreme Court’s ruling is that it clearly declares that “the Japanese domination of the Korean peninsula during the Japanese colonial period is an illegal occupation in terms of norms, and the effect of juridical relations incompatible with the constitutional spirit of the Republic of Korea should be excluded.” Whereas it is surprisingly little noticed, this declaration is nothing more than a landmark declaration of the legal identity of Korea, which makes clear the legal discontinuity between the period under Japanese occupation and that after the liberation.
#Agreement on the Settlement of Problems Concerning Property and Claims between the Republic of Korea and Japan #Compulsory Mobilization #Conscription #Supreme Court Ruling on Compulsory Mobilization #Relationship between Korea and Japan

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청
참고문헌이 DBpia에서 서비스 중이라면, [참고문헌 신청]을 통해 등록해보세요

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