다기능개폐기를 이용한 선로운전자동화

송병권(Byong-Kwon Song),홍순학(Soon-Hak Hong),하복남(Bok-Nam ha) 대한전기학회 1992 대한전기학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.1992 No.7

일본의 전시기 동아국제질서 인식의 전후적 변용 -`대동아국제법질서`론과 식민지 문제-

송병권 ( Song Byong-kwon ) 수선사학회 2017 史林 Vol.0 No.61

The purpose of this study is to understand the post-war change of international order recognition of Japan in the Asia-Pacific War by analyzing Japan`s the East Asia regional order of international law and colony problem. The hint of the important problem in the discussions of the East Asia regional order of international law has been discussed in relation to the issue of absolute/relative equality of state/sovereignty, internationalism= universalism/regionalism. Regionalism, the relative equality of state, and the problems of the hegemonic country are related to these problems. Specifically, there was a modern understanding of the problem as a problem of the size of the interests and responsibilities within the region that arise in proportion to the size of modern power, and Japan`s unique worldview which was a way of understanding structure in the territorial area that plays a role in each one`s own place. Japan`s understanding of the international law order has shown a return from universalism to regionalism and back to universalism. Under the national notion of relative equality, Japan accepted the United States as a new hegemonic country after its defeat in an attempt to identify itself as a leader. By reinterpreting Japan as a country to be guided, Japan has accepted the occupation of the United States, adopted the United Nations as the highest international law order, and has made a move to secure its position in the postwar world. Colonial issues have often been told in relation to the European and American powers and their colonies. Japan has attempted to justify Japan`s position as a hegemonic country by developing a logic to persuade the guided states in the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” to tolerate relative sovereignty and relative national equality. The reason for this was that it was impossible to obtain the voluntary agreement of the guided country, because the colonies inside the hegemonic country proved to be incorporated into the empire rather than self-governing or limited independence. The East Asia regional order of international law did not have a logic to deal with the colonial problem within the Japanese Empire which could be considered as a test of the legitimacy of the organic großraum order of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

East Asian Regionalism and Korea in the 1940’s

Song Byong Kwon(송병권) 고려대학교 한국사연구소 2014 International Journal of Korean History Vol.19 No.1

이 논문은 미국의 동아시아 지역 내 중국 대국화 구상과 일본의 비군사화 및 민주화 구상이라는 커다란 정책 구상 속에서 1940년대를 중심으로 동아시아를 둘러싼 지역주의의 여러 유형과 그 속에서의 한국의 위치에 대한 고찰을 목적으로 한다. 전후 동아시아 지역주의 문제를 분석할 때, 동아시아 냉전에 의해 형성된 측면만이 아니라 ‘세기 전환기’부터 형성되어 온 동북아시아 지역의 지역구조가 아시아 태평양 전쟁을 경계로 재구축되었다. 1940년대 전반부터 일본은 대동아공영권을 제시하면서, 동아시아 지역질서 속에서의 패권국의 지위를 자기 정당화하는 지역질서 논리를 드러냈다. 또한 패전 후 나타날 일본의 식민지 처리를 둘러싼 미국과 일본의 전후 처리 구상이 동아시아 지역질서 구상과 깊은 관련 속에서 나타났다. 제2차 세계대전에서 승리한 미국은 이미 세계 대국이란 위상 속에서 미국, 영국, 중국, 소련을 주축으로 강대국간 협조를 전제로 한 4대 경찰국가 구상을 드러냈다. 일본은 패전 상황 속에서 생존전략을 안출했다. 이러한 구상들은 전쟁이 한창인 1940년대 전반기부터 동아시아 지역에 대한 광역권 인식이었다는 점에서 전쟁 시기의 현상 인식과 전후의 전망 사이의 연속성 속에서 1940년대의 의미를 찾아보았다. 1940년대 동아시아 지역에는 다음 세 가지 유형의 지역주의가 등장했다. 첫번째 유형은 일본을 역내 패권국으로 하는 동아시아 지역질서 구상이다. 제국일본은 역내패권을 유지하기 위한 경제적 내선일체론 속에서 한국의 의미를 부여하였다. 두 번째 유형은 역외패권국으로서의 미국이 동아시아 지역 내 하위 파트너로서 중국을 선택하고 수평적 산업분업을 기조로 일본을 억제하고자 한 구상이었다. 미국은 일본의 식민지경제 지배력을 약화시키려는 목표 속에서 한일 간의 경제적 관계를 단절시키고자 하였다. 세 번째 유형은 냉전이 동아시아에 확산되자 지역 내 하위파트너로 일본을 선택한 미국의 동아시아 수직적 산업분업을 통한 지역경제통합 구상이었다. 미국은 첫 번째 유형의 부분적 도입을 계획했지만 자신의 통제 하에 일본을 둠으로써 동아시아 냉전에서 자신의 영역을 확보하고자 했던 것이다. 이 구상 속에서 한국은 미국의 관리 하에서 일본과의 경제적 통합 대상으로 규정되었다. 냉전으로 인한 동아시아 지역의 분단은 첫 번째 유형에서 활용되었던 산업연관구조가 붕괴함으로써 동아시아 지역질서는 새로운 재조정을 겪어야 했으며, 그것은 동아시아 지역에서의 한국의 위치 규정에 결정적 영향을 주었다. This paper seeks to consider the various types of regionalisms in East Asia during the 1940’s, and Korea’s position in the United States’ “Great China Policy” and demilitarization and democratization plans for Japan. After World War II, although aspects of regionalism were formed by the Cold War in East Asia, the regional structure of Northeast Asia was originally formed from the ‘turn of the century’ through the Asian Pacific War. From the beginning of the 1940’s, Japan promoted the idea of a “Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere” in order to justify its hegemonic position in the East Asian regional order. In addition, the United States and Japan’s readjustment plans appeared to be related to strategies regarding the regional order of East Asia. During World War II, the victorious U.S. had already become one of the world’s superpowers and by principle, collaboration between the superpowers (United States, Great Britain, China, and the Soviet Union) revealed an initiative for a four country police state. Japan devised a survival strategy in the case of its defeat. During the war in the early 1940’s, these policies and plans were used to recognize Großraum around the East Asian region. This paper points out the significance of the 1940’s and the continuity between the awareness of the wartime situation and the prospective situation during the postwar period. During the 1940’s, three forms of regionalism in East Asia appeared. The first was Japan’s regional hegemony over the East Asian regional order. In order to preserve regional hegemony, Imperial Japan gave specific meaning to Korea as an extension of its own economy. The second is based on the United States as an offshore hegemonic power, which chose China as a subordinate partner within East Asia and used the division of labor through sub-horizontal industry based on an initiative to suppress Japan. In order to weaken the economic dominance of Japanese Empire, the United States tried to sever the economic relationship between Korea and Japan. The third is based on the United States choice of Japan as a subordinate partner within the region as the Cold War spread through East Asia, and as a way to create regional economic integration, using a division of labor through vertical industry. Although the plan was to partially introduce the first form, placing them under the control of Japan within East Asia’s Cold War was a way to secure their own territory. Under this plan and under the control of the United States, Korea’s economic unification with Japan became the target of regulation. In the first form, due to the division of the Cold War in East Asia, the collapse of the utilized industrial linkage structures created the need for a new re-ordering of the regional order, which decisively influenced the regulation of Korea’s position in the East Asian region.

1940년대 전반 일본의 동북아지역정치경제 인식 -동아광역경제론을 중심으로-

송병권 ( Byong Kwon Song ) 고려대학교 역사연구소 2013 사총 Vol.80 No.-

The process of Japan`s imperial expansion itself was that of the invasion of Northeast Asian region. After making Korea as her colony in 1910, Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931(Manchurian Incident) and made it Manchukuo too. As a result, Japan has been secured Manchuria as an economic hinterland for herself. With Provocation of Sino-Japanese War on 1937, the Japanese army expanded its front to mainland China. The range of discourse about the Japanese imperial Economy was also in charge of the enlarged gradually. Japan has raised new economic theory that integrated the Northasia region with “Nichi-Man-Shi Keizai Burokku Ron(日滿支經濟ブロック論).” On the other hand, the conflict problems with Manchuria and Korea in the regional economic bloc has occurred too. But it can be said that this problem was the process of the integration between Korea and Manchuria for Japan in the terms of the Japanese economic hinterland. In the wake of Pacific War(1941) broke out, it was necessary to reconfigure the economic regional concept incorporating also Southeast Asia to Japan. Japan came up with the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere as a new economic regional theory incorporating also the resources and markets in Southeast Asia which had colonized by Western powers once. Although the concept of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere(大東亞共榮圈) had positioned the Southeast Asian region as a resource center for Japan in the end, it was not possible to derive the development effect immediate in the midst of war. Therefore, the importance of the resources on the Northeast Asia region should have been maintained for the time being. There was a possibility that Northeast Asia region was re-recognized as the processing area of Southeast Asia resources, if the region was secured well for Japan. The discourses such as East Asian Community(東亞協同體論) and East Asia Economic Block(東亞經濟ブロック論) was criticized their theoretical limits by the discourse of East Asia Great Sphere Economy(東亞廣域經濟論) which was the main economic theory of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. According to the discourse of East Asia Great Sphere Economy, the vertical economic division of labor was formed to some extent in the East Asia region. Japan tried to transfer to the Northeast Asia region some parts of economic role as the continental logistic bases that Japan was in charge. Korea and Manchuria were in the industrial center for carrying out the war and were set as the logistics base that was advanced in the continental Asia by Japanese Empire. In consideration of such aspects as described above, the emphasis on the role of the logistics base that was advanced in the continental Asia for Korea, has been discussed in the context of the advocacy that Northeaster Asia region was need to share some parts of Japanese Imperialism`s roles. At the discussion in Keijo Keizai Konwakai(京城經濟懇話會), Japanese Business circles in Colonial Korea had sympathized with the discourse of Northeaster Asia region`s sharing of roles for Japanese Imperialism in wartime.

전시기 식민지 조선 ‘재계’와 식민지경제지배 시스템

송병권(Song, Byong-kwon) 고려대학교 아세아문제연구소 2013 亞細亞硏究 Vol.56 No.4

한국 근대 공설일용품시장의 사회적 기능과 민족별 시장 분리에 대한 고찰

송병권 ( Song Byong Kwon ) 대구사학회 2017 대구사학 Vol.128 No.-

Discussions about the social functions of the public market can be summarized in two trends. The two trends are not independent, but interacted with one another. Firstly, there is a viewpoint about whether the emergence and operation of the public market in the Japanese colonial period is a failure or a success. That is how to interpret the functions of social welfare and social policy facilities in the inflationary phase, which was expected from the emergence of the public market. First, the public market failed because the functions and operations of the social welfare and social policy facilities in the public market were transformed into functions for economic policy purposes or the operation of the public market itself ended in failure. On the other hand, despite the apparent limitations of the expansion of the public market in the colonial Korea, it is pointed out that the function of the public market is the formation of a price management system as a social policy facility, there is a position that the function of the public market can be said to be successful, because the price management system and the price monitoring function within the market economy of the public market have been maintained. Second, there is a view to interpret the social functions of the modern public market in relation to colonial modernity. First, it can be said that the modern public market can not settle in the colonial Joseon society, that is, the reason of `failure` from the semi-feudalism. On the other hand, it emphasizes `colonialism` as a reason why the social functions of the public market could not be exercised properly as a modern facility. It is emphasized that colonial distortions in the separation of nations and imports and exports between colonial Korea and Japan are obstacles to the social functioning of the public market. Finally, it is emphasized that the public market has led to the restoration of the distribution economy through the formation of the price management system and competition with the private market. This position is based on the assumption of the formation of the distribution economy of modern capitalist society, so we can see that it places more emphasis on modernity than on colonialism. (Asiatic Research Institute, Korea University / songbkwon@hanmail.net)

해방 직후 한일 석탄무역의 구조와 성격

송병권(Song Byong-kwon) 고려사학회 2004 한국사학보 Vol.- No.17

연합국 최고사령관 총사령부의 한일 점령과 통치구조의 중층성

송병권(Song, Byong-Kwon) 고려대학교 아세아문제연구소 2020 亞細亞硏究 Vol.63 No.1

연합국 최고사령관 총사령부에 설치된 특별참모부의 관할 지역은 일본과 더불어 한반도 남부지역을 포괄하고 있었다. 이것은 점령행정을 담당할 중앙 군정 기구로서 직접적인 관할에 두어졌다기보다는, 현지를 점령한 점령군으로서 미국 태평양 육군의 점령 관할지로서 먼저 형성되었기 때문이었다고 할 수 있다. 이는 미국 태평양 육군 총사령부 내에 조직되었던 군정국이 직접통치를 전제로 설치되었고, 이 조건 속에서 제24군단이 점령한 한반도 남부에 직접 군정이 설치되면서 주한미군정이 설치되었다는 점과 깊은 연관을 갖는다고 할 수 있다. 한편, 일본의 경우에는 간접통치로 정책이 변경되었지만, 중앙 군정기구 대신에 연합국 최고사령관 총사령부가 설치되었던 것으로 이해할 수 있다. 이 과정에서 점령부대가 관할하는 지역의 군정 상황에 대해 연합국 최고사령관 총사령부는 미국 태평양 육군 총사령관이기도 했던 맥아더 사령관에 조언할 필요가 발생했다. 이런 점은 지방 군정기구가 일관된 편제로 일본은 물론 한반도 남부에까지 전개된 상황이나, 검열지대의 운영이 양 지역을 포괄하고 있었다는 점에서도 확인할 수 있을 것이다. The nine special staff members of the GHQ/SCAP had jurisdiction over the southern part of the Korean Peninsula, along with Japan. This was first formed as an occupation force and a control point for the occupation of the U.S. Pacific Army rather than as a direct jurisdiction as a central military governmental organization. In other words, the USAFIK was established on the premise of direct rule by the military government, which was organized within the GHQ/AFPAC, and under this condition, the USAFIK was established by the direct military regime on the southern part of the Korean Peninsula occupied by the XXIV Corps.

식민지 통치권력 재해 조사를 둘러싼 일반과 특수의 간극 -1928년 경북지역 가뭄 조사를 중심으로-

송병권 ( Byong Kwon Song ) 수선사학회 2015 史林 Vol.0 No.54

This study aims at reviewing of the cracking point of governance of colonial power through the contrast between the voices of colonial Koreans who lived in disaster situation and the disaster survey of colonial power. The conflicts between colonial officials`` social and economic statistics and individuals as the object of the statistics poses the problem of governance of colonial power. Because the colonial power integrated data which was collected by the bottom of the governance bodies, the statistics is not only able to acquire the objectivity and generality, but also to have a greater possibility to fail to understand the peculiarities of the colonial reality. The basic policies in disaster management of Government in General of Chosen had been leaned to assist the livelihood rather than to rescue the man directly. It is also the product of passive relief principle for the disaster of colonial rule authority. There was hidden the political intent to reduce the disaster relief costs and the desire of austerity to hide the failure of good government. Even it has been carried out distortion from investigation stage in order to conceal the mismanagement in local government. Statistics that too reflected the reality was an unnecessary work that might cast doubt on ``good governance`` which Government in General of Chosen continued to insist. It was produced the results to reduce the statistics of hunger farming families. On the other hand, in the case of the field survey, there is an advantage to be able to concentrate on the field survey and its special characteristics with respect to the target area, but is weak to understand the general properties that can be compared. Song Gi-chan was engaged in social movements in Gyeongsangbuk-do, He successfully took advantage of the statistics of the field research in disaster of drought in 1923 which was made by local governments in Gyeongsangbuk-do. Picking up the peculiarities of each region that has been excluded from the general statistics, he also dared the criticism of the governance of colonial power.

최호진의 한국경제사 연구와 동양사회론

송병권 ( Song Byong Kwon ) 고려대학교 역사연구소(구 역사학연구회) 2017 사총 Vol.92 No.-

아시아적 생산양식론이나 동양사회론 속에서 제기되었던, 정체성 및 후진성론을 어떻게 극복할 수 있을 것인지는 결국 주체를 어떻게 설정하느냐라는 문제와 직결된다고 할 수 있을 것이다. 본고에서는 최호진의 한국경제사 연구를 통해 이 문제에 육박해보았다. 최호진은 식민지기부터 한국경제사 연구를 시작한 이후 자신의 개론서 『한국경제사』를 누차에 걸쳐 개정·증보하면서도 ‘동양사회론’의 흐름을 유지했던 흔치 않은 존재였다. 최호진의 경제사 연구를 이해하기 위해서는 자본주의 맹아론에 의해 극복 대상으로 설정된 아시아정체론에 입각한 동양사회론을 중시한 이유를 파악할 필요가 있다. 식민지기 최호진이 동양사회의 정체/혁명의 도정에 선 주체로 호명하고자 했으나 호명할 수 없었던 ‘민중’은 해방 이후에나 그 모습을 드러낼 수밖에 없었다. 해방공간에서 최호진은 동양사회의 정체성 규명이 주체의 회복과 관련하여 독립과 자본주의화, 사회주의 혁명으로 이어질 것으로 전망했지만, 분단과 함께 이러한 전망은 위축될 수밖에 없었고, 자본주의 사회를 역사의 최종단계로 설정하게 되었다. 동양사회 정체론 규명을 통한 ‘해방’의 전망이 좌절되자 일본제국주의 정당화 이론으로서의 식민사학으로서의 혐의만이 남게 되었고, 이는 최호진으로서는 받아들일 수 없는 것이었다. 최호진은 총체적 노예제 개념을 받아들임으로써 원시사회에서 식민지기까지의 한국경제사를 통사로서 파악할 수 있게 되었다. 최호진은 식민지사회를 근대사회의 성장보다는 봉건사회의 해체와 붕괴에 초점을 맞추어 파악하고자 했고, 봉건사회의 각 단계에 등장한 민중의 역사적 성장을 중시하였다. 이것은 근대의 주체를 민족으로 설정하여 해방이후 근대국가의 주체를 해방된 민족으로 설정하고자 했기 때문이었다. In this article, I want to read the works related to ‘Oriental social theory’ of Choi Ho-jin as a text in his historical situation. The study of his ‘theory of oriental society’ will be able to decipher the historical meaning as a process of speculation which seeks to discover a new historical narrative in his historical context. In order to understand the viewpoint of his economic history study which adhered to the theory of Oriental Society premised on the Asiatic stagnation theory. The theory needed to be overcome by the theory of capitalist sprouts. It is necessary to understand why he kept its theory inherently rather than abandoning the theory of stagnation as an obsolete idea. To explicate backwardness and stagnation of the Asiatic society, he suggested, would lead independence, capitalization, and socialist revolution in 1940s. He refrained from speaking about the socialist revolution in a new state of being a divided country, and was forced to self-censorship. In the end, he himself gave up the prospect of revolution and turned to the position of finalizing capitalism. After the Asiatic backward theory was frustrated in the space of ‘Liberation’, he was accused of ‘colonial history view’ as ‘a justification of Japanese imperialism.’ This would have been difficult for him to accept. The his study of modern Korean economic history that began under colonial rule expanded from distribution to productivity. His attention to the controversy of Asiatic Mode of Production has enabled Korea’s economic history to be viewed from the primitive society to the colonial period, while accepting the concept of ‘General Slavery Society.’ In addition, He focuses on the disintegration and collapse of ‘feudal society’ rather than on the growth of ‘modern society’ and focuses on the historical growth of Korean people in the period of demolition/collapse of feudal society. It seems that he wanted to set the modernity after the ‘liberation’ in which the modern nation as the modern subject played an active role. Here we will be able to reaffirm how he emphasized the nation as a subject.