근대 중국의 양모 무역과 양모 방직업 : 톈진을 중심으로

요시자와세이이치로 중국사학회 2006 中國史硏究 Vol.44 No.-

특별 부록 : 일본 외무성 외교문서 공개 리스트(2008년10월현재)

요시자와후미토시 국민대학교 일본학연구소 2008 일본공간 Vol.4 No.-

일본에서의 한,일조약 반대운동 -1960년대를 중심으로-

요시자와후미토시 ( Yoshizawa Fumitoshi ) 한일민족문제학회 2002 한일민족문제연구 Vol.3 No.-

日本에서의 韓.日條約 反對運動

요시자와 후미토시(吉澤文壽) 한일민족문제학회 2002 한일민족문제연구 Vol.3 No.-

This paper examines the movement against the Korea-Japan Treaty negotiations and it aims to discover people's history that was different from that of negotiators of the two countries. This task would work to understand the Japanese view of Korea(ns). A few previous studies about the same theme insist that protests in Japan were less active than those in Korea, or that Japanese had little interest in that matter. However, because they have treated only the Japan Socialist Party.the National Commission of Trade Unions and the Japan Communist Party, struggles by Koreans in Japan, or organizations promoting Korea-Japan friendship were dismissed. From that reason, by analysing the process and the leaders of those struggles, this paper will investigate the unique logic developed in Japan. The protest campaigns in Japan met the first peak from 1962 to 1963, when the movement somewhat inherited the success of the anti-Security Pact protests. But because of discord among the leaders and the Liberal Democratic Party's propaganda, the first peak deteriorated and stopped. The second peak came in lat 1965 when the Treaty awaited ratification. At that time, came in late 1965 when the Treaty awaited ratification. At that time, movement leaders could conduct together one of the most remarkable mass struggles since the anti-Security Pact protests. However, it is doubtful whether the mass fully accepted the explanation that Korea-Japan Treaty was related with the military alliance. From other aspects, on criticizing the Treaty, while the movement leaders provided the logic that the Treaty was caused by Japanese contempt or indifference about Koreans, it is also hard to judge the logic was influential to the mass. The Japan Socialist Party.the National Commission of Trade Unions and the Japan Communist Party had rival opinions on international situation and prospect of the peace movement. Their difference influenced the movement against the Korea-Japan Treaty. They united the protest against Vietnam War and economical struggles with the movement against the Treaty in order to mobilize the Japanese mass who were not aware of the importance of the matter. But that kind of struggle couldn't penetrate the essence of the movement. The Korean organizations in Japan, especially Korean, though it represented North Korea, worked to enlighten Japanese on the matter of compensation for the colonial rule and Korean's legal status in Japan. It used the indirect ways such as PR, statement and assembly not to provoke public opinion. The Japan-Korea Association and the Japan-Korea Institute criticized the Korea-Japan Treaty in context of promoting Korea-Japan Friendship. In particular they took notice on the Japanese view of Korea(ns), criticizing the movement against the Treaty itself. They concluded, in the process of the protests, that Japanese needed thorough criticism about colonialism or imperialism permeated into them. Japanese students and intellectuals could not develop active protests against the Korea-Japan Treaty while they struggled impressively in the anti-Security Treaty protests. It formed a striking contrast to struggles in Kroea during that time. The statement issued by intellectuals was only a declaration of conscience but it showed that Japan was responsible for the colonial rule of Korea.

한국에서의 한일회담반대운동의 전개 : 1964~65년을 중심으로 Japan Treaty in ROK, 1964-65

요시자와 후미토시吉澤文壽 中韓人文科學硏究會 2001 한중인문학연구 Vol.6 No.-

く妙緯國における韓含談反對證動の展開腦1990年を中心として本稿は1951年から1965年まで行われた日韓團交正常化法(日韓含談)に對する反對溪動につぃて論ずるものである. 6·3證動,と呼ばれる韓國のH韓含談反對濯動(以下反濯き)は韓國の民主化理動r)程として,重要な麗史的意味を持ってぃる.しかし,本稿では日韓含談の交驅i=おぃて,この對)意味を考索することにカ默を置きたぃ.また,反對動がとのような人』によって擔われたのか,また彼らが日龍倉談をとのように認.識して行動したのか,さらに彼らの行動が日韓含談にのような影響を與えたのかとぃう問題につぃても考を試みた.まf,先行究の整理をして明らかになった默を上げてみると,ひとつは日辯倉談反對動が「失敗した」ガとして認識されてぃるとぃうことである.そして,もう-つは濯動の目的を果たせなかったとぃう意味におぃて「失敗」したにもかかわらず,反濯動の麗史的證義が張調されてぃるということである.これしの辨究成果をJ.まえて,新たな'方向を見いだそうとするとき,日薄倉談の行と反對動の展開との關係とぃ「報互作用」の誤默を入するとともに,反野濯動が主張した約容や護動主體の變證を時期約に縱密に位 置づけてぃくとぃう作業が必要である.次に,韓顯における韓含談反對動の展關につぃて整理することにする.まず,If端年3月から學生び野を主體とした,大規模で本格約な反對濯動が辰開された.主張は日辯念談における問題默を指摘するものであり,政府も一日韓含談を中斷凉態にして反對濯動の動きに注意を向けざるを得なくなった.その後,とりわけ5月中旬から再び反對濯動が化しつつ高揚するのであるが,主體は學生に限定されてしまったのであi),3月のよiな大規模なデモを展開することもできなかった.それでも,にをると學生を主體とするデ=をに多くの-般市民が參與するなど,反對濯動が本格的な反政府涯動へと變化したこの段で,政滯は戒嚴令を發令し,軍際による鎭壓をはかったのであるが,このぃわ☞る「6·3事態」によって,日韓含談は亮に中斷したのであり,その意味で19脚早の反對經動が觀據含談に與ズ_た浪治的な影辯力は讀かったといぇょうしかし,19ら5年の反對濯動は,雜國政府がR轉基本條納,讀求權び經濟協力,流業,a納地位據定の假調印を實現した後で,その無勤を主張するとぃiかたちで展開された學生によるデモは4月に最術のピ-クえ,5月からはむしろ野が民衆に結集しっっ,多くの市民をに動員して,羅韓含談反對の世論を高めてぃった.また,調印後の批准反對間爭は野學塗のみならず,各界の人士がB韓條約に對する賃否を表明するとぃうなかで展開されてぃったこの時期に泥國守護麗民協議含なとの新組織が結成されたりしたものの,民衆の分裂,學生動の不調などにより,批株反烈び批准無劫の世論がが的に有動なフ7クタ-になり得ず,奎りしてしまった.それは裏を涯せば,この年f)韓麗政府および與の共和が警力を動えして,野の院外活動や學生デtをを嚴しく押さえつけることに歲功したとぃうことであるそして,彼らは院約でも野に付け入るすきを與えず,思惑どおりにB韓條約を調印,批准する1·=至ったのであるこのように,雜國における踐韓含談反封濯動は19梨年の場合,單 純に反政府踐動にエスカレ-トしてぃく性格の護動ではなく,1965年の場合も日韓條約の調印組止も,批准阻止無勤化も實現できなかったが,多據な涯動組織や行動·主張を約するものであった續いて日據含讀の屬關程における反對濯動の史的位置を考するために,その組織び主張を檢討する.まず,組織から見ると,19梨年の場合野の』屈辱外交反對汎民關爭委え倉(關委)がいち早く結成され,續いて各大學に「雜R辱外表開爭委員含」が結成されてぃった.そして,「6·3事態」にぃたるまで.警索による度重なる彈壓にもかかわらず,各大學における組纖の證含體としての統一的な組織が引き續き結成されるとぃiかたちで,反對證動を高めてぃくことができた1963年にを'って,野は民衆を結成するが.共和による韓日條約批准例意素の鑛行提出以後,約の議論は議員總辨職論と解體論にニ分された.その結果,民衆はその活躍の時機を失つてしまった.一方學生も條約調印以後B雜條約批准阻止を擺げて,大學ごとに4な動を展開した.これらの動きは各界からの代表とともに,禮靈守護民協議含の結凉とぃうかたちに結實したしかしながら,鉛的に見て,この年の反對濯動は各組織,各大學の間で充分な要繫がとられなぃまま,散發的に屬開されたとぃえよi次に,R帶倉談の論默にする主張を韓國政府のそれと比較して檢討した.その結果,反新要動の主張は斷帶條約締結の背景をほぼ正確に把握し,基本て約の解釋における日本政時と薄國政庶の食いいを指摘するな』,相當の錢さをもってぃた.しかし,經濟協力資金の少額さや李ラインの存續を主張する默は李承晩政權期における辯國政府の主張にもシじるところがある.また,日本の反對證動の主張,し比較すると,和要動として麗開された日本の反對溪動に比べて,聲圍の反對動は原則的に對B國表躍復の必要性を認めつつも,韓國(ひぃては期群ギ島き體)の利臺をボした民族主義濯動としての惟格が色濃く現れてぃるとぃえよう.1960年月以來,最大規模の示威を展開した韓國における反對 動であったが,結果的に彼らの主張は韓條約の的容にして,ほとんと影辯を與えなかった.その理齒はぃくつか考えられるが,そf)最大の要因は韓國政府が國的において1961年3J3まで疇轉含談の約容をほとんと公關しなぃとぃう稱臺主義を堅持したこと,そして,何よりを釋國政府が長對證動を麥辯力や單事力で封殺したことである.對話の土壞のなぃところでは「雲協」な』とうてぃ見いだせる餘地はなかった.つまり,日韓媒約の約容は雜置政滯と與が漏』したのであり,それはすなわち反對濯動側には對決の姿勞を,物言わぬ-般大衆に郵しては聲票の姿勢を貫いた朴政の觀韓置交正常化に對する意志であった

한국에서의 한일회담반대운동의 전개 : 1964~65년을 중심으로

요시자와 후미토시 중한인문과학연구회 2001 국제학술대회 Vol.- No.6

한국에서의 한일회담반대운동의 전개 ―1964∼65년을 중심으로―

요시자와 후미토시 한중인문학회 2001 한중인문학연구 Vol.6 No.-

제강 슬래그를 이용한 숲길의 시험 포장 적용 사례

요시자와 치아키,타나베 카즈야스,마키하라 노부유키,Yoshizawa, Chiaki,Tanabe, Kazuyasu,Makihira, Nobuyuki 한국건설순환자원학회 2014 한국건설순환자원학회지 Vol.9 No.2

샌프란시스코 강화조약과 ‘전후 한일관계’의 원점 - ‘1965년 체제’를 둘러싼 고찰 -

요시자와 후미토시(吉澤文?) 동북아역사재단 2021 영토해양연구 Vol.22 No.-

이 글은 샌프란시스코 강화조약의 의의를 다시 묻기 위해 1965년에 체결된 한일기본조약 및 제 협정에 의해 질서가 만들어진 한일관계를 ‘1965년 체제’라고 부르며, 이 체제의 성격을 역사적으로 밝혔다. 그것은 다음의 다섯 가지로 정리할 수 있다. 첫째, 연합국은 극동국제군사재판에서도, 샌프란시스코 강회회의에서도 일본의 식민지 지배 책임을 묻지 않았다. 샌프란시스코 강화조약은 많은 아시아의 전쟁 당사국 및 구 식민지 국가를 배제하고 체결된 것이며, 식민주의적이었다. 둘째, 샌프란시스코 강화회의 이후 시작된 한일 국교정상화 교섭의 결과로 실현한 1965년의 한일 국교정상화는 식민지 지배에 대한 사죄도 보상도 없는 ‘1965년 체제’의 원점이 되었다. 특히 청구권 협상에서 일본측은 식민지 지배가 국제법상 합법적으로 이루어졌고 조선의 발전에 기여했다고 생각하며, 남측에 청구권을 포기시키고 경제협력을 실시하는 것으로 해결하도록 논의를 유도했다. 셋째, 1990년대부터 일본 정부는 ‘1965년 체제’의 틀을 유지하기 위한 시도로 식민지 지배를 합법으로 하면서도, 조선인들에게 피해가 초래된 것을 인정하는 ‘합법·부당론’의 입장을 밝혔다. 일본 정부는1 993년에 고노 담화, 1995년에 무라야마 담화를 발표하고, 같은 해 아시아여성기금을 설립했다. 1998년 한일 파트너십 선언은 그 시책을 바탕으로 한일 양국의 우호협력 관계를 재확인한 것이다. 또한, 북일 국교정상화 교섭도 시작되어 2002년에 북일 평양선언이 발표되었다. 넷째, ‘1965년 체제’에 저항하는 피해자와 그 지원자에 의한 식민지 지배 책임 추궁의 운동은 “일본의 국가권력이 관여한 반인도적 불법 행위나 식민지배와 직결된 불법 행위에 의한 손해배상청구권’을 인정한20 18년 10월 30일 한국 대법원 판결을 마침내 쟁취하기에 이르렀다. 이 판결은 결코 한국의 ‘반일’민족주의의 결과가 아니다. 한편, 일본에서는 제2차 아베 정권이후 식민지 지배 인식을 ‘합법·부당’에서 ‘합법·정당’으로 후퇴시켰다. 다섯째, 냉전 논리가 포함된 식민주의 체제로의1 9‘65년 체제’는 탈냉전과 탈식민지화가 진행될수록 붕괴할 것이다. 2001년 더반회의 이후 식민지 지배를 둘러싼 역사인식은 글로벌적으로 되물어지고 있다. 일본이 식민지 지배 책임을 진심으로 해결하려 한다면 조선의 평화체제 구축과정에 참여하는 기회가 도래할 수 있다. In this paper, to reexamine the significance of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the Japan-Korea relations ordered by the Japan-ROK Basic Treaty and supplemental agreements concluded in 1965 are called the “1965 system,” and the nature of this system is revealed historically. It is summarized in the following five points. First, until the San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed, Japan’s responsibility for colonial rule, including the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, was not held. The treaty was colonial, with the exclusion of many Asian war parties and former colonial nations. Second, the normalization of diplomatic relations between Japan and South Korea, which was realized as a consequence of the negotiations for normalization of diplomatic relations between Japan and South Korea that began after the San Francisco Peace Conference, became the origin of the “1965 system” without apology and compensation for colonial rule. Especially in the claim committees, the Japanese side thinks that colonial rule was legally carried out under international law and contributed to the development of Korea. Therefore, Japan induced the ROK side get to waive the claim and receive economic cooperation to resolve it. Third, since the 1990s, the Japanese government has tried to maintain the framework of the “1965 system” by admitting that it has caused damage to Koreans nevertheless not changing their thought colonial rule was legal. Japan considered the colonial rule as “legal but improper”. The Government of Japan announced the Kono Statement in 1993 and the Murayama Statement in 1995 and established the Asian Women’s Fund in the same year. The 1998 Japan-ROK Joint Declaration reaffirms the friendly and cooperative relationship between Japan and South Korea based on these measures. In addition, negotiations to normalize diplomatic relations between Japan and North Korea have begun, and the Japan-DPRK Pyongyang Declaration was announced in 2002. Fourth, the movement to resist the “1965 regime,” victims and their supporters pursued the responsibility for colonial rule. Finally, they won the decision of the Korean Supreme Court on October 30, 2018, which recognized “the right to claim damages by anti-humanitarian torts involving Japanese national power and torts directly linked to colonial rule”. This decision never means the result of South Korea’s “anti-Japanese” nationalism. On the other hand, in Japan, after the second Abe administration, the perception of colonial rule was reverted from “legal but improper” to “legal and proper”.

식민지 지배 책임과 조선인 피폭자

요시자와 후미토시 민족문학사연구소 2023 민족문학사연구 Vol.82 No.-