세계철학사에 대하여 - 이토 구니타케/야마우치 시로/나카지마 다카히로/노토미 노부루 책임 편집, 『세계철학사』, 이신철 옮김, 도서출판 b, 2023.

이신철 뉴 래디컬 리뷰 2023 뉴 래디컬 리뷰 Vol.3 No.2

한일 역사갈등 극복을 위한 국가 간 역사대화의 성과와 한계 - 한일역사공동연구위원회 활동을 중심으로 -

이신철 동북아역사재단 2009 東北亞歷史論叢 Vol.- No.25

This writing is the analysis of historical dialogue between Korea and Japan which has been started from the historical distortion of Japanese textbook in 1982, especially focused on “dialogues”of both nations governmental dimension. The historical dialogue of both nations governmental dimension passed by a lot of trial and error and continued to composition of Korea-Japan joint history reach committee in 2002. It published the thesis as form of report about result for 3 years, and second activities has started in 2007. Especially it’s correct that second activities made historical dialogue of both nations to be great forward in that it started treat the textbook problem between Korean & Japan though the various political consideration of both nations. It has been taken long time to establish the actual joint research institution between both nations indeed. Although founding of joint research organization between both nations leaders was greed in November 1995, there is nothing to go through all the complications. The history recognition difference between both nations between was big that much. Even so, it was possible because it goes through the founding of Korea-Japan culture exchange fund, Korean-Japanese forum which is configured with politician, the enterpriser, journalist, scholar of Korea and Japan, Korean-Japanese historians conference which is composed with Korean-Japanese historians, the textbook amendment discussion of practical level through fringe organization. Meantime, the both nations succeeded to found the Korean- Japanese joint research organization, but still are having the difference of the recognition. The Korea side is standpoint that hope to grope the plan to reflect the research result to the textbook but the Japan side is standpoint that the nonofficial research must be exist as itself. In other wards, the nation will not be able to intervene to the contents of the official approval textbook. The report of joint research commission reveal of thlimit that the members of the both nations cannot escape ect tnationalism or retriotism, and shown contents of important historical iss is standpothe both nations. And it displayed well how much big difference between shownother isplhe research resinterpretation of the both nations to advancs ofto the common recognition. Such problems havenition.conqo ring sympathy expansion and long tethethrough the electof thrnoess of the study commissioneth natopening to the phistce bothsearch f the bothnt t .ethrough sThtematic security of continuous joint research. It’s necessary to pay attention in point that it will be able to forecast already the solution possibility of the opposition and discord between the both nations with the experiences of historical conversation between the civic societies of both nations. The possibility like that was proven from historical conversation experience of Europe. It finally will be the way of to reveal a method to pile up mutual trust and difference and find a community. The success and failure of historical conversation between the both nations as Korean-Japanese governmental depend on how could apply that possibility in joint research well. 이 글은 1982년 일본 교과서의 역사왜곡이 발단이 되어 시작된 한국과 일본의 역사대화, 그 중에서도 특히 국가차원의 ‘대화’에 초점을 두고 분석한 것이다. 양국 국가차원의 역사대화는 그동안 많은 시행착오를 거치면서 2002년 한일역사공동연구위원회의 구성으로까지 이어졌다. 2005년에는 3년간의 성과를 보고서 형태의 논문집으로 내놓았고, 2007년에는 제2기 활동이 시작되었다. 특히 2기 활동은 양국의 이러저러한 정치적 고려에도 불구하고 한일 간에 교과서 문제를 다루기 시작했다는 점에서 양국 간 역사대화를 진일보 시킨 것이 틀림없다. 양국 간에 실질적인 공동연구기구가 설립되기까지는 실로 오랜 기간이 필요했다. 1995년 11월 양국 정상 간에 공동연구기구의 설립이 최초로 합의되었음에도 온갖 우여곡절을 겪을 수밖에 없었다. 양국 간의 역사인식 차이가 그만큼 컸던 것이다. 그나마 한일문화교류기금의 설립, 한일 정치가·기업가·언론인·학자 등으로 구성된 한일포럼, 한일의 역사가들로 구성된 한일역사가회의, 외곽기구를 통한 실무차원의 교과서 수정협의 등의 경험을 거쳤기 때문에 가능한 일이었다. 한편, 양국은 한일공동연구기구의 설립에는 성공했지만, 여전한 인식의 차이를 가지고 있다. 한국 측은 위원회의 연구결과를 교과서에 반영할 수 있는 방안을 모색하자는 입장인 반면, 일본 측은 민간의 연구는 연구 그 자체로 존재해야 한다는 입장이다. 국가가 검정 교과서의 내용에 개입할 수 없다는 입장인 것이다. 공동연구위원회의 보고서는 양국의 구성원들이 국가주의나 애국주의에서 벗어나지 못하고 있다는 한계를 드러내었고, 양국 간 주요 역사쟁점의 내용을 보여주었다. 그리고 양국의 역사해석이 공통의 인식으로 나아가기 위해서 좁혀야 할 서로의 인식 차이가 얼마나 큰 지도 잘 보여주었다. 이 같은 문제들은 연구위원의 선임과정과 연구활동의 공개 등을 통한 공감대 확장과 장기지속적인 공동연구의 제도적 보장 등을 통해 극복해 나갈 필요가 있다. 양국 간 대립과 갈등은 이미 양국 시민사회 간 역사대화의 경험들에서 그 해소 가능성을 엿볼 수 있다는 점에 주목할 필요가 있다. 유럽의 역사대화 경험에서도 그러한 가능성은 증명되었다. 그것은 결국 상호 신뢰를 쌓을 수 있는 방법과 차이를 드러내면서도 공통성을 찾아가는 일이 될 것이다. 한일 양국 정부 간 역사대화의 성패는 그러한 가능성을 공동연구에 얼마나 잘 적용시켜 나가는가에 달려 있다.

남북정상회담의 前史 ― 남북협상과 1950년대 통일논의 ―

이신철 수선사학회 2008 史林 Vol.0 No.30

At a time when the South-North negotiations mark its 60th anniversary, a new evaluation has a very important meaning academically and in reality. First, the negotiations were part of the efforts to build a modern nation state. It was a test of whether the developments of modernization - since Korea was forced to join the global system of modern capitalism by Japan - could lead to building a nation state. Second, the inter-Korean negotiations tried to achieve an independent modern nation. The 35 years of the Japanese colonial rule turned many Koreans into traitors. There was also a doubt whether the interim government and independence movement activists could establish a new nation. Moreover, the doubt was strong as the 1945 independence was achieved by outside power rather than by Korean themselves. In that sense, the negotiations were a test bed for whether to overcome such historical limits. Third, the negotiations were a peaceful movement to build a nation. At the time, many Koreans in South and North felt the threat of a potential war. They worried that the establishment of the two governments would immediately lead to the outbreak of civil war. Nationalists, who were against the war, called for and joined inter-Korean negotiations to prevent it. Fourth, although there were limitations, socialists and nationalists reached an agreement. The agreement was not enough for a new nation's system. Still, it was meaningful in that it gave them the possibilities of seeking specific ways. Such historic achievement of the negotiations was reconfirmed in the 2000 inter-Korean Summit. In that sense, the negotiations take the position as pre-history of the summit. However, despite such historic significance, the negotiations had limitations as well. First, negotiations with the forces led by Lee Seung-Man who independently sought the establishment of a government were not considered. It was a matter of strategy for socialists, but there were some problems with nationalists. Second, the participants of the negotiations saw the process of the establishment of the Republic of Korea completely as an anti-national act. It shows nationalists understood the establishment of a nation as a higher value than its system. Their attitude eventually led to shut themselves off from the cause of involving in the establishment process. At a time when the South-North negotiations mark its 60th anniversary, a new evaluation has a very important meaning academically and in reality. First, the negotiations were part of the efforts to build a modern nation state. It was a test of whether the developments of modernization - since Korea was forced to join the global system of modern capitalism by Japan - could lead to building a nation state. Second, the inter-Korean negotiations tried to achieve an independent modern nation. The 35 years of the Japanese colonial rule turned many Koreans into traitors. There was also a doubt whether the interim government and independence movement activists could establish a new nation. Moreover, the doubt was strong as the 1945 independence was achieved by outside power rather than by Korean themselves. In that sense, the negotiations were a test bed for whether to overcome such historical limits. Third, the negotiations were a peaceful movement to build a nation. At the time, many Koreans in South and North felt the threat of a potential war. They worried that the establishment of the two governments would immediately lead to the outbreak of civil war. Nationalists, who were against the war, called for and joined inter-Korean negotiations to prevent it. Fourth, although there were limitations, socialists and nationalists reached an agreement. The agreement was not enough for a new nation's system. Still, it was meaningful in that it gave them the possibilities of seeking specific ways. Such historic achievement of the negotiations was reconfirmed in the 2000 inter-Korean Summit. In that sense, the negotiations take the position as pre-history of the summit. However, despite such historic significance, the negotiations had limitations as well. First, negotiations with the forces led by Lee Seung-Man who independently sought the establishment of a government were not considered. It was a matter of strategy for socialists, but there were some problems with nationalists. Second, the participants of the negotiations saw the process of the establishment of the Republic of Korea completely as an anti-national act. It shows nationalists understood the establishment of a nation as a higher value than its system. Their attitude eventually led to shut themselves off from the cause of involving in the establishment process.

전후 식민청산 결여와 재일조선인의 미해방

이신철 한국근현대사학회 2018 한국 근현대사 연구 Vol.85 No.-

This article explores how Koreans in Japan, who were temporarily considered ‘liberated people’ by the U.S. government after Japan’s defeat in the World War II, were legally categorized as stateless foreign persons. The status of Korean residents in Japan was not only stipulated by the Japan’s policy to exclude Koreans but also due to the absence of the Allied Powers’ accusation of Japan’s colonial occupation in the post-war context. Additionally, this article addresses the Soviet Union’s attitude for post-war settlement was not so much different from that of the Allied Powers. However, in a exceptional case, the North Korean authority, which obtained a certain autonomy north of the 38th parallel, arrested and sentenced Japanese officials to prison for colonial occupation. The Japanese government’s demand for their return was passed to the Soviet Union through the U.S. military, and the Japanese were eventually released. This affected the way in which North Korea was unable to ‘clean up’ Japan’s colonial rule. After all, North Korea neither recognized Koreans in Japan as victims of Japan’s colonialism nor ‘nation’ of a liberated country. Instead, the North Korean government encourage Koreans in Japan to involve in socialist revolution in Japan. Consequently, although South and North Koreas gained sovereign powers to control the repatriation of Koreans in Japan, the two countries fell into a spiral of war. Korean residents in Japan were recognized as means of protecting their national security. In this context, Koreans in Japan had to become foreign stateless persons and have remained victims of, what I call, ‘cold war-colonialism’ until now. 이 글은 일본의 패전 이후 미국에 의해 일시적이나마 ‘해방민족’으로 호명되었던 재일조선인들이, 해방민족으로서 아무런 권리도 가지지 못한 채 국적 없는 외국인으로 지위가 규정되는 배경에 관한 것이다. 재일조선인의 지위가 단순히 일본의 조선인 배제 정책만으로 규정되었다기보다, 전승국 중심의 전후처리에서 식민지배에 대한 사과나 식민주의 청산이 결여된 것이 더욱 중요한 요인이 되었음을 말하고자 한다. 나아가 사회주의 소련의 식민주의 청산 인식 또한 연합국의 그것과 크게 다르지 않았음을 살펴본다. 한편, 예외적으로 38선 이북에서 일정한 자치권을 확보한 북조선 당국이 일본인 관료들을 식민지배의 책임을 물어 체포하고 징역형을 선고한 것은 놀랄만한 일이었다. 그러나 그들을 귀환시키라는 일본 정부의 요구가 미군정을 통해 소련군에게 전달되었고, 일본인들은 석방되었다. 결국 북조선에서도 식민주의 청산은 그렇게중단되었고, 그들 역시 재일조선인을 식민주의의 피해자이자, 새로운 국가의 ‘국민’ 으로 자각하는 데까지 나아가지 못했다. 오히려 재일조선인들에게 일본 혁명에 종사할 것을 당부하는 길을 택하고 말았다. 남북 모두에서 재일조선인의 귀환을 협상할 수 있는 정부가 수립되었지만, 두 국가는 전쟁의 소용돌이에 빠져들었다. 재일조선인은 안보를 지탱하는 보조적 수단으로만 인식되었다. 재일조선인은 결국 일본의 국적 없는 외국인이라는 지위를 강요받았고, 현재까지 냉전식민주의의 피해자로 남게 되었다.

일본의 우경화 노선 강화와 한일 역사논쟁-아베 정권을 중심으로

이신철 한국근현대사학회 2007 한국 근현대사 연구 Vol.40 No.-

대퇴 근막이 포함된 전외측대퇴피판을 이용한 다양한 연부조직 결손의 재건

이신철,은석찬,백롱민 대한성형외과학회 2011 Archives of Plastic Surgery Vol.38 No.5

Purpose: The anterolateral thigh flap is versatile flap for soft-tissue reconstruction for defects located at various sites of the body. This useful flap offers a thick and vascular fascia lata component with large amounts that can be soft tissue coverage for different reconstructive purposes. We present our clinical experience with the use of vascular fascia lata, combined with anterolateral thigh flap for various reconstructive goals. Methods: From April 2008 to February 2011, we transferred anterolateral thigh flaps with fascia lata component to reconstruct soft-tissue defects for different purposes in 11 patients. The fascia lata component of the flap was used for tendon gliding surface in hand/forearm reconstruction in 4 patients, for reconstruction medial and lateral patellar synovial membrane and retinaculum in 2 patients, for reconstruction of plantar aponeurosis in the foot in 2patients, for reconstruction of fascial and peritoneal defect in the abdominal wall in 2 patient, and for dural defect reconstruction in the scalp in the remaining one. Results: Complete loss of the flap was not seen in all cases. Partial flap necrosis occurred in 2 patients. These complications were treated successfully with minimal surgical debridement and dressing. Infection occurred in 1patient. In this case, intravenous antibiotics treatment was effective. Conclusion: Anterolateral thigh flap has thick vascular fascia with large amounts. This fascial component of the flap is useful for different reconstructive aims, such as for tendon, ligament, aponeurosis defects, abdominal wall or dura reconstruction. It should be considerated as an important advantage of the flap, together with other wellknown advantages.

History Textbook Dialogue in Northeast Asia and the European Experience: <i> From the Transferring of Experience to Mutual Exchange </i>

이신철 한국학중앙연구원 한국학중앙연구원 2015 Korea Journal Vol.55 No.2

This paper analyzes how textbook dialogues are carried out between countries that have experienced colonialism (as either imperial power or colony) or have been a victim or an assailant in a war. In particular, it examines how the European experience was accepted in the Northeast Asian history textbook dialogue over the last 20 years and what the limitations of this acceptance have been. The Northeast Asian textbook dialogue has been reached as a post-war settlement of imperialism and an historical awareness of mutual respect. Post-war issues were clearly settled in the Germany- France, Germany-Poland textbook dialogue but most European countries have not initiated textbook dialogues with their former colonies. This paper argues that it is a significant achievement that Korea, a former colony, has established a new type of textbook dialogue for settling issues of colonialism while at the same time embracing the achievements of the European textbook dialogues. Further, this paper suggests that such experiences in Northeast Asia could contribute to efforts in Europe.

Korea-China-Japan Historical Disputes: Structure and Alternatives

이신철 한국학중앙연구원 한국학중앙연구원 2007 Korea Journal Vol.47 No.4

In this paper, the author reviews commonalities and differences in thedistortions of history by Japan and China and also analyzes the politi-cal implications and structure, ultimately to show how the process canbe linked with bringing peace to Northeast Asia. Based on this analy-sis, solutions are sought to address the disputes over history betweenKorea, China, and Japan. In the long term, the historical debates can be addressed by estab-lishing common historical perception based on academic research. Thisis possible when causes for debates such as the Sino-Japanese strugglefor hegemony and the Gando issue raised by Korea are eliminated.Another premise is Japanese reflection on its modern history of aggres-sion. What matters is to put words into action by calling on Japan toreflect upon the history of aggression in an effort to broaden commonhistorical understanding among the three countries civil societies andjointly defending the Japanese pacifist constitution as a universalvalue. When those issues are resolved, the sharing of East Asian historycan realize its true significance of peaceful coexistence.

제1차 남북협상후 남한 정치세력들의 조선민주주의인민공화국 수립 참여과정

이신철 成均館大學校 史學會 1997 成大史林 Vol.12-13 No.-

‘새역모’와 ‘교과서포럼’이 꿈꾸는 세상

이신철 새얼문화재단 2007 황해문화 Vol.54 No.-