외국의 도서선점에 대한 일본의 승인과정과 그 논리

한철호(Han, Cheol-ho) 고려사학회 2011 한국사학보 Vol.- No.45

Kokusaihosenreiishu(Collection of International Law Precedents, CILP) 2, published by the Bureau of Treaty, Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, described the recognition and logic of Japanese government on 7 cases of occupation of islands in foreign countries. By looking into the recognition process and logic of Japanese government on these seven cases, this paper attempts to get clues for finding desirable solutions for Dokdo question. First, regarding dispute over Clipperton Island between France and Mexico, Japanese government reserved its recognition under the judgement that it would take a pretty long time for Mexico to finish the approval precess, even though Mexico accepted in March 1909 the arbitration made by Italian Emperor that gave France the title of the island. And Japan understood that Mexico consented the arbitration court for the strategic purpose of reapplying the case to the title of Chamizal, on which Mexico is disputing with the United States. Second, though Japanese people were engaged in business in Midway Island and Wake Island, Japan renounced its territorial claims on those islands and strived to secure vested interests of Japanese people Japanese people when the United States took a firm stand. This measure of Japanese government looks similar to Pratas Islands case, but contrasts with the cases of Diaoyudao Islands(Uotsurijima) and Dokdo. The mutual concession of the United States and Japan on these islands and Minamitorisima reveals the process of territorial expansion by imperialistic countries. Third, Japan attempted to incorporate Pratas Islands under the principle of occupation of terra nullius but failed due to strong opposition from China and tried to protect the property rights of Japanese people. This policy of "first economic activity, then territorial incorporation" was the typical measure of terra nullius and applied to Diaoyudao Islands and Dokdo. The fact that CILP conceals and distorts the facts unfavorable to Japan reveals that the purpose of its publication was to justify the wrongful occupation of terra nullius. Fourth, Jan Mayen Island remained an uninhabited island after it was discovered by a Hollander. But Japan recognized Norwegian dominium on the island when Norway proclaimed dominium on the island, to which no country raised an objection. Compared with Dokdo, this case is similar in the sense that the principle of terra nullius preceded historical origin. The fundamental difference is that Japan justified its occupation one-sidedly under the pretext of no objection from foreign countries without officially notifying its dominium to related countries. Fifth, Japan used prudence and caution in recognizing Norwegian dominium on Bouvet Island, on which there was dispute between England and Norway. Later Japan knew that England decided to yield the island for the promotion of friendship. But Japan recognized 4 months after the notice of Norwegian dominium on this island. This England case can be an important example in settling the Dokdo case. Sixth, Japan looked into the ground of Norwegian claim of the dominium on Peter I Island in details and recognized it with the final judgement that recognition would be benefitial to Japan. In making its final decision, Japan attached great importance to occupation of terra nullius, effective administration, and the recognition of other countries rather than the theory of inherent territory. Compared with Japan"s position on Dokdo, this case has both common and different points. Seventh, when Denmark claimed dominium on Greenland in May 1920, Japa looked into the views of other countires and reported its recognition conforming to the announcement of the United States. When Denmark entered a lawsuit against Norwegian claim of dominium at the International Court of Justice, Japan withheld its final response to any of the disputing countries under the pretext of a very "delicate" ma

연구논문 : 일본의 동해 침투와 죽변지역 일본인 살해사건

한철호 ( Cheol Ho Han ) 동국사학회 2013 동국사학 Vol.54 No.-

경상북도 울진군의 죽변은 울릉도에서 가장 가까운 거리에 위치했으며, 동해안의 중요한 良港이자 어류도 풍부한 어장이었다. 이러한 지리적·자연적 조건 때문에 죽변은 개항 후에도 일본의 침투 근거지로 손꼽혀왔다. 이에 조선인은 일본 어민과 충돌하면서 저항하였다. 이에 본고는 아관파천 전후 최대의 일본인 살해사건임에도 잘 알려지지 않은 1896년 3월 죽변사건의 배경과 과정, 그리고 그 의의를 살펴보았다. 일본은 개항 직후인 1878년부터 동해에서 개항장 후보지를 물색하기 위해 측량을 실시하였다. 그 과정에서 1880년 5월 아마기호가 죽변을 최초로 조사하였다. 이 보고서의 내용은 『환영수로지』와『조선수로지』에 실렸고, 「죽변만약측도」도 발간되었다. 1899년 9월 마야호는 울릉도를 조사한 뒤 울릉도에서 가장 가까운 곳이 바로 죽변이라고 정확하게 파악하였다. 이러한 사실은 1905년 2월 일본의 독도 강점 당시, 기모쓰키에 의해 무주지선점의 근거들 중 하나로 악용되었다. 1880년 원산 개항 후도 서일본 지방에서 동해까지 거리는 너무 멀어 소형선으로 조업하기가 곤란했고, 동해에 적당한 항구가 적다고 알려져 있었다. 그러나 1890년대에 들어 죽변이 큰배를 정박할 수 있는 항만이며 어류가 풍부하다는 사실이 점차 퍼지면서 일본어민이 본격적으로 침투하기 시작하였다. 그 과정에서 생계를 위협받은 죽변인의 반일감정이 고조되었다. 아관파천 전후 전국에서 반일운동이 극렬하게 전개되는 상황에서 강원도에서도 1895년12월부터 강릉의병이 봉기하였다. 1896년 3월2일 강릉의병이 원산으로 떠난 직후인 3월 13일 강릉의병과 합세한 죽변인이 일본어민24명을 습격해 15명을 살해한 죽변사건이 일어났다. 죽변사건의 전말을 전해들은 일본은 군함을 급히 파견해 조사하였다. 죽변사건은 강릉의병이 원산으로 진격하는 과정에서 일본군의 전력 배치에 혼선을 야기했던 것이다. 일본은 조선에 죽변사건을 포함해 일본인의 피살 등을 강력하게 항의하였다. 그러나 조선의 민비살해사건의 심문 및 추궁 등 난관에 봉착한 일본은 5월 30일 일본인 62명의 인명피해 배상금을 지불할 것 등을 요구하였다. 여기에는 죽변사건의 피살자와 부상자가 포함되었다. 그러나 1897년 7월 말 재산상의 손해배상금을 조선에 초가로 요청했을 때 죽변사건의 피해액은 포함되지 않았다. 이는 배상금을 최소한으로 요구한다는 방침에 따라 인명피해가 가장 컸던 죽변사건이 제외되었던 것으로 여겨진다. 그러나 한국정부는 아무런 답변을 주지 않았다. 일본도 민비살해사건이 발목을 잡은 탓인지 선뜻 나서지 못하였다. 1901년 12월 일본은 죽변사건의 피살자 가족이 보내온 당시의 사진 3장을 제시하면서 배상금문제를 조속히 타결하자고 독촉했지만, 아무런 성과를 거둘 수 없었다. 따라서 일본은 손해 배상건을 한국정부의 책임 문제로 교섭하기보다 고종의 단독 의사에 호소하는 방식을 추진하였다. 러일전쟁의 전운이 감돌았던 1905년 1월 일본은 고종에게 정부 재정 혹은 내탕금에서 지불해달라고 요구해 도의를 얻어냈다. 그 결과 1월 30일 고종이 내탕금 18만여 원을 지불한다는 조서를 반포함으로써 죽변사건을 포함한 손해배상 문제는 9년만에 비로소 타결되었다. 그 과정에서 죽변사건은 일본이 한국을 초궁하는 데 중요한 근거로 활용되었다. Jukbyeon, an affluent port at Uljin County, North Gyeongsang Province, in the East Sea coast is the closest point to Ulleungdo. The natural and geographic features made this port counted as a main infiltration point for Japanese people after the opening of ports. But conflict occurred between Chosun people and Japanese fishermen. This article looks into the cause, process, and meanings of Jukbyeon Incident of March 1896, which is not widely known in spite of its importance. Japanese government surveyed the East Sea coast searching for a proper port for opening from 1878. The Ship Amagi made a first survey of Jukbyeon in May1880. The survey report was carried in Hwanyeoong-suroje and Chosun-suroji, and Jukbyeonman-yakcheukdo was also published. The Ship Maya recognized Jukbyeon as the closest point to Ulleungdo after surveying the island. Kimotsuki made an ill use of it in justifying terra nullius argument when Japan susrped Dokdo in February 1905. Even after the opening of Wonsan, it was hard for small ships to make a long voyage from West Japan to the East Sea coast. It was known in 1890s that big ships can anchor at Jukbyeon port and that fisheries are affluent. Then Janpanese fishermen began to infiltrate into the area. This infiltration aggravated the life of Jukbyeon people and their anti-Japanese feelings increased. When anti-Japanese movement was spreading throughout the country around the Korea Royal Refuge at the Russian Legation, righteous army rose up at Gangneung in Gangwon Province in late 1895. On March 13, 1896, the people at Jukbyeon in alliance with Gangneung righteous army attacked 24 Japanese fishermen, killing 15 of them. Japanese government dispatched a warship for the investigation of the incident. This incident caused a confusion in the deployment of Japanese forces against the Gangneung righteous army moving toward Wonsan. Japanese government lodged a strong protest against the incident. But facing the pressing demand for the account about the slaying of Empress Min, Japan claimed damages for 52 Japanese victims. The damages included those for the Japanese who were killed and wounded at the Jukbyeon Incident. When Japan claimed additional property damages in July 1897, however, the damages for Jukbyeon Incident were not included. It seems that this incident was excluded following the policy of minimizing the amount of claims. But Korean government did not respond to the demand. Thus Japanese government changed its plan by asking for Emperor Gojong`s decision instead of negotiating with Korean government. In 1905, Japan appealed to Gojong and got his approval to make payment be made from government finance or royal finance. The compensation for damage, including that for the Jukbyeon Incident, finally came to a settlement when Emperor Gojong proclaimed an Imperila edict to pay 180 thousand odd won from the royal finance on January 30, 1905. The Jukbyeon Incident was exploited as an important ground by Japan in calling Korea to account.

갑오개혁기(1894~1896) 駐日 朝鮮公使의 파견과 외교활동

韓哲昊(Han, Cheol-ho) 백산학회 2004 白山學報 Vol.- No.70

Korean Minister to Japan had the more huge than ever tasks in the time of the Kabo Reform Movement. At that time, there happened the Sino-Japanese War, the uprisings of the Tonghak Peasant Army, the Russian-led Triple Intervention, and the assassination of Queen Min. With this in mind, this article is devoted to the new understanding of the character of the Kabo Reform and its meaning by analyzing things concerned with the dispatch of Korean Ministers to Japan and their diplomatic activities. At the same time, it is hoped to offer a clue to overview the relationship between Korea and Japan in the period of Enlightenment. During all the time of the Reform except three months, the office of Korean Minster to Japan was carried on by deputy ministers. Yi Wan-yong, Song Ki-un, Yi Joon-yong were appointed to the Minister right after the inception of the Reform, but they did not proceed to their offices. In May, 1895, Ko Young-hee, who knew well of Japanese domestic situation, inaugurated him to the office, but he also came back to Korea as soon as Queen Min was assassinated. His replacement, Kim Ka-jin was deposed from the office even before he went to his office. The Korean Legation to Japan was managed by chancellor(chamseokwon) and clerk(seogisaeng). Among them, chancellor Kim Sa-soon and Yi Tae-jik were appointed to their offices although without a career required to the office, and served as officials to the local authorities after their coming back to Korea. Conversely, Han Young-won and Yu Chan, equipped with good linguistic abilities, was appointed to the offices of translator and clerk and promoted to chancellor. After coming back to Korea, they applied their experiences, directly or indirectly, to the diplomatic affairs with Japanese authorities. Korean Ministers to Japan received Korean students officially sent to Japan and supported them in many respects. The Ministers took care of the students and their student lives, including their admission, and even determined their student affairs in consult with the students. The Ministers bought machines, raw materials, books and others necessary for the managements of modern facilities, and organized the opportunities for Koreans to study and observe modern institutions. Likewise, the Ministers accommodated official Korean missions and Korean Ministers to the USA on way to their offices, and transferred official expenses to the Korean Legation to America. At the same time, the Ministers gathered informations concerned with Korea by means of various media such as newspaper, and reported them to the Korean government. Yet during the time of the Kabo Reform Movement, Korean Minister to Japan did not systematically collect comprehensive informations concerning Japanese domestic situation. Neither did they fully negotiate with Japanese government over the questions pending between two states. This was due to the following situations. There was just one Minister who actually did his office in Japan, and that for three months. At the same time, the Legation was not fully equipped with staffs necessary for its office. More noteworthy is that the relation between Korea and Japan was determined unilaterally by Japanese policies toward Korea, not on the mutual basis.

閔氏戚族政權期(1885~1894) 內務府 官僚 硏究

韓哲昊(Han Cheol-ho) 한림대학교 아시아문화연구소 1996 아시아문화 Vol.- No.12

無二齋 吳剛杓(1843~1910)의 생애와 항일순국

한철호(Han Cheol-Ho) 한국사학회 2004 史學硏究 Vol.- No.75

The righteous person, Oh Gang-Pyo was one of devoted patriotic Korean nationalists who sacrificed themselves against Japanese annexation of Korea In 1910 The scarce materials regarding his biography made It hard to know even his birth place Therefore, It is not easy for us to pursue his career as well as his thought, with this in mind, this study devotes itself to the construction of his life by means of his biography(Mooyijaejip) which has been unknown yet He was born on December 21, 1843 (in lunar calendar) at Wolga-ri, sagok-myeon, GongJu cty, South Chungcheong Province He was a typical case of classic scholar who had been brought up in the family tradition. In this, he attached great significance upon ui(義) and filial piety in both theoretical and practice senses, He learned knowledges from Jeon Woo, civilian scholar who detached himself from the officialdom. After it was known that the Protectorate Treaty of 1905(Eulsa Treaty) was conducted, he intended to me his personal memorandum to the king that the five of traitors to the nation should be punished. He purchased the person and tried to commit suicide at a Confucian school(Myeongryun-dang) of his home town in vain, He decided to Impeach the Japanese ruler Ito Hirobumi, winch failed by his neighbors detaining his plans, Since then, he had been frustrated in himself, and kept the poison in his body, In August 1910, when he listened to nation's annexation to Japan, he decided again to commit suicide, He wrote his last will which had been known as a "Waming to the Compatriot" went back to the Confucian school at his home town and hinged himself, When people knew of his suicide, they called him a "faithful patriot" Oh Gang-Pyo, living in nationalist seclusion, was worried about the future of the Korean nation He should be remembered among the people as a great scholar who sacrificed himself for justice and patriotism. His nationalist, patriotic life left a great historical instruction at present.

한국 근대 주진대원의 파견과 운영(1883~1894)

韓哲昊 (Han Cheol-Ho ) 한국동학학회 2007 동학연구 Vol.23 No.-

일본 메이지시기 야즈 마사나가(矢津昌永)의 지리교과서·부도 편찬과 독도 인식

한철호(Han, Cheol-ho) 독립기념관 한국독립운동사연구소 2021 한국독립운동사연구 Vol.- No.74

메이지시기의 대표적인 지리교육자이자 학자인 야즈 마사나가(矢津昌永)의 지리교과서와 지리부도는 채택률이 높았고 한국과 중국에서 번역될 정도로 그 실증성과 실용성을 인정받았다. 특히 그는 일본의 국세와 영토 확장에 관한 상황을 지리교과서와 부도에 적극 반영하였다. 이에 본고는 1905년 2월 일본의 독도 강점 이전에 그의 지리교과서와 부도에는 독도가 일본 영토에서 명확하게 제외되었다는 사실을 새롭게 밝혀보았다. 야즈가 일본 文部省의 検定을 받은 『中地理學 外國誌用 外國地圖』의 「亞細亞」에는 당시 일본 영토에서 독도를 제외한 국경선이 명확하게 표시되었다. 이 지리부도와 자매서인 『中地理學 外國誌』의 저본이었던 『中學萬國地誌』의 「亞細亞」에는 울릉도와 독도가 일본 영토로 포함된 국경선이 그어져 있었다. 야즈는 처음에 울릉도와 독도를 일본 영토로 표시했던 오류를 깨닫고 두 섬이 일본 영토에 속하지 않는다고 바로잡았던 것이다. 따라서 『中地理學 外國誌用 外國地圖』의 「亞細亞」는 독도를 일본 영토로 틀리게 표시한 오류를 저자 스스로 바로잡은 중요한 사례로 평가된다. 야즈의 『中學日本地誌』·『新萬國地圖』·『新撰日本地圖』의 「大日本帝國全圖」, 『中地理學日本誌用 日本地圖』의 「日本全圖」 등에도 오키를 비롯해 일본 영토가 모두 표시되었지만, 독도는 그려져 있지 않다. 그들 중 『新撰日本地圖』의 「大日本帝國全圖」에는 처음으로 울릉도가 표기되었는데, 울릉도는 일본식 이름인 松島가 아니라 ‘欝陵島’로 표기됨으로써 일본 영토가 아님을 밝혔다. 야즈는 『日本地圖』·『新撰日本地圖』의 「中國及四國」, 『中地理學 日本誌用 日本地圖』의 「西部」에서도 오키까지만 그려 넣었다. 특히 『新撰日本地圖』의 「中國及四國」뿐만 아니라 일본 외곽의 각종 섬들이 포함된 「諸島集圖」의 位置圖인 「參照日本總圖 육백만분일」에는 울릉도와 독도는 명백하게 제외되었지만, 南鳥島가 별도로 일본 영토라고 표시되어 있다. 이러한 사실은 역설적으로 야즈가 독도를 일본 영토로 인식하지 않았음을 확실하게 보여준다. Yazu Masanaga(矢津昌永), one of the most renowned scholars of the Meiji period, published several geography textbooks and atlases. Not only were they widely used in Japanese schools, but they were translated into Korean and Chinese, which attests to their accuracy and practicality. In writing these books, Yazu paid special attention to the territorial changes that had taken place, and was taking place, in the Japanese Empire. This essay sheds light on the fact that Dokdo did not appear to be part of the dominions of Japan in any of the textbooks and atlases produced by him. The map entitled Asia(亞細亞)’ included in Chuchirigaku-Gaikokushiyo-Gaikoku-chizu(中地理學 外國誌用 外國地圖), a geography textbook officially approved by the Ministry of Education, showed the boundaries of the Japanese territories, which evidently excluded Dokdo. Chugaku-Bankoku-chishi(中學萬國地誌), which was subsequently enlarged into Chuchirigaku-Gaikokushi(中地理學 外國誌) that was a sister book to Chuchirigaku-Gaikokushiyo-Gaikoku-chizu, contained a map with the same title Asia, on which Dokdo and Ulleungdo were portrayed to form part of the Japanese dominions. What this suggests is that Yazu, after realizing that he had mistaken the two islands for Japanese territories, corrected his mistake by placing them outside the Japanese dominions in his subsequent books. Therefore, the Asia of Chuchirigaku-Gaikokushiyo-Gaikoku-chizu presents an important case where a Japanese scholar corrected the misunderstanding of the ownership of the island on his own. On maps such as Dai-Nihonteikoku-zenzu(大日本帝國全圖) in Chugaku-Nihon-chishi(中學日本地誌), Shin-Bankoku-chizu(新萬國地圖), Shinsen-Nihon-chizu(新撰日本地圖), Nihon-chizu(日本全圖) in Chuchirigaku-Nihonshiyo-Nihon-chizu(中地理學 日本誌用 日本地圖), Yazu had all the territories of Japan including Oki(隱岐) marked. What is important is that Dokdo was painted as a territory of Japan on none of them. While Ulleungdo appeared on Dai-Nihonteikoku-zenzu of Shinsen-Nihon-chizu, it was indicated not by its Japanese name ‘Matsushima(松島)’ but by the Korean one ‘Ulleungdo(欝陵島)’, which confirms once again that he did not consider the island to be a Japanese territory. The same goes for Chugoku-oyobi-Shigoku(中國及四國) included in Nihon-chizu and Shinsen-Nihon-chizu, and Seibu(西部) in Chuchirigaku-Nihonchiyo-Nihon-chizu. On these maps, Oki appeared to be the only island lying within the boundaries of the Japanese territories in the area. On Chugoku-oyobi-Shigoku of Shinsen-Nihon-chizu and Sanshyo-Nihon-sozu(參照日本總圖) of Shoto-shuzu(諸島集圖), Ulleungdo and Dokdo did not appear, whereas Minami-Tori-shima(南鳥島) was distinctly marked as belonging to Japan. This paradoxically demonstrates that Yazu did not view Dokdo as part of the Japanese dominions.

개항기 일본의 치외법권 적용 논리와 한국의 대응

한철호(Han Cheol-ho) 고려사학회 2005 한국사학보 Vol.- No.21

일본 중학교 역사교과서의 한국근대사 서술과 역사인식

한철호(Han Cheol-Ho) 한국사연구회 2005 한국사연구 Vol.129 No.-

In order to develop a better understanding of the three Northeast Asian countries and to establish a desirable relationship between them, history textbooks, which is the main compass used for secondary level history education at the national level, should be compiled in an exact manner. Nevertheless, the historical descriptions and perceptions contained in the 2005 version of the New History Textbook put out by Husosha publishers contains even more distortions than the previous edition. As a result, the level of distrust and conflict between the three countries has been raised to new heights. The New History Textbook published by Husosha publishers has employed the geopolitically-motivated Hanbando wihy?pron (Korea as a dagger in the heart of Japan) theory to justify Japan's invasion of the Korean peninsula, which the book argues was carried out to maintain Japans independence during the process of building a modern state. The Hanbando wihy?pron is a theory that argues that Japan's security would be threatened if Korea were to fall into the hands of one of its enemies. Therefore, as this theory runs the risk of instilling students with the belief that Korea and China are potential threat to Japan's security rather than viewing them as neighboring countries with whom friendly ties should be established, the descriptions of history based on this theory should be removed. Based on this notion of the Hanbando wihy?pron, the New History Textbook, emphasizes that while China and Russia intended to conquer the Korean peninsula since the onset of the modern era, Japan supported Koreas efforts to modernize itself and reorganize its military system. The textbook also claims that Japan helped prevent Korea from being invaded by other foreign powers in order to assure Japans own security. In addition, the textbook not only tries to cover up or justify the Russo-Japanese and Sino-Japanese Wars on the grounds that they were justified defensive actions, it even glorifies these wars. The perception of history hidden within the Husosha textbook reflects Japan's desire to remilitarize and remove the sense of guilt which has long served to restrain the Japanese. There is no way that future relations between the three Northeast Asian countries can be maintained in a positive manner if such distorted perceptions of history are allowed to take roots among the future generations of Japan. In this regards, the three countries should strive to establish a shared perception of history that can contribute to actualizing peace and prosperity in the region.

일제강점기 미주 한인의 국치일 인식과 그 변화

한철호(Han, Cheol-Ho) 한국사학회 2010 史學硏究 Vol.- No.100