대한제국의 주권수호활동과 국제법적 평가

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In 1905, The Japanese Imperial coerced the Korea to conclude the treaty including the Supervisor system which deprived the diplomatic power of the Korea. And the Japanese Imperial enforced Annexation Treaty in 1910. The Emperor of the Korea. KoJong, tried to let the other countries know that the treaties were coerced and illegal. These efforts should be appraised in International Law. Textbooks of Oppenheim(1905) and Wheaton(1904) will be examined in order to prove it.
The Korean Empire has already established diplomatic relations with the United States, Russia, Germany, Japan before the Japanese Imperial enforced the treaties. This means that the countries recognized the Korea as an independent sovereign state by establishing diplomatic relations and that they accepted the mutual relationship with the Korea should be done by the international legal rules. Accordingly, Japan had the duty not to derogate the dignity, independence, territorial integrity of the Korea which had been recognized by the countries.
In addition to that, the Korea tried to carry out the Neutralization Policy through International Law and International Organization. The efforts were failed by the Japanese Interference. The Korean Government's effort to declare the neutrality in times of war between Russia and Japan also failed. According to the textbook by Henry Wheaton published in 1904 described that declaring neutrality has just declaratory meaning. However, the declaration was assumed as a clear expression to reveal the sovereignty.
The Emperor KoJong continued to recover the deprived Sovereignty by dispatching special envoys to the countries mentioned above. According to the Oppenheim's textbook, it was not the duty of states to receive the envoy. Having the full powers and emperor's personal letter, however, the special envoys were fully qualified in international law. The Emperor's dispatching envoys can be regarded as sovereign activities in international law at that time.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 국제법상 주권과 국가의 권리의무
• Ⅲ. 고종의 중립정책
• Ⅳ. 고종의 특사외교
• Ⅴ. 결론
• 국문초록
• ABSTRACT

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 한국일보, "한국일보 2010년 8월 9일"

2 F.A.맥킨지, "한국의 독립운동" 평민사 85-, 1986

3 이태진, "한국병합, 성립하지 않았다" 태학 68-, 2001

4 국사편찬위원회, "한국독립운동사 I" 국사편찬위원회 178-179, 1965

5 한철호, "한국근대 주일한국공사의 파견과 활동" 푸른역사 107-, 2009

6 서울대학교 사범대학 교육연구소, "한국교육사고 자료총서 高宗황제의 주권수호외교" 7-, 1994

7 엄찬호, "주권수호를 위한 고종의 특사외교" (15) : 207-231, 2000

8 성재호, "조약법을 통해 본 1910년 병합조약의 무효 - 강제에 의한 조약의 효력을 중심으로 -" 동북아역사재단 (29) : 227-265, 2010

9 한철호, "일제 강점에 대한 집권세력의 대응" 독립기념관 한국독립운동사연구소 2010

10 이태진, "일본의 대한제국 국권침탈과 조약강제" 일조각 28-30, 1996

11 연합뉴스, "연합뉴스 1994년 4월 20일"

12 현광호, "대한제국은 어떻게 중립화를 실현하려 했나?" (17) : 204-205, 2004

13 김정균, "국제법" 박영사 152-, 2006

14 김기석, "광무제의 주권수호외교 1905~1907년 - 을사늑약 무효선언을 중심으로" 서울대학교 사범대학 교육연구소 1993

15 이태진, "고종황제 암약설 비판" 동북아 1995

16 T.J.Lawrence, "War and Neutrality in the Far East, 2nd ed" Macmillan 6-7, 1904

17 Robert T. Oliver, "The Man Behind the Myth" Dodd Mead 78-83, 1954

18 Lord McNair, "The Law of Treaties" Oxford 209-, 1961

19 Hersch Lauterpacht, "Private Law Sources and Analogies of International Law-with special refernece to international arbitration" Archon Books 1970

20 Rudolf L. Bindschedler, "Neutrality, Concept and General Rules" 3 : 549-, 1997

21 Scott S. Burnett, "Korean-American Relations: Documents Pertaining to the Far Eastern Diplomacy of the United States, Vol. III" University of California Press 62-63, 1989

22 L.Oppenheim, "International Law(1st ed)" Longman 103-, 1905

23 Henry Wheaton, "Elements of International Law, 4th ed" and Sons 565-, 1904

24 S.Pufendorf, "De Jure Naturae et Gentium" Clarendon Press 1-13, 1934

25 W.E.Hall, "A Treatise on International Law, 5th ed" Oxford 43-, 1904

26 강성은, "1905년 한국보호조약과 식민지 지배책임-역사학과 국제법학의 대화" 선인 148-, 2008