지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
What did the Korean liberation of 1945 mean to Japan? Why is it important to Korea of today? Japanese perception of disparagement and degradation on Koreans, which began to be formed since early modern period had been expanded and reproduced throughout the colonial period. Koreans were discriminated as an inferior being but they were mobilized during the war on an equal basis as one of Emperor"s soldiers and as one of Empire"s subjects. Japanese has been perceiving Koreans based on double standards. When the war was over and Japan had to embrace its own defeat, Japanese society went through with apathy toward Koreans. When its own interest is at stake, as was in war reparations and the treatment of Koreans in Japan, they viewed Koreans only as the subject of its own colonial rule but neither as Japanese citizens nor as the citizens of Allied powers. This perception is reflected into the legal frameworks of the San Francisco Peace Treaty and Korea-Japan Treaty of 1965.
Excluded from the list of signature countries in San Francisco Peace Treaty, Korea had to face the negotiation table for property claims against Japan in a disadvantageous position. Even though Korea"s limited claims on war-time damages excluding the reparations on Japan"s colonial rule was not considered in the pearce treaty and had be dealt in the separate bilateral negotiation. The illegality and invalidity of the Annexation Treaty of 1910 was not confirmed in the Korea-Japan Treaty and the issue was stitched up without final decision. The economic aid, which was the main topic in the process of negotiation was interpreted as the fund for the claims against Japan by Koreans and as the congratulatory donation for independence. Because of this ambivalence, Japan has kept avoiding its legal responsibility for individual reparations and compensation during the last 70 years. Korean liberation, as long as the bilateral relationship between Korea and Japan is concerned, will be completed only when Japan changes its perception on Koreans and accepts the invalidity of the Annexation Treaty of 1910.
Excluded from the list of signature countries in San Francisco Peace Treaty, Korea had to face the negotiation table for property claims against Japan in a disadvantageous position. Even though Korea"s limited claims on war-time damages excluding the reparations on Japan"s colonial rule was not considered in the pearce treaty and had be dealt in the separate bilateral negotiation. The illegality and invalidity of the Annexation Treaty of 1910 was not confirmed in the Korea-Japan Treaty and the issue was stitched up without final decision. The economic aid, which was the main topic in the process of negotiation was interpreted as the fund for the claims against Japan by Koreans and as the congratulatory donation for independence. Because of this ambivalence, Japan has kept avoiding its legal responsibility for individual reparations and compensation during the last 70 years. Korean liberation, as long as the bilateral relationship between Korea and Japan is concerned, will be completed only when Japan changes its perception on Koreans and accepts the invalidity of the Annexation Treaty of 1910.
#광복 70년
#일본인의 조선관
#샌프란시스코 강화조약
#한일회담
#식민지 지배
#전후처리
#한일국교정상화
#청구권
#한일병합조약
#카이로선언
#Korean Liberation
#Japanese perceptionon Joseon
#San Francisco Peace Treaty
#Korea- Japan Treaty
#Colonial rule
#War settlement
#Normalization of Korea-Japan Relations
#War reparation
#Annexation Treaty
#Cairo Declaration
목차
1. 서론
2. 광복 전후 일본의 대조선 인식
3. 전후처리 1: 광복과 샌프란시스코 강화조약
4. 전후처리 2: 한일협정
5. 결론
ABSTRACT
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
샌프란시스코 平和條約에 따른 ‘Korea/朝鮮’의 獨立承認과 韓日 間 請求權解決에 關한 一 考察
동북아법연구
2017 .01
-
한일 독도 영유권과 어업문제 연구: 샌프란시스코 강화조약 전후시기를 중심으로
동북아 문화연구
2020 .09
-
‘언론’ 관련 용어의 의미와 쓰임에 관한 한국과 일본의 차이
한국언론정보학보
2021 .12
-
샌프란시스코 평화조약과 배상, 청구권 및 사과: 식민지 문제의 국제법과 국제정치
국가전략
2024 .08
-
조약 간 충돌의 해소 원리에 관한 일고 ‒1969년 조약법협약 제30조 규정을 중심으로‒
국제법평론
2023 .02
-
샌프란시스코 평화조약 체결과 식민지 문제 인식 - 식민주의와 반공주의의 결합과 경쟁 관계의 지점 -
동북아법연구
2022 .04
-
청구권협정과 강제징용 배상 판결의 함의: 조약 해석에 대한 국제분쟁의 해결
법학논총
2023 .10
-
국가정체성을 통해 본 한일갈등의 인식차이 연구
아세아연구
2018 .12
-
한일 청구권 협정과 강제 동원 피해자의 손해배상청구권
비교사법
2017 .05
-
샌프란시스코 평화조약의 제3자적 효력과 독도영유권
인문사회 21
2020 .01
-
베르사유조약과의 비교를 통한 샌프란시스코조약의 비판적 검토
동아법학
2019 .11
-
Treaties Leading to Japan’s Annexation of Korea: What Are the Problems?
Korea Journal
2016 .01
-
战后日本国家大战略与日朝关系
동북아연구(구 통일문제연구)
2016 .08
-
US-Japan-Korea Co-operation : Where Next?
Global Asia
2017 .03
-
‘한일기본조약’에 대한 한국과 일본의 초‧중학교 사회 교과서 기술 비교 ‧ 분석
글로벌교육연구
2020 .01
-
해방과 전후의 한 · 일관계 : 1945년 직후의 인식적 괴리
아세아연구
2019 .06
-
Article 2 of the Korea-Japan Basic Treaty and Japan's Repatriation of Korean Cultural Properties: Reviewing Travaux Preparatoires
JOURNAL OF EAST ASIA AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
2017 .05
-
통상조약의 체결절차 및 이행에 관한 법률의 내용과 향후 개정방향에 대한 연구
한양법학
2015 .05
-
샌프란시스코 평화조약의 동아시아적 역설
한국동양정치사상사연구
2022 .03
-
김정은 정권의 대일 접근과 북일관계
국제정치연구
2016 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2016-390-001897136