1882년 조약・장정의 체결과속국(屬國)・반주지국(半主之國) 조선의국제법적 지위
Signing of Treaties and Pacts in 1882, and the Internationally acknowledged status of “Protectorate(屬國․半主之國)” Joseon
유바다(고려대학교)
99호, 155~192쪽
초록
In May 1882, Joseon signed a treaty with U.S. and obtained a status that could be considered as a ‘Sovereign State,’ recognizable by International Law. At the same time, however, Joseon admitted its being ‘something else’ as well, such as a ‘Subject state(屬國)’ or a ‘Semi-dependent(sovereign) state(半主之國),’ under the influence of the Manchurian Qing(淸) dynasty, in the “Confirmation of the Status of Tributary state” which Joseon submitted to the U.S. delegation. And in October the same year, the pact(章程, Regulation) signed between Joseon and Qing confirmed that Joseon was indeed a ‘Vassal state(藩封, 屬邦)’ of Qing. Some historians argue that the Qing government wanted to abolish the traditional ‘tributary relationship’ it had had with Joseon, and wanted to establish Joseon newly as a ‘Subject state’ or even a ‘Colony,’ as acknowledged in modern international legal terms. But according to the International Law at the time, the ‘Public Law of All Nations(萬國公法),’ these two options must have been clearly different from each other, as the former would have had to have sovereignty, while the latter did not. Other scholars argue that Qing was not at all interested in employing international law in designing its new relationship with Joseon, and just tried to maintain traditional Sino-centrism in its outward policy. However, the international order at the time was not oblivious to such relationships, as the issue of ‘Subject states’ or ‘Semi-dependent(sovereign) states’ mentioned above, were in concept not unlike “Tributary(Vassal) states(進貢國, 藩屬)” that had been maintaining a feudal relationship with superior entities which usually wielded the authority of a Suzerainty(宗主權). So, identifying the nature of the Joseon-Qing relationship at the time only as one filled with clashes, and trying to define Qing’s intention as either merely to pursue a traditional Sino-centrist order or a new ‘international’ one, might be inappropriate. Qing could have had its own tributary relationship with other countries acknowledged and recognized in terms of the international law already.
Abstract
In May 1882, Joseon signed a treaty with U.S. and obtained a status that could be considered as a ‘Sovereign State,’ recognizable by International Law. At the same time, however, Joseon admitted its being ‘something else’ as well, such as a ‘Subject state(屬國)’ or a ‘Semi-dependent(sovereign) state(半主之國),’ under the influence of the Manchurian Qing(淸) dynasty, in the “Confirmation of the Status of Tributary state” which Joseon submitted to the U.S. delegation. And in October the same year, the pact(章程, Regulation) signed between Joseon and Qing confirmed that Joseon was indeed a ‘Vassal state(藩封, 屬邦)’ of Qing. Some historians argue that the Qing government wanted to abolish the traditional ‘tributary relationship’ it had had with Joseon, and wanted to establish Joseon newly as a ‘Subject state’ or even a ‘Colony,’ as acknowledged in modern international legal terms. But according to the International Law at the time, the ‘Public Law of All Nations(萬國公法),’ these two options must have been clearly different from each other, as the former would have had to have sovereignty, while the latter did not. Other scholars argue that Qing was not at all interested in employing international law in designing its new relationship with Joseon, and just tried to maintain traditional Sino-centrism in its outward policy. However, the international order at the time was not oblivious to such relationships, as the issue of ‘Subject states’ or ‘Semi-dependent(sovereign) states’ mentioned above, were in concept not unlike “Tributary(Vassal) states(進貢國, 藩屬)” that had been maintaining a feudal relationship with superior entities which usually wielded the authority of a Suzerainty(宗主權). So, identifying the nature of the Joseon-Qing relationship at the time only as one filled with clashes, and trying to define Qing’s intention as either merely to pursue a traditional Sino-centrist order or a new ‘international’ one, might be inappropriate. Qing could have had its own tributary relationship with other countries acknowledged and recognized in terms of the international law already.
- 발행기관:
- 한국역사연구회
- 분류:
- 역사학