일본의 전시기 동아국제질서 인식의 전후적 변용 — ‘대동아국제법질서’론과 식민지 문제 —

The purpose of this study is to understand the post-war change of international order recognition of Japan in the Asia-Pacific War by analyzing Japan's the East Asia regional order of international law and colony problem. The hint of the important problem in the discussions of the East Asia regional order of international law has been discussed in relation to the issue of absolute/relative equality of state/sovereignty, internationalism= universalism/regionalism. Regionalism, the relative equality of state, and the problems of the hegemonic country are related to these problems. Specifically, there was a modern understanding of the problem as a problem of the size of the interests and responsibilities within the region that arise in proportion to the size of modern power, and Japan’s unique worldview which was a way of understanding structure in the territorial area that plays a role in each one's own place. Japan's understanding of the international law order has shown a return from universalism to regionalism and back to universalism. Under the national notion of relative equality, Japan accepted the United States as a new hegemonic country after its defeat in an attempt to identify itself as a leader. By reinterpreting Japan as a country to be guided, Japan has accepted the occupation of the United States, adopted the United Nations as the highest international law order, and has made a move to secure its position in the postwar world. Colonial issues have often been told in relation to the European and American powers and their colonies. Japan has attempted to justify Japan's position as a hegemonic country by developing a logic to persuade the guided states in the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” to tolerate relative sovereignty and relative national equality. The reason for this was that it was impossible to obtain the voluntary agreement of the guided country, because the colonies inside the hegemonic country proved to be incorporated into the empire rather than self-governing or limited independence. The East Asia regional order of international law did not have a logic to deal with the colonial problem within the Japanese Empire which could be considered as a test of the legitimacy of the organic großraum order of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.