19세기 후반 및 20세기 초반 국제법체계상 종주권 개념에 대한 비판적 고찰

In the 19th century, was the contemporary doctrine of suzerainty incorporated into the international legal system? This study endeavors to provide a critical examination and analysis of the suzerainty concept within the late 19th and early 20th-century international legal system, with a perspective rooted in the history of international law, while also considering its ramifications. Lately, there has been a dispute surrounding the characterization of the historical bonds between Korea and China during the pre-modern period as a “suzerain-vassal” relationship and the assertion that Korea held a subordinate position. This matter merits examination within a distinct context of international law. It is necessary to examine the jurisprudence of suzerainty in the 19th century international legal system. Initially, this study examines the historical utilization of the term suzerainty and underscores the need to differentiate between “seigneur” and “suzerain” within the context of Western medieval feudalism. It is important to note that suzerainty was not a central concept in medieval feudalism. In the feudal era, the relationship between lord and vassal did not signify a suzerainty relationship. This study’s argument posits that suzerainty cannot be regarded as an established legal doctrine embraced by the international community in the 19th century. In terms of international practice at the time, isuzerainty referred to the historical relationships between the Ottoman Empire and its principalities, which stood outside the ‘family of nations.’ It was also employed rhetorically in the context of colonialism, with Britain playing a prominent role. Additionally, the jurisprudential opinions of international lawyers during that period exhibited inconsistency. While there were numerous perspectives on suzerainty, variations arose regarding the legal essence of suzerainty, making the formulation of a cohesive legal doctrine challenging.