Talk:Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910

Reference

The link to this article is broken.

• Yutaka Kawasaki, "Was the 1910 Annexation Treaty Between Korea and Japan Concluded Legally?", Murdoch University Journal of Law, Volume 3, Number 2 (July 1996).

Thanks for pointing this out; I've fixed it. — Haeleth Talk 15:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A further complication to the legality is that the great seal of state that you see on the treaty is forged. The actual seal was hidden by then-Crown Princess Yoon: Empress Sunjeong. --Snow (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

False Photo Image

The title photo of this page is not document image of "Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty", which may mislead historical facts. So, it must be removed.129.254.33.196 12:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The reposted image is still false in view of the article

I don't know the poster's intention!129.254.33.196 00:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The article confuses the "treaty" and the "event" of Korea's annexation to Japan.

Gyeongsul Gukchi (경술국치) is NOT the treaty, but rather a term that refers to the event that is signified by the Treaty, i.e., Korea's loss of its status as a sovereign state.

Moreover, we should mention that the "day of national shame (Gukchi-il, 국치일)" is August 29th, when the treaty was proclaimed to public. ("Proclaim" may be the wrong word to use here --- please forgive me if it's wrong. I'm not an expert on English legal terms. :)

Similarly, I think it's misleading to say that "Hanil Hapbang Neugyak (한일합방늑약)" is a Korean term for it. It is certainly NOT an official term --- neugyak (늑약) merely means "a forced (and hence, illegitimate) treaty," and "Hanil Hapbang" is just another term for "Japan's annexation of Korea." So it just means "A forced treaty that made Korea a part of Japan."

The Korean version of this article is named "Hanil Byeonghap Joyak" ko:한일 병합 조약, which is just like the Japanese version with the first two letters ("Korea" and "Japan") reversed. I think that's a more common way to refer to the treaty.

I'll implement these changes if nobody disagrees. Yongjik 03:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Implemented as such. Yongjik 15:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

「語の解釈」

日韓基本条約の前交渉は1951年7月頃より連合国司令部（SCAP）の仲介によりおこなわれ、当初から英語表記での文面が論題とされ紛糾した経緯が文献資料としてのこされています。「already　null and void（もはや無効）」とするか「null and void（当初から無効）」とするかが重要な焦点だったわけですから、良く勉強していないWikipedianが都合よく「日本語の読みかたのあいまいさ」などと定義して恥をかかないよう。くりかえしますがこれは日韓基本条約をめぐり棚上げされた「歴史認識問題」に関わる重要な論点です。また「解決せざるをもって解決したとみなす」の東洋的含蓄に満ちた著名な「密約」は歴史認識問題にも関連しているものです。--大和屋敷 (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not the Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty, but the HANGUK - NIPAN Annexation Treaty

日韓併合条約 Hiragana にっかんへいごうじょうやく Rōmaji Nikkan Heigō Jōyaku

Hangul 한일병합조약 (한일합방조약, 한일합방늑약) Hanja 韓日倂合条約 (韓日合邦条約, 韓日合邦勒約

It is not the Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty, but the HANGUK - NIPAN Annexation Treaty

PL, refer !

--안성균 (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

James Crawford's opinion

The descriptions about James Crawford's opinion removed by 131.111.156.24 is supported by the attached sources.

• Kimura, Kan (June 2002). "第3回韓国併合再検討国際会議 : 「合法・違法」を超えて" (PDF). p. 6. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help); line feed character in |trans_title= at position 60 (help)</ref>

「そもそも当時の国際社会においては、国際法は文明国相互の間にのみ適用されるものであり、この国際法を適用するまでの文明の成熟度を有さない国家に適用されるものではない。」

"He said that in the international community at the time, international law applied only to the relationship between the civilized countries. It did not apply to the non-civilized counties."

「言い換えるなら、文明国と非文明国の関係は、文明国相互においてと同様に国際法によって規定されるようなものではなく、それ故、前者においては、後者において必要とされるような手続きは必ずしも必要とされる訳ではない。極論するなら、通常、そのような文明国と非文明国との関係の一類型として登場する、植民地化する国と植民地化される国の関係においては、その最終段階 － 即ち、植民地化 － そのものにおいて必ずそれが「条約」の形式を必要とする、とさえ言うことができない。」

"When a civilized country colonizes a non-civilized country, even the form of treaty was unnecessary."

「当時において寧ろ重要であったのは、このような特定の文明国と非文明国との関係が、他の文明国によってどのように受け止められていたかの方であり、単純化していうなら、植民地化において「法」が存在していたのは、正にそこにおいてのみ、であった。そのような意味において、日本による韓国併合は、それが英米をはじめとする列強に認められている以上、仮令、どのような大きな手続き的瑕疵があり、また、それが非文明国の主権者の意志にどれほど反していたとしても、当時の国際法慣行からするならば、「無効」と言うことはできない。」

"Rather, what was important in those days was how the relationship between these civilized and non-civilized countries was perceived by the other civilized countries. In that sense, by the fact that the annexation of Korea by Japan was admitted by the Western powers, it cannot be illegal even if how big procedural defect existed or how much it was against the will of the government ruler of non-civilized country."

• Furuta, Hiroshi (2005). 東アジア「反日」トライアングル. Bungeishunjū. p. 106. ISBN 4166604678. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

「自分で生きていけない国について周辺の国が国際秩序の観点からその国を当時取り込むということは当時よくあったことであって、日韓併合条約は国際法上は不法なものではなかった」

"To sum it up, at the time of the annexation, it was not rare for one country to assume control of another if the latter could not survive on its own, from the perspective of preserving international order and the Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty was not illegal in terms of international law."

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Phoenix7777. I do not know what the Japanese sources that you have cited are based on, but the quoted material is second-hand and inaccurate, or at least inaccurately expressed or translated. Unless you can identify a primary source for Professor Crawford's views - a published article or book actually written by him - then this material should be removed. I do not believe that Professor Crawford has expressed the views attributed to him in any published article or book. For example, it is not Professor Crawford's view that international law applied only between 'civilized' states in 1910. He argued in a recent lecture, published as J Crawford, Chance, Order, Change: The Course of International Law (Martinus Nijhoff, 2014), ch 10, that the distinction between civilized and uncivilized states was incoherent and was abandoned. 131.111.156.24 (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to know how Wikipedia works. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. The source provided above was written by Kan Kimura, a professor at Kobe University. And the source comes from Kobe University Repository Kernel. Another source is based on a news report dated 27 November 2001 of Sankei Shimbun. Two different sources say the same thing. So they are reliable enough than your personal opinion. I am not sure what is written in the source you provided, it is a textbook and not an article discussing the specific situation at the time of the annexation. Moreover The book was published in 2014, while the conference was held in 2001. It is no wonder that the view of Crawford may change over a decade. Please note that unless you provided a reliable source contradicting to the sources I provided, you cannot remove the description backed by the sources. That is the way Wikipedia works. If you continue removing the text, you will be blocked from editing.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Phoenix7777. I am not a regular editor of Wikipedia and apologize if I did not follow the correct procedures. I work for Professor Crawford. He has asked me to remove the material. I do not speak Japanese, and I do not understand how an inaccurate account of his views came to appear in the Japanese sources. I have not been able to locate an English source. I have not deleted the material again for the moment, but I will investigate how to have it removed. 131.111.156.24 (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Phoenix7777. I have now registered as a user (RedVictory356) and have posted a request for dispute resolution. I hope we can resolve the problem amicably. Best regards. RedVictory356 (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there any sources - whether by Crawford, in his own words, or by independent reviewers - which explain this position? If so, I would be keen to remove any misleading or misquoted content which is based on a problematic source. Until we have some new source, it's best that we stick with what the current sources say. To the extent that the current content does accurately reflect the current sources, that is. bobrayner (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Bobrayner. The best source I can find to demonstrate that the material contradicts Professor Crawford's published views is the following paragraph from J Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, 2nd ed (Oxford University Press, 2006), pp 260-1:

"Asian States such as (for example) China, the Ottoman Empire, Afghanistan, Bukhara, Burma, Ceylon, Japan, Korea, Thailand (Siam), Brunei and the Maratha Empire in India were early recognized as independent States subject to international law. Treaty practice in particular reflected the position. This did not necessarily mean that the same rules were applied to or by such States as were applied by European States between themselves. But that is to be explained not by any distinction between 'civilized' and 'barbarous' States but because many of those rules were what would now be called regional or local customs rather than general international law."

In other words, contrary to the inaccurate material, there was no legal distinction between civilized and uncivilized states, and international law applied both to Japan and to Korea. A footnote to the reference to Japan (p 261, n 22) cites several treaties from the 1850s, confirming that this applied well before the relevant date, 1910. Additionally, a footnote to the reference to Korea (p 261, n 23) states as follows:

"Japan concluded two agreements, establishing a protectorate over and then for the annexation of Korea: Japan-Korea, Protocol regarding the Situation of Korea, 23 February 1904, 195 CTS 75; Treaty of Annexation, 22 August 1910, 212 CTS 43; Lee (2002) 11 Pacific Rim L & Pol J 63, 92. See also Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (Korea-France), 4 June 1886, 168 CTS 45. Though Korea was among several East Asian States which Lorimer and Oppenheim doubted were 'fully sovereign', the position actually taken by States did not involve a denial of status. See Kingsbury (1998) 9 EJIL 599, 606."

In other words, in Professor Crawford's view, Korea was not denied status as a fully sovereign state at the time of the annexation. So although I can't find a source confirming what Professor Crawford said at the 2001 conference (to my knowledge, he didn't publish anything connected with it), I maintain that the current material misrepresents his views and should be deleted. RedVictory356 (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)