兪吉濬의 贈貢國 獨立論에 대한 비판적 검토 (A Critical Review of Yu Gil-chun's Theory of the Independency of the Tributary State)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 고려사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 韓國史學報 / 53호 / 101 ~ 138페이지
· 저자명 : 유바다

초록

It is the theory of dual cutting system(兩截體制) that attracts special attention in the theory of diplomacy in Yu Gil-chun(兪吉濬)'s early philosophy. As is well-known, Yu's theory of dual cutting system refers to the unique status of the Kingdom of Joseon in that she was a tributary state to the Empire of Qing traditionally while she was a sovereign state in parallel with other states in the world from the perspective of the international law. For just that reason, there have been debates on the side of research history in that we can assess Yu's recognition of Joseon's status from the perspective of the international law based on the theory of dual cutting system.
Most of the existing studies on Yu Gil-chun's ‘theory of dual cutting system’ have paid attention to Yu's attitude toward Qing. To put specifically, contradictory claims rushed against Yu's pursuit of ‘independence from Qing.' For example, while the majority of the studies maintain that Yu's claim that ‘a tributary state(贈貢國) is an independent one distinguished from vassal states(屬國)’ meant his pursuit of Joseon's independence from Qing based on the modern international law, other studies also claim that Yu pursued Joseon's independence in a passive fashion with the ‘dual cutting system,’ i.e., a dual system in which the tributary system and the treaty system co-exist. However, despite the debate, all the studies recognize that Yu's argument that ‘a tributary state is an independent one distinguished from vassal states’ was a concept accepted by the international law in the late 19th century.
As a result of the examination of Yu's Seo-Yu-Gyeon-Mun(西遊見聞), we can confirm that his theory of dual cutting system was built on O. N. Denny's China and Korea(淸韓論). A strict comparison of the original texts of Elements of International Law(in English) (萬國公法) and Das Moderne Völkerrecht der Civilisirten Staaten als Rechtsbuch Dargestellt(in German) (公法會通), representative international law books at that time, with their Chinese translations has revealed the following problem with Yu's and Denny's theories of international law.
For example, treating tributary states(贈貢國) as independent states(獨立國) and vassal states(屬國) as colonies(植民地), both Yu Gil-chun and Denny asserted that Joseon, a tributary state, was an independent state distinguished from vassal states=colonies. However, from the results of the examination of Elements of International Law and Das Moderne Völkerrecht der Civilisirten Staaten als Rechtsbuch Dargestellt, we can tell that the tributary state was a category identical to the vassal state, that states were divided into sovereign(主權) and semi-sovereign(半主權) states based on the existence of sovereignty and the exertion of suzerainty(宗主權), both of which were concepts clearly different from colony. Thus, we can confirm that Yu's and Denny's basic presupposition ‘Joseon=tributary state= independent state' had fatal weaknesses from the perspective of the theory of international law at that time.

영어초록

It is the theory of dual cutting system(兩截體制) that attracts special attention in the theory of diplomacy in Yu Gil-chun(兪吉濬)'s early philosophy. As is well-known, Yu's theory of dual cutting system refers to the unique status of the Kingdom of Joseon in that she was a tributary state to the Empire of Qing traditionally while she was a sovereign state in parallel with other states in the world from the perspective of the international law. For just that reason, there have been debates on the side of research history in that we can assess Yu's recognition of Joseon's status from the perspective of the international law based on the theory of dual cutting system.
Most of the existing studies on Yu Gil-chun's ‘theory of dual cutting system’ have paid attention to Yu's attitude toward Qing. To put specifically, contradictory claims rushed against Yu's pursuit of ‘independence from Qing.' For example, while the majority of the studies maintain that Yu's claim that ‘a tributary state(贈貢國) is an independent one distinguished from vassal states(屬國)’ meant his pursuit of Joseon's independence from Qing based on the modern international law, other studies also claim that Yu pursued Joseon's independence in a passive fashion with the ‘dual cutting system,’ i.e., a dual system in which the tributary system and the treaty system co-exist. However, despite the debate, all the studies recognize that Yu's argument that ‘a tributary state is an independent one distinguished from vassal states’ was a concept accepted by the international law in the late 19th century.
As a result of the examination of Yu's Seo-Yu-Gyeon-Mun(西遊見聞), we can confirm that his theory of dual cutting system was built on O. N. Denny's China and Korea(淸韓論). A strict comparison of the original texts of Elements of International Law(in English) (萬國公法) and Das Moderne Völkerrecht der Civilisirten Staaten als Rechtsbuch Dargestellt(in German) (公法會通), representative international law books at that time, with their Chinese translations has revealed the following problem with Yu's and Denny's theories of international law.
For example, treating tributary states(贈貢國) as independent states(獨立國) and vassal states(屬國) as colonies(植民地), both Yu Gil-chun and Denny asserted that Joseon, a tributary state, was an independent state distinguished from vassal states=colonies. However, from the results of the examination of Elements of International Law and Das Moderne Völkerrecht der Civilisirten Staaten als Rechtsbuch Dargestellt, we can tell that the tributary state was a category identical to the vassal state, that states were divided into sovereign(主權) and semi-sovereign(半主權) states based on the existence of sovereignty and the exertion of suzerainty(宗主權), both of which were concepts clearly different from colony. Thus, we can confirm that Yu's and Denny's basic presupposition ‘Joseon=tributary state= independent state' had fatal weaknesses from the perspective of the theory of international law at that time.

참고자료

· 없음