Newsletter

Last year marked the centennial of Japan's forced annexation of Korea, and a group of intellectuals from Korea and Japan issued a joint statement that the 1910 annexation treaty is null and void. It was the first time that scholars from the two countries declared the invalidity of the annexation treaty, and the joint statement had a huge impact and led to active discussions. The Foundation had an interview with Professor Lee Sangchan, who is a renowned scholar on the study of treaties in Joseon Dynasty and Korean Empire. – Editor's note

You studied the treaties signed in Joseon Dynasty and Korean Empire at the Kyujanggak Institute of Korean Studies. What brought you to study them?

As a scholar who majored in modern Korean history, I always wanted to scientifically investigate Japan's imperialistic attacks. When I was working as a curator at Kyujanggak Institute of Korean Studies, we published Collection of Modern Laws and I noticed that Emperors Gojong and Sunjong's signatures looked very similar. This led me to think that there could have been some problems regarding the abdication of Emperor Gojong, and that Japanese people might have forged his signature. I searched for records and documents from the abdication of Emperor Gojong, including the original document of the Korea-Japan Treaty of 1905 (also known as the Eulsa Treaty), which triggered the abdication. There I discovered some problems, and this experience made me realize the importance of original documents. That is how I began studying treaties.

With regard to modern treaties, I would like to know the countries who signed treaties with Korea, and what kind of treaties and documents Kyujanggak has in store.

We have all treaties signed with other countries between 1876 and 1910 at Kyujanggak, as well as diplomatic documents exchanged with countries who signed trade treaties with Korea. To just name a few, we have diplomatic documents from China, US, Japan, Russia, UK, and also from Denmark and Italy. These treaties and diplomatic documents are somewhat different in nature from other records held by Kyujanggak. Anyway, these are the original diplomatic documents of modern Korean history.

Has there been progress in investigating how modern treaties were signed between countries?

Many scholars have studied Korea's relations with other countries, with a project celebrating the centennial of Korea-US diplomatic ties, among others. However, there still remain a number of issues that need to be investigated further regarding how treaties were signed, including historical background and special objectives. It depends on the countries, but in-depth research is required in many areas. It is important that researchers develop their interest and deepen their studies.

It is said that Japan attempted to respect legal procedures when pursuing the signing of the treaty with Joseon, but afterwards it dared to force Korea into signing an unfair treaty. What made Japan respect legal procedures in the initial stage?

At the time of signing the Korea-Japan Treaty of 1876 (also known as the Treaty of Ganghwa), Japan was not considered as an imperialist country. Japan was trying to revise an unequal treaty which it was forced to sign, and it had to take into account imperialist powers when attacking Joseon. Japan was not a superpower at that time, and it could not dare to break international law. After the year 1894, however, Japan exerted superior power over Korea, both in military and political terms. In addition, superpowers such as the UK and US approved of Japan's exclusive rule over Joseon. What Japan needed was just a formal treaty, and it ignored the importance of pursuing legitimate procedures with the consent of Joseon.

It is reported that Japan made the original copy of the annexation treaty on Korea's side. What was the reason for this?

Four treaties were signed between 1904 and 1910: 1) Korea-Japan Protocol of 1904 (韓日議定書, February 23, 1904); 2) Eulsa Treaty (November 17, 1905); 3) Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty of 1907 (丁未條約, July 24, 1907); 4) Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty of 1910 (韓日倂合條約, August 29, 1910).

Although there are many problems regarding these treaties, it is clear that the copies of them were written separately in each country: paper, calligraphic style, and binding method are different from each other. However, the copies of the Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty of 1910 are exactly the same in terms of paper, binding method (with white silk), and sealing. Calligraphic styles are also the same, even to the eyes of laymen. We should pay attention to the sealing here – Japanese copy of the treaties were tightly sealed, while Joseon had never sealed the Korean copy before. Due to these reasons, we assume that Japan made the Korean copy of the 1910 Annexation Treaty.

What does it legally mean that Japan made both Japanese and Korean copies of the Annexation Treaty?

It is required by international law that relevant parties should sign treaties on equal terms. Also, treaties should be signed according to relevant parties' free will and the content of the treaties need to be accepted by relevant parties. As such, every sentence in a treaty matters, and that is why treaties are written in relevant parties' languages. This way, the meaning of the treaty is clarified, and its credibility is guaranteed. It is not an easy thing for both parties to write their own copy of treaties. If a treaty takes effect when one party creates both copies and forces the other to sign the treaty, then concepts such as equal terms or free will are all ignored.

With regard to Japan's coercion on Korea to sign an unfair treaty in an illegal manner, some scholars argue that the treaty itself is null and void, while others say that the annexation treaty was not valid and thus did not take effect. What is the difference between the two?

We should clearly define the expression – "argue that the treaty is null and void in itself". People use this expression quite often, but technically speaking, we can say that the treaty was not valid. When we look at whether a treaty takes effect, we should first consider whether it is valid or not. If a treaty fails to be valid, then it cannot take effect. In this regard, the right expression is that the annexation treaty was not valid and thus did not take effect.

Will there be any change if we prove that the Eulsa Treaty and Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty of 1910 were not valid and thus did not take effect?

We will witness a huge change if we can prove it clearly. If we can prove that the treaties were not valid and thus did not take effect, we can make a legitimate compensation claim against Japan. Currently in Japan, a group of conscientious intellectuals understand that Korea thinks that the treaties were not valid and thus did not take effect, and argue that Japan should pay compensation to Korea, though belatedly.

What are the lessons we can learn from the modern treaties that led to loss of sovereignty?

I believe that imperialist countries should first regret their wrongdoings and learn lessons from the past. In these treaties, we can see clear evidence of imperialist attacks. How could we learn lessons by reading them? I think that it is not desirable to say – "we were attacked because we did not have power, so we should become stronger".

Could you tell me how your research topics are reflected in your lectures?

I showed some images of treaties to students in my classes. Unfortunately, most students are not ready to discuss these issues due to lack of understanding in modern Korean history. It also seems that the era when such values as nation, group, "we" are upheld is now over, and it is time for us to seriously think about values that matter to individuals, such as happiness, human rights, quality of life etc. Against this backdrop, we should think about the impact of historical events on our lives when we discuss various issues of history. What we need is a fresh perspective.

Is there anything you would like to ask the Foundation with regard to research?

here are areas where cooperation with North Korea is required in order to resolve issues regarding Japanese colonial rule over Korea and pursue the common interests of Korean people. As this is a very sensitive issue, academic associations or individual researchers cannot afford to address it. Cooperation with North Korea should be considered as part of our efforts to bring lasting peace and prosperity to Northeast Asia. I hope that the Foundation can play a leading role, and it should also contribute to enhancing the relations with Japan. To this end, we should study further about ideal Korea-Japan relationship as well as resolving remaining issues of the past. The role of the Foundation is crucial in this regard.