Search

There are two approaches to questioning the 100th anniversary since Japan's annexation of Korea. One is to seek ways of overcoming colonialism by duly understanding the process of colonial domination from its outset through the present. Another approach is to position Japan's annexation of Korea in current circumstances. This study has opted for the second approach. Over the past 100 years, conditions surrounding the matter of Japan's colonial domination have noticeably changed. Above all, changes in the circumstances defining the relationships between Korea and Japan made inevitable the mention of colonial domination amidst other issues. From the Korean perspective, the fact that what was a single entity 100 years ago has been divided into two is the most fundamental change that has occurred. With this as a starting point, the current paper proposes to address three factors present in the 100 years following Japan's annexation of Korea. First, the Japanese government's apologetic statement for colonial domination is combined with the conception of an East Asian community. Second, the framework of perceiving the Korea-Japan relationship and the East Asian community should have a common ground. Lastly, the author also viewed the emergence of China as an essential reason for changes in order of the region in East Asia and the principal condition in defining the present state of affairs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The legality of Japan's "annexation" of Korea under international law is an issue which forms the starting point and foundation of the bilateral relations between Korea and Japan. Therefore, it has been the object of acute confrontation between the two states. The so-called Japanese legal responsibility for its colonial rule over Korea is directly affected by the answer to the issue. Theoretically speaking, this legality should be judged solely on the basis of the validity of the 1910 Annexation Treaty between Korea and Japan. However, discussions concerning this issue also cover the validity of a series of other treaties concluded in the process of Japanese plundering of the sovereignty of Korea from 1904 to 1910. The argument for the invalidity of these treaties relating to the "annexation" of Korea is grounded on two major points: firstly, the 1905 Treaty and the 1910 Annexation Treaty were concluded in coercion; and secondly, several of these treaties have formal and procedural defects. Examining the two points, this paper concludes that the treaties relating to the "annexation" of Korea borrowed the mere appearance of treaties and therefore cannot be deemed to be valid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]