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)

I agree. I have removed it. bobrayner (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Please wait to remove the content. We are discussing by email with Dr. Crowford and Dr. Kimura.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It is frustrating that Phoenix7777 immediately restored the deceptive content with "Please wait to remove the content. now we are discussing by email". No. Even if you already had an emailed agreement - and you don't - it does not not overrule what sources say. You do not own this article. bobrayner (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, please wait to remove the content. We are discussing by email with Dr. Crowford and Dr. Kimura. Please refrain from removing the disputed content until we reach agreement by email. And the sources provided are never deceptive but WP:RS in Wikipedia. Just an editor claimed them "misrepresented".―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I see you've restored the deceptive content again, even though a source contradicts it. It is important that you read and comply with WP:OWN and WP:V now. Do you understand? You don't own this article. We follow policy. bobrayner (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you still haven't presented a source, I've removed it again. If this email conversation ever delivers results, and if they're ever independently verifiable, please let us know. bobrayner (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

User:RedVictory356 has withdrawn the claim.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

RedVictory356's last comment was this. That's not withdrawing a claim., Do you have any evidence at all to support this, or any evidence to support your comments about emails with Drs Crawford & Kimura? bobrayner (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

RedVictory356's claim ”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.” is completely a lie. The book says ”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 the book, Dr. Crawford assumed European States as "civilized" States and Asian States as "barbarous" States in the context of rules applied between States. The book says rules applied to "barbarous" Asian States were not "general international law" which applied to "civilized" European States. In other words, there was legal distinction between 'civilized' and 'barbarous' States. The book simply says the difference of the rules between Asian States and European States is not explained by any distinction between 'civilized' (European) and 'barbarous' (Asian) States. Also ”Korea was not denied status as a fully sovereign state at the time of the annexation” is nothing to do with the Dr. Kimura's paper. "Sovereign" or "not sovereign" is not discussed in the Dr. Kimura's paper. He mixed up two completely different concepts, "sovereign" and "civilized". Japan annexed Korea through the treaty because Japan treated Korea as a sovereign state. Anyway, a sentence in a different context in a book published in 2006, 5 years after the conference cannot be a valid source to contradict the Dr. Crawford's opinion in 2001.

bobrayner, you reverted four times based on the false argument by RedVictory356. Now that RedVictory356 has withdrawn from the discussion and his argument was refuted, you should discuss with your own argument.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I certainly did not withdraw the claim and Phoenix7777 has certainly not refuted my points. Phoenix7777 emailed Professor Crawford directly, but that went nowhere. I admit that I have lost patience with actively pursuing the issue and am not sure what else I can do other than cite the sources posted above. We would still like the inaccurate material to be and to remain deleted. RedVictory356 (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks very much User:Bobrayner for your intervention on this. RedVictory356 (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't emailed Professor Crawford directly. I simply replied your email to [deleted]. Please check your email setting. I forwarded the mail to [deleted] now. Please reply to the mail.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Phoenix777. Please do not post my email address on this public webpage; I have deleted it. You did initially email Professor Crawford directly and you have continued to do so, in a tone that is inappropriate for addressing a senior academic. Please stop emailing either him or me. I will not respond to any more of your emails. RedVictory356 (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear User:Bobrayner (or anyone else who is willing to help). I am frustrated by this process and am not inclined to continue to debate with this person or to contribute to the page. Despite my comment above, he is continuing to email both me and Professor Crawford. I would be grateful for any advice on (1) how, if he continues, I can make a formal complaint and (2) how can I get my email addresses deleted permanently from the historical version of this page (where he posted them). RedVictory356 (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Emailing to the email address at WP:Requests for oversight would be the best way of dealing with the second issue you list. WP:ANI might be the place to deal with the first. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@RedVictory356: Thanks for posting the passages from the 2006 book. That should suffice to settle the issue, and is appreciated. The question of international law and imperial colonization is not a field with respect to which many have expertise, so any further input you could provide regarding professor Crawford's work should a relevant question arise would be helpful.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear User:Demiurge1000 and User:Ubikwit. Thank you very much for your help on this; I appreciate it greatly! When I have time I might make a more substantial contribution on some of these issues. RedVictory356 (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Propose to delete "Conference to discuss legality of the treaty" sub-clause

I think this paragraph is based on Kan Kimura's statements according to the citations. But at the previous discussion above Crawford denied Kimura's misquotation. And I found the Alexis's major argument is that Japanese scholars studied the international law to occupy Korea but she is not saying the treaty is lawful and legitimate. Also Anthony Carty's opinion is not stated by himself but quoted by Kan, so we need the original source. I am very doubtful on the paragraph at the moment. I propose to delete it until we conclude it is an accurate description. --Cheol (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The previous discussion about Crawford above didn't prove Kimura's misquotation at all. No one responded my argument and several editors threatened me not to restore the edit. The reason Crawford's fellow insisted to delete the edit is his nomination to the judge of International Court of Justice. Now that the UN General Assembly's vote (includes a Korean vote, of course) was finished and he was successfully elected, I will repost my argument above.

As for the Alexis's argument, she indeed says that Japan's annexation of Korea was legal internationally at that time. See the description and review of the book. Also Carty prefers seeing the relationship between Japan and Korea at the time with reference to the reality of the then international community dominated by Western powers, rather than viewing it in terms of treaty law as argued by Korean scholars. See a review of an Anthony Carty's book.

If you challenge the credibility of Kan Kimura, you should provide evidences to prove it. Please note that Kan Kimura's stance is often blamed by Japanese conservatives as pro-Korea. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928224938/http://www.kf.or.kr/eng/01_sks/sks_not_view.asp?BIZBASE=ALL&SearchText=&SearchValue=&Page=&BBS_NO=147 to http://www.kf.or.kr/eng/01_sks/sks_not_view.asp?BIZBASE=ALL&SearchText=&SearchValue=&Page=&BBS_NO=147

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Japanese Name of This Treaty

Although this article gives the Japanese name as 日韓併合条約, the ja.wikipedia article is titled 韓国併合ニ関スル条約. From what I can see after perusing the Web, the latter is the official name and the more numerous form in primary Japanese language sources, with secondary sources sometimes using the former form. Is there any reason not to harmonize the name given in this article with the title of the ja.wikipedia article? I imagine an argument could be made that both forms should be listed, so that is also a reasonable approach, but 韓国併合ニ関スル条約 should be included here, I think. I will make this revision in a few days unless someone raises a major objection.

Spventi (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)