http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
- 검색키워드
- 주제어 : Treaty of Commerce between Korea and China (검색결과 13 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
이재석 ( Jae Seok Lee ) 대한정치학회 2011 대한정치학회보 Vol.19 No.2
This article aims at analyzing the Treaty of Commerce between Korea and China in 1899 compared to the Treaty of Amity and Commerce between Korea and the United States of America in 1882 and the Regulations for Maritime and Overload Trade between Chinese and Corean Subjects in 1882. As a result of defeat in the war with Japan, China(淸帝國) concluded a peace treaty with Japan at Simonoseki in 1895 and officially gave up her suzerainty on Korea(大韓帝國). As it didn`t give another new relation to Korea and China, China was forced to conclude the Treaty of Commerce between Korea and China in 1899 by Korea and adjoining Major Powers. The treaty modeled after the Treaty of Amity and Commerce between Korea and the United States of America in 1882 and was contrary to the Regulations for Maritime and Overload Trade between Chinese and Corean Subjects in 1882. The Treaty of Commerce between Korea and China granted Korea with equal rights with China. Therefore, the treaty shall be estimated as follows. (1) The Treaty of Commerce between Korea and China in 1899 was important from the viewpoint that it made Korea and China form a modern international relationship which had not been related officially. (2) The treaty was equal with Korea and China and abrogated Korean subordinate relationship with China and upgrade Korean status. (3) The treaty allowed Korea to free herself from the traditional Chinese World order and enter the modern international political system.
-
-
송규진 고려대학교 한국사연구소 2010 International Journal of Korean History Vol.15 No.2
The transition from a tribute system to a modern treaty system was by no means uniform and unilateral, but rather more complex and multilateral. Also, a certain period of transition was inevitable when a prolonged regional order came across a new one. Such aspects are typically evident in the East Asian international order surrounding Korea. Although Korea was incorporated into the modern treaty system after the Treaty of Kanghwa, the East Asian international order surrounding Korea did not change straight into a modern treaty system but shifted to a dualistic international order in practice. China institutionally maintained the tribute system by signing “the Korea-China Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade”. The superpower of the time that led the dualistic international order surrounding Korea was China. Because of China who did not recognize Korea as an independent state then, Korea had many limitations in active participation in the international society. Therefore, breaking away from China’s external pressure appeared as an important objective. There had been some groups who attempted to promote internal reform and escape from China’s interference but they failed due to China’s intervention and Kojong’s pro-Chinese dependent policies. Although Kojong also did have the intentions to alleviate China’s tribute system in concert with the West, he prioritized stability of his power and repeated historical actions by requesting for Chinese troops when his regime was threatened. The dualistic international order came to an end with China’s complete denial of the tribute system in the Treaty of Shimonoseki following the Sino-Japanese War. Yet, China still tried to preserve the special relationship with Korea by only permitting the recovery of relationship up to signing “the Korea-China Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade” and mutually sending the consular representatives. Therefore, the Korea-China relationship, not readily included in the modern treaty system, had a certain period of a transitional phase. However,China’s effort to reinforce its influence over Korea by preserving the special relationship was no longer viable. In consequence, China decided to sign the modern treaty following the establishment of the Greater Korea Empire, and the active involvement of Britain,Russia and Japan, as well as to deal with the practical issue of protection of Chinese people. The Greater Korea Empire and China officially established a modern treaty relation after founding “the Treaty of Commerce between Korea and China” in 1899. This incident marks the change of the international order of Northeastern Asia from a dualistic existence of a modern treaty system and a tribute system to a modern treaty system. The international community could only acquiesce in the Japanese colonization of the Greater Korea Empire after Japan – the nation that was rising as the dominant player in the East Asian international order around Korea – won Russo-Japanese Wars. However, superficially the modern treaty system was founded on the idea that individual countries have equal in international relations, even though in reality, this system had resort to military power to resolve international conflicts. This point leads me to guess that If Korea and China had adopted the modern treaty system before the Sino-Japanese War, and had jointly maneuvered against the Western and Japanese hegemony, the Korea and China relationships might have developed in a different direction.
-
김종성(Kim Jongsung) 중국근현대사학회 2010 중국근현대사연구 Vol.46 No.-
In Traditional Korea-China relation, the consul system couldn't work. Because a main agent of a trade were not individuals but states in East Asia. There was therefore no need to protect their own overseas merchants. That was logically unnecessary. With the Imm-oh Military Revolt(1882), however, the relation between the two countries became to change. Immediately after the military revolt, the two countries contracted Regulations For Maritime And Overland Trade between Chinese And Korean Subjects(1882). The regulations required the exchanges of the Commercial Government Agents. Here, the agents were a substantial consul. Because, the main responsibility of the agents was to protect their nationals in the trading partner. By the way, the relation between the twos was severed with the First Sino-Japanese War(1894). Because of that, Chinese merchants in Korea(Joseon) were in unexpected hardship. After the year 1894, therefore, the British Consul in Korea was commissioned to protect Chinese merchants. It was a incomplete condition. To solve such a condition, Qing Dynasty send the non-governmental Superintendent to Korea. The responsibility of the Superintendent was also similar to the that of the Commercial Government Agent. In the consular relation between the two countries, the year 1896 was a important year. Because, in that year, China send the first consul to Korea. The consul was Tang Shaoyi. But it was a one-sided dispatch. Korea didn't send consuls to China. The year that the consular relation was institutionalize was 1899. In that year, the twos contracted the Treaty Of Friendship And Commerce Between China And Korea. Article 2 of the treaty required the exchanges of the consuls. With this, the consular relation between the twos entered a period of a institutionalization. However, the Korean Government still didn't dispatch consuls. Only the Chinese Government dispatched consuls. Afterward, the consular relation suffered so many complications. That relation was linked to fate of the twos. In the year 1905, the Korean Government lost the diplomatic power, and it caused change of the authority over the Chinese consuls in Korea. With the year 1905, the Chinese Minister to Japan began to superintend the Chinese consuls in Korea. And 1910 was also a important year. With the fall of Joseon Dynasty, the Treaty Of Friendship And Commerce Between China And Korea lost effect. As a substitute, the treaty between China and Japan became the legal basis of the consular relations.
-
『독립신문』(1896~1899)의 치외법권 인식 ―일본인 관련 범죄를 중심으로―
한철호 ( Cheol Ho Han ) 고려대학교 역사연구소 2012 사총 Vol.77 No.-
Extraterritoriality (consular jurisdiction), one of the unequal treaties that was contracted between Korea and other imperial nations like Japan and western imperialistic countries, was the poisonous pill that exerted an evil influence on Korea, So research of imperialistic nations` exercise of extraterritoriality and Korea`s response gives us an important clue to inquire into process and character of invasion, and futhermore the character of Korea modern history. This article is studying The Independent`s view of extraterritoriality and Japanese crime, 1896~1899. The Independent criticized English consular jurisdiction about Chinese because Korea severed diplomatic relations with China after the Sino-Japanese War. The Independent pointed out that extraterritoriality is unequal treaty, Japan and other powers misuse extraterritoriality for invasion of Korea. Nevertheless The Independent measured that it`s impossible to abolish extraterritoriality, emphasized the protection of the people`s right by showing the abuse of extraterritoriality. But The Independent insisted equal treaty without extraterritoriality after the negotiations for Treaty of Commerce between Korea and China in October 1989. By using this chance, The Independent claimed equal relation between Korea and China. And The Independent criticized that western powers demand extraterritoriality to eastern and needed to revise it by plan to enhance national prosperity and military power like Japan, Futhermore The Independent paid attention to the case of Transvaal which resisted against English imperialism and claimed planning to enhance military power and reacting the harmful effects of extraterritoriality, The Independent`s recognition was revealed in reporting Japanese crime. The Independent criticized Japanese crime which abused extraterritoriality during King Kogong`s flight to the Russian legation. After that, however, The Independent insisted that Korean government have to prevent Japanese crime by modifying law and punish the Japanese criminals through fair judgement. Although The Independent recognized the unfairness and bad effects of extraterritoriality, couldn`t demand the revision or abolition of it. However it doesn`t mean that The Independent was pro-Japanese or pro-imperialism. The Independent recognized that it is impossible to abolish extraterritoriality because of the weakness of the national power. So The Independent developed the strategy that Korea and Japan must observe the rule which didn`t act well practically. This means that The Independent appreciated that if conditions are satisfied, extraterritoriality could be abolished.
-
-
-
정동연(Jung Dong yeon) 중국근현대사학회 2021 중국근현대사연구 Vol.91 No.-
This article analyzed the Sino-Korean mutual cognition through the normalization of diplomatic relation in the late nineteenth century, paying attention to the reformist forces, autocrats, residing foreign ministers. After the Sino-Japanese War, reformist forces and autocrats who sought to strengthen the sovereignty emerged in Korea and China. It became the background of Sino-Korean normalization of diplomatic relation. Tang shao-yi who had been dispatched to Korea established a toehold for the normalization, and Xu shou-peng was in charge of negotiating diplomatic relations. The the main points of negotiation were withdrawing the chinese stores in Seoul and confirming the boundaries between the two nations. But China denied the withdrawing and wanted to accomplish the exclusive domination of Manchuria. Finally, the two issues was concluded by maintaining the status quo. Through the normalization of diplomatic relation, Sino-Korean mutual cognition could change from vertical ‘suzerain/dependency’ to horizontal ‘foreign country’. But Sino-Korean diplomatic relation was short-lived through the invasion of japanese imperialism. As a result, Sino-Korean horizontal ‘foreign country’ cognition couldn’t be settled down.
-
淸日戰爭 이전과 이후 在韓 韓中間 '訴訟' 안건 비교 분석
이은자(Lee Eun-ja) 가천대학교 아시아문화연구소 2009 아시아문화연구 Vol.17 No.-
This study examined changes in Korea China relationship in the 19t<SUP>th</SUP> century by analyzing the proceedings of legal cases between Koreans and Chinese in Korea (Chosun or the Daehan Empire) before and after the Sino Japanese War. Among the legal cases, murder cases were selected from cases before the Sino Japanese War and from those after, and their proceedings and results were examined. First, the legal ground of the proceedings of legal cases before the Sino Japanese War was stipulated in Article 2 of the Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade between Chinese and Korean Subjects established in August 1882. According to the regulations, if a Chinese was the defendant and a Korean was the plaintiff in a case that had happened in Korea, the offender was to be arrested and tried by the Chinese Trade Commissioner (a diplomatic mission equivalent to a consul). If a Chinese was the plaintiff and a Korean was the defendant, the offender was to be arrested by the Korean government and delivered to the Chinese Trade Commissioner and to be investigated and tried jointly by the two countries. In Korea, accordingly, China was authorized to rule cases in which the defendant was a Chinese and the plaintiff was a Korean by itself, and those in which the defendant was a Korean and the plaintiff was a Chinese jointly with the Korean government. Next, the legal ground for the proceedings of legal cases after the Sino Japanese War was stipulated in Article 5 of the Treaty of Commerce between Korea and China concluded in September 1899. According to the treaty, if a Chinese was the defendant and a Korean was the plaintiff in a case that had happened in Korea, the case was tried by the Chinese Consul and a Korean official could attend the trial as an observer on behalf of the plaintiff. If a Korean was the defendant and a Chinese was the plaintiff, the case was tried by a Korean judge and a Chinese official could attend the trial. The observer was guaranteed to question or cross question witnesses and to argue against unfair judgments. For the case that a Chinese was murdered in Korea before the Sino Japanese War (the murder case of Chinese merchant Cho hale In), a Chinese official tried jointly with a Korean official, and for the case that a Korean was murdered (the assault and murder of Korean solider Lee Deok Myeong), the Chinese suspect was protected actively by the Chinese agency. On the contrary, the Korean government delivered the Korean criminal for the murder of a Chinese to the Chinese agency and had to try him jointly with the Chinese official, and could not raise any objection to the result of the trial of the Chinese offender in a murder case of a Korean. When a Korean woman (Kang) was murdered by a Chinese in Korea after the Sino Japanese War, the Chinese Consul protected the offender strictly under the according to defendant's nationality principle of the Consul's jurisdiction regardless of the Korean observer's opinion. On the contrary, when a Chinese was murdered (the assault and murder case of Chinese seaman in Hae Zu), the Korean government sent an observer, but had little influence on the consequence of the trial. This situation was much different from that before the Sino Japanese War. However, the new Korea China relationship after the Sino Japanese War ended up as a mere short term 'experiment' due to change in Korea Japan relationship.
-
Center for Korean History 2010 International Journal of Korean History Vol.15 No.2
<P>조공체제에서 근대조약체제로 전환되는 과정은 단일하고 일방적인 것이 아니라 복잡하고 다면적인 것이었다. 또한 일정시기 동안 진행되었던 지역질서가 새로운 질서와 만나게 되면 일정기간 과도기를 거칠 수밖에 없다. 이는 조선을 둘러싼 동아시아 국제 질서에서 전형적으로 드러난다. 강화도조약 이후 조선은 근대조약체제에 편입되지만 조선을 둘러싼 동아시아 국제질서가 단일하게 근대조약체제로 전환되지는 않았으며 이중적 국제질서가 작동하고 있었다.</P><P> 중국은 1882년 조청상민수륙무역장정을 체결함으로써 조공체제를 제도적으로 유지했다. 중국은 일본과 러시아를 견제하기 위해 근대조약체제에 조선을 적극적으로 끌어들이려 했다. 당시 조선을 둘러싼 이중적 국제질서를 이끈 패권국가는 중국이었다. 중국은 당시 조선을 독립국으로 안정하지 않았기 때문에 조선이 국제사회에 적극적으로 참여하는 데에는 많은 제한이 있었다. 따라서 중국의 외압에서 벗어나는 것이 중요한 과제로 등장했다. 조선에는 중국의 간섭에서 벗어나고 내부개혁을 꾀했던 세력이 없지 않았으나 중국의 개입과 고중의 중국 의존적 정책으로 결국 실패했다. 고종도 서구와 협력하여 중국의 조공체제를 완화시키고자 하는 의도를 가지고 있긴 했지만 자신의 권력을 안정시키는 것을 우선적인 과제로 삼았고 정권이 위협받을 때에는 중국군의 파병을 요청하는 반역사적 행위를 거듭했다.</P><P> 청일전쟁 이후 시모노세키조약에서 조공체제를 전면 부인함으로써 이중적 국제질서는 와해되었다. 그런데도 중국은 조선과 통상장정을 체결하고 영사를 상호파견 하는 수준까지만 관계를 회복하려고 했을 뿐 조선과의 특수한 관계를 유지하려고 노력했다. 그리하여 한중관계는 곧바로 근대조약체제에 편입되지 못하고 일정기간 과도체제를 갖게 되었다. 하지만 조선과의 특수한 관계를 유지하여 자국의 영향력을 강화하려고 한 중국의 노력은 더 이상 실현될 수 없는 것이었다. 결국 대한제국의 수립과 영국ㆍ러시아ㆍ일본의 적극적인 개입, 중국인 보호라는 현실적인 문제로 중국은 근대조약을 체결하기로 결정했다. 대한제국은 중국과 1899년 9월 한청통상조약을 체결하고 근대적 조약관계를 공식적으로 수립했다. 이는 전통적인 조공체제와 근대 조약체제가 이중적으로 작동했던 조선을 둘러싼 동북아국제질서가 근대조약체제로 완전하게 단일화되었음을 의미한다.</P><P> 근대조약체제는 표면적으로는 각각의 국가를 대등한 존재로 대우하는 것을 표방하지만 실제로는 국가 간의 분쟁을 전쟁으로 해결하는 군사력 중심의 체제였기 때문에 조선을 둘러싼 동아시아 국제질서의 패권국가로 부상하던 일본이 청일전쟁과 러일전쟁에서 승리한 이후 대한제국을 식민지화하는 데에 국제사회는 동의할 수밖에 없는 현실이었다. 이점을 고려한다면 조선과 중국의 근대조약 체결은 때 늦은 감이 있다.</P>
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
