Volume 9 | Issue 9 | Number 1 | Article ID 3493 | Feb 28, 2011 The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Japan's Colonization of Korea in Light of International Law 国際法から見た日本の朝鮮植民地化 Totsuka Etsuro Japan’s Colonization of Korea in imposed against their will under Light of International Law the political and military circumstances. Totsuka Etsuro I would like to face history with Introduction sincerity. I would like to have the courage to squarely confront the At the centenary of Japan’s Annexation of the facts of history and to accept them Korean Empire in August 2010, speculation with humility, as well as to be centered on whether Japan could achieve a honest to reflect upon our own radical departure from its traditional foreign errors. Those who inflict pain tend policy of ‘Datsu-A Nyu-Ou”1, namely leaving to forget it while those who Asia to become a Western style country. This suffered cannot forget it easily. To policy, resulted in Japan’s colonization of Korea the tremendous damage and in August 1910 and led further to the invasion sufferings that this colonial rule of China and other Asian nations, ending in caused, I express here once again Japan`s utter defeat in August 1945. my feelings of deep remorse and my heartfelt apology.” The statement2 by Prime Minister Kan Naoto released on 10 August 2010 ahead of the 29 August centennial of Japan's annexation of the Despite some positive points, however, Kan’s Korean Peninsula went further than any other statement failed to clarify one of the thorniest postwar Japanese PM. In it he said, controversies between the close neighbouring countries. He remained silent on the illegal nature of the 1910 annexation treaty of Korea “This year marks a significant by Japan, despite the fact that not only the juncture for the Japan-Republic of government, but also scholars as well as Korea relationship. In August citizens of the Republic of Korea, have been precisely 100 years ago, the Japan- strongly insisting that the 1910 Japan-Korea Korea Annexation Treaty was Annexation Treaty was null and void ab concluded, marking the beginning initio. of the colonial rule of 36 years. As demonstrated by strong resistance The Prime Minister had another chance to such as the Samil independence move forward on this issue, when he spoke on movement, the Korean people of foreign policy on 20 January 2011. that time were deprived of their Unfortunately, he again maintained silence on country and culture, and their the issue of the invalidity of the 1910 ethnic pride was deeply scarred by annexation treaty. In it, he stressed mainly the the colonial rule which was importance of Japan-US relations and his 1 9 | 9 | 1 APJ | JF efforts to strengthen cooperation in the areas In 2008, the author discovered three pieces of of the economy and security in the Asia Pacific calligraphy signed by Ahn Jung-geun (a general Region.3 of the Korean Independence Voluntary Army)8, who was tried and executed by the Japanese in Why is it so difficult for Japan to change its 1910 for having shot and killed Ito Hirobumi foreign policies towards Asian nations such as (former Resident-General of Korea). They were Korea? This paper focuses on serious violations kept under lock and key in the Ryukoko of international law, violations which Japan has University Library. While researching Ahn’s never properly admitted. These violations, and trial,9 I learned that its jurisdiction was based their subsequent denial, triggered a flood of on the Korea Protectorate Treaty of 1905. This further gross violations of international law by stimulated further research on the validity of 4 Japan. Thus, Japan has failed to establish the the imposed treaties.10 most important foundations for a possible “Northeast Asian Community”. 2. Japanese Society’s Response to the Old Treaties 1. Current Status of Japan and the Author’s Approach to the Issue 2-1. Implications of an NHK Special Report In 2010, Japan was in the process of political The public television network NHK aired a reform and faced rising demands forlarge-scale special on Ito Hirobumi and Ahn repentance for its colonial past.5 However, the Jung-geun in April 2010.11 Most viewers might ‘lack’ of research on the imposed treaties over have assumed that Ahn’s trial was based on the past 100 years has formed anJapanese jurisdiction legitimized by the 1905 insurmountable wall blocking relationstreaty. between South Korea and Japan, and North Korea and Japan. Is it really possible, however, that a treaty depriving an independent state of diplomatic The Japanese public, like frogs in a well, often sovereignty and independence could have been preoccupied with domestic issues, has been concluded by the mere signature of the Foreign little interested in ‘humanity’ as a whole. This Minister? I think that the 1905 Korea makes it difficult to transform our historical Protectorate Treaty would have required the perspective.6 Japanese mass media andsignature and/or ratification by Emperor education are not fulfilling their original Kojong of the Korean Imperial Government functions, either. They frequently provide (‘Ratification Required Theory’). The Japanese misleading information, distorting important government, however, relied on a ‘No issues involving Japan and Korea.7 Ratification Required Theory’ according to which it was legally permissible under In the fall of 1992, I discovered a report international law for the Foreign Minister to published by the 1963 International Law sign a treaty transferring Korea’s diplomatic Commission of the United Nations at the rights and independence without ratification by London University Library. The 1963 UN ILC the Korean Emperor. report pointed to the 1905 Korea Protectorate Treaty as an example among four similar The NHK program was based on the ‘No treaties that were null and void since they Ratification Required Theory’ as propounded were the result of coercion by the Japanese of e.g. by Professor Unno Fukuju, who argued for individual Korean state representatives. As a the ‘validity’ of treaties forced upon the Korean result, I started to look into the validity of this Empire by Japan. The documentary did, treaty. however, create space for Professor Yi Tae-jin, 2 9 | 9 | 1 APJ | JF who insisted that treaties lacking proper 1992, namely 14 years before the publication of ratification were invalid, namely null and void the above mentioned paper of 2006, I sent the ab initio. draft paper to Socialist Party Diet member Sen. Motooka Shoji, inviting comments. His office 2-2. Silence and Absence of Research warned me that publication of the paper could incur the risk “of being killed by terrorists.” A NHK’s documentary suffered from insufficient journalist of my acquaintance shared this view. research by the Japanese side. The problem Why was the issue taboo in Japan? Submitted was not, however, that Japanese international to the United Nations General Assembly, the law scholars were unwilling to address the ILC report of 1963 was not confidential. process of concluding the annexation treaty. However, written in English, it was unknown to Prior to the Second World War, the authorities the Japanese media or people in general. The crushed academic freedom, and scholars faced 1910 ‘Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty’ was persecution for `unwanted` research. However, based on the 1905 ‘Japan-Korea Protectorate such a `culture of silence’ continued even after Treaty.’14 If the latter was found to be void, the military regime disappeared under the New then the former should also be judged void. Constitution, which guaranteed academic Such an argument would, however, pose freedom. troublesome legal issues for those who continued to justify Japan’s colonial rule over 3. The Atmosphere of Forced Silence Korea, and naturally provoke strong resistance. Postwar Japan has not established effective As a result, it was necessary to postpone freedom for research that could challenge publication of the paper. established taboos concerning the nation`s 3-1-2. Resistance from the Government and the colonial rule. An intimidating atmosphere, Conservatives which does not even exclude physical violence, has weighed on academics, the media and Rather than immediately publishing the paper publishers. in Japan, I worked on an NGO report to be submitted to the UN. This report examined the 3-1. Challenges in Researching the Old Treaty relationship between the validity of the 1910 Issues Annexation Treaty and that of the 1905 3-1-1. Challenges in Raising Issues Protectorate Treaty. Rene Wadlow, Main Representative of the International Fellowship In 2006, I asserted in an academic journal that of Reconciliation (IFOR) to the UN, Geneva, ‘the Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty’ had been agreed to submit a written statement by IFOR signed by the Korean Foreign Minister as a in English assessing the argument in the 1963 result of threats by Ito Hirobumi and the ILC report (Invalidity of the 1905 ‘Protectorate Japanese Army against individualTreaty’). The report was submitted to the UN representatives (including the ForeignCommission on Human Rights on 15 February Minister) of the Korean Empire, and that the 1993, and distributed as a UN NGO 15 Treaty was therefore null and void ab initio, document. The IFOR document was reported 16 i.e. it was invalid from the start.12 by a Japanese newspaper (Mainichi) and a Korean English-language newspaper also cited The paper was based on material on the origin it. In this way, it became known in Korea and of colonial rule included in the 1963 Report of Japan that the 1963 ILC report contained such the UN International Law Commissionan argument.17 The following is the core of the (ILC).13 Upon finding the ILC report of autumn written statement, which still seems relevant 3 9 | 9 | 1 APJ | JF today.