2003 Fiscal Year Final Research Report Summary
Comparative Study on the Reception of Western International Law in Korea and Japan
| Project/Area Number |
13420009
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
International law
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Kyushu University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
YANAGIHARA Masaharu Kyushu University, Faculty of Law, Professor, 大学院・法学研究院, 教授 (60143731)
|
|---|
| Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha) |
FUKAMACHI Tomoko Fukuoka International University, Lecturer, 国際コミュニケーション学部, 講師 (30310014)
AKASHI Kinji Keio University, Faculty of Law, Associate Professor, 法学部, 助教授 (00288242)
TSUJI Kenji Saga University, Faculty of Culture and Education, Professor, 文化教育学部, 教授 (70037068)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2001 – 2003
|
| Keywords | Unequal treaties / idea of China as central empire / sovereign equality / relation between Korea and Japan / tribute / subordinate country |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
It is the common understanding now in Japan that Japan achieved a distinct success in accepting modern Western international law in the Meiji Era(1868-1912), in marked contrast to the unequivocal failure of its reception in modern China and Korea. Questions as to this common understanding are twofold : the first question is whether this understanding is really correct and sustainable. The second is what would be a satisfactory reason for the difference between Japan, and China and Korea, if we accept that Japan was successful in the reception of Western international law in distinct contrast to China and Korea. Opinions of Japanese, Korean and American scholars about an issue of the status of Korea in the context of the idea of China as central empire were totally different, especially because it is usually said that the idea is the main obstacle to the success of the reception of Western international law. Some Korean and American scholars insisted that Korea was regarded as "peers", not as "subordinate vassal" by China, which is not acceptable to most Japanese scholars. An opinion of Chinese scholars about this issue would be necessary for a further discussion.
|
