한일협정에서의 ‘재외공관’ 설치 논의와 ‘상호주의 원칙’의 부재 - 한국의 ‘대일(對日) 정서’가 미친 영향을 중심으로 - = The Issue of Diplomatic Missions in the Republic of Korea-Japan Treaty and the Limited Application of the Principle of Reciprocity: Focusing on the Impact of Korea’s Sentiment toward Japan

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

本稿は、1965年の日韓協定交渉過程における在外公館設置問題に焦点を当て、両国間で共有された「相互主義の原則」が実際に適用された一方で、いかに制限を受けたのかを検討するものである。とりわけ、日本側が要請した「駐韓日本代表部」の設置に対して、韓国政府が一貫して拒否の立場を取り続けた背景に着目し、当時の韓国社会における「対日感情」が外交政策決定に与えた影響を分析する。 李承晩政権、張勉政権、朴正煕政権に至るまで、韓国政府は形式的には「相互主義の原則」に同意していたものの、日本の植民地支配に対する歴史的記憶と国民感情の影響を受け、日本の在外公館設置要求に対しては消極的な対応を示した。その結果、日韓協定の締結に至るまで、「相互主義の原則」は実質的には履行されなかった。 従来、日韓協定に関する研究の多くは、冷戦構造や米国の影響に焦点を当ててきた。それに対し、本研究は「対日感情」という社会的要素を独立した外交変数として照射し、外交政策決定における国内政治および社会的文脈の重要性を強調する。制度的な外交合意であっても、社会的要素としての国民感情によって外交政策の選択が制約を受け得ることを示す、典型的な事例として位置づけられよう。

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study focuses on the issue of establishing diplomatic missions during the negotiation process of the 1965 Republic of Korea (ROK)–Japan Agreement and examines how the “Principle of Reciprocity,” though officially shared between the two countries, was constrained in its actual application. More specifically, this paper analyzes the ROK government’s consistent refusal of Japan’s request to establish a “Japanese Diplomatic Mission in the Republic of Korea” and explores how public sentiment toward Japan—shaped by the historical memory of colonial rule—affected foreign policy decision-making in ROK society at the time.
From the Syngman Rhee administration through the Chang Myon and Park Chung-hee administrations, the ROK government formally agreed to the principle of reciprocity. However, influenced by memories of Japanese colonialism and strong public sentiment toward Japan, it responded passively to Japan’s requests regarding the establishment of diplomatic representation. As a result, the principle of reciprocity remained largely unfulfilled until the agreement was formally concluded. While previous studies on the ROK–Japan Agreement have primarily focused on Cold War dynamics or U.S. influence, this paper instead highlights public sentiment toward Japan as an independent diplomatic variable. In doing so, it underscores the significance of domestic political and social contexts in shaping foreign policy decisions. This case illustrates how institutional diplomatic agreements, even when formally concluded, can be constrained or delayed in practice by social factors such as public sentiment, offering a representative example of such limitations.