청일전쟁 개시에 관한 국제법적 고찰 — 청일전쟁 선전포고의 법리와 그 문명론적 접근에 대한 비판 — = International Legal Reflections on the Outbreak of the First Sino-Japanese War – A Critique of the Jurisprudence and its Civilizational Approach –

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Was the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895) justified? The legality of the Sino-Japanese War may be considered a matter of past history. However, there are issues that need to be examined in depth. While there has been a lot of research on the Sino-Japanese War, there is a lack of research analyzing the legitimacy of the Sino-Japanese War from an international law perspective. An international legal assessment of the Sino-Japanese War is relevant, especially given that it is linked to so much modern history. In particular, it is necessary to focus on the August 1, 1894 Declaration of War, which is the defining point in international law as the beginning of the Sino-Japanese War. This study points out that the legitimacy of the beginning of the Sino-Japanese War is problematic. To summarize the arguments of this study: (1) Whether or not Joseon was a vassal state may have been a de facto cause of the war, but it is unlikely to have been a de jure cause of the war. Furthermore, the concept of suzerainty was not clear in the international legal system at the time. The word suzerainty was mainly used for the Ottoman Empire, and it seems to have been applied in East Asia around 1905. (2) Moreover, the humanitarian approach expressed in the Qing's English declaration of war is not without its problems. Although the Qing claimed military intervention at its request, it cannot be considered a legitimate cause of the Sino-Japanese War. It was a domestic disturbance. Later, the Qing claimed to be saving Korea from Japanese harassment, but this logic was different from humanitarian intervention in the past, which had a different legal structure. (3) On the other hand, the root cause of the Sino-Japanese War proposed by Japan was colonization, which has a civilizational nature. This is because it claims to have infringed upon the sphere of influence that planned colonization. At that time, however, colonization after the formation of the sphere of influence was recognized as a practice among colonialist countries, not as a violation of rights, because this logic was not recognized as the law of territorial acquisition. It cannot be overlooked that the colonial war or the war against the uncivilized was not called a war under international law, but a “small war”. (4) Moreover, the Sino-Japanese War was fought outside the realm of international law at that time. From the writings of international law scholars before and after the Sino-Japanese War, it can be seen that Japan could not be recognized as a fully civilized country before the Sino-Japanese War. Therefore, theoretically, the Sino-Japanese War could be seen as a war fought before the Qing and Japan were recognized as fully civilized countries in 1894. The fact that such a bizarre and strange situation arises makes one take a critical approach to the international law of the time.