A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 22, 2008, August 22, 2009, August 22, 2010, August 22, 2011, August 22, 2012, August 22, 2013, August 22, 2015, August 22, 2017, and August 22, 2018. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The link to this article is broken.
A further complication to the legality is that the great seal of state that you see on the treaty is forged. The actual seal was hidden by then-Crown Princess Yoon: Empress Sunjeong. -- Snow ( talk) 01:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The title photo of this page is not document image of "Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty", which may mislead historical facts. So, it must be removed. 129.254.33.196 12:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the poster's intention! 129.254.33.196 00:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Gyeongsul Gukchi (경술국치) is NOT the treaty, but rather a term that refers to the event that is signified by the Treaty, i.e., Korea's loss of its status as a sovereign state.
Moreover, we should mention that the "day of national shame (Gukchi-il, 국치일)" is August 29th, when the treaty was proclaimed to public. ("Proclaim" may be the wrong word to use here --- please forgive me if it's wrong. I'm not an expert on English legal terms. :)
Similarly, I think it's misleading to say that "Hanil Hapbang Neugyak (한일합방늑약)" is a Korean term for it. It is certainly NOT an official term --- neugyak (늑약) merely means "a forced (and hence, illegitimate) treaty," and "Hanil Hapbang" is just another term for "Japan's annexation of Korea." So it just means "A forced treaty that made Korea a part of Japan."
The Korean version of this article is named "Hanil Byeonghap Joyak" ko:한일 병합 조약, which is just like the Japanese version with the first two letters ("Korea" and "Japan") reversed. I think that's a more common way to refer to the treaty.
I'll implement these changes if nobody disagrees. Yongjik 03:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
日韓基本条約の前交渉は1951年7月頃より連合国司令部(SCAP)の仲介によりおこなわれ、当初から英語表記での文面が論題とされ紛糾した経緯が文献資料としてのこされています。「already null and void(もはや無効)」とするか「null and void(当初から無効)」とするかが重要な焦点だったわけですから、良く勉強していないWikipedianが都合よく「日本語の読みかたのあいまいさ」などと定義して恥をかかないよう。くりかえしますがこれは日韓基本条約をめぐり棚上げされた「歴史認識問題」に関わる重要な論点です。また「解決せざるをもって解決したとみなす」の東洋的含蓄に満ちた著名な「密約」は歴史認識問題にも関連しているものです。-- 大和屋敷 ( talk) 20:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
日韓併合条約 Hiragana にっかんへいごうじょうやく Rōmaji Nikkan Heigō Jōyaku
Hangul 한일병합조약 (한일합방조약, 한일합방늑약) Hanja 韓日倂合条約 (韓日合邦条約, 韓日合邦勒約
It is not the Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty, but the HANGUK - NIPAN Annexation Treaty
PL, refer !
-- 안성균 ( talk) 08:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The descriptions about James Crawford's opinion removed by 131.111.156.24 is supported by the attached sources.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help); line feed character in |trans_title=
at position 60 (
help)</ref>{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)Dear Phoenix7777. I am not a regular editor of Wikipedia and apologize if I did not follow the correct procedures. I work for Professor Crawford. He has asked me to remove the material. I do not speak Japanese, and I do not understand how an inaccurate account of his views came to appear in the Japanese sources. I have not been able to locate an English source. I have not deleted the material again for the moment, but I will investigate how to have it removed. 131.111.156.24 ( talk) 10:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Phoenix7777. I have now registered as a user (RedVictory356) and have posted a request for dispute resolution. I hope we can resolve the problem amicably. Best regards. RedVictory356 ( talk) 11:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Bobrayner. The best source I can find to demonstrate that the material contradicts Professor Crawford's published views is the following paragraph from J Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, 2nd ed (Oxford University Press, 2006), pp 260-1:
"Asian States such as (for example) China, the Ottoman Empire, Afghanistan, Bukhara, Burma, Ceylon, Japan, Korea, Thailand (Siam), Brunei and the Maratha Empire in India were early recognized as independent States subject to international law. Treaty practice in particular reflected the position. This did not necessarily mean that the same rules were applied to or by such States as were applied by European States between themselves. But that is to be explained not by any distinction between 'civilized' and 'barbarous' States but because many of those rules were what would now be called regional or local customs rather than general international law."
In other words, contrary to the inaccurate material, there was no legal distinction between civilized and uncivilized states, and international law applied both to Japan and to Korea. A footnote to the reference to Japan (p 261, n 22) cites several treaties from the 1850s, confirming that this applied well before the relevant date, 1910. Additionally, a footnote to the reference to Korea (p 261, n 23) states as follows:
"Japan concluded two agreements, establishing a protectorate over and then for the annexation of Korea: Japan-Korea, Protocol regarding the Situation of Korea, 23 February 1904, 195 CTS 75; Treaty of Annexation, 22 August 1910, 212 CTS 43; Lee (2002) 11 Pacific Rim L & Pol J 63, 92. See also Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (Korea-France), 4 June 1886, 168 CTS 45. Though Korea was among several East Asian States which Lorimer and Oppenheim doubted were 'fully sovereign', the position actually taken by States did not involve a denial of status. See Kingsbury (1998) 9 EJIL 599, 606."
In other words, in Professor Crawford's view, Korea was not denied status as a fully sovereign state at the time of the annexation. So although I can't find a source confirming what Professor Crawford said at the 2001 conference (to my knowledge, he didn't publish anything connected with it), I maintain that the current material misrepresents his views and should be deleted. RedVictory356 ( talk) 12:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I certainly did not withdraw the claim and Phoenix7777 has certainly not refuted my points. Phoenix7777 emailed Professor Crawford directly, but that went nowhere. I admit that I have lost patience with actively pursuing the issue and am not sure what else I can do other than cite the sources posted above. We would still like the inaccurate material to be and to remain deleted. RedVictory356 ( talk) 11:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks very much User:Bobrayner for your intervention on this. RedVictory356 ( talk) 11:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Phoenix777. Please do not post my email address on this public webpage; I have deleted it. You did initially email Professor Crawford directly and you have continued to do so, in a tone that is inappropriate for addressing a senior academic. Please stop emailing either him or me. I will not respond to any more of your emails. RedVictory356 ( talk) 13:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear User:Bobrayner (or anyone else who is willing to help). I am frustrated by this process and am not inclined to continue to debate with this person or to contribute to the page. Despite my comment above, he is continuing to email both me and Professor Crawford. I would be grateful for any advice on (1) how, if he continues, I can make a formal complaint and (2) how can I get my email addresses deleted permanently from the historical version of this page (where he posted them). RedVictory356 ( talk) 13:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear User:Demiurge1000 and User:Ubikwit. Thank you very much for your help on this; I appreciate it greatly! When I have time I might make a more substantial contribution on some of these issues. RedVictory356 ( talk) 12:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I think this paragraph is based on Kan Kimura's statements according to the citations. But at the previous discussion above Crawford denied Kimura's misquotation. And I found the Alexis's major argument is that Japanese scholars studied the international law to occupy Korea but she is not saying the treaty is lawful and legitimate. Also Anthony Carty's opinion is not stated by himself but quoted by Kan, so we need the original source. I am very doubtful on the paragraph at the moment. I propose to delete it until we conclude it is an accurate description. -- Cheol ( talk) 02:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Carty prefers seeing the relationship between Japan and Korea at the time with reference to the reality of the then international community dominated by Western powers, rather than viewing it in terms of treaty law as argued by Korean scholars.See a review of an Anthony Carty's book.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Although this article gives the Japanese name as 日韓併合条約, the ja.wikipedia article is titled 韓国併合ニ関スル条約. From what I can see after perusing the Web, the latter is the official name and the more numerous form in primary Japanese language sources, with secondary sources sometimes using the former form. Is there any reason not to harmonize the name given in this article with the title of the ja.wikipedia article? I imagine an argument could be made that both forms should be listed, so that is also a reasonable approach, but 韓国併合ニ関スル条約 should be included here, I think. I will make this revision in a few days unless someone raises a major objection.
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 22, 2008, August 22, 2009, August 22, 2010, August 22, 2011, August 22, 2012, August 22, 2013, August 22, 2015, August 22, 2017, and August 22, 2018. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The link to this article is broken.
A further complication to the legality is that the great seal of state that you see on the treaty is forged. The actual seal was hidden by then-Crown Princess Yoon: Empress Sunjeong. -- Snow ( talk) 01:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The title photo of this page is not document image of "Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty", which may mislead historical facts. So, it must be removed. 129.254.33.196 12:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the poster's intention! 129.254.33.196 00:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Gyeongsul Gukchi (경술국치) is NOT the treaty, but rather a term that refers to the event that is signified by the Treaty, i.e., Korea's loss of its status as a sovereign state.
Moreover, we should mention that the "day of national shame (Gukchi-il, 국치일)" is August 29th, when the treaty was proclaimed to public. ("Proclaim" may be the wrong word to use here --- please forgive me if it's wrong. I'm not an expert on English legal terms. :)
Similarly, I think it's misleading to say that "Hanil Hapbang Neugyak (한일합방늑약)" is a Korean term for it. It is certainly NOT an official term --- neugyak (늑약) merely means "a forced (and hence, illegitimate) treaty," and "Hanil Hapbang" is just another term for "Japan's annexation of Korea." So it just means "A forced treaty that made Korea a part of Japan."
The Korean version of this article is named "Hanil Byeonghap Joyak" ko:한일 병합 조약, which is just like the Japanese version with the first two letters ("Korea" and "Japan") reversed. I think that's a more common way to refer to the treaty.
I'll implement these changes if nobody disagrees. Yongjik 03:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
日韓基本条約の前交渉は1951年7月頃より連合国司令部(SCAP)の仲介によりおこなわれ、当初から英語表記での文面が論題とされ紛糾した経緯が文献資料としてのこされています。「already null and void(もはや無効)」とするか「null and void(当初から無効)」とするかが重要な焦点だったわけですから、良く勉強していないWikipedianが都合よく「日本語の読みかたのあいまいさ」などと定義して恥をかかないよう。くりかえしますがこれは日韓基本条約をめぐり棚上げされた「歴史認識問題」に関わる重要な論点です。また「解決せざるをもって解決したとみなす」の東洋的含蓄に満ちた著名な「密約」は歴史認識問題にも関連しているものです。-- 大和屋敷 ( talk) 20:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
日韓併合条約 Hiragana にっかんへいごうじょうやく Rōmaji Nikkan Heigō Jōyaku
Hangul 한일병합조약 (한일합방조약, 한일합방늑약) Hanja 韓日倂合条約 (韓日合邦条約, 韓日合邦勒約
It is not the Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty, but the HANGUK - NIPAN Annexation Treaty
PL, refer !
-- 안성균 ( talk) 08:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The descriptions about James Crawford's opinion removed by 131.111.156.24 is supported by the attached sources.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help); line feed character in |trans_title=
at position 60 (
help)</ref>{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)Dear Phoenix7777. I am not a regular editor of Wikipedia and apologize if I did not follow the correct procedures. I work for Professor Crawford. He has asked me to remove the material. I do not speak Japanese, and I do not understand how an inaccurate account of his views came to appear in the Japanese sources. I have not been able to locate an English source. I have not deleted the material again for the moment, but I will investigate how to have it removed. 131.111.156.24 ( talk) 10:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Phoenix7777. I have now registered as a user (RedVictory356) and have posted a request for dispute resolution. I hope we can resolve the problem amicably. Best regards. RedVictory356 ( talk) 11:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Bobrayner. The best source I can find to demonstrate that the material contradicts Professor Crawford's published views is the following paragraph from J Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, 2nd ed (Oxford University Press, 2006), pp 260-1:
"Asian States such as (for example) China, the Ottoman Empire, Afghanistan, Bukhara, Burma, Ceylon, Japan, Korea, Thailand (Siam), Brunei and the Maratha Empire in India were early recognized as independent States subject to international law. Treaty practice in particular reflected the position. This did not necessarily mean that the same rules were applied to or by such States as were applied by European States between themselves. But that is to be explained not by any distinction between 'civilized' and 'barbarous' States but because many of those rules were what would now be called regional or local customs rather than general international law."
In other words, contrary to the inaccurate material, there was no legal distinction between civilized and uncivilized states, and international law applied both to Japan and to Korea. A footnote to the reference to Japan (p 261, n 22) cites several treaties from the 1850s, confirming that this applied well before the relevant date, 1910. Additionally, a footnote to the reference to Korea (p 261, n 23) states as follows:
"Japan concluded two agreements, establishing a protectorate over and then for the annexation of Korea: Japan-Korea, Protocol regarding the Situation of Korea, 23 February 1904, 195 CTS 75; Treaty of Annexation, 22 August 1910, 212 CTS 43; Lee (2002) 11 Pacific Rim L & Pol J 63, 92. See also Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (Korea-France), 4 June 1886, 168 CTS 45. Though Korea was among several East Asian States which Lorimer and Oppenheim doubted were 'fully sovereign', the position actually taken by States did not involve a denial of status. See Kingsbury (1998) 9 EJIL 599, 606."
In other words, in Professor Crawford's view, Korea was not denied status as a fully sovereign state at the time of the annexation. So although I can't find a source confirming what Professor Crawford said at the 2001 conference (to my knowledge, he didn't publish anything connected with it), I maintain that the current material misrepresents his views and should be deleted. RedVictory356 ( talk) 12:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I certainly did not withdraw the claim and Phoenix7777 has certainly not refuted my points. Phoenix7777 emailed Professor Crawford directly, but that went nowhere. I admit that I have lost patience with actively pursuing the issue and am not sure what else I can do other than cite the sources posted above. We would still like the inaccurate material to be and to remain deleted. RedVictory356 ( talk) 11:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks very much User:Bobrayner for your intervention on this. RedVictory356 ( talk) 11:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Phoenix777. Please do not post my email address on this public webpage; I have deleted it. You did initially email Professor Crawford directly and you have continued to do so, in a tone that is inappropriate for addressing a senior academic. Please stop emailing either him or me. I will not respond to any more of your emails. RedVictory356 ( talk) 13:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear User:Bobrayner (or anyone else who is willing to help). I am frustrated by this process and am not inclined to continue to debate with this person or to contribute to the page. Despite my comment above, he is continuing to email both me and Professor Crawford. I would be grateful for any advice on (1) how, if he continues, I can make a formal complaint and (2) how can I get my email addresses deleted permanently from the historical version of this page (where he posted them). RedVictory356 ( talk) 13:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear User:Demiurge1000 and User:Ubikwit. Thank you very much for your help on this; I appreciate it greatly! When I have time I might make a more substantial contribution on some of these issues. RedVictory356 ( talk) 12:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I think this paragraph is based on Kan Kimura's statements according to the citations. But at the previous discussion above Crawford denied Kimura's misquotation. And I found the Alexis's major argument is that Japanese scholars studied the international law to occupy Korea but she is not saying the treaty is lawful and legitimate. Also Anthony Carty's opinion is not stated by himself but quoted by Kan, so we need the original source. I am very doubtful on the paragraph at the moment. I propose to delete it until we conclude it is an accurate description. -- Cheol ( talk) 02:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Carty prefers seeing the relationship between Japan and Korea at the time with reference to the reality of the then international community dominated by Western powers, rather than viewing it in terms of treaty law as argued by Korean scholars.See a review of an Anthony Carty's book.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Although this article gives the Japanese name as 日韓併合条約, the ja.wikipedia article is titled 韓国併合ニ関スル条約. From what I can see after perusing the Web, the latter is the official name and the more numerous form in primary Japanese language sources, with secondary sources sometimes using the former form. Is there any reason not to harmonize the name given in this article with the title of the ja.wikipedia article? I imagine an argument could be made that both forms should be listed, so that is also a reasonable approach, but 韓国併合ニ関スル条約 should be included here, I think. I will make this revision in a few days unless someone raises a major objection.