태평양전쟁기 휴 보튼의 대일정책 구상과 한국문제 인식

安鍾哲(An Jong-Chol) 역사학회 2006 역사학보 Vol.0 No.189

This paper deals with Hugh Borton and his policy recommendations regarding Korea. Hugh Borton was an expert on Japan at the Department of State during the Pacific War and prepared several papers for Korean trusteeship. He came to Japan as a Quaker missionary in his youth, and returned to the U.S. for Japanese Studies. During and after the Pacific War, he actively participated in making policies toward Japan. He tried to get rid of Japanese militarism while preserving the emperor system. His policy recommendations was almost fully adopted by the U.S. government. After he returned to Columbia University, he tried to establish Japanese studies in a higher education. It is not well known that he wrote many papers related to postwar policy toward Korea. He analysed in his papers Korean politics, economy, and society. The conclusion of his researches is that considering Korean total submission to the Japanese Empire, the U.S. government should secure some period for the trusteeship by the international organization before Korean independence. He did not belittle Korean capacity for independence but thought that it was very hard for Korean people to have a autonomous system in politics and economy. As his case shows, some experts on East Asia in the U.S. had the relation between the Japanese Empire and colonies in their minds.

주일대사 에드윈 라이샤워의 `근대화론`과 한국사 인식

안종철 ( An Jong Chol ) 역사문제연구소 2013 역사문제연구 Vol.17 No.1

This paper attempts to explain Edwin O. Reischauer`s “Modernization Theory” in relation to Korea. As is well known, the theory has diverse meanings such as industrialization and democracy. However, Reischauer rather focused on industrialization. To Reischauer sometimes industrialization and modernization is interchangeable. In his idea, Japanese society had prepared well for modernization before Meiji Restoration (1868) because it had feudal society with commercialization. Japanese Modernization is a role model to East Asia so that he supported Korean-Japanese Normalization Treaty (1965) as US Ambassador to Japan. In his chapters related to Korea writing in East Asia: Tradition and Transformation, he and his disciple and professor, Edward W. Wagner argued that Korea was more sinicized than even China. Wagner studied in Japan under Takahashi Tooru who was colonial expert on Korea before 1945. In the book, traditional Korea was full of stagnation and political strife. Just after World War II, there was so few Korean history textbook in English so that they relied upon English translation of the Chosenshi [Korean History] written by Hatata Takashi, a Japanese historian who focused on China before World War II and changed his interest into Korean history after Japanese surrender. In Chosenshi, Hatada might resurrect Koreans in traditional society with a dynamic relation between the oppressed people (minjung) and ruling class. However, most Korean people is depicted as only oppressed by the ruling class so that the society was still stagnant and oppressing. It assumed that Korea was only modernized by outer forces. The thesis is typical impact and response model. In terms of the fact that Korean traditional society was not prepared for modernization, Hatada and Reischauer has a common ground. Through Reischauer and his influence, it is explained how Korean Studies was set up not only as institutions but also with unique contents. In forming the Korean Studies in the US, there were complex nexus among colonial Japanese intellectuals, progressive postwar historians, and US modernization theorist.

탈냉전 전후 독일의 시민권제도와 이주민 정책의 변화-국적법과 이민법을 중심으로-

안종철 ( An Jong Chol ) 고려대학교 역사연구소 2017 사총 Vol.90 No.-

This paper aims to review German identity issues through gradual changes of Nationality and Immigration Law around Post-Cold War era. Unlike existing literature, this article tries to analyze social and legal issues in Germany with implication on current Korean society. Traditionally, Germany has defined itself as cultural community and delineated its boundary on jus sanguine or blood-based line. Since the German Imperial and State Citizenship Law was enacted in 1913, the blood-based principle continued even under the German Basic Law or Constitutional Law in 1949. However, the guest workers who came to Germany from mid-1950s onwards and proliferated into 1970s, had raised a thorny issue of their integration into German society. Thus, several core ideas that Heinz Kuhn brought in his pioneering report, stipulating specific conditions for the integration of foreigners, were realized in the revised Nationality Law (2000) under the SPD administration. The revised law permitted foreigners with 5 to 8 years of work experience in Germany to get permanent residency and to be naturalized afterwards. Following a new revised Nationality Law, a newly created Immigration Law (2005) stipulated the immigration of foreigners to Germany from non-German states. Since it was possible to realize comprehensive immigration regime through labor, investment, and refuge etc, foreign immigrants have exponentially increased in Germany. These legal changes raise ultimate question of identity, namely, who Germans are. A German case brings Korean case to the relief, particularly a necessity for Korea to devise a comprehensive immigration law, incorporating diverse but dispersed laws on foreigners. Thus German case also will be a great reference for Korea to search for an identity question in the future.

해방 전후 아더 번스(Arthur C. Bunce)의 활동과 미국의 대한정책

안종철 ( Jong Chol An ) 한국미국사학회 2010 미국사연구 Vol.31 No.-

This article deals with Arthur C. Bunce who, though now almost forgotten, was in charge of Korean economy during the American Military Government and the early period of the Republic of Korea. Bunce obtained very sympathetic understanding of Korean rural situation and of Korean peasant’s poverty while working in Hamheung, Northeast Korea as a Canadian YMCA member for six years since 1928. Having returned to the US, he studied agricultural economy at the University of Wisconsin and obtained Ph. D. degree. He began to work at the Federal Reserve Board after being naturalized into US citizen. He published two articles in the Journal published by the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR) at the end of the World War II in that he argued that Korea needs land reform and industralization. The argument was very prescient for the future of Korea. After Korea was liberated from Japan, in February 1946, he became chief economic advisor to John R. Hodge, commander in the US Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK) while leading State Department officials in South Korea. His role was to mediate between the USAMGIK and the State Department. Bunce was chief advisor to American part in US-USSR Joint Commission as well. With this position, he tried to persuade the State Department to support the Left-Right coalition movement, American economic aid, and Korean economic development, etc. He firmly believed that his ideas would effectively frustrate communist’s schemes in North and South Korea. Unfortunately, he was checked by Hodge and later Syngman Rhee, the limit that he was not able to fully overcome. Overall, however, with his persuasion of State Department officials, Bunce arouse the importance of Korea in the coming Cold War confrontation and succeeded in securing economic aid from the US government. Moreover, he became chief in Korean Section of the Economic Cooperation Adminstration (ECA), the position that enabled the Republic of Korea to pacify economic inflation and to deal with full economic recovery just before the Korean War. Ill-fated, his role ended de facto when the Korean War broke out so that the economic rehabilitation was postponed until the end of 1950s. The case of Bunce reveals one of human dimensions of the Korean-American relations from the end of colonial period and the beginning of the Republic of Korea.

식민지 시기ㆍ해방 이후 교육자ㆍ사회운동가 장리욱의 활동과 민주주의 이해

안종철 ( Jong-chol An ) 이화사학연구소 2021 이화사학연구 Vol.- No.63

This paper deals with Lee-Wook Chnag (1895-1983)’s activities and his understanding of Korean democracy. He was an important and active Korean intellectual and leader during colonial and post-colonial context. Chang was one of very few people who went to the US during the colonial period, and attended Dubuque college and Columbia University, BA and MA program respectively. In the Columbia University, his teachers were John Dewey and William Kilpatrick who developed a new ideas and approaches on democracy and education. Returning to Korea, Chang worked as Principal at Sinsŏng [Middle] School and served Suyangdonguhoe, domestic branch of Hŭngsadan whose founder was the famous Korean national leader, An Ch’ang-Ho. In post-colonial context, Chang escaped from North Korea and took very critical attitude towards the communist regime. Under the US Military Government he worked as Principal at Seoul Normal School, a College Dean at Seoul National University (SNU), and then President at SNU. However, He was not greeted by Syngman Rhee who was antagonistic towards An Ch’ang-Ho. Thus, Chang was forced to resign from the President of SNU. When the Korean War broke out, Chang and several Korean elites went to Tokyo to serve the Headquarters of the Allied Forces where he translated North Korean documents to English ones. By 1958, with the help of the Asia foundation, Chang managed a broadcasting program on “democracy” while he supported the South Korean-friendly organizations in Japan. When he returned to Korea in 1958, Chang was not still welcomed by Syngman Rhee regime. Only after April Revolution, 1960, he was called as Ambassador to the US, but that career was also disrupted by May 16 Coup in 1961. Chang again stayed in the US, helping Hŭngsadan, and only in 1964 he returned to Korea. In Korea, he participated in managing magazine and writing several articles on Korean democratic issues. Mr. Chang’s case is highly interesting because his ideas and activities such as anti-communism, due process, and the value of freedom in academia show the boundary and limits of democracy in Korea during the Cold War era.

1930-40년대 남산 소재 경성호국신사의 건립, 활용, 그리고 해방 후 변화

안종철(An Jong Chol) 서울시립대학교 서울학연구소 2011 서울학연구 Vol.- No.42

문명개화에서 반공으로: 이승만과 개신교의 관계의 변화, 1912~1950

안종철 ( Jong Chol An ) 연세대학교 국학연구원 2009 동방학지 Vol.145 No.-

미군정 참여 미국선교사ㆍ관련 인사들의 활동과 대한민국 정부수립

안종철(An Jong-Chol),정병준(토론자) 한국기독교역사연구소 2009 한국기독교와 역사 Vol.30 No.-

이 논문은 해방 직후 미군정에 참여한 선교사 및 관련인사들의 입장과 활동을 다루었다. 전후에 선교사 혹은 자녀들은 미군정 측이 한국 통치를 위해 가장 주목한 집단이다. 왜냐하면 이들은 19세기 말부터 한국의 의료와 교육 등의 영역에서 다양한 활동을 전개했고 한국에 대한 정보를 체계적으로 축적한 유일한 집단이었기 때문이다. 해방 후 이들은 우선 한국에 군정관리와 자문관으로 입국해서 미군정에서 활동했다. 선교사 관련 인사들은 태평양전쟁기에 미국정부의 대일전 수행에 참여한 경험이 있었고 한국에서 선교사업과 ‘민주주의’의 확립을 같은 일로 인식하고 있었기 때문에 미군정에 적극적으로 협조했다. 그러나 현실적 어려움 때문에 남한에 선교사들이 공식적으로 입국하기 시작한 것은 남한주둔 미전술군의 감축과 물가안정이 이루어지기 시작한 이후였다. 한국에 1946년 초부터 입국하기 시작한 선교사들은 대체로 1947년 말부터 1948년 초에 걸쳐서 선교부를 다시 구축했다. 선교사들 중 가장 중요한 교파는 북장로교 측이었는데 귀환한 이들 중 상당수는 대체로 식민지 시기 신사참배문제에 대해 당국에 협조적인 인물들이었다. 특히 H. H. 언더우드는 선교사들의 귀국을 돕고 선교부 재산을 다시 찾을 수 있게 해준 가장 중요한 인사였다. 새로운 환경 속에서 북장로교 측은 교회, 학교, 병원 등에 대한 재정지원을 통해 한국 개신교계에 대한 영향력을 재개할 수 있게 되었다. 대부분의 선교사들은 미군정과 우호적인 관계에 있었고 대한민국 정부수립에 대해 우호적인 인식을 가지고 있었다. 이를 보여주는 가장 대표적인 인물은 미군정에 참여했던 H. H. 언더우드와 J. E. 피셔이다. 아울러 이승만의 오랜 친구 H. B. 헐버트는 대한민국의 탄생을 가장 열렬히 환영했다. 선교사들 중 미군정과 남한정부에 대해 비판적인 태도를 취한 인사들도 있었는데 대표적으로 해방 전 YMCA에서 활동한 A. C. 번스와 숭실전문학교 교장 아들인 G. M. 맥큔 등을 들 수 있다. 이들은 해방 전후로 미 국무부에서 활동했고 미국 대학의 교수를 역임했다. 물론 이들은 남한의 개혁이 소련과 북한에 대비되는 더 건강한 반공체제를 수립할 수 있을 것이라고 보았다. 한편 이승만을 수반으로 하는 신생 대한민국 정부는 선교사들의 활동에 우호적인 환경을 적극적으로 조성했다. 선교사들에 대한 훈장수여, 국장 수준의 장례 등은 그 단적인 예이다. 선교사들과 정부의 우호적 관계는 이승만을 수반으로 하는 신생 공화국의 성격을 잘 보여준다. This article deals with American missionaries’ activities under the United States Army Military Government in Korea (USAMJIK) just after Korean liberation from Japan. The USAMGIK noticed the importance of this group in liberated Korea given the fact that they had worked in the realm of education, medicine, etc in Korea since the late 19th century. Some former missionaries or their children participated as officers or advisors in the USAMGIK as they collaborated with the U. S. government in the war aims against Japan during the Pacific War. Due to colonial experience, they also thought that Christianity and ‘Democracy' were not two different entities. Since there were physical difficulties in securing their return, only after a number of military members left and the economic stability, missionaries were able to come back to their former mission field. As missionaries had appeared since early 1946. they reestablished their missions around late 1947 and early 1948. The most important denomination was the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA) and most returning members were ones who had tried to cooperate with the Japanese Authorities in terms of Shinto Shrine worship issue. Horace. H. Underwood was the key figure in that he helped the return of missionaries while securing mission properties. Under the new circumstances, PCUSA revived its influence through the financial aid to churches, schools, and hospitals, etc. Most missionaries preserved positive views on the birth of the Republic of Korea. The representative persons were H. H. Underwood and J. Ernest Fisher who joined the USAMGIK. Also, Homer B. Hulbert was an ardent supporter of the new Republic. Some persons with missionary background such as Arthur C. Bunce and George M. McCune, both State Department officials and university professors, showed critical attitudes towards the ROK as well as the USAMGIK. They argued that only the meaningful social reforms would brought more healthy regime to Korean peninsula with anti-Communistic tone. The ROK with the president Syngman Rhee tried to make a favorable environment for missionary activities. Medal awarding and state-level funerals for the deceased missionaries were a few examples. The close relationship between missionaries and the ROK shed some lights on the characteristics of the new Republic.

19세기 ‘국제법’의 성격과 조일수호조규(1876)

안종철(Jong-Chol An) 역사비평사 2016 역사비평 Vol.- No.114

Korean-Japanese Treaty, or Kanghwa Treaty (1876) is a signal for the coming of modern Korean-Japanese relations. Ultimately, Chosǒn Korea was annexed by Japan in 1910 and the dynasty foiled in its own endeavors to preserve sovereignty and pursue development through “International law.” Thus, conventional wisdom shows tendency to understand this treaty as a starting point for Japanese aggression on Korean peninsula as well as a arrival of European “International Law” in East Asia. It is assumed that there had been continuity of Japanese colonial scheme and the solid structure of “International Law.” However, in this paper, the Kanghwa Treaty has more points in terms of revival of the traditional Korean-Japanese relations so that Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, no customs tariff, and opening ports could be understood by the traditional Korean-Japanese perspective on the part of Chosǒn Korea. From the perspective of “International Law,” we can evaluate the Kanghwa Treaty in the process of the international law formation, not an established or given order. This perspective seeks for shedding a new light on the Treaty, rather than denying unequal characters of the treaty and the incorporation of European international law into East Asia.

하와이원주민 문제의 역사적 쟁점과 미 연방대법원의 관련 판결분석

안종철(An, Jong Chol) 한국법사학회 2013 法史學硏究 Vol.48 No.-

이 글은 미국 영토 내에서 유일하게 왕국으로 존속했던 하와이에 대한 역사와 하와이원주민 문제에 대한 미국법원의 판결들을 분석한 것이다. 하와이는 1893년 미국인들에 의해 왕정이 폐지되고 1898년에 미국령이 되었는데 당시 하와이왕실이 가지고 있었던 토지는 하와이왕국의 정부 토지와 함께 공공토지로 미국 정부로 넘어가게 되었다. 1920년 미 의회에서 하와이원주민들을 위한 토지대여법이 통과되고 이들에 대한 연방의회의 “신탁의무”가 규정되었지만 대상토지는 전체 공공토지의 1/10에도 미치지 못했다. 1959년 하와이가 미국의 한 주가 되면서 주정부가 공공토지에 대해 관리를 맡게 되었다. 이후 개정된 하와이 주 헌법(1978)은 하와이사무청을 설치해서 하와이원주민들의 복지를 담당하게 했다. 연방행정부가 통과시킨 다양한 법률에서도 하와이원주민들을 미국원주민으로 간주했지만 연방의회차원에서 공식적으로 그것을 인정한 것은 아니었다. 이 글이 다루는 두 개의 미연방대법원 판례(Rice v. Cayetano; Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs)는 각각 2000, 2009년에 결정된 것이다. 전자는 하와이원주민에게만 하와이사무청의 이사선출을 위한 투표권을 부여한 것을, 후자는 하와이원주민 문제가 해결될때까지 공공토지의 불하를 제한하는 것을 연방대법원이 위헌이라고 판결한 것이다. 미연방대법원은 하와이원주민에 대해 매우 보수적인 접근을 하고 있는데 이에 대한 대응으로 미 의회를 통해서 하와이원주민을 미국원주민으로 인정하려는 움직임이 현재 진행 중이다. 연방대법원의 판결은 한국과 일본의 과거사 문제에도 시사점을 던져준다. This article deals with a history of Hawai’i whose territory was the only kingdom in the US, and with court decisions relevant to Native Hawaiians. The Kingdom of Hawai’i was toppled by some Americans in 1893 and annexed by the US in 1898. Concurrently, the crown lands of Hawai’i became part of US government land. US Congress passed Native Hawaiian Homestead law in 1920, defining Federal Government’s “trust responsibility” toward Native Hawaiians. However, the designated lands were less than 10% of the whole Public Land in Hawai’i. Thereafter, Hawai’i became a State in the US in 1959, so that the Public Lands were delivered to the State government for administration. Later, the revised State Constitution (1978) established the Office of Hawaiian Affairs which is in charge of Native Hawaiian issues. The US federal administration also supports an idea that Native Hawaiians are one of US Native Americans. The two US Supreme Court cases, however, explain how Native Hawaiian issues are framed in the Federal Courts. The cases are Rice v. Cayetano (2000) and Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs (2009). The former case is a judicial review of election limitation to Native Hawaiians in the election of Board members of Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The latter is whether the State of Hawaii should stop liquidating Public Lands due to Congress “Apology Resolution” before Native Hawaiian issues are wholly solved. The Court were negative on two issues because the judges thought that whether Native Hawaiians are Native Americans was not clear. Thus Hawaiian community is eager to have US Congress pass a bill for recognizing Native Hawaiians as one of Native Americans. Thus the recognition process is still ongoing. If US Congress recognizes this, then it might also affect Japanese perception of colonial issues in Korea.