식민지 통치원리로서 ‘식민지특수사정론’의 관철과 위임입법 - 식민지화 초기 총독 위임입법을 둘러싼 제국의회 논쟁을 중심으로

Abstract

The Argument of “Special Circumstances for a Colonized State”(植民地特殊事情論) was made to emphasize the colony(Korea)’s different history, culture and natural environment from the mainland(Japan). It was also argued because of the ‘Situation on the Ground’ (which usually meant the colony population’s resistance), with the intention of demanding a different type of ruling other than methods used to govern the mainland. In essence, required by the people who supported this argument was a legislation process entrusted to the colony itself. The argument focused on promoting the necessity of autonomous functions of the Joseon Governor General office continued on and off repeatedly during Japan’s occupation of the Korean peninsula. The first phase, which continued since the year 1895 through 1911, is examined in this article.<BR> Two things were revealed by the examination. First, the Governor-General office’s independent legislation, based on rights delegated from the mainland, was never suggested based on any individual Governor-General office’s status, but was actually based on years of experiences of Japan’s colonial ruling of regions -from Taiwan to Joseon- and the rules and principles gathered through that experience. Second, the “Special Circumstances for a Colonized State” argument and the ‘Entrusted Legislation’ of the Governor-General office was made possible only after acknowledging the possibility/necessity of extending the mainland’s law and regulations to the colonized regions, which was then followed by a decision to postpone such extension for a while. As of 1911, however, the “Argument” was more refined, with the intention to ever block the possibility of both the mainland and the colonized regions being ruled with the same law.<BR> It is necessary to examine more of this “Argument” and how it was eventually implemented in Joseon, as it would give us the opportunity to reexamine the previous notion that the mainland Japan’s law was extended to the ruling of the colonized Korean peninsula. The March 1st Movement in 1919, which was indeed a “Situation on the Ground,” served as a catalyst for the launch of such argument. On the other hand, the fact that there were calls for the abolishment of the “Argument,” and even attempts to “extend mainland laws,” right after the March 1st Movement, ironically shows us that the colonial uthorities were operating with no established principles.