Comparative Study on the Reception of Western International Law in Korea and Japan

日本现在的普遍理解是，日本在明治时代（1868-1912）接受现代西方国际法方面取得了明显的成功，这与现代中国和朝鲜接受西方国际法的明确失败形成鲜明对比。关于这种共识的问题有两个方面：第一个问题是，这种理解是否真的正确和可持续。第二个问题是，如果我们承认日本成功地接受了西方国际法，与中国和韩国形成鲜明对比，那么日本与中国和韩国之间存在差异的令人满意的原因是什么。在中国是中央帝国的背景下，日本、韩国和美国学者对朝鲜地位问题的看法完全不同，特别是因为通常认为这种观念是成功接受西方国际法的主要障碍。一些韩国和美国学者坚持认为，韩国被中国视为“同伴”，而不是“从属的附庸”，这是大多数日本学者所不能接受的。中国学者对这个问题的看法将是进一步讨论的必要条件。

It is the common understanding now in Japan that Japan achieved a distinct success in accepting modern Western international law in the Meiji Era(1868-1912), in marked contrast to the unequivocal failure of its reception in modern China and Korea. Questions as to this common understanding are twofold : the first question is whether this understanding is really correct and sustainable. The second is what would be a satisfactory reason for the difference between Japan, and China and Korea, if we accept that Japan was successful in the reception of Western international law in distinct contrast to China and Korea. Opinions of Japanese, Korean and American scholars about an issue of the status of Korea in the context of the idea of China as central empire were totally different, especially because it is usually said that the idea is the main obstacle to the success of the reception of Western international law. Some Korean and American scholars insisted that Korea was regarded as "peers", not as "subordinate vassal" by China, which is not acceptable to most Japanese scholars. An opinion of Chinese scholars about this issue would be necessary for a further discussion.