지금까지 많은 논자들은 일본국과 대한민국 간의 국교정상화 교섭사를 식민지지배 처리의 관점에서 검토해왔다. 일반적으로 이러한 선행연구들은 1965년 체결된 한일조약이 식민지지배를 청산한 것이 아님을 분명히 하고 있다. 하지만 어떠한 경위로, 왜 식민지지배가 청산되지 않았는지에 대해선 충분히 규명되었다고 볼 수 없다. 본고는 이러한 점을 극복하기 위해 제2차 세계대전 후의 두개의 강화조약, 즉 샌프란시스코 강화조약의 배경이 된 이탈리아 강화조약과, 한일국교정상화 교섭을 규정한 샌프란시스코 강화조약에서의 식민지지배 인식 및 처리를 검토하고, 그것이 일본정부의 식민지지배 인식에 어떻게 이어졌는지를 규명하고자 했다. 또한 1950년대 초기 한일회담(예비교섭에서 제3차 회담까지)에서 조선에 대한 식민지지배 문제가 어떻게 처리되었는지를 검토했다. 제2차 세계대전 직후의 이탈리아 강화조약 준비과정에서는 이탈리아의 구식민지지배 처리문제가 제기되었고, 이후 샌프란시스코 강화조약 준비과정에서도 한국에 의해 식민지지배 문제가 제기되었다. 하지만 조약체결 당사국이었던 이탈리아와 일본, 그리고 연합국측은 전쟁책임과 식민지지배 책임을 분리하여 이탈리아 및 일본의 전쟁책임은 묻되 식민지지배 책임은 묻지 않는다는 인식과 대응을 보였다. 즉, 연합국측과 이탈리아 및 일본은 전쟁책임에선 대립적이었으면서도 식민지지배 문제에서는 ‘공범관계’였다. 이러한 세계사적 상황을 배경으로 한일교섭이 진행되었다. 기본관계문제에서는 “일본의 조선통치 하에 있어서 한국인의 경제생활, 문화생활의 향상”을 ‘교시’하려한 일본의 식민지주의와 한국측의 식민지지배 비판이 대치되었지만, 결과적으로는 일본의 식민지지배를 묻지 않는 타결안이 채택되었다. 청구권문제에서는 일본정부는 한일 간의 “청구권 문제는 단순한 영토분리 시의 국가의 재산 및 책무 계승관계로서 다뤄져야 한다”라는 ‘청구권’ 개념을 도출, 이에 의거해 양국의 ‘재산 및 채무’를 ‘상호 포기 내지 상쇄’하는 방침을 확정지었다. 이 ‘상호 포기 내지 상쇄’론은 식민지지배를 불문에 붙인다는 생각에 의거한 방침이었다. 결국 이탈리아 강화조약과 샌프란시스코 강화조약의 식민지주의와 이를 방패삼은 일본의 식민지주의가 한일교섭에 결정적인 영향력을 미쳤다고 볼 수 있다.

Most previous studies of the history of the normalization of relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK) have discussed it from the perspective of colonial rule, and they have generally pointed out that the Treaty between Japan and the ROK that was signed in 1965 did not settle the issue of colonial rule. However, the question of how and why the issue of colonial rule remained unsettled has not been addressed satisfactorily in these previous studies. In this paper, in order to cover this point, two Post-World War II peace treaties will be looked at; the Treaty of Peace with Italy that serves as an important historical backdrop to the later San Francisco Peace Treaty, and the San Francisco Peace Treaty itself which provided for the negotiations for the normalization of relations between Japan and the ROK. Inquiring into how the issue of colonial rule was understood and dealt with in these two treaties, we will describe how these previous cases influenced the Japanese government’s own understanding of colonial rule. On the basis of that, we will inquire into how the issue of colonial rule on the Korean Peninsula was dealt with in the early stages of negotiations between Japan and the ROK in the 1950s (from the preliminary negotiations to the third meeting). During the preparatory stages of drafting the Treaty of Peace with Italy after World War II, the issue of how to treat Italy’s former colonies was raised, and similarly during the preparations for the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the issue of colonial rule was raised by the ROK as a former colony of Japan. However, the countries involved in drafting these treaties; Italy and Japan as well as the Allied powers, separated responsibility for the war from responsibility for colonial rule, focusing on the responsibility of Italy and Japan for the former while ignoring their responsibility for the latter. In short, while Italy and Japan on the one hand and the Allied powers on the other might have been opponents on the issue of war responsibility, both sides were complicit on the issue of colonialism. It is against this historical backdrop that the normalization of relations between Japan and the ROK was negotiated. Concerning the issue of basic relations, the two countries had conflicting views, with Japan trying to defend its colonial rule by explaining its contribution to the advancement of Korean economic and cultural life, while the ROK criticized and opposed to Japan’s colonial rule. In the end, this resulted in a compromise agreement to ignore Japan’s responsibility for colonial rule. As for the problem concerning claims, the Japanese government interpreted the concept of claims as that “the problem concerning claims should be dealt with merely as a matter of succession of the country’s property and debts upon detachment of territory”, based on which it decided on a policy of “mutual renunciation or mutual offset” of the property and debts of both countries. This policy of “mutual renunciation or mutual offset” derived from the attitude of ignoring Japan’s responsibility for colonial rule. In the end, it is the treatment of colonialism in the Treaty of Peace with Italy and the San Francisco Peace Treaty, as well as Japan’s view of its colonial rule backed by these treaties, that had a decisive influence on the negotiations for the normalization of relations between Japan and the ROK.

colonial rule, colonialism, complicity in colonialisms, the problem of basic relationship, the problem of claims