Theories of the Just War in Modern China – From the Anti-Japanese War to the Anti-American Wars –

Since the People's Republic of China entered the Korean War in October 1950, PRC’s war in Korea has been called a “Just War”. Academia has explained the just war theory only based on the theory of righteous war in the Chinese classics, and few studies investigate the historical formation of the PRC’s just war theory. This paper demonstrated that China's perception to see the Korean War as a just war was formed by the Kuomintang and the Communist Party in the course of the anti-Japanese war since the Manchurian Incident in 1931 based on different logical grounds. The Kuomintang accepted the theory of international justice since World War I, which sought to resolve international disputes according to international law and in 1937-38 called the anti-Japanese war a just war. The Communist Party, under the instructions of the Comintern, in 1933-35 called the national revolutionary war a just war based on the revolutionary theory of justice led by the proletariat, which was derived from Lenin's Socialism and War(1915). Despite these differences, both parties raised and spread the theory of just war widely in order to appeal China's justice in resisting Japanese imperialism's invasion at home and abroad. The Chinese Communist Party's just war theory was applied not only to the anti-Japanese war but also to anti-imperialist wars, including the subsequent anti-American wars(in Korea, Vietnam, etc.). It was a theory of war shared by the communist parties of various countries, including North Korea and the Soviet Union. Since the Korean War, the just war theory has been applied to the perception and narratives of the imperial China’s wars against foreign powers based on the Marxist historiography and was historicized as such.N

改革开放时期中国的通史、文明史编纂和其认识体系 — 从社会形态说到多民族国家论 —

N

Park Eunsik's Perspective on 'Reality China' and 'History China' in 1882~1925

2016-09이 글은 朴殷植(1859-1925)의 중국인식을 분석하고 중국을 포함한 동아시아 연대론의 의미를 규명하였다. 그의 중국인식을 분석하기 위해 나는 현실중국과 역사중국으로 나누어 접근하였다. 그가 본 현실중국의 국가는 쇠퇴하고 있었지만 그 사회는 오랜 문화적 역량과 민간의 활력에 의해 다시 국력을 회복할 것으로 전망되었다. 그런 만큼 현실중국은 일관되게 반제항일연대의 대상으로 간주되었다. 그래서 그는 현실중국에 대한 실망감으로 중국을 비하하는 한인들에 대해서는 고전중국에 대한 이해를 바탕으로 균형을 잡아 비판하였다. 역사중국의 예인 1882-94년의 청국을 그는 한국의 자강과 개혁을 저지한 외세로 인식하였다. 그가 중국에 대해 사대주의적 자세를 보인 한인들을 날카롭게 비판하고 자수자강을 중시한 것은 역사중국을 직시한 결과라 할 수 있다. 그의 한중연대론은 한중러 3국연대론으로, 다시 인도까지 포함하는 4국연대론으로 발전하였다. 그의 중국인식과 多國연대론은 오늘날 한국외교가 미일동맹에의 편향을 넘어 중국/동아시아와의 사이에서 균형을 취할 수 있도록 우리를 일깨워준다.This article analyzed Park Eunsik(朴殷植, 1859-1925)s perception of China and investigated significance of the discussion of East Asian solidarity including China. In order to analyze his perception of China, I adopted two approaches which are Reality China and History China to analyze Parks perception of China. Although the state of Reality China he observed was declining, it was anticipated that the society would regain national power again by long cultural capability and civilian vitality. On that point, Reality China was consistently regarded as an object of solidarity with anti-imperialism and anti-Japan. Qing of 1882-94 as an example of History China was considered as foreign power which impeded strenuous efforts and reformation of Korea. His perception of China and discussion of multilateral solidarity enlighten us in order that Korean diplomacy of the present time can keep a balance in the relationship with China/East Asia beyond a bias to an alliance with the United States and Japan

Regional History Reflected in the Mirror of Introspection: Experiment of East Asian History in Taiwan

이 글은 최근 대만에서 출간된 동아시아사의 특징과 그 의미를 탐색한 것이다. 이 글의 주요 분석대상은 대만 최초의 동아시아사인 Lu Zheng-Li(呂正理)의 Another History: A History of the Multiple Interaction among China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and the Neighboring World(Taibei, 2010)이다. Lu의 책은 행위자의 내면적 수양과 인간관계를 중시하는 內聖의 관점에서 동아시아 역사주체들의 상호작용을 드러내고자 하였다. 이는 부국강병과 같은 외형적 성과를 중시해온 national history와 대비된다. 주목되는 것은 이 책이 중국 황제들의 대외군사행동을 중국의 확대가 아니라 이웃나라에 대한 침략으로 인식한 점이다. 이러한 성취는 대만의 장소성에 의거해 중국의 안과 바깥을 동시에 살펴 그 제국성을 상대화한 결과라 할 수 있다. 다만 성찰이 통치자 개인에 국한된 것은 아쉬운 점이다. 한국과 대만은 서로 자신을 비춰볼 만한 거울이며, 상호 참조하면서 지역사의 구성을 진전시켜나갈 수 있다.N

Premature Birth and delayed Growth of the Xiandaishi in Chinese History

The aim of this article is to reveal when and why the contemporary history(xiandaishi, 現代史), which is distinguished from the modern history in China, was born. Studies conducted thus far regarded the contemporary history as an established fact and discussed only about when the contemporary history started. Chinese contemporary history was born in 1913 in the secondary curriculum, and it referred to the period after the establishment of the Republic of China(1912). This is attributable to the fact that the Republican Government regarded the establishment of the republic as the beginning of a new era and attempted to justify historically it. This division method of historical period originated from the Japanese Ministry of Educations attempt to distinguish the Meiji era, which was among the modern history, as the contemporary history and indicate it in the secondary curriculum in 1902. Consequently, the contemporary history was separated from the modern history (近世史, since the 17th century). However, since the birth of the contemporary history of China was a premature birth, which was too early, it gradually settled not only in the secondary curriculum but in some college lectures and studies after the May Fourth Movement (1919). Since the Chinese contemporary history was created according to political needs as such, it must be fully historicized based on academic research. However, the research was delayed owing to the premature birth of xiandaishi itself and the political chaos of the republic. Even in Japan, the contemporary history became the subject of scientific research only after World War II.N