An Analysis on the Formation Processes of the Treaty on Basic Relations between the Republic of Korea and Japan in the South Korea-Japan Normalization Talks: Focusing on Article 2 and Article 3

본고는 한일회담에서의 기본관계조약 교섭 중 그 핵심이었던 제2조와 제3조의 과정분석을 통해서 그 과정에 대한 분석만이 밝혀낼 수 있는 논점들을 고찰할 것을 목적으로 한다. 여태까지의 선행연구에서는 동 조항의 분석은 결과로서 나타난 조문내용을 분석하려고 하는 비(非)과정분석이 그 주류를 이루어 왔다. 그들 분석은 그 조항의 형성과정에 대한 분석을 결여시킨 결과 동 2조․3조를 단지 양국의 정치적 입장에서의 논리적 결과로 보려고 하는 시각에만 머무르고 있다. 이에 대해 본고는 2005년에 공개된 한일회담의 공식문서에 의거하면서 기본관계조약 제2조와 제3조의 형성과정을 분석하여 여태까지의 선행연구가 다루지 못했던 논점들을 밝힌다. 그 논점들은 첫 째 제2조 구조약 무효조항의 의미는 무엇이었는가? 둘 째 동 조항의 결과는 박정희 정권의 친일성 등 개별적인 정권의 속성에 기인한 것인가? 세 째 제3조 유일합법성 조항의 결과는 단지 한국정부의 타협적인 자세를 뜻하는 것인가? 그리고 마지막으로 네 째 제2조와 제3조는 교섭과정에서 어떤 관계에 있었는가? 하는 네 가지 물음이다. 본고는 과정분석을 통해서 첫째 과제에 대해 제2조는 과거를 청산하는 원칙을 정하는 성격을 가지고 있지 않았음을, 둘째 과제에 대해 동 조항으로 인해 구조약의 무효시점이 매매해진 것은 한일회담 당초부터의 일이었음을, 또 셋째 과제에 대해 동 3조는 주어진 조건 하에서 한국정부가 가장 중요시한 결과 얻어낸 결과였음을, 그리고 마지막으로 넷째 과제에 대해 한국정부는 동 3조의 내용을 개선시키기 위하여 동 2조를 희생시켰음을, 즉 동 2조와 3조는 흥정대상이었음을 밝힌다. The purpose of this study is to elucidate the problems, especially on Article 2 and Article 3, which can only be discussed by an analysis on the formation processes of the Treaty on Basic Relations between the Republic of Korea and Japan in the South Korea-Japan Normalization Talks. The mainstream in the study on Article 2 and 3 of the Treaty has been Non-Process Analysis, which can only explain the meanings of the final text. As a result, the two articles have been understood logically resulting from political compromise between South Korea and Japan. In contrast, this paper, by using the official documents of the South Korea-Japan Normalization Talks which the Korean Government made public in 2005, focuses on the formation processes and discusses the following four problems which have not yet been precisely understood under the 'Non-Process Analysis.' The first is about the meaning of Article 2, and the second is whether Article 2, which has been accepted to mean that all treaties or agreements concluded between the Empire of Korea and the Empire of Japan on or before August 22, 1910 were at first effective, was linked to the character of an administration, especially the pro-Japanese one of Park Chung-hee. The third, can Article 3 simply be regarded as the consequence of the compromise of the Korean Government? And finally, what was the relationships between Article 2 and 3 in the negotiation processes? This study will conclude the first question with an answer that Article 2 has no relation to the principle on which the liquidation of the colonial relationships between South Korea and Japan is carried out, and the second question with that Article 2 has not resulted from the pro-Japanese characteristic of the Park Chung-hee administration. This is due to the fact that Article 2, which permitted Japan to interpret that all treaties or agreements on or before August 22, 1910 between the two countries were at first effective, had already been in existence during the negotiations of the Rhee Syng-man administration. Furthermore, in answering the third question, it will be elucidated that Article 3 was a fruitful result the Korean Government obtained by doing her best in the negotiations under the given conditions. Lastly, the final question, that the two Articles were not independent of each other; that is to say, Article 3 was a gain at the expense of Article 2 to the Korean side