지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This study examined the realities of Korean?Chinese bargaining by analyzing the procedure of settling three cases of consular jurisdiction through non?open port that took place during the period of Yuan Shi?kai as the General Commissioner of Negotiation and Trade with Chosun (1885?1894) before the Sino?Japanese War. For this study, we analyzed Cheongan (Asia Research Center of Korea University), documents of Chinese diplomatic offices in Korea during the late Qing Dynasty (Modern History Research Institute Archives of Taiwan’s Academia Sinica), and governmental documents in Hwanghae?do (Gyujanggak of Seoul National University).
In the first case of ‘smuggling by Qing merchant Woo Ahn?dang,’ Qing merchant Woo Ahn?dang was arrested and his cargoes were confiscated for smuggling at Taetan Port in Jangyeong, Hwanghaedo in September, 1889. In the second case of ‘smuggling by Qing merchants Hae Chung?hyeon and Ju Dong hae,’ Qing merchants Hae Chung?hyeon and Ju Dong?hae were arrested and their cargoes were confiscated for smuggling at Bi?yeon Port in Jangyeong, Hwanghae?do in October, 1890. In the third case of ‘smuggling by Qing merchants Jang Eui?seong and Seo Geuk?geun,’ Qing merchants Jang Eui?seong and Seo Geuk?geun were arrested and their cargoes were confiscated for smuggling at Sukdo Ferry in Hwanghae?do in December, 1890.
In the three cases of consular jurisdiction above, Korean?Chinese bargaining was initiated as the Chosun government detected Qing merchants’ illegal acts of smuggling and requested Yuan Shi?kai to punish them and to confiscate their cargoes, but the procedure went in an unexpected direction. For the first case, Yuan Shi?kai ruled Qing merchant Woo Ahn?dang to be a smuggler but he regarded the other crew members as fishermen and, rather, rebuked the Chosun government for seizing their boat. For the second and third cases, he called to account Chosun officers’ illegal taxation (on the Qing merchants’ smuggling) rather than the smuggling acts, and demanded to punish the officers and to compensate for the confiscated cargoes.
In the process that Korea and China dealt with the cases of smuggling by Qing merchants through non?open ports, there are two noteworthy points. One is that these cases show well how Korea and China invoked the Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade between Chinese and Korean Subjects. The other is that these cases suggest what networks smuggling by Qing merchants through non?open ports.
The reason that Yuan Shi?kai’s claim was accepted by Chosun government in the process of bargaining is not irrelevant to Chosun officers’ unchecked illegal taxation in coastal cities of Hwanghae?do such as Jangyeon, Haeju and Hwangju, which were non?open ports but visited frequently by Chinese fishing boats. Of course, it is needless to say that Yuan Shi?kai utilized the provisions of consular jurisdiction over Qing merchants in Korea.
In the first case of ‘smuggling by Qing merchant Woo Ahn?dang,’ Qing merchant Woo Ahn?dang was arrested and his cargoes were confiscated for smuggling at Taetan Port in Jangyeong, Hwanghaedo in September, 1889. In the second case of ‘smuggling by Qing merchants Hae Chung?hyeon and Ju Dong hae,’ Qing merchants Hae Chung?hyeon and Ju Dong?hae were arrested and their cargoes were confiscated for smuggling at Bi?yeon Port in Jangyeong, Hwanghae?do in October, 1890. In the third case of ‘smuggling by Qing merchants Jang Eui?seong and Seo Geuk?geun,’ Qing merchants Jang Eui?seong and Seo Geuk?geun were arrested and their cargoes were confiscated for smuggling at Sukdo Ferry in Hwanghae?do in December, 1890.
In the three cases of consular jurisdiction above, Korean?Chinese bargaining was initiated as the Chosun government detected Qing merchants’ illegal acts of smuggling and requested Yuan Shi?kai to punish them and to confiscate their cargoes, but the procedure went in an unexpected direction. For the first case, Yuan Shi?kai ruled Qing merchant Woo Ahn?dang to be a smuggler but he regarded the other crew members as fishermen and, rather, rebuked the Chosun government for seizing their boat. For the second and third cases, he called to account Chosun officers’ illegal taxation (on the Qing merchants’ smuggling) rather than the smuggling acts, and demanded to punish the officers and to compensate for the confiscated cargoes.
In the process that Korea and China dealt with the cases of smuggling by Qing merchants through non?open ports, there are two noteworthy points. One is that these cases show well how Korea and China invoked the Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade between Chinese and Korean Subjects. The other is that these cases suggest what networks smuggling by Qing merchants through non?open ports.
The reason that Yuan Shi?kai’s claim was accepted by Chosun government in the process of bargaining is not irrelevant to Chosun officers’ unchecked illegal taxation in coastal cities of Hwanghae?do such as Jangyeon, Haeju and Hwangju, which were non?open ports but visited frequently by Chinese fishing boats. Of course, it is needless to say that Yuan Shi?kai utilized the provisions of consular jurisdiction over Qing merchants in Korea.
#원세개
#미개구안
#영사재판권
#조청상민수륙무역장정
#'밀무역 청상 우안당 안건'
#'밀무역 청상 해충현·주동해 안건'
#'밀무역 청상 장의성·서극근 안건'
#袁世凱
#未開口岸
#領事裁判權
#中朝商民水陸貿易章程
#'潛貿華商于晏堂案'
#'潛貿華商解忠賢
#周東海案'
#'潛貿華商張義成
#徐克勤案'
#Yuan Shi‐kai
#non‐open port
#consular jurisdiction
#the Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade between Chinese and Korean Subjects
#case of 'smuggling by Qing merchant Woo Ahn‐dang'
#case of 'smuggling by Qing merchants Hae Chung‐hyeon and Ju Dong‐hae,' case of 'smuggling by Qing merchants Jang Eui‐seong and Seo Geuk‐geun'
목차
Ⅰ. 序論
Ⅱ. 韓中間 交涉의 근거와 未開口岸 淸商 密貿易의 실태
Ⅲ. 未開口岸 密貿易 淸商 관련 領事裁判案件
Ⅳ. 結論
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
‘신의주·안동’간 밀무역 단속 전개과정과 조선총독부의 대응(1928～1932)
한국사연구
2018 .12
-
《七劍十三俠》的板本與幻想英雄敍事
한국중어중문학 우수논문집
2018 .11
-
목포 개항장 상인층의 존재양태와 그 성격
지방사와 지방문화
2006 .05
-
인식의 이중성― 唐代 소설 속 상인을 보는 시선들
중국소설논총
2019 .01
-
淸末民國期 湖南의 商人과 상인정신
중국사연구
2020 .01
-
歷史敎育에 있어서 映像資料의 活用 - -EBS 다큐멘터리 “商人의 나라, 中國”의 分析을 中心으로-
대구사학
2004 .01
-
을사조약 이후 청국정부의 한국인식
역사와현실
2007 .12
-
1899년 韓ㆍ淸通商條約 締結과 大韓帝國
역사학보
2005 .06
-
1885년 駐紮朝鮮總理交涉通商事宜 袁世凱의 조선 파견과 지위 문제
史叢(사총)
2017 .01
-
‘訴訟’ 안건을 통해 본 청일전쟁 이후(1895~1899) 韓中關係 연구
중국근현대사연구
2008 .06
-
만주제국인가 청 제국인가 - 최근 미국의 청대사 연구동향을 중심으로 -
史叢(사총)
2011 .01
-
朝鮮後期 野談에 나타난 商人의 範疇와 商人 形象의 변모 과정
민족문화연구
2015 .01
-
淸末(1882-1894년) 漢城 華商組織과 그 位相
중국근현대사연구
2010 .06
-
청사공정 10년의 빛과 그림자
민족연구
2012 .01
-
淸의 朝鮮使行 人選과 ‘大淸帝國體制’
인문논총
2008 .01
-
明清商人与会馆演剧初探
중국문화연구
2009 .12
-
개성상인과 일본 오미[近江] 상인의 비교 연구 - 그 기원과 정치권력과의 관계를 중심으로 -
역사와실학
2019 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-910-002474039