[KS] Re: Unequal treaties

North Asia Pacific Research Group naprg at fcoamru.demon.co.uk
Wed Aug 26 05:11:10 EDT 1998


Dear Dr Buzo

The essential inequality of the treaties lay in the fact that, as in
China and Japan, the Korean were denied tariff autonomy, and that
foreigners were removed from their jurisdiction.  As far as the latter
point is concerned, in the British case at least, the system of
extratrritoriality in operation in Korea after 1884 was exactly the same
as that in China and Japan - the enabling legislation was amended to
include Korea, but otherwise remained the same.

I would dispute the implied claim by one respondent that the British
were concerned at the prohibition on the import of opium, but given the
increasingly bitter tone of the correspondence on this network, will
hold my tongue.


Jim Hoare




In message <199808240027.KAA11764 at lucy.cc.swin.edu.au>, Adrian Buzo
<abuzo at lucy.cc.swin.edu.au> writes
>Can anyone help a harried academic with a quick answer to the 
>following?
>
>I have never read the text of the Treaty of Kanghwa or Korea's 
>treaties with Britain, the US, France et al, in the early 1880s. 
>However, I have noticed conflicting assessments in the secondary 
>literature as to the extent of their unequal nature.
>
>With regard to the twin pillars of unequal treaties - 
>extraterritoriality and tariff control - I've somehow acquired the 
>sense that Korea's treaties  were "less unequal" than similar treaties 
>between the imperialist powers and China and Japan.
>
>Can someone help me out here, either with a quick reference or a 
>brief summary of the extraterritoriality and tariff control 
>provisions of Korea's treaties?
>
>Cheers
>
>Adrian Buzo



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%





More information about the Koreanstudies mailing list