Eulsa Treaty (1905)

Eulsa Treaty (1905)
Name	Eulsa Treaty (1905)
Native name	을사조약
Long name	Japan–Korea Protectorate Treaty
Date signed	1905-11-17
Location	Seoul
Signatories	Itō Hirobumi, Han Kyu-seol, Yi Wan-yong
Language	Japanese language, Korean language

Eulsa Treaty (1905) The Eulsa Treaty (1905) was a coercive agreement that established a protectorate relationship between Empire of Japan and the Korean Empire following the Russo-Japanese War. Signed in Seoul on 17 November 1905, the treaty effectively removed Korean diplomatic sovereignty and preceded full annexation by the Empire of Japan in 1910. The treaty is central to debates involving Itō Hirobumi, Prince Min Yong-hwan, Emperor Gojong, Yi Wan-yong, and international actors such as the United Kingdom, United States, and Russia.

Background

Events leading to the treaty trace through the First Sino-Japanese War, the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895), and the Convention of Tientsin (1885), which reshaped East Asian balance among Qing dynasty, Meiji Japan, and Joseon dynasty interests. The Korean Empire proclaimed sovereignty reforms under Gojong of Korea while domestic factions including the Korean reformists and conservative yangban elites vied for influence. The 1904–1905 Russo-Japanese War culminated in the Treaty of Portsmouth, mediated by Theodore Roosevelt, that confirmed Japanese predominance in Korea and set conditions enabling Ito Hirobumi and Terauchi Masatake to press for a protectorate. International recognition from powers such as the United Kingdom, through the Anglo-Japanese Alliance (1902), and acquiescence by France and Germany limited Korean options.

Negotiation and Signing

Negotiations were conducted largely by Japanese plenipotentiaries including Itō Hirobumi and Komura Jutarō who engaged Korean ministers such as Yi Wan-yong and Yi Geun-taek. Under military pressure from Japanese Army (Imperial Japanese Army) and Japanese Navy (Imperial Japanese Navy), and following the dismissal of pro-independence figures like Han Kyu-seol, Japanese officials drafted treaty terms dictating Korean foreign affairs be handled by Japan–Korea offices. The signing occurred after Emperor Gojong sought intervention by sending envoys to the Second International-adjacent diplomatic missions in Hague and to contacts including Nicholas II of Russia and Theodore Roosevelt, though these appeals were ignored. The treaty text conferred control over Korean foreign relations to Japanese Resident-General authority, embodied by Itō Hirobumi and later Terauchi Masatake.

Domestic and International Response

Domestic response involved outrage from Korean officials, intellectuals, and independence activists such as An Jung-geun, Yu Gwan-sun, and members of the Righteous Army who organized resistance. Emperor Gojong refused to accept the treaty and attempted to notify the Hague Peace Conference (1907) through secret envoys including Yi Jun and Yi Sang-seol. The international community displayed mixed reactions: United States officials under Theodore Roosevelt accepted Japanese assertions, while Russian and Chinese diplomats, shaped by the Boxer Rebellion aftermath and Sino-Japanese tensions, protested privately but did not prevent enforcement. Newspapers in London, Paris, and New York City covered the controversy, influencing public opinion and prompting debates in Imperial Diet (Japan) and foreign ministries.

Legal Status and Controversy

Legal scholars and Korean officials argued the treaty was invalid due to coercion, citing actions by Japanese forces and the lack of imperial ratification by Emperor Gojong as grounds for nullity. Japanese legal defenses referenced precedents from the Treaty of Amity and Commerce style negotiations and contemporary interpretations within the Meiji Constitution framework. The treaty’s legality was later litigated in cases and memorials submitted to international bodies and national courts, and featured in protests such as the March 1st Movement (1919), with figures like Syngman Rhee invoking illegitimacy. The controversy persisted through legal opinions by scholars in United States Supreme Court-adjacent academic circles and in diplomatic correspondence archived in Foreign Office (United Kingdom) and Hayashi Gonsuke papers. Post-World War II legal positions taken by Treaty of San Francisco (1951) discussions referenced the coercive origins of Japanese rule over Korea.

Consequences and Impact

The treaty inaugurated the Protectorate of Korea period, enabling administrative reforms and the suppression of Korean sovereignty by officials such as Terauchi Masatake and Saitō Makoto. It facilitated economic penetration by Mitsubishi-linked conglomerates and land surveys affecting Korean land ownership and peasants, while enabling Japanese cultural policies implemented in schools tied to Keijō Imperial University and colonial institutions. Resistance movements including Korean Provisional Government members like Kim Gu and Kim Koo organized in Shanghai and elsewhere, influenced by emigrant networks in Manchuria and the United States. Internationally, the treaty shifted strategic dynamics across East Asia and impacted subsequent incidents like the March 1st Movement (1919), the rise of Korean independence movements, and postwar settlements involving United Nations and Republic of Korea formation.

Historical Debate and Legacy

Scholars continue to debate the treaty’s characterization as illegal coercion versus a diplomatic instrument tolerated by contemporaneous powers; notable historians include Andrew Gordon, Carter Eckert, Bruce Cumings, and Mark Caprio who analyze archival sources from National Archives of Japan and National Archives of Korea. The treaty remains a symbol in Korean historiography and is central to legal claims regarding reparations and historical memory in South Korea and North Korea. Monuments, museums, and education curricula referencing the event involve institutions like the Independence Hall of Korea and scholarly centers at Seoul National University and Harvard University. Debates about restitution, apologies, and the role of documents such as the treaty text persist in diplomatic exchanges between Tokyo and Seoul, affecting contemporary Japan–South Korea relations and regional reconciliation efforts.

Category:Korean Empire treaties Category:Empire of Japan treaties Category:1905 treaties