• Journal of East-Asian Urban History
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.113-128
• /
• 2020

Right before the outbreak of the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression (1937-1954), the Great Eastern Broadcasting Station (GEBS) was established in Shanghai under the aegis of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (MOFA). Prior to the launching of the GEBS, Japan had not owned similar radio stations in China for years. As a result, the Embassy of Japan in China held rounds of discussions on the plan and Japanese governments, ranging from the MOFA, the Navy, the Army, the Ministry of Communications (MOC), and NHK-Japan Broadcasting Corporation (Nihon Hoso Kyoku) provided financial, technological, and equipment support. In the mid-1930s when the Sino-Japanese relations became intensified, the GEBS assumed the primary role of disseminating government policies to over 30,000 Japanese expatriates in Shanghai to make sure that they could remain settled while supporting military endeavors of the Japanese army once the war between China and Japanese broke out. After 1937, the GEBS became an essential propaganda tool to advance imperial policies of Japan. Although the station differed from the Army-controlled Greater Shanghai Broadcasting Station (Dai Shanhai Hoso Kyoku) in many aspects, it was in line with the latter in terms of advancing wartime ideology of the Japanese empire. As the Japanese-occupied areas were enlarged, target audience of the GEBS also expanded to Chinese people and foreign nationals when Japanese, English, Russian, and Shanghai-dialect news was broadcast by the station. Suffice it to say that the GEBS was closely related to wartime propaganda of the Japanese imperial expansion.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.6
• /
• pp.1-46
• /
• 2003

During the ancient times, there was no separative judicial system and administrative , legislative and judiciary functions were ultimately concentrated in the all-powerful monarch. And the three states developed state organization , adopting hieratical structures and placing at the pinnacle . State Codes were promulgated to initiate a legal system to rule the people, these codes instituted under influence of China codes. The people tradition sees crime control as the preservation of the authority of hereditary rulers. In the period of the Koryeo dynasty, government accepted a serious of detailed penal code from Tang dynasty . Legal response to crime stressed preservation of the dynasty rather than making citizen behave according to certain rules. In the period of Early Joseon , the compilation of Grand Code for state administration was initiated, the Kyeongkuk Taejeon ,became comer stone of the dynastic administration and provided the monarchial system with a sort of constitutional law in written form. This national code was in portant means of criminal policy at that time, Late Joseon , the impact of Western culture entering through China gave further impetus to pragmatic studies which called for socio-economic reforms and readjustment. Approach to criminal justice policy emphasized more equitable operation of the criminal justice system ,rehabilitation and crime control. Korea-Japanese Treaty concluded on 22 August ,1910 and proclaim a week later ,Japan gave the coup de grace to the Korea Empire and changed the office of the Resident - General into the Government - General . Thus korean criminal policy were lost during a dark ages ,which lasted for 36 years after fall of Joseon Dynasty (the colnial period,1910${\sim}$1945). After 1945 Korea's liberation from Japanese colonial rule, the occupation of devided Korea by the United States and Soviet Union frustrated the efforts of Koreans to establish an independent government, and the transplantation of two conflicting political ideologies to south and the north of the 38th parallel further intensified the national split. U.S. military government office occupied the south of the 38 the parallel and placed emphasis on democracy of criminal policy. ln 1948, the U.S. military government handed over to the ROK government its administrative authority.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.53 no.4
• /
• pp.60-77
• /
• 2020

An assumption can be made that, as a start point for the recognition and utilization of cultural heritage, the "choice" of such would reflect the cultural ideology of the ruling power at that time. This has finally been proved by the case of Korea in the 20th century. First, in the late Korean Empire (1901-1910), the prevailing cultural ideology had been inherited from the Joseon Dynasty. The main objects that the Joseon Dynasty tried to protect were royal tombs and archives. During this time, an investigation by the Japanese into Korean historic sites began in earnest. Stung by this, enlightened intellectuals attempted to recognize them as constituting independent cultural heritage, but these attempts failed to be institutionalized. During the 1910-1945 Japanese occupation, the Japanese led investigations to institutionalize Korean cultural heritage, which formed the beginning of the current cultural heritage management system. At that time, the historical investigation, designation, protection, and enhancement activities led by the Japanese Government-General of Korea not only rationalized their colonial occupation of Korea but also illustrated their colonial perspective. Korean nationalists processed the campaign for the love of historical remains on an enlightening level, but they had their limits in that the campaign had been based on the outcome of research planned by the Japanese. During the 1945-2000 period following liberation from Japan, cultural heritage restoration projects took places that were based on nationalist ideology. People intended to consolidate the regime's legitimacy through these projects, and the enactment of the 'Cultural Heritage Charter' in 1997 represented an ideology in itself that stretched beyond a means of promoting nationalist ideology. During the past 20 centuries, cultural heritage content changed depending on the whims of those with political power. Such choices reflected the cultural ideology that the powers at any given time held with regard to cultural heritage. In the background of this cultural heritage choice mechanism, there have been working trade-off relationships formed between terminology and society, as well as the ideological characteristics of collective memories. The ruling party has tried to implant their ideology on their subjects, and we could consider that it wanted to achieve this by being involved in collective memories related to traditional culture, so called-choice, and utilization of cultural heritage.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.53 no.1
• /
• pp.64-87
• /
• 2020

The cultural property management system of Korea was established based on the modern cultural assets acts and the old imperial estate management system enacted during the Japanese occupation. Academics have researched the cultural property management system oriented on the modern cultural assets acts, but few studies have been conducted into the old imperial estate management system, which is another axis of the cultural property management system. The old imperial estate was separated from the feudal capital by the Kabo Reform, but was dismantled during the colonial invasion of Japan and managed as a hereditary property of the colonial royal family during the Japanese colonial period. After establishment of the government, the Imperial Estate Act was enacted in 1954 and defined the estate as a historical cultural property managed by the Imperial Estate Administration Office. At this time, imperial estate property that was designated as permanent preservation property was officially recognized as constituting state-owned cultural assets and public goods in accordance with Article 2 of the Act's supplementary provisions during 1963, when the first amendment to the Cultural Property Protection act was implemented. In conclusion, Korea's cultural property formation and cultural property management system were integrated into one unit from two different sources: modern cultural assets acts and the old imperial estate property management system. If the change of modern cultural assets acts was the process of regulating and managing cultural property by transplanting and applying regulations from Japan to colonial Joseon, the management of the imperial estate was a process by which the Japanese colonized the Korean Empire and disposed of the imperial estate. Independence and the establishment of the government of the Republic of Korea provided the opportunity to combine these two different streams into one. Finally, this integration was completed with the establishment of the Protection of Cultural Properties Act in 1962.