There were many reasons in the American diplomatic approaches in the Eastern Asian countries. One reason was interrelated with American Christian Callings which ordered all the Christians peoples evangelize un-christian peoples. It was so-called “white burden or manifest destiny.” Another reason was mainly commercial. American business society in the nineteenth century was never only domestic-oriented but worldwide approach. Also their expansion was cooperated by American political circles. These commercial traders and religious missionaries in Eastern Asia needed to be protected from heathens. And the Western industrialized countries and America enforced their people’ extraterritoriality in the region for the commercial, political, economic purposes. This article aims at explaining not only the characters of American enforcement of extraterritoriality in this reason but also the comparative study of application in the Ottoman Turk, China, Japan and Korea about American extraterritoriality. Also, I will focus at the character of Korean case involved of American enforcement extraterritoriality. First of all, Korean case is very unique as compared with other Asian countries. The reason, historians said, was that Korea case of the America s extraterritoriality is less rigid and more friendly than that of other countries because one special clause inserted in the treaty between Korean and America. And so, a well-known historian, Frank E. Hinckley said “the Fourth articles of the American treaty contains a provision which is thought not have been inserted in any earlier treaty with any oriental state, namely, that extraterritoriality shall be relinquished when, in the judgement of the United States, the reform of the laws and of the administration of justice in Korea justify relinquishment.” Also He said that there was no as much severe enforcement in Korean case as other countries such as Turkey, China, Japan. But I don think so. Of course, there one special clause in the treaty with America which had stipulated that the extraterritoriality would have been abolished in proper time. The most important problem regarding American extraterritoriality in Korea is not the special relinquishment clause but the real application s cases. Even though America allowed special clause into the treaty, there was not real intention to relinquish the clause. Therefore, American people was never care about their foreigner status in sovereign Chosen state. Historian Hinckley commented “while the efforts of missionaries to establish schools and hospitals in the open ports of Korea appear to have met with no disapproval on the part of the Korean government, and the American treaty with Korea of May 22, 1882, does not grant the privilege of residence in the interior, but the privilege has been enjoyed with the acquiescence of the Korean government accept in the remote interior. Traditional historians have not been care about real cases and adjustments of American extraterritorial enforcement between Koreans and Americans. I searched these real cases and eventually concluded that there was no difference between Korean case and other Eastern countries regarding Imperialistic cruelty and feature.
2. 미국의 대아시아정책과 치외법권논리
3. 미국의 대한국 치외법권 적용논리와 한국인의 대응