• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.37
• /
• pp.371-405
• /
• 2004

International circulation of cultural assets involves numerous countries thereby making an approach based on international law essential to resolving this problem. Since the end of the $2^{nd}$ World War, as the value of cultural assets evolved from material value to moral and ethical values, with emphasis on establishing national identities, newly independent nations and former colonial states took issue with ownership of cultural assets which led to the need for international cooperation and statutory provisions for the return of cultural assets. UNESCO's 1954 "Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict" as preparatory measures for the protection of cultural assets, the 1970 "Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property" to regulate transfer of cultural assets, and the 1995 "Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects" which required the return of illegally acquired cultural property are examples of international agreements established on illegal transfers of cultural assets. In addition, the UN agency UNESCO established the Division of Cultural Heritage to oversee cultural assets related matters, and the UN since its 1973 resolution 3187, has continued to demonstrate interest in protection of cultural assets. The resolution 3187 affirms the return of cultural assets to the country of origin, advises on preventing illegal transfers of works of art and cultural assets, advises cataloguing cultural assets within the respective countries and, conclusively, recommends becoming a member of UNESCO, composing a forum for international cooperation. Differences in defining cultural assets pose a limitation on international agreements. While the 1954 Convention states that cultural assets are not limited to movable property and includes immovable property, the 1970 Convention's objective of 'Prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property' effectively limits the subject to tangible movable cultural property. The 1995 Convention also has tangible movable cultural property as its subject. On this point, the two conventions demonstrate distinction from the 1954 Convention and the 1972 Convention that focuses on immovable cultural property and natural property. The disparity in defining cultural property is due to the object and purpose of the convention and does not reflect an inherent divergence. In the case of Korea, beginning with the 1866 French invasion, 36 years of Japanese colonial rule, military rule and period of economic development caused outflow of numerous cultural assets to foreign countries. Of course, it is neither possible nor necessary to have all of these cultural properties returned, but among those that have significant value in establishing cultural and historical identity or those that have been taken symbolically as a demonstration of occupational rule can cause issues in their return. In these cases, the 1954 Convention and the ratification of the first legislation must be actively considered. In the return of cultural property, if the illicit acquisition is the core issue, it is a simple matter of following the international accords, while if it rises to the level of diplomatic discussions, it will become a political issue. In that case, the country requesting the return must convince the counterpart country. Realizing a response to the earnest need for preventing illicit trading of cultural assets will require extensive national and civic societal efforts in the East Asian area to overcome its current deficiencies. The most effective way to prevent illicit trading of cultural property is rapid circulation of information between Interpol member countries, which will require development of an internet based communication system as well as more effective deployment of legislation to prevent trading of illicitly acquired cultural property, subscription to international conventions and cataloguing collections.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.36
• /
• pp.227-266
• /
• 2020

The purpose of this paper is to review the representative Buddhist policies enforced during the reign of Gwanghaegun (光海君), the 15th king of the Joseon Dynasty, and the aspects of the Buddhist community affected by them. Through this, the influence and dynamism of Buddhism during the reign of Gwanghaegun will be revealed. Some of the findings will run contrary to what is popularly known about Joseon Buddhism and the policy of Sungyueokbul (崇儒抑佛), 'Revering Confucianism and Supressing Buddhism.' During the Joseon Dynasty, Neo-Confucianism was taken as an ideological background, and consequently, Buddhism was ostracized by the ruling class who advocated the exclusion of heretical views. This also characterized King Gwanghaegun's reign during the Mid-Joseon Dynasty. In reality though, the ruling class held mixed opinions about Buddhism, and this influenced the Buddhist community in the Gwanghaegun Period. The military might of Japan demonstrated during the Japanese Invasion of Korea in 1592, led the ruling class to recognize Buddhism, and as a result, the status of Buddhism rose to a certain extent. Based on its elevated status and the aftermath of the Japanese Invasion of Korea, the Buddhist community engaged in social welfare activities inspired by the notion of requiting favors, and the Buddhist community gained recognition for providing relief services. As a result, the number of monks increased, and the economic situation improved as land ownership was granted to temples and monks. This is the means by which the Japanese Invasion of Korea influenced the Buddhist policies of the Gwanghaegun Period and changed the religious topography of Buddhism. During the reign of King Gwanghaegun, the ruling class regarded Buddhism as heretical, but offered posthumous titles to monks who engaged in meritorious services during the Japanese invasions of 1592~1598. Favorable and/or preferential treatment was also granted to some Buddhist monks. In addition, monks began to perform labor projects that demanded organizational and physical strength, such as those which related to national defense and architecture. However, throughout the Gwanghaegun Period, the monks were paid a certain amount of compensation for their labor, and the monks' responsibility for labor increased. This can be understood as a partial reconciliation with Buddhism or an acceptance of Buddhism rather than the suppression of Buddhism often presented by historians. As for policies which affected Buddhism, the Buddhist community showed signs of cooperation with the ruling class, the creation and reconstruction of temples, and the production of Buddhist art. Through close ties with the ruling class, Buddhism during the Gwanghaegun Period saw the Buddhist community actively responded policies that impacted Buddhism, and this allowed their religious orders to be maintained. In this way, it was also confirmed that the monk, Buhyu Seonsu (浮休 善修) and his disciple Byeogam Gakseong (碧巖 覺性), took up leadership roles in their Buddhist community. The Buddhist-aimed policies of Gwanghaegun were implemented against the backdrop of the Buddhist community, wherein the ruling class held mixed opinions regarding Buddhism. As such, both improvements and set backs for Buddhism could be observed during that time period. The ruling class actively utilized the organizational power of Buddhism for national defense and civil engineering after the Japanese invasions of 1592~1598. Out of gratitude, they implemented appropriate compensation for the Buddhists involved. The Buddhist community also responded to policies that affected them through exchanges with the ruling class. They succeeded in securing funds and support to repair and produce Buddhist temples and artworks. A thoughtful inspection of the policies towards and responses to Buddhism during the Gwanghaegun Period, shows that Buddhism actually enjoyed considerable organizational power and influence. This flies in the face of the general description of Joseon Buddhism as "Sungyueokbul (revering Confucianism and supressing Buddhism)."