本文以日本殖民統治時期京城帝國大學和台北帝國大學的公法學者為對象，探討這些公法學者如何思考和認識殖民地。首先，本文介紹京城帝國大學法文學部的形成，京城帝國大學在規模上接近日本內地的帝國大學，優於台北帝國大學。兩帝國大學也一定程度受到殖民地總督府的控制。本文於掌握兩地公法學者的論述後，分別以「顯教的台北帝大公法學」與「密教的京城帝大公法學」進行討論。顯教的台北帝大公法學者，著重於透過國體論的觀點建構公法學思想，多結合歷史、民族等論述建構天皇與臣民的關係，有的無視殖民地的差異，有的則接觸到殖民地歷史的特殊性。密教的京城帝大公法學則以近代立憲主義論述建構公法學思想，以帝國公法架構思考殖民地在帝國憲法當中所處的位置和分類，甚至細緻地看待殖民地行政法制，而批評殖民地法治薄弱，但是從研究取向和方法論來看，殖民地社會終究不是他們的關注焦點。透過以上考察，可以共同看到殖民地公法學者終究是在以日本帝國的統治權為主的架構下認識或是無視殖民地，欠缺從殖民地社會思考的論述，可以看到殖民地社會作為近代日本帝國憲法的他者。

In this study, I examine how colonial public law scholars at the Imperial Universities in colonial Korea (Keijo Imperial University) and Taiwan (the Taipei Imperial University) viewed colonialism. First of all, I explore the formation of the faculty of law at Keijo Imperial University. The scale of Keijo Imperial University is close to the Imperial University in the Japanese mainland, superior to Taipei Imperial University. The two Imperial Universities were also under the control of the colonial General-Governors. In particular, I explore whether or not scholars at those universities could freely discuss potentially controversial topics, such as colonialism. This article distinguishes between "the exoteric Taipei Imperial University" and "the esoteric Keijo Imperial University" for analysis after understanding the discourses of the public law scholars in the two places. Public law scholars in Taipei Imperial University, focus on constructing public law and the relationship between the emperor and his subjects through the perspective of the theory of Kokutai, in combination with history and ethnicity. One scholar clearly recognizes the political aspect of colonial rule and touches on colonial culture to emphasize the specialty of colonies. However, other public law scholars constructed a largely fictitious imperial Japanese tradition that had little to do with real Japanese history and the colony's history. Public law scholars in the esoteric Keijo Imperial University constructs the idea of public law based on modern constitutionalism. Scholars at Keijo Imperial University were able to emphasize the importance of the separation of powers and individual liberties. They also consider the position and classification of the colonies in the framework of imperial public law. even someone criticizes the weak of rule of law in the colonies. However, from the research approach and methodology, they do not pay more attention to colonial society. From these two types, it can be seen that colonial public law scholars ignored colonial society under the framework of the ruling power of the Japanese Empire. It can be said that colonial society is the other of the Japanese imperial constitution law.