Confronting the Middle Kingdom:The History of Tribute System Revisited through CHUN Hae-jong and LEE Choon-shik

• Main Authors: Kyoung-yoon SEO, 徐耿胤
• Other Authors: Chih-Yu Shih
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2011
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/30120085616021732909

碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 政治學研究所 === 99 === The tributary system has taken an important position in the past Sino-Korean Relations that goes back to almost 2000 years ago. Although some Korean scholars insist that the system has merely taken a partial role in the whole Sino-Korean Relations, the importance of understanding the true nature of the tributary system is in no way negligible. Without it, we cannot analyze Sino-Korean relations in depth. Many scholars have maintained the perspective that puts an emphasis on “sinicization.” Such scholars include Western scholars like Fairbank J. K as well as Chinese scholars from mainland China, Hong-Kong, and Taiwan. Despite some minor differences, they hold the common view that the tributary system means a Sino-Centric international order in East Asia. Tanchong even insists that the tributary system is a domestic order between China and her neighboring regions. The loophole in such perspective is to overlook how the tributary system has been viewed from the neighboring states; for example, the real motives why these state chose to participate in the tributary system have been hardly discussed. HAMASHITA Takeshi, a Japanese scholar, transcends from the Sino-Centric notion and discusses the tributary system as “Asian economic bloc.” By regarding the tributary system as economic trade relations in East Asia, he challenges the view of ‘Occidental-Centric’ view. However, in reality, the tributary system is not just about economic relations. Besides economic aspect, a balanced discussion of the tributary system should put into consideration political, military, and cultural aspects of the system as well. Korean scholars’ view differs from Chinese, Western, and Japanese scholars. CHUN Hae-jong defines the relations between Chosun and Ming, Qing as “typical Tributary relations.” From the standpoint of Chosun, he has studied the past Sino-Korean Tribu tary System. LEE Choon-shik, through studying the Tributary System in ancient times , insists that the Tributary System was not monopolized by China, but actually formed general diplomatic relations in the Pan-East Asian regions. Recent works by Korean scholars reflect more progressive considerations about Sino-Korean Tributary System; early Sino-Korean relations in the Tributary System (prior to Ming, Qing dynasty)was rather reciprocal relations based on realism. This thesis has studied how Korean scholars such as CHUN Hae-jong and LEE Choon-shik have analyzed the tributary system. Their works show the interpretation of the tributary system from the stance of Korea, and offer an alternative perspective that departs from the sino-centric view of the tributary system. This contributes to our balanced understanding of the Sino-Korean tributary relations in the past.