여몽 관계의 성격과 동아시아의 국제관계 - 중국 학계의 '책봉과 조공' 관계 연구의 한계와 문제점을 중심으로

윤은숙 동북아역사재단 2012 東北亞歷史論叢 Vol.- No.35

The appearance of the Mongol Empire brought great changes in the East Asian international order, to a degree not found in earlier history. The unitary rule of the Mongols required a complete revision of the Confucian proprieties referring to “investiture-tribute” that had been recognized as the existing East Asian international order. The external frame of “investiture-tribute” was accepted in the Great Mongol Empire period, but it has intrinsic differences in the sense of “tribute and investiture” recognized as the global order the Chinese perceive. Chinese scholars such as Pu Baichen, Huang Songjun, and others interpret the diplomatic relations between Goryeo and the Mongols as the cruelest example of “tribute and investiture” relations. They argue that the “investiture-tribute” system was considered to be crueler than that of other Chinese dynasties and the essence of “investiture-tribute”was actualized by the Mongols when the “investiture-tribute” system of the Mongols was applied to Goryeo, emphasizing the fact that the Mongols were the original Chinese dynasty in order to strengthen their logic. However, this logic made a mistake in stretching the meaning of the true nature of the “investiture-tribute” system and overlooking the nomadic attributes and aims. The diplomatic relations between Goryeo and Mongol have important issues to be interpreted only as a simple “investiture-tribute” system. First, the brotherhood alliance of the two nations was based on the anda system of the Mongols, which was the nomadic order in the background of the equality, and completely different from tribute based upon the premise of inequality according to the Confucian order. The preferential goal of the Mongols before the war with the Jin Dynasty was the establishment of friendly relations with Goryeo and the surrounding nations. Therefore, the Mongols did not request tribute of Goryeo upon the establishment of the brotherhood alliance. Rather, the fact that Goryeo attempted to provide a certain amount of tribute based upon prior examples of East Asian international relations cannot be stretched for its meaning and described as “tribute.” This enabled the Mongols to change according to the later situation, but the brotherhood alliance itself was not a relationship formed under the premise of “the tribute system.”Second, even though the Great Mongol Empire borrowed the external frame of Chinese system for “investiture-tribute,” the diplomatic relations between the two countries cannot be explained only through “investiture-tribute.” In particular, the fact that the king of Goryeo had dual positions as a monarch and as a son-in-law of the imperial family shows that it was not a relationship for a power doctrine, but the actual relationship. The dual position of the Goryeo king was connected as an opportunity provided to participate in the overall politics of the Great Mongol Empire. The king of Goryeo could discuss major national issues from the selection of the Khan to foreign expeditions and the right of succession for the next ruler, and could prepare the chance to analyze the future state of affairs by grasping internal trends at the Mongols’imperial court. Third, the Great Mongol Empire’s requests to Goryeo for tribute were noticeably reduced after the inter-marriage. In other words, the requisition of goods to Goryeo was reduced, the size and the frequency of the bestowed goods were increased and the general offerings were increased. This is verified as very different from the insistence of China that the typical tribute was conducted through forced request of tribute and acceptance. Therefore, the relations between the two countries went through a diverse range of changes according to the practical necessities of each country, rather than through a unitary system. If explaining the relations of the two countries formed and changed as the result of complicated mutual reactions,...

『동아시아사』 교과서의 고대국제관계 서술 검토

윤재운 대구사학회 2014 대구사학 Vol.115 No.-

This paper presents a review of the content about ancient international relations in three authorized textbooks of East Asian History, which were written according to the 2011 Curriculum and put to use in the first semester of 2014. The review results point out the followings:The textbooks of East Asian History are the result of an attempt to catch two rabbits, namely time-based organization and an approach by the topics. The textbooks sought after the approach by the topics in general with some exceptions. Such a structural feature differentiates them from the old textbooks of Korean History and World History written chronologically. Of them, the topic of “international relations” to be addressed in the present study is original, not having been dealt with in their own name in any textbooks in the nation. The changed achievement criteria of learning content in the domain of ancient international relations announced in the 2011 Curriculum, in particular, were designed to induce the multifaceted description of diplomatic relations in East Asia by defining ancient international relations in East Asia as “various diplomatic formats including tribute and investiture relations in East Asia” unlike the 2007 Curriculum that confined them to “tribute and investiture relations as a diplomatic format in East Asia.”The parts describing “ancient international relations” in the textbooks of East Asia History have been supplemented in some content as the achievement criteria changed from the description focused on investiture and tribute relations in the 2007 Curriculum to the description of various diplomatic relations including investiture and tribute relations in the 2011 Curriculum. However, the two textbooks not published by Chunjae Education are weak with significance granted to the limitations and actual state of investiture and tribute relations. When the learning materials are considered, the textbooks of East Asian History introduced in 2014 contain more exploratory activities and show improvements both in quantity and quality despite certain content errors and misses compared with their counterparts of 2012. Finally, the study proposes that research discourse on “ancient international relations in East Asia” and the perspectives of Korean academic circles for the period should begin in a bold and serious manner if they pursue East Asian History to present in balance “East Asian history in the world history” and “Korean history in East Asia.”(Daegu university / hiswoon@daegu.ac.kr)

'南蠻' 및 '海南'諸國과 隋唐代 中國의 국제관계 - '冊封朝貢關係'를 중심으로

정면 동북아역사재단 2012 東北亞歷史論叢 Vol.- No.35

This article examines the Chinese tribute system from the seventh century to the tenth century in Huanan(華南, South China), which involved foreign states in the South Seas(海南諸國, Southeast Asia). The states in the Huanan region and the Southeast Asia area also communicated with Chinese states by participating in the heqin (和親,friendly relations) system or the neishu (內屬, internal obedience) system in a similar way that the political entities of other regions of ancient East Asian world did. The Chinese tribute system can be characterized as investiture-tribute relations (冊封朝貢關係), which involved the conferment of office and peerage and the tribute exchange either in the form of heqin or neishu . A summary of the findings of this article follows. First, this article reveals how Chinese people understood the states of the Huanan region and the Southeast Asia area in the Tang period. Chinese people gathered information on most of the Southeast Asian area, though that information was more or less incorrect. This article shows that, through “the maritime Silk Road,” communication between Chinese states and the states of the Southeast Asian area expanded and that Buddhism, the most common religion in Southeast and East Asia,also played a role in this process. Second, relationships between Chinese states and each of the political entities of the Huanan region and Southeast Asia in the Tang period varied. The regions of that period were called “southern barbarians” and “southwestern barbarians” or divided into jiaoneiman (徼內蠻, barbarians within the frontier fortress) and jiaowaiman (徼外蠻,barbarians beyond the frontier fortress). In general,“southern barbarians” and jiaowaiman meant the people residing in the states of today’s Southeast Asia(海南諸國) while the “southwestern barbarians”and jiaoneiman pointed to the people of the states of today’s Huanan region. “Jiao ” (徼) was a military facility similar to “se ” (塞) in the northern region. It can be speculated that historical memories of the establishment of bianjun (邊郡, frontier prefectures) were deployed in separating jiaoneiman from jiaowaiman . Third, although different names were used to identify peoples and states in the Southeast Asia and Huanan regions, there were similarities between them when it came to their diplomatic ties to Chinese states. Furthermore, the states of ancient Southeast Asia and the Huanan region were quite similar to those of ancient East Asia in terms of their diplomatic and political practices involving Chinese states, which included acts of exchanging delegations, forming an alliance,establishing administrative districts such as jimizhou (羈縻州),appointing government employees, and sending tribute to Chinese states. This article emphasizes that the relationship between Chinese states and the states in the Huanan region and part of the Southeast Asia in ancient times should be seen as a relationship between states, not as a relationship between a central government and local governments. In this way, this article argues against the claim of the People’s Republic of China, which has defined the boundary of the historic “China” based on the current borders of the People’s Republic of China. This article also argues that the history of the investiture-tribute system between ancient Chinese states and states in Southeast Asia and East Asia cannot be used to discern which ancient states near Chinese states belonged to the historic “China.” Rather, the history of the investiture-tribute relations or the investiture-tribute system shows us that the system was used to distinguish the historic “China” from the historic “non-China.”

『동아시아사』 교과서의 고대국제관계 서술 검토

강남수 대구사학회 2014 대구사학 Vol.115 No.-

This paper presents a review of the content about ancient international relations in three authorized textbooks of East Asian History, which were written according to the 2011 Curriculum and put to use in the first semester of 2014. The review results point out the followings:The textbooks of East Asian History are the result of an attempt to catch two rabbits, namely time-based organization and an approach by the topics. The textbooks sought after the approach by the topics in general with some exceptions. Such a structural feature differentiates them from the old textbooks of Korean History and World History written chronologically. Of them, the topic of “international relations” to be addressed in the present study is original, not having been dealt with in their own name in any textbooks in the nation. The changed achievement criteria of learning content in the domain of ancient international relations announced in the 2011 Curriculum, in particular, were designed to induce the multifaceted description of diplomatic relations in East Asia by defining ancient international relations in East Asia as “various diplomatic formats including tribute and investiture relations in East Asia” unlike the 2007 Curriculum that confined them to “tribute and investiture relations as a diplomatic format in East Asia.”The parts describing “ancient international relations” in the textbooks of East Asia History have been supplemented in some content as the achievement criteria changed from the description focused on investiture and tribute relations in the 2007 Curriculum to the description of various diplomatic relations including investiture and tribute relations in the 2011 Curriculum. However, the two textbooks not published by Chunjae Education are weak with significance granted to the limitations and actual state of investiture and tribute relations. When the learning materials are considered, the textbooks of East Asian History introduced in 2014 contain more exploratory activities and show improvements both in quantity and quality despite certain content errors and misses compared with their counterparts of 2012. Finally, the study proposes that research discourse on “ancient international relations in East Asia” and the perspectives of Korean academic circles for the period should begin in a bold and serious manner if they pursue East Asian History to present in balance “East Asian history in the world history” and “Korean history in East Asia.”(Daegu university / hiswoon@daegu.ac.kr)

유교문명권의 국제관계: 책봉제도를 중심으로

권선홍 한국정치외교사학회 2010 한국정치외교사논총 Vol.31 No.2

This paper aims to grasp the actual fact of traditional international relations in the Confucian world from East Asian world level, which is not based on a single nation. It considers the viewpoint of pre-modern, not modern, people. The fact that hierarchical order was common in medieval times is always taken into consideration. Also the hierarchy, not equality, is the more general in the long history of international relations. First of all, in the Confucian world, the state was regarded as extended family and the family as miniature state. The li (禮) was the Confucian natural law and the criterion distinguishing the civilized from the barbarous. Secondly, investiture was the universal institution in medieval times, to say nothing of the Confucian world. And as has already been known, receiving investiture from the Son of Heaven (Emperor of China) was considered as a great honor or mark of civilization which the barbarous could not attain. Thirdly, Emperor’s investiture was the shortcut to attain legitimacy and full membership of kings in the Confucian world. The investiture system also gave many economic and cultural benefits to kingdoms and greatly contributed to maintain order and peace in traditional East Asia. Finally, the investiture system brought about the culturally homogeneous consciousness to some degree in the Confucian world, the literati emphasizing the importance of the Confucian world or norms rather than his own nation. In a word, Confucian international relations were viewed as hierarchical and non-equal, but on the other hand paternalistic and reciprocal. 이 논문은 유교문명권의 국제관계에 대해 책봉제도를 중심으로 그 실상을 파악하는데 목적을 두었다. 연구결과를 요약해보면, 우선 유교문명권의 국제관계는 기본적으로 사상∙이념 차원에서 중화∙화이사상과 함께 천명과 대일통사상 등을 포괄하는 유교사상을 바탕으로, 중국과 그 주변의 국가∙지역들 간의 관계를 사대자소의 예적 질서로 규정하고, 현실에서는 책봉∙조공제도가 운용되었다. 즉 유교 원리와 규범이 개인∙가정∙사회∙국가뿐 아니라 국가 간의 관계에까지 두루 통용되는, 이른바 국제관계의 명분이기도 하였다. 다음으로, 중세 각 문명권은 대부분 상하차등질서 속에서 보편종교의 이상적 질서를 책봉을 통해 현실세계에서 구현하려고 하였다. 즉 책봉은 중세시대의 보편적 제도로서, 유교문명권의 공동문자인 한문으로 작성된 국서와 금인 등 상징물 등을 내려줌으로써 이루어졌다. 책봉관계에서 벗어남은 자주성을 높이는 것이 아니라, 문명국으로 인정받지 못한다는 의미였다. 따라서 책봉 받음은 커다란 영예라서, 매우 자랑스럽게 생각하였다. 셋째로, 책봉은 왕조국가 간의 상호연대를 이루어, 좁게는 왕조정권체제의 유지에 기여하고 넓게는 유교문명권의 질서 유지와 평화 보장에 기여하였다. 즉 책봉이 국왕을 국내외적으로 공인하는 절차이자 유교문명권의 정회원임을 공인하는 절차였으며, 유교문명권을 하나로 만들고 이어나가는데 필수적 요소였다. 끝으로, 책봉관계를 통하여 유교문명권의 유대의식을 가져다주었으며, 국가나 사직보다는 유교규범을 더 중시하고, 일가 내지 동류의식을 강조하였다. 요컨대 유교문명권의 국제관계는 대체로 ‘위계적이고 차등적이나, 온정적이며 호혜적인 관계’였다고 하겠다.

유교의 예(禮)규범에서 본 전통시대 동아시아국제관계

권선홍 한국정치외교사학회 2014 한국정치외교사논총 Vol.35 No.2

This study attempts to understand the Confucian interstate relations in terms of Li, which should be regarded as the essence of Confucianism. The concept of Li, which was one of the comprehensive ranges of Confucian norms, was applied to every level of human life including individual, society, state, and even interstate relations. Furthermore, the ethos of Li was the main key criteria that distinguishes between humans and beasts as well as between Chinese and non-Chinese barbarians. In other words, it might be argued that the idea of Li was the raison d’etre of Confucian civilization. The “serving the great, loving the small” was the main norm of Li among states. Obviously, sometimes “serving the great” could be understood as one of major strategies to maintain the national security of a state against other powerful states. Nevertheless, the norm of “serving the great” should be identified as the naturalized Li in light of traditional Confucian thought. The investiture system was an important ritual act. The function of investiture system was to secure official recognition of the Emperor as the Son of Heaven, who was endowed with the power to make authority, legitimacy and the status of kingships in the Confucian world. And the tribute system was required to keep the principle of “giving the more, receiving the less”, which pertained not only to the relationship between China and Choson but also to the relationships between Choson and Jurchen or Tsushima. In short, the Confucian interstate relations had been sharing the notion of great organic community, respecting the spirit of bondage for the same civilization. This inclination must be differentiated from the European modern state system. In other words, on the basis of Li, the Confucian interstate relations was encompassing the friendly and amicable relations rather than the competitive and confrontational relations, and containing some autonomy and mutually reciprocal relations, even though it was estimated that there had been the hierarchical and non-equal order among states in the Confucian theory. 유교문명권의 국제관계를 유교사상 특히 예규범을 중심으로 문명권차원과 역사적 맥락에서 접근하여 그 배후의 원리를 이해하려고 시도하였다. 우선 유교권에서 예는 개인은 물론 사회·국가 나아가 국가 간에도 적용되는, 매우 포괄적이며 다양한 내용의 규범이었다. 무엇보다 예는 상하․존비․귀천․친소․원근 등을 구별하는 기능을 바탕으로, 중화와 이적을 구별함은 물론 인간과 금수를 구별해주는 핵심기준이었다. 즉 유교문명인들에게 예는 바로 ‘존재이유’ 자체였던 것이다. 다음으로 사대자소는 유교권의 국제관계에서 당연히 지키고 따라야 하는 국가 간의 중요한 예규범이었다. 사대가 국가보존의 수단이라는 인식도 존재하였으나 정통유교사상에서 본다면 지극히 ‘당연한 예’였다. 나아가 책봉은 하늘로부터 천명을 받아 온 천하를 다스리는 천자로부터 왕권의 정통성과 국왕지위를 공인하는 중요한 의례행위였다. 또한 조공-회사관계에서는 “후왕박래” 원칙을 따라야 한다고 여겼으며, 이는 중국과 조공국 관계에서는 물론 조선과 야․왜인 사이에서도 적용되는 규범이었다. 한마디로 유교권의 국제관계는 근대 서구와는 달리, 하나의 거대한 유기체적 문명공동체를 중시하며 ‘동문의식’으로 상징되는 유대감을 공유하였다. 즉 예규범을 기반으로 하여, 대립․경쟁적이라기보다는 상하포섭적이고 우호적이며, 상하위계적․차등적이나 자주적이고 호혜적이었다고 여겨진다.

南北朝期 韓中 冊封ㆍ朝貢 관계의 성격 : 고구려ㆍ백제의 冊封ㆍ朝貢에 대한 인식을 중심으로

임기환 한국고대사학회 2003 韓國古代史硏究 Vol.32 No.-

The diplomatic relations(a relation of investiture and tribute:冊封-朝貢) that Southern Dynasty and Northern Dynasty of China maintained with Koguryo(高句麗) and Paekje(百濟) were similar in appearance, but composed of various layers and substance. That is because the specifics of relations between the investing states and the tributary states varied. Additionally, the investing states and the tributary states had different diplomatic strategies and understandings of each other. Koguryo utilized the iuvestiture conferred by the Emperors to obtain recognition of its powers. In the case of Paekje, the system of investiture was used to govern its own political machinery. In addition, while Koguryo and Paekje were in the position of a tributary state, they maintained political independence and particularity, and Southern Dynasty and Northern Dynasty of China(南北朝) could not but acknowledge this. As Su(隋) Dynasty and Tang(唐) Dynasty, which brought China under one authority, emerged, the international relations began to change, because Su Dynasty and Tang Dynasty expected au international order centered around them. Therefore, Koguryo and Paekje, which insisted upon their political independence, could not accept the political dynamics, and that was the background upon which the two nations were conquered by the allied force of Tang Dynasty and Shilla(新羅).

고대 동아시아의 다원적 국제관계와 <盟約> -<조공-맹약>체제의 가능성-

이재석 고려사학회 2020 한국사학보 Vol.- No.78

This article review the cases about relation of Tribute- Compact (Pledge) by figuring out not only historical sources of ancient Korea and Japan but also ones of northern and western Chinese ethnic groups. The author took a novel/fresh approach to Compact(Pledge) as a bridge identifying the form of subjugating royal power or relations between national races while many existing studies noticed installation-tribute relations. Until now, Compact(Pledge) was mainly considered to a key feature of northern and western asian(including China) area. However it could be thought to include Goguryeo, Baekje, Silla in Northeast Asia and Japan(Wa). Even though the convention of Compact(Pledge) was gradually declined after establishment of Qin-Han Empire in China, it was still remained strongly in non-Chinese Dynastic area ; from northern and western Chinese Dynasty to Northeast Asian area. In addition, I figured out it was worked as one of various international relation forms in the expanse of Eastern Asian international relations including Chinese Dynasty before 10th century. 본고는 맹약-조공(공납) 관계의 사례를 고대 韓日의 사료뿐만 아니라 중국의 북방과 서방 등 제민족의 관련 사료에서 검출하여 검토한 것이다. 기존의 연구에서는 주로조공-책봉 관계에 대해 많은 연구와 관심이 집중되었으나 여기서는 왕권에 대한 복속의 형태이자 국가와 국가(지역, 종족) 간 관계를 규정하는 또 하나의 형식적 매개체로서의 맹약에 대해 주목해 보았다. 종래 맹약의 관행은 주로 북방 유목 민족・지역 세계의 주요 특징으로 간주되어온 경향이 강하였지만 그 맹약 세계의 반열에는 동북아시아의 고구려, 백제, 신라 그리고 왜국(일본)까지 묶어서 생각해 볼 수 있는 여지가 있다. 중국의 경우 맹약의 습속은 진한 제국의 성립 이후 내부적으로 쇠퇴해 갔지만, 중원왕조의 북방・서역에서 동북아시아에 걸쳐있는 非中原지역에서의 맹약의 습속은 여전히 강고하게 남아 있었다. 또한 10세기 이전의 동아시아 국제관계의 장에서 중원왕조를 포함하여 다양한 국제관계의 한 유형으로서 맹약이 기능하고 있었음도 확인할 수 있었다.

전근대 동아시아의 국제질서 ― 일본의 연구성과를 중심으로 ―

고은미 ( Go Eun-mi ) 수선사학회 2017 史林 Vol.0 No.59

The establishment of unique and particular relationships is the precondition for identifying a specific space among areas. Such relation network, different from that of other regions, exercises greater influence on all members involved, in either direct or indirect fashion. From this perspective, it is not a group of individual nations and people geographically located in the same place that builds a region. The presence of its own social system and relations is required for emergence of regional identity. East Asia also had its own relation structure in the light of this fact. The region has experienced changes in internal structure or relationships over time, which could serve as the criterion for dividing periods of East Asian history. This paper studies such changes, focusing on diverse factors such as the investiture system, treaty relation, development of offshore Asia, formation of the Mongol Empire, the tribute trade system, and mutual trade (hushi) system. As countries were incorporated in a certain regional order, they adopted a specific pattern of behavior according to the order and thus enabled to carry out exchange without a fear of armed conflict. With the Western-dominated international order established in the end of 19th century, however East Asia was no longer able to maintain its independent network of relations.

‘중국적 세계질서’와 古代 雲南

鄭勉(Jeong, Myeon) 동양사학회 2016 東洋史學硏究 Vol.135 No.-

This article explores how ancient “Chinese world order”, or “East Asian world order” was operated in Yunnan, located in the borderland between East and Southeast Asia; how Yunnan participated in Chinese world order there. This article argues that Yunnan participated in the ancient Chinese world order from the second century BC to the tenth century. For the most part during the period, Yunnan was located outside the traditional boundary of China, but had constantly engaged with Chinese state. It even became a part of Chinese empire for a certain period. This regions was integrated into Chinese world order through the operations of Chinese institutions, such as “frontier commandaries” and “mofu” systems, as well as “tribute-investiture” relations. Yet, as Nanzhao, a regional state existed in Yunnan from 738 to 902, expanded into northern Myanmar and its vicinities since mid-eighth century, Yunnan started to participate in the Southeast Asian world order. In the ninth century, the king of Nanzhao called himself “Pyu-shin” and “Maharaja” and functioned as a regional hegemon there. However, the expansion of Nanzhao did not mean the expansion of “East Asian world” into mainland Southeast Asia, because it participated in different regional world order, as it expanded there. Therefore, while for instance Goguryeo and the regional tributary system operated by it constituted a part of East Asian world order, Nanzhao and the regional world order operated by it were not a part of it. Indeed, Nanzhao constituted a borderland between the Chinese world and the world of Sanskrit. Therefore, Nanzhao state’s simultaneous participation in these two different worlds reveals the multilayered and interlocked operations of the multiple ancient “world” systems. Yet, from the viewpoint of rulers of Nanzhao, it may have been that “China,” “Tibet,” and “India,” and Pyu states were mere elements that constituted their own regional world order centered around Yunnan.