恢復朝貢關係中的主體－－韓國學者全海宗與李春植的中國研究

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

徐耿胤(Kyoung-yoon SEO)

指導教授 ： 石之瑜

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/政治學研究所/碩士(2011年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2011.00587

摘要

若要談兩千多年的韓中關係史，就不可忽略朝貢關係。雖然有些韓國學者批評，朝貢關係只是在韓中關係中的一部分，但是在兩國關係的歷史裡，朝貢─冊封關係的重要性，是不可不注意的事實。由此可見，要了解韓中關係，必須先理解兩國的朝貢關係。
以費正清為代表的西方學者，以及中國大陸、香港、台灣等華人學者，雖然對朝貢體系的細節上有所不同，但是以中國為主的「中國中心主義」的基本觀念脈絡卻是大同小異。亦即，在東亞的朝貢體系，是以中國為中心來構成的國際秩序。學者譚中甚至否認朝貢體系的國際性，認為朝貢體系是中國與周邊地域之間的國內關係。事實上，以前述方式理解朝貢體系，很容易忽視周邊國家的視角。換言之，如果只強調基於中國為主的朝貢體系，便無法得知東亞國家參與朝貢體系的動機。
日本學者濱下武志雖然同意從以中國為中心的觀念為起始，但是他超越前述理論，提出「亞洲經濟圈」，以亞洲的歷史，將朝貢體系看成國家之間的經濟貿易關係，以中國近代經濟史地的視角，挑戰「西方中心論」。誠然朝貢體系具有經濟面相，但濱下僅強調朝貢體系的經濟面，忽略政治、軍事、文化等複雜的面相。
韓國學者的看法，則與中、西學者以及濱下武志的看法不同。全海宗把朝鮮與明、清朝的朝貢關係設定典型朝貢關係，從朝鮮的立場出發，檢討兩千多年的朝貢關係史。李春植則認為朝貢體系不是中國的專有物，透過古代中國朝貢體系他指出朝貢體系的泛東亞外交關係。目前對朝貢體系，像鄭容和、Yun Peter的韓國學者進一步主張，除了明、清時期，韓國接受以中國為主的朝貢關係，在其他時期並非主從關係，至少早期的韓中朝貢關係是以現實考量出發的對等關係。
本文透過全海宗與李春植的研究，闡發韓國立場詮釋下的朝貢體系，介紹全海宗所理解的韓中朝貢關係，以及試圖超越中國中心概念下的朝貢體系，並論及其他韓國學者對於韓中朝貢體系的研究，重新檢討韓中朝貢關係，以及韓中朝貢關係的意義。

關鍵字

韓中關係 ； 朝貢體系 ； 典型朝貢關係 ； 朝貢外交 ； 中國中心主義 ； 現實主義

並列摘要

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.

並列關鍵字

Sino-Korean relations ； Tributary System ； Typical Tributary System ； Tributary diplomacy ； Sino-Centrism ； Realism

參考文獻

陶晉生，1984，《宋遼關係史研究》，台北：聯經。

濱下武志著，王玉茹、趙勁松譯，2008，《中國、東亞與全球經濟：區域與歷史的角色》，北京：社會科學文獻。

朱雲影，2007，《中國文化對日韓越的影響》，桂林：廣西師範大學出版社。

Beasley, W. G. and Pulleyblank, E. G..1961. Historians of China and Japan，

傅斯年，1933，〈華夏東西說〉，《慶祝蔡元培先生六十五歲論文集 / 國立中央硏究院歷史語言硏究所編》：1093－1134