國立臺灣大學政治科學論叢

Abstract / Chinese PDF Download

This article analyzes the investiture/tributary relationship between Liao/Jin and Goryeo. It argues that the spheres and degrees of ideological influence that Confucianism displayed in the premodern East Asian tributary system were determined by the factors of the international power structure and the domestic factors of the tributary states. The Liao Dynasty, and later the Jin Dynasty, and the Goryeo Dynasty maintained a long peace for nearly 200 years within the framework of the tributary system. However, the specific details of this peace had some major differences from what would become the typical investiture/tributary relationship between the Ming/Qing and the Chosŏn Dynasty. First, the Liao/Jin Dynasties and the Goryeo Dynasty had exchanges with each other by making the protocol of the Tang Dynasty (Tangli or “Tang rites”) a rule, but they did not share the same value system (the ideology of Confucianism). Second, the Liao and Jin Dynasties became militarily dominant over East Asia, but they did not hold a hegemonic position. Third, there was little deep mutual cooperation and there were few patterns of mutual trust between the Liao/Jin Dynasties and Goryeo Dynasty. Nevertheless, the Liao/Jin Dynasties and the Goryeo were the first to build the most frequent and varied channels in the relationship between the premodern Chinese Dynasties and the Dynasties in the Korean Peninsula due to factors such as their geographic proximity, their hegemonic status in their applicable areas, and their common issues of concern. It was a vital step in the overall historical relations between both countries, and these patterns of interaction later carried over to the relationships between the Ming/Qing Dynasties and the Chosŏn Dynasty.

In summary, the influence of the ideological factors of Confucianism under the tributary system between the Liao/Jin Dynasties and the Goryeo Dynasty was minimized. The influence of the ideological factors of Confucianism at the international level was just a display of protocol, and the development of Confucianism within the tributary states in the Confucian cultural area was not directly connected to a bond with the Chinese emperors nor was it related to strengthening trust.This was in sharp contrast with the tributary relationship between Ming/Qing and Chosŏn.