‘조선＝속국(屬國), 속방(屬邦)’의 개념사 = History of Concepts on Chosun=sokkug(屬國, C; shuguo, J; zokugoku), also Known as ‘chogongkuk’(朝貢國, C; chaogongguo, J; chokoukoku)

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In the East Asian tradition, sokkug(屬國, C; shuguo, J; zokugoku) was a simple and clear concept. It is another name for “chogongkuk”(朝貢國, C; chaogongguo, J; chokoukoku), a so-called tributary kingdom. Chogongkuk(i.e., Sokkug) can be classified into two distinct categories. However, it basically means the inherent rights to enjoy the “autonomy of domestic and foreign affairs.” In other words, it was gifted by nature with endemic rights in East Asian tradition – namely, “traditional sovereignty.” Accordingly, such ideas of sovereignty were taken as a matter of course. However distinctive from the concept of modern Western sovereignty it maybe, such ideas make no difference in the existence of sovereignty itself.
However, in the modern period, the term “sokkug” was changed into a concept with multiple ambiguous meanings. One reason was that, in Japan, “sokkug” became a coined word for the “colony.” Another reason was that the Qing dynasty in China, from the 1860s to the 1880s, invented the argument of “Chosǒn(朝鮮) = sokkug and/or sokbaug(屬邦).” This provided plenty of room for self-willed interpretations of the term “sokkug.” However, in reality this resulted in a lot of interpretative confusion and misunderstandings, since the term “sokkug” became a mixture of traditional and modern thought.
Such confusion or misunderstandings should have ended and disappeared after the Sino-Japanese War as the tributary relations between Chosǒn and Qing were abolished. However, this did not happen, as the self-willed interpretation of the term “sokkug” continued. Confusion and misunderstanding was spread across the world and continues to persist in certain parts even today. Why? The reason is, first of all, “ignorance about East Asian tradition” along with its “ignorance of ignorance” and the biased view of modernism.
Keeping these problems in mind, I examine a conceptual history about the argument of “Chosǒn = sokkug, sokbaug.” But first, I explain the traditional term “sokkug” classified into two categories. Second, I describe how the argument of “Chosǒn = sokkug, sokbaug” had been invented. Third, I examine the mixed issues of “sokkug clause” that the Qing dynasty of China demanded in 1882. Fourth, I explore a series of the polemic phase regarding the argument of “Chosǒn = sokkug, sokbaug.” Lastly, I present several reasons why the self-willed interpretation of the term “sokkug” continued after the Sino-Japanese War.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 姜東局, "｢屬邦｣の政治思想史―19世紀後半における ｢朝鮮地位問題｣をめぐる言説の系譜" 東京大學大学院 2004

2 김봉진, "한국 국제정치학, 미래 백년의 설계" 사회평론 아카데미 2018

3 김한규, "사조선록 역주5 淸使의 朝鮮 使行錄" 소명출판 2012

4 宋炳基, "近代韓中関係史研究―19世紀末의 聯美論과 朝清交渉" 檀大出版部 1985

5 岡本隆司, "近代中國と海關" 名古屋大學出版會 1999

6 佐藤慎一(사토 신이치), "近代中国の知識人と文明" 東京大學出版會 1996

7 林明徳(린밍더), "袁世凱與朝鮮" 精華印書館 1970

8 "萬國公法"

9 朴定陽, "船上日記"

10 高麗大學校亜細亜問題研究所, "舊韓國外交文書 (전21권) 제8~9권" 高麗大學出版部 1965

11 朴日根, "美國의 開國政策과 韓美外交關係" 一潮閣 1981

12 柳永益., "甲午更張硏究" 一潮閣 1990

13 O. N. 데니, "清韓論" 成文社 2010

14 權錫奉, "清末 對朝鮮政策史硏究" 一潮閣 1986

15 中央研究院近代史研究所, "清季中日韓関係史料 (全11巻) 第二巻, 第四巻" 精華印書館 1972

16 北平故宮博物院, "清光緒朝中日交渉資料 (全88巻) 巻一" 文海出版社 1963

17 柳永益., "東學農民蜂起와 甲午更張" 一潮閣 1998

18 高柄翊, "東亜交渉史의 研究" 서울대학교 출판부 1970

19 金鳳珍, "東アジア｢開明｣知識人の思惟空間 鄭観応·福沢諭吉·兪吉濬の比較研究" 九州大學出版會 2004

20 李陽子, "朝鮮에서의 袁世凱" 신지書院 2002

21 奥平武彦(오쿠다이라 다케히코), "朝鮮開国交渉始末 <附·朝鮮の条約港と居留地>" 刀江書院 1969

22 宇山卓榮(우아마 타쿠에이), "扶桑社新書 284" 扶桑社 2018

23 "從政年表·陰晴史"

24 岡本隆司(오카모토 다카시), "屬國と自主のあいだ近代清韓関係と東アジアの命運" 名古屋大學出版會 2004

25 "兪吉濬全書 I~V" 一潮閣 1971

26 傅徳元(푸더위엔), "丁韙良與近代中西文化交流" 臺大出版中心 2013

27 金鳳珍, "『礼』と万国公法の間―朝鮮の初期開化派の公法観―" (102) : 2001

28 Ch’ên, Jerome., "Yuan Shih-K’ai 1859-1916" George Allen & Unwin Ltd 1961

29 "United States, Department of State, General Records of Department of State, Diplomatic Despatches, China, 1843-1906"

30 Hobsbawn, Eric, "The Invention of Tradition" Cambridge University Press 1983

31 Morse, H. Ballou, "The International Relations of the Chinese Empire , 3 volumes: Vol. I. The Period of Conflict, 1834-1860, 1910); Vol. II. The Period of Submission, 1861-1893, 1918); Vol. III. The Period of Subjection, 1894-1911,1918)" Longmans, Green, and Company 1910

32 Richard Henry Dana, Jr., "The Classics of International Law" The Clarendon Press 1936

33 Fairbank, John King, "The Chinese World Order: China’s Foreign Relations" Harvard University Press 1968

34 Bull, Hedley., "The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics" Columbia University Press 1977

35 Krasner, Stephen., "Sovereignty: Organized Hypocracy" Princeton University Press 1999

36 Bredon, Juliet., "Sir Robert Hart: the Romance of a great Career" E. P. Dutton & Company 1909

37 Drew, Andrew B., "Sir Robert Hart and his Life Work in China" Clark University 1913

38 Bongjin KIM, "Rethinking the Traditional East Asian Regional Order: The Tribute System as a set of Principles, Norms, and Practices" 14 (14): 119-170, 2017

39 Lake, David A., "Hierarchy in International Relations" Cornell University Press 2009

40 Stanley, F.W, "Hart and the Chinese Customs" Published for the Queen’s University 1950

41 Fairbank, John King, "H. B. Morse, Customs Commissioner and Historian of China" University Press of Kentucky 1995

42 Jones, F. C., "Foreign Diplomacy in Korea, 1866-1894" Harvard University 1936

43 Griffis, W. E., "Corea, the Hermit Nation" Charles Scribner’s Sons 1885