[국제관계이론/Draft] 동아시아 국제체제 : 고려-여진 관계

Pre-Modern East Asian International Systems : Application of International Relations Theories to Goryeo-Jin Relations

Introduction: Why was there a peaceful relations between Goryeo and Jin in 1125?

Interpretations and comparative analysis on historical records have become the basis of understanding the pre-modern East Asian international relations. More recently, traditional balance of power theory and other approaches have been employed to test explicability in East Asian international relations and, more generally, applicability to the real world through those theories.

The approach to understanding the East Asian version of international relations before the 20th century focuses on the unique concept – the tributary system, which implies the China-led unequal diplomatic relations with other states that constituted the East Asian international order.[1] However, recent works of literature made efforts to reveal that the traditional East Asian relations had a variety of forms – 1) a unified Chinese empire as the center of nations and unipolar power in the Chinese continent that exerted influence in politics, economy, and culture in East Asian world, 2) the divided empires in the continent (usually non-Han dynasties on the north and dynasties with the Han nation on the south) as a form of bipolarity that showed limited power against other states so its influence took the role of normative “big brother”, and 3) a multi-polar order where multiple states in China and relative stronger other states influence the overall East Asian order.

During the early period of Goryeo dynasty (高麗, 918 AD – 1170 AD, until the year of establishment of military regime and Mongolian invasion), international relations in East Asia showed one of the most dynamic features caused by the fluctuations of power struggle in the East Asian world. After the prosper years of the Tang dynasty for three centuries, repetitious wars and subsequent transitions of power prevailed during the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period (五代十國時代, 907 AD – 960 AD), which also introduced the Khitan Liao empire (契丹國, or Liao dynasty) that occupied the northern China. The Northern Song empire (北宋) by the Han nation on the south established a border around today’s Beijing, leading to confrontation and conflict with the Khitan Liao. The Khitan’s predominance in the military capabilities thwarted the Song’s territorial expansion to the north. The War between the two empires in 1004 led the them to sign the Shan-yuan Treaty (澶淵之盟, 1005 AD), which signified the Song as weaker position in relation to the Khitans and breakdown of the China(Han)-centered world view.[2] By providing 100,000 taels of silver and 200,000 bolts of silk as annual payments of tribute to the Khitan, the Song abandoned the position of both normative and actual “big brother” in East Asia. According to Peter Yun, regarding the Song’s “purchasing peace”, the treaty “prevented a potential source of conflict from developing into a major military confrontation”.[3]

Considering the relative weakness of the Song shown in the Shan-yuan Treaty, the victory of Goryeo against the Khitan Liao’s four times of conquests to the Korean Peninsula ever changed the international relations for over a century. The Goryeo-Khitan Wars from 993 to 1019 allowed Goryeo’s autonomy in foreign policy choices and its standing in East Asian relations.[4] After defeating the Khitan Liao, Goryeo reaffirmed the newly integrated territory in south of the Yalu river with the agreement between the two dynasties in 993. Further, Goryeo was able to take the advantageous position in foreign relations; the kingdom officially established the diplomatic relations with the Khitan Liao, which signified the mutual recognition of each other as state. At the same time, Goryeo continued cultural and economic relations with the Song. Even though the Song lost its leverage in the official relations with Goryeo, it still maintained the unofficial relations to balance the Khitan. In 1068, the Song restored the official relations with Goryeo by repositioning the diplomatic preference to the envoy of Goryeo as Guksinsa (國信使, Guo-hsin ssu in Chinese) the same rank as the one of the Khitan.[5]Along with the Song’s dire need to maintain her relations with Goryeo to balance against the Khitan, Goryeo became the balancer that could serve as a major variable to dynamics of international relations in East Asia back then.

In the 12th century, the Jurchens (女眞) from today’s Manchuria launched a campaign against the Khitans, drove them out of the Chinese continent and finally established the Jin empire. (金, 1115 1234 AD) The Jurchens captured the last emperor of the Khitans and overthrew them and in the same year declared a war against the Song. In this situation, without significant military conflicts, the Jin-Goryeo relations based on master and servant relationship was founded peacefully since 1125. This is puzzling due to the following reasons. First, during this fast-moving turbulence, the Jurchens sent envoys to Goryeo to officially establish the relations between the two. It is possible to think that this approach by the Jin was to contain Goryeo to fully and effectively operate the military campaign against the Song, but what drove Goryeo to respond ever fast to Jin’s offer? To put it another way, rather than remaining neutrality so that the Song and Goryeo at the same time balance against the Jin (based on the balance of power theory), why did Goryeo choose to be “the servant” of Jin, which delimits its diplomatic leverage? Second, before the official diplomatic relations between the two dynasties, the Khitan invasion in 11th century and the ensuing Goryeo’s strengthening military capabilities and victory provided Goryeo to consider the policy choice of aggression against the Jin Empire. Nevertheless, the court of Goryeo decided not to engage in military conflicts with the Jin. Third, the fact that the military power of the Jin that defeated the Khitans does not fully explain Goryeo’s policy choice. In 1104, 21 years before the establishment of the relations, Goryeo gained victory in military conquests against the Jurchen, which enables the dynasty to think of the hard-line in 1125. Fourth, while the campaign against the Jurchen in 1104 founded the Goryeo-Jurchen relations as “parent and son”, the renewed Goryeo-Jin relations since 1125 was drastically transformed into the relationship of Jin as master and Goryeo as servant. Despite the domestic opposition against the “mortifying” decision making from the court and even no sign of invasion by the Jin, the court of Goryeo decided to “bow down.” Last but not least, the Goryeo-Jin relations persisted without wars even when Goryeo decreased its power by suffering from internal conflicts, namely the military coup and ensuing rebellions since 1170.

The theoretical implications this article can draw are twofold. It is generally accepted that modern type of international relations traces back to the treaty of Westphalia, but study on historical background based on international relations theory has also been in progress, such as the ancient Greek city states, the Warring States Period in China, where the explanations on the theories of balance of power and bandwagoning can be tested. This kind of approach also necessitates international relations in Asian history to test the applicability and generalization of the international relations theories. Scholars in the field of history have tried to look at the Korean cases in accordance with international relations in East Asia, but the introduction of such theories to view the past is limited in usage, usually concentrating on war times with the balance of power. The years of the divided empires in the Chinese continent and existence of Goryeo showed complex state behaviors of balancing and bandwagoning, rather than only balancing with conflicts against each other. This is to overcome the approach that the balance of power was not the prevailing state behavior in East Asia when delineating the Sino-Korea relations during the early Goryeo period. To pursue national interest, efforts of bandwagoning were strategically chosen by Goryeo dynasty in relations with both the Liao and Jin empires.

Further, as an important member of East Asian international order, Goryeo showed rich records of interactions with other states in East Asia, which demonstrates patterns of state behavior when looking closely at international relations in terms of the balance of power and bandwagoning at the same time. In so doing, as many scholars in international relations, examining an international relations theory in conjunction with human nature; in this case, to what extent can the international relations theories and what kind of theories can be applied to explain the reality that existed in traditional times of East Asia? Further, if such efforts to find out state behavior examined by theories can be found in East Asia (particularly the Korean case), it will be also significant if there is South Korea’s foreign policy influenced by the legacy or tradition from the past.

[1] Zhao, S. (2015). Rethinking the Chinese World Order: the imperial cycle and the rise of China. Journal of Contemporary China, 24(96), 961-982., p. 963

[2] Yun, P. (2011). Balance of Power in the 11th-12th Century East Asian Interstate Relations. Journal of Political Criticism, 9(11), 139-162., p.142

[3] Ibid., p.142

[4] Yook, J. (2011). The Thirty Year War between Goryeo and the Khitans and the International Order in East Asia. East Asia History Criticism, 34(12), 11-52., p.42

[5] Songshi (宋史), 487.64.