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

초록

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, it will be hard to avoid the criticism that the international relations of the two countries were analyzed not supported by the historical evidence and ignoring the attributes and aims of the Mongols.

키워드