Chapter 1 Korea’s Encounter with the Modern International Legal System

1 Introduction

1.1 The International Order of East Asia in the Era of International Law: Acceptance and the Status of Korea in International Law Before the introduction of Jus Publicum Europaeum into East Asia, there existed an “international” regional normative system that regulated the rela- tions between and among China and the many political entities around her such as Korea, Japan, and Vietnam among others. This regional normative sys- tem was referred to as the “Sinocentric order”. The Sinocentric order was based on the concept of Sinocentrism. Sinocentrism was a belief that understood the world to be composed of a cen- ter and a periphery. The center was civilized China ruled by an emperor who received his mandate from heaven. The emperor was referred to as the “Son of Heaven” and the Chinese dynasties were called Celestial Empires. Uncivilized people or barbarians supposedly inhabited the outer regions. Naturally, rela- tions between civilized central China and the uncivilized peripheral political entities around her were understood as a relationship between superior and inferior. The inferior paid tribute to superior China regularly as a function of the trib- utary system. It may be said that this was the most important component of the Sinocentric order. Sometimes the Sinocentric order and the tributary sys- tem were treated as one in the same. As a matter of fact, under the Sinocentric order, the trade of goods between China and other dynasties was conducted only in the form of the peripheral entities’ payment of tribute and the recep- tion of return bestowals from China. The trade under the tributary system was sometimes more beneficial to the tribute-payer than the tribute-receiver. The second feature of the Sinocentric order was the Chinese emperor’s installation of kings in the peripheral dynasties. This meant that in formal terms, a king of a peripheral dynasty such as the king of Korea or king of Vietnam was a subject of the Chinese emperor. The last feature of the Sinocentric order was the use of the Chinese calendar. Under the Chinese calendar system, years were counted by using the Chinese era reign name. Consequently, this third feature of the Sinocentric order

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004315754_002 2 Chapter 1 meant the official use of the Chinese era reign name by tributary dynasties. As the use of the Chinese calendar was an important element of the Sinocentric order, if a tributary dynasty began to use its own inherent era reign name, that meant and symbolized an exit from the Sinocentric order and becoming an equal with China in its normative or legal status. Under the Sinocentric order, Chinese dynasties had taken the policy of “rein and bridle”. This policy meant keeping peripheral dynasties and tribes under the Chinese bridle through the use of appeasement by their rulers rather than the use of force. On the basis of this policy, China did not intervene in the domestic affairs of the barbarians and the use of force was not the means by which China accomplished its foreign policy goals. Barbarians were allowed autonomy and their inherited customs were respected by China. Korea had been a tributary dynasty like Ryukyu (Okinawa), Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, and Burma. It had willingly accepted the Sinocentric order and was a dynastic kingdom which paid tribute most frequently. This frequency of tribute payment was understood as a privilege rather than a burden. Korea herself had pride in her own level of civilization and referred to itself as a “little Chinese civilization”. Japan also paid tribute to China. However, it was not a typical tributary dynasty because its payment of tribute was sporadic. The rela- tion between Japan and China was marked by a lack of contact in comparison to Korea. The fact that Korea had paid tribute regularly to China and accepted her own inferior status to China without any serious resistance under the Sinocentric order may give the impression that Korea had been thoroughly under the control of China. However, the Chinese policy of “rein and bridle” respected the inherited customs of the tributary polities and allowed their domestic self-government. Korea was no exception in this respect. Under the Sinocentric order, the political and legal matters of Korea were totally left in the hands of Koreans. This is the reason why the relationship between Korea and China under the Sinocentric order is called a formal or ceremonial one. When Korea opened its doors to the West for the first time, Western coun- tries had difficulty understanding the status of Korea since it was under the Sinocentric order. A question was raised among Western countries as to whether Korea was a vassal state or an independent sovereign state. It was rather advantageous for Korea to be regarded as a vassal state in terms of avoid- ing international responsibility, whereas it also hoped to be recognized as an independent sovereign state in all other respects. On the contrary, China put an emphasis on the status of Korea as an independent state so that it would not carry the burden of the international responsibility for Korea as a suzerain state which it was supposed to assume. However, it continued to assert Korea’s