Abstract
Abstract Regarding the historical East Asian order, previous studies appear to have emphasized Chinese and Japanese perspectives, and this academic phenomenon seems to have contributed to solidifying a misunderstanding. This study attempts to present a Korean perspective providing different points of view that challenge previous perspectives on the legal status of Korea in the nineteenth century. One of the critical misunderstandings about the historical relationship between China and Korea is that of vassalage. However, such an analogy is misleading. The East Asian international normative order, which was based on Li, is a particular order that requires a separate treatment. The nature of the tributary order would not necessarily impair sovereignty if it were possible to project and apply the classical international law of the nineteenth century. As the policy of Dongdoseogi represents, however, Korea once seemed to have preferred to maintain the two normative systems simultaneously.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call