朝贡体系下古代东亚秩序形成与维系的内在逻辑——批判地借鉴英国学派的分析方法

the Ancient East Asian Order under the Tribute System: the Inherent Logic of Formation and Maintenance

古代东亚秩序的形成与维系,同历史悠久的朝贡体系有着直接的关系。因此,要有效揭示古代东亚秩序的内在逻辑,应当批判地借鉴以历史主义见长的英国学派的分析方法,探讨朝贡体系的运行机制和内在本质。在古代,中国与朝鲜长时段的朝贡体系实质上是一种由中国主导并以其特有文化为基础、周边诸政权普遍认可和积极参与的特殊国际制度。就中国而言,完全独立的政治体制、自给自足的经济结构、等级制的世界观,使其对外部的需求仅限于其他政权对其至高无上地位的承认及其对相关制度安排的服从。而对周边诸政权来说,只有与实力超强的中国建立朝贡关系,它们才能获得合法性和安全保障,并取得与中国贸易的机会,从而实现生存与发展两大目标。由此可以得出如下结论:在缺乏文化共识的前提下,由地区强国主导,可以促成某种功能性的国际制度,使地区秩序得以维护,并在交往过程中反向促成文化认同。这一结论修正了英国学派关于共有文化与国际制度的关系的观点。

The formation and maintenance of ancient East Asian order was directly related to the tribute system of a long history.Thus,to effectively reveal the inherent logic of ancient East Asian order,it is necessary to critically refer to the analytical methods of the English School characterized by historicism,and to discuss the operational mechanism and inner nature of tribute system.By a brief historical review,the research of the long-term tributary relationships between China and Korea before Qing Dynasty suggested that tribute system was essentially a special international system dominated by China,which was based on the unique Chinese culture,generally approved and actively involved by numerous neighboring regimes.For China,its external demands were subject to other regimes’ acknowledgment of its unrivaled position and obedience to relevant systems due to completely independent political system,self-sufficient economic structure and hierarchical view of the world.For neighboring regimes,only when they established tributary relationships with powerful China could they be guaranteed legitimacy and safety and obtain opportunities to trade with China for the purpose of survival and development.Therefore,under the premise that there is no cultural consensus,the formation of certain functional international institution can be facilitated if the regional power plays a dominant role;furthermore,regional orders can also be maintained and cultural identity be enhanced in reverse through associations.This conclusion corrects English School’s viewpoints on the relationships between common culture and international institution.