本文關鍵詞： 琉球三策 朝鮮策略 何如璋 黃遵憲　出處：《延邊大學》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】：琉球和朝鮮在明清時期就一直是與中國交往最為密切的朝貢國,兩者都作為藩屬國向中國朝貢和貿(mào)易往來,中朝、中琉之間維系著睦鄰友好的關系。降及近代,琉球和朝鮮都受到了西方列強尤其是日本的不斷侵擾,朝貢國日漸遭到蠶食,清朝的朝貢體系不斷受到?jīng)_擊,岌岌可危。面對如此危機,中國近代的外交使臣們何如璋、黃遵憲等人提出了《琉球三策》與《朝鮮策略》來應對�！读鹎蛉摺吠苿恿苏諘录屯鈬{(diào)停的實現(xiàn),而《朝鮮策略》則推動了黃遵憲與朝鮮修信史金弘集的筆談以及《朝美通商條約》的簽訂。通過對《琉球三策》和《朝鮮策略》的微觀對比研究,我們發(fā)現(xiàn),造成清政府無法保護琉球和朝鮮的共同原因是日本侵臺事件、俄國自始至終的干擾以及日本實力的不斷擴大,多種方面的因素共同導致了清政府無法保存住琉球和朝鮮。同時,清朝在對待琉球與朝鮮有著不同的態(tài)度,這種差異性體現(xiàn)在:不同的軍事戰(zhàn)略、從支展到積極應對、從勿與交通到各國通商三個方面,這種差異性映射出清政府外交政策的發(fā)展與變化:相比在琉球爭端中,清政府更加積極地去力保朝鮮不失,其外交戰(zhàn)略要比琉球時期更加主動與成熟。通過對兩策略的分析對比,我們能夠看到其中的相同與不同影響:相同影響有,一是朝鮮雖相比于琉球時期,清朝的外交更加主動,但都反映了清朝東亞外交意識的覺醒,二是不管是《琉球三策》還是《朝鮮策略》,正是由于在琉球和朝鮮前后兩時期對外情報收集工作的不足,使得策略不夠精細和針對性,難以挽救兩朝貢國的喪失;不同影響包括,一是失去琉球和朝鮮,導致清政府前沿緩沖地帶的缺失:丟琉球——東南沿海無屏障,失朝鮮——中國大陸直接暴露于列強面前,清朝形勢越來越危急;二是《琉球三策》所體現(xiàn)的是清朝的"被動面對",而《朝鮮策略》所體現(xiàn)的是"主動解決",從《琉球三策》提出并施行的"被動調(diào)停"到《朝鮮策略》提出并落實的"主動簽約",清朝對外關系的實踐有了一次巨大的飛躍變化,這種變化是以往所沒有的。
[Abstract]:Ryukyu and Korea had been the most closely related tributary countries to China in the Ming and Qing dynasties. Both were tributes and trade contacts to China as vassal states. China and Korea maintained good-neighborly and friendly relations and modern times. Ryukyu and North Korea were constantly harassed by Western powers, especially Japan, the tributary country was increasingly eroded, and the tributary system of the Qing Dynasty was constantly affected and perilous. Faced with such a crisis, Ryukyu and North Korea were confronted with such a crisis. Chinese diplomatic envoys he Ruzhang and Huang Zunxian put forward "Ryukyu three policies" and "Korean Strategy" to deal with them. The "Ryukyu three policies" promoted the realization of note events and foreign mediation. "Korea Strategy" promoted the written talk between Huang Zunxian and Kim Hong of Korea, and the signing of "DPRK-US Trade Treaty". Through the microcosmic comparative study of "Ryukyu three policies" and "Korean Strategy", we found that. The common cause of the Qing government's inability to protect Ryukyu and Korea was the Japanese invasion of Taiwan, Russian interference from beginning to end and the constant expansion of Japanese power. A variety of factors led to the Qing government can not preserve Ryukyu and Korea. At the same time, the Qing Dynasty in the treatment of Ryukyu and North Korea have different attitudes, this difference is reflected in: different military strategies. From support to positive response, from transportation to trade, this difference reflects the development and changes of Qing government's foreign policy: compared with the Ryukyu dispute. The Qing government was more active to protect North Korea, and its diplomatic strategy was more active and mature than the Ryukyu period. Through the analysis and comparison of the two strategies, we can see the same and different influence: the same influence. One is that North Korea's diplomacy was more active than Ryukyu period, but all reflected the awakening of diplomatic consciousness in East Asia of Qing Dynasty, and the second was whether it was "Ryukyu three policies" or "Korean Strategy". It is precisely because of the lack of foreign intelligence collection in Ryukyu and North Korea that the strategy is not precise and targeted, and it is difficult to save the loss of the two tributary countries. The different influences include the loss of Ryukyu and North Korea, which led to the loss of the front buffer zone of Qing government: the loss of Ryukyu-no barrier in the southeast coast, and the direct exposure of mainland China to the foreign powers. The situation of Qing Dynasty is becoming more and more critical; Second, the "three policies of Ryukyu" embodies the "passive face" of the Qing Dynasty, while the "Korean Strategy" embodies the "active settlement". From "passive mediation" put forward and implemented by "three policies of Ryukyu" to "active contract" put forward and implemented by "Korea Strategy", the practice of foreign relations in Qing Dynasty has undergone a great leap forward. The change was unprecedented.
【學位授予單位】：延邊大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：K248

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前8條

1 權赫秀;;關于黃遵憲《朝鮮策略》版本及其原文�？盵J];韓國研究論叢;2007年04期

2 張靜;吳振清;;黃遵憲《朝鮮策略》與近代朝鮮的開放[J];南開學報(哲學社會科學版);2007年02期

3 宋慧娟;何如璋駐日期間的朝鮮策略簡析[J];長春師范學院學報;2005年08期

4 柳垠在;;黃遵憲的《朝鮮策略》對舊韓末政局的影響[J];韓國學論文集;2002年00期

5 董潔;;《朝鮮策略》的源起——是黃遵憲個人構思還是清政府的決策[J];韓國學論文集;2007年02期

6 蘭美琴;從《朝鮮策略》看黃遵憲的外交思想[J];零陵學院學報;2005年03期

7 魏明樞;論黃遵憲的《朝鮮策略》[J];江西師范大學學報;2004年03期

8 楊天石;黃遵憲的《朝鮮策略》及其風波[J];近代史研究;1994年03期

相關碩士學位論文 前2條

1 王剛;《琉球三策》與《朝鮮策略》的比較[D];延邊大學;2017年

2 金美蘭;試論黃遵憲的《朝鮮策略》[D];延邊大學;2005年

，

本文編號：1470822