최근 중국 학계의 韓․中 관계사 연구 시각과 논점 - 1992년 修交 以後를 중심으로 -

Abstract

In retrospective, the Chinese studies on the history of Sino-Korean relations were not heated research field, in particular concerning modern and contemporary period. In this period, on the one hand, the secular ‘tributary system’ having regulated Sino-Korean relations changed dramatically. And China and Korea were all together incorporated into the “nation-states system” imposed by Western powers, in the wake of which Sino-Korean relations were not to develop “normally”. On the other hand, given the relatively weak place and role of Korea in China’s external relations, few Chinese scholars had attentively engaged in this field. However, after the diplomatic normalization between Korea and China since 1992, studies on the field began to be active and produced various research results. This article outlines these recent research trends and shows Chinese scholars’ points of view and characteristic perspectives. First, Chinese scholars have actively engaged in compiling new historical materials of the field. The materials originated mainly from local Archives, various newspapers, and testimonies and memoirs of the persons concerned. Second, Chinese new generations of scholarship, particularly recent master’s theses and Ph. D dissertations show new angles different from that of the past. They stress positive aspects of the Qing intervention in Chosun affaires in the late 19th Century(“reinforcement of tributary system”). Studies on the Korean independence movement developed in China deal with right and left wings altogether instead of focusing on the left wing movement only. It is particularly worth nothing that many scholars’ attention has been drawn to the Chinese Communist Parties’ support to Korean independence movement. Third, studies on the Sino-Korean border disputes and Korean War are, however, in the standstill, showing the similar points of views as those of the past. In this point, it would not be adequate that relatively free migrations of Korean people to the Manchuria in the turning period to ‘modern’ era having caused border line conflicts are considered as a territorial aggression of the Chosun Dynasty. As for Korean War, Chinese scholars still stress the legitimacy of the China’s intervention, the CCP’s decisions’ correctness, the importance of Mao’s decisions, and so forth. Fourth, Chinese scholars of the field move their attention to various subjects instead of confining themselves on the politico-diplomatic issues. They adopt microscopic approaches as analytical methods for the studies of Korean independence movement and ‘Korean Diasporas’ formed in China’s local society. These studies would lead to close survey on the realities of Korean life in the given localities. In perspective, the Chinese studies on the Sino-Korean relations, the author mentions, would be a heated research field as two counties have close correlations. Cultural and economic field would newly draw scholars’ attention, including intellectual exchanges and ‘Chinese overseas’ in Korea.