Conclusion

The concluding chapter begins by offering a succinct summary of the book’s overall arguments and elaborates how they contribute to the fields of international relations, Asian Studies, and social science more broadly. It then discusses the relevance of the book’s arguments for ongoing policy debates regarding the future of American hegemony with the rise of China. From a meta-theoretical point of view, I end the book with a caveat that one cannot predict the future with certainty.

Chinese Hegemonic Authority

The chapter begins by challenging the prevailing view on hegemony in the field of international relations. Whereas most scholars have long approached hegemony in terms of an international phenomenon resulting from the preponderant power of one actor, this theory chapter proposes that one should also consider domestic politics, particularly the domestic political legitimation needs of other less powerful actors.

The Making of Ming Hegemony

The chapter investigates the interesting ways in which Korea and Japan responded to the rise of the Ming empire. The two cases in Chapter 3 signify unusual fluctuations in the two countries’ patterns of compliance behavior—Japan’s acceptance and Korea’s challenge to Chinese hegemony. In line with the book’s theoretical expectations, the case studies show that their compliance decisions grew out of domestic politics considerations rather than a direct response to the Ming power or culture. The rise of the Ming empire marked not only changes in the power shift at the international level. It also had implications for domestic power struggles within Japan and Korea as their leaders tried to take advantage of the Ming’s symbolic power politically against their opponents at home.

Understanding the Tribute System

This chapter offers a comprehensive review of the tribute system, which shows that the existing literature has largely ignored the role played by less powerful East Asian states. It is in this chapter that I suggest a new, more nuanced interpretation of the tribute system through the lens of “practices” rather than the “system.” The chapter then discusses in some details the concept of authority in the specific early modern East Asian context, while drawing on the writings of Chinese and Korean tributary envoys. The chapter also addresses questions of research design and explains the selection of case studies.

Introduction

This chapter introduces the puzzle of the book and then situates its importance in the larger international relations literature. The focus is on the emerging body of research “East Asia IR history.” The chapter presents the book’s central arguments in a nutshell before providing a brief description of the Chinese hegemonic order in early modern East Asia. It ends with a discussion of the structure of the book.

The Making of Qing Hegemony

Chapter 5 examines how Japan and Korea responded to the Ming-Qing transition with the rise of Manchu (later the Qing empire) power. The chapter shows the clear links between the Qing empire’s “barbarian” identity and its strategic consequences for the making of hegemony. Japan and Korea’s responses to the Qing empire cannot be understood without considering their political leaders’ use of the Qing empire’s perceived cultural inferiority to their advantage, in ways that enhanced their domestic authority against their own rivals.

The Imjin War (1592–1598)

Chapter 4 explains the Imjin War of 1592-98, which marks a major international war in pre-nineteenth century Asia. Japan directly challenged the Ming empire and invaded Korea in an attempt to conquer the Ming. The chapter demonstrates that in addition to Japan’s growing military power vis-à-vis the Ming, Hideyoshi’s post-unification efforts for building a new domestic political order against his rivals explain why Japan challenged the Ming empire in the way that he did at that particular timing. Similarly, one must consider the internal crisis the Korean king found himself in after his failures in the war. Korea’s unusually high compliance with Ming hegemony should be understood in the context of the Korean king’s manipulation of the moral authority of the Ming emperor in an attempt to compensate for his lack of domestic legitimacy vis-à-vis his own domestic constituencies.