【作者】 毛吉康；

【导师】 石源华；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 外交学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 近代的朝鲜是个经济落后、军事力量弱小的国家,在地理位置上位于欧亚大陆的最东端,是连接大陆和海洋的桥梁,从而往往成为周边大国相互争夺的对象。在1882年至1905年朝鲜由向各大国开放到逐步沦为日本之保护国的历史时期,各大国出于自身利益的考虑曾多次提出有关朝鲜中立化的建议,而朝鲜本身为寻求国家的独立与安全保障,也曾进行了诸多的中立外交。本文的宗旨在于通过对这段历史时期朝鲜中立化未能实现的原因进行分析,以图在此基础上构建出有关小国中立化的理论。本文采取层次分析的方法,分别从国际体系及中立化对象国国内状况两个层次对小国中立化实现的条件进行探讨。首先,国际体系包括体系进程与体系结构两个方面。结构是指体系中主要国家间实力的分配,进程则是指主要国家间互动的方式、规则等。从体系进程的角度来看,当体系中存在一定的约束国家行为的规范时(比如经常性的协商机制),国家的行为具有较少的进攻性,从而有利于小国中立化的实现；从体系结构的角度来看,体系中存在三个或三个以上大国的状况相对于仅存在两个大国的状况、相关大国间的均势状态相对于非均势状态更有利于小国的中立化。其次,中立化对象国的国内状况是指其贯彻中立外交政策以及履行中立国义务的能力。如果中立对象国具有较强的政治凝聚力,其统治集团能够得到较好的协调并为中立外交达成共识,便能够促进其中立化的实现。另外,中立对象国以一定武装力量为基础的自卫能力也是其中立化得以实现的重要条件。这种能力首先表现在能够有效地维持国内秩序,其次是能够防止他国在本国享有过多特权,尤其是军事方面的特权。由于国际形势始终处于不断变化之中,本文所研究的前后约20年的历史时期也具有不同的阶段特征。根据大国在朝鲜半岛实力的此消彼长,本文拟将此历史时期划分为两个阶段分别进行分析。即1882年至甲午中日战争之前的中国占主导地位时期和1895年至1904年的日俄争霸时期。从体系进程来看,两个阶段的东北亚国际体系中均不存在协调大国间关系的国际机制,对外领土扩张被大国认为是实现国家利益的有效手段,从而导致大国的行为具有较强的侵略性,这对中立外交具有一定的制约性。但从体系结构来看,1882年至1895年的历史时期,东北亚国际体系主要表现为中日俄三国相互牵制的多极格局,三国的实力虽然处在不断变动的过程中,但基本上维持了势力均衡的状态,这是有利于朝鲜中立化的体系因素。然而,中国没能正确认清形势,过高地估计了自身在维持对朝影响方面的能力,再加上传统宗藩观念的影响,对朝鲜的中立化持反对的态度,采取了进一步加强其对朝宗主权的政策；1895年至1905年的历史时期,东北亚国际体系表现为日俄两国对峙竞争的两极格局,这种结构使日俄两国的对朝政策更具进攻性,从而使中立外交难以进行。1896年至1898年两国在半岛基本上处于均势状态,但它们通过协商来瓜分在朝利益,而不是不支持朝鲜的中立化,因为这意味着它们将失去业已取得的利益。日本占居优势后,俄国虽主张朝鲜中立化,却遭到了日本的强烈反对,因为日本认为中国势力退出后,不惜以战争为代价阻止其独占朝鲜的大国只有俄国。总之这段历史时期,日俄两国始终无法就支持朝鲜的中立化达成共识。从朝鲜国内状况来看,整个20年期间朝鲜始终没能就增强国防力量进行有效的改革,且政府更迭频繁、内部党派林立,使其难以推行有力的中立外交。更多还原

【Abstract】 Korea is geographically located in the east end of Eurasian continent, a bridgehead linking the ocean and mainland. It was an economically backward and militarily weak nation in the late 19th and early 20th century, which made it always be reluctantly involved into the competition of surrounding great powers. In the year 1882, Korea began opening up to outside world, and eventually fell into Japan’s protectorate in the year 1905. During this some twenty years’period, neighboring great powers had repeatedly raised the proposal of Korea’s neutralization for their national interests. Considering its independence and security, Korea itself had also conducted numerous diplomatic efforts for its neutralization. This paper aims to find out the reasons on the failure of Korea’s neutralization during this period, and tries to construct the theory on the neutralization of small states.The author analyzes various conditions which are helpful or necessary for the realization of the small states’neutralization from two levels of analysis, namely the international system and the domestic situation of small state. Firstly, international system includes system structure and system process. The former refers to distribution of powers among main states while the latter refers to patterns and types of interaction among the units(usually nation states) in the system. As far as system process is concerned, behaviors of states will be less aggressive if there are some norms in the system (such as regular consultation mechanism). Therefore, the neutralization of small state will be easier to come true. As far as system structure is concerned, the balance of power structure is more favorable than the non-equilibrium structure in facilitating the neutralization of the small state. In addition, compared with a bipolar structure, it would be better for the small state’s neutralization if there are three or more than three big powers in the system. Secondly, domestic situation of small state refers to the ability of the small state to conduct neutral diplomacy and to implement obligations as a neutralized state. If the small state is politically cohesive, its ruling party could easily come to consensus on neutral diplomacy. Besides, if the small state has self-defending ability to a certain extent, its domestic order would be effectively maintained and outside interference would be limited, which is helpful for its neutralization.As the international situation is always in flux, the author intends to divide the twenty years’history into two different phases according to the power shift in Korean Peninsular, namely the Chinese dominate period from the year 1882 to the year 1895 and the Russo-Japanese hegemony period from the year 1896 to the year 1905. Firstly, there was no consulting mechanism among big powers in the Northeast Asian regional system during the two phases. Big powers considered eternal territorial expanding as effective means to achieve their national interests, which would definitely restrict the neutralization of Korea. Secondly, the Northeast Asian regional structure during the first phase was formed a multipolar pattern characterized by Sino-Russo-Japanese rivalry. The balance of power among the three states was basically maintained, which was a favorable condition for the neutralization of Korea. However, China overrated its ability to maintain the dominance over Korean Peninsular. Combined with the rooted influence of the Suzerian-Vassal idea, China opposed the neutralization of Korea and finally adopted the policy that strengthening its suzerainty over Korea. During the second phase, the Northeast Asian regional structure was formed a bipolar pattern characterized by Russo-Japanese hegemony, which persuaded both powers’ aggressive behaviors in Korean Peninsular. There was a power balance between Japan and Russia in Korean Peninsular from 1896 to 1898. But the two powers negotiated dividing up their benefits in Korea, rather than supporting Korea’s neutralization, a project that would result in the loose of their benefits. Japan became more influential in Korea after 1898 partly because Russia shifted its attention from Korea to Manchuria. Russia expected preventing Korea from being invaded by Japan through proposals of Korea’s neutralization. Obviously those proposals were strongly opposed by Japan, because Japan believed that only Russia would destroy its exclusive position in Korea at the cost of war after the withdrawal of Chinese forces. In short, Japan and Russia had never achieved consensus on Korea’s neutralization from 1896 to 1905.Finally, during the whole twenty years’period, Korean government had never carried out effective reform to enhance its national defense forces while the factionalism of Korean ruling class was seriously disruptive, making its neutralization difficult to realize.更多还原