近 400 年來的歐洲，是主權國家平等的「西發里亞體系」，以權力平衡維繫國際秩序;近 600 年以來的東亞，則是中國為天朝而四方小國臣服的「朝貢體系」，是上下層級的國際秩序。為何會有「朝貢體系」?它為何能運作?從現實主義式的觀點來看，「朝貢體系」只是一個包裝過的權力政治，骨子裡仍是物質上的利害與效益計算，中國霸權之下區域國家抵抗無望，不得不臣服。但是，從建構主義式的觀點來看，之所以會有「朝貢體系」的國際秩序，並不只是因為中國的強大，也是因為區域國家認同中國的文化，中國於是才有了領導的正當性。究竟這兩種觀點孰是孰非?本研究嘗試以歷來與中國朝貢關係最密切的朝鮮為案例，實際從其 1618 至 1637 年 間，在明朝與清朝之間選擇的決策過程，檢驗他決定服從中國的真實理由，以進一步了解東亞「朝貢體系」的國際秩序。本文從中發現，建構主義式的論點獲得驗證。

For nearly four centuries, Europe had the so-called Westphalian System of sovereign states, in which balance of power was the basis of international order. In contrast, for nearly six centuries, East Asia had the so-called “tribute system,” a hierarchical order where China was the supreme leader. Why? From a realist perspective, the tribute system was just a wrapper over power politics based on material calculations of interest and benefit: East Asian countries had no choice but submission to China’s hegemony. However, from a constructivist perspective, the tribute system was not just caused by China’s hegemony. The shared sino-centric culture in the region was equally important. China gained the legitimacy of leadership due to its cultural achievements. Which of these two arguments is valid? This study attempts to answer this question by exploring China’s closest tributary country, Korea. By tracing Korea’s decision-making processes from 1618 to 1637 in detail, this study can uncover the true logic behind Korea’s submissiveness to China and thus improve our understanding toward the East Asian tribute system. In the end, constructivist perspective is confirmed.