What does international hierarchy look like? The emerging literatures on hierarchy and international orders remain overwhelmingly focused on the contemporary era and on the great powers that comprise the top of the hierarchy. This article addresses that gap by examining diplomacy, war, and domestic politics in the premodern Vietnam–China relationship under the hierarchic tributary system. Specifically, we construct a unique data set of over 1,200 entries, which measures wars and other violence in the region from 1365 to 1789. The data revealed the stable and legitimate nature of tributary relations between formally unequal political units. The Vietnamese court explicitly recognized its unequal status in its relations with China through a number of institutions and norms. Vietnamese rulers also displayed very little military attention to their relations with China. Rather, Vietnamese leaders were clearly more concerned with quelling chronic domestic instability and managing relations with kingdoms to their south and west.
Adler-NissenRebecca. 2015. Opting Out of the European Union: Diplomacy, Sovereignty and European Integration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AndersonJames A.2007. The Rebel Den of Nùng Trí Cao: Loyalty and Identity along the Sino-Vietnamese Frontier. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
3.
AndersonJames A.2013. “Distinguishing between China and Vietnam: Three Relational Equilibriums in Sino-Vietnamese Relations.” Journal of East Asian Studies13 (2): 259–80.
4.
ChanHok-Iam. 1988. “The Chien-wen, Yung-lo, Hung-hsi, and Husan-te Reigns, 1399-1435.” In The Cambridge History of China: Volume 7: The Ming Dynasty, 1368–1644, Part I, edited by MoteFrederickTwitchettDenis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
ChenChung-Yu. 2016. 清代中葉中國對越南宗藩關係的重建－ 以「中華世界秩序原理」的角度分析 [Rebuilding the relationship between China and Vietnamese during middle period of Qing dynasty—Analyzing from the view of “Chinese World Order Principle”]. PhD diss., Chinese Culture University, Taipei, Taiwan.
6.
ChenZhibenLiuZhaoyou, eds. 1986. 皇明寶訓[Ancestral injunctions of the Ming dynasty], vol. 8. Taipei: Taiwan Xue Sheng Press.
7.
CunninghamDavid E.2016. “Preventing Civil War: How the Potential for International Intervention Can Deter Conflict Onset.” World Politics68 (2): 307–40.
8.
FairbankJ. K.TengS. Y.. 1941. “On the Ch’ing Tributary System.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies6 (2): 135–246.
9.
FinnemoreMartha. 2009. “Legitimacy, Hypocrisy, and the Social Structure of Unipolarity: Why Being a Unipole Isn’t All It’s Cracked Up to Be.” World Politics61 (1): 58–85.
10.
FuZhongxia, ed. 2003. 中国历代战争年表[Chronology of wars in China through successive dynasties], vol. 2. Beijing, China: Jiefangjun chubanshe (People’s Liberation Army Press).
11.
GeZhenZhaoHai-Jiang. 1995. “试论越南 «钦定越史通鉴纲目»的编撰及其若干问题[Comments on some questions regarding the compilation of the imperially ordered annotated text completely reflecting the history of Viet].”History Monthly6:88–94.
12.
HeviaJames Louis. 1995. Cherishing Men from Afar: Qing Guest Ritual and the Macartney Embassy of 1793. Durham, UK: Duke University Press.
13.
HiepLe Hong. 2016. Living Next to the Giant: The Political Economy of Vietnam’s Relations with China under Doi Moi. Singapore: ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.
14.
IkenberryG. John. 2011. Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15.
IkenberryG. JohnKupchanCharles A.. 1990. “Socialization and Hegemonic Power.” International Organizations44 (3): 283–315.
16.
Institute of Military History, ROK. 1996. 한민족 전쟁통사[Chronology of wars of the Korean people]. Seoul, South Korea: IMH.
17.
KangDavid C.2010. East Asia before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute. New York: Columbia University Press.
18.
KangDavid C.ShawMeredithFuRonan Tse-Min. 2016. “Measuring War in Early Modern East Asia, 1368-1841: Introducing Chinese and Korean Language Sources.” International Studies Quarterly60 (4): 766–77.
19.
KelleyLiam. 2005. Beyond the Bronze Pillars: Envoy Poetry and the Sino-Vietnamese Relationship. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
20.
KiernanBen. 2017. Viet Nam: A History from Earliest Times to the Present. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
21.
LakeDavid A.2007. “Escape from the State of Nature: Authority and Hierarchy in World Politics.” International Security32 (1): 47–79.
22.
LeeJi-Young. 2016a. China’s Hegemony: Four Hundred Years of East Asian Domination. New York: Columbia University Press.
23.
LeeJi-Young. 2016b. “Hegemonic Authority and Domestic Legitimation: Japan and Korea under Chinese Hegemonic Order in Early Modern East Asia.” Security Studies25 (2): 320–352.
24.
LiYunquan. 2003. 明清朝贡制度研究[Study on the Ming and Ching tributary system]. PhD diss., Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.
25.
LoJung-pang.1979. “Intervention in Vietnam: A Case Study of the Foreign Policy of the Early Ming Government.” The Tsing-hua Journal of Chinese Studies8 (1-2): 154–85.
MatternJanice BiallyZarakolAyse. 2016. “Hierarchies in World Politics.” International Organization70 (3): 623–54.
28.
McDonaldPatrick J.2015. “Great Powers, Hierarchy, and Endogenous Regimes: Rethinking the Domestic Causes of Peace.” International Organization69 (3): 557–88.
29.
MearsheimerJohn J.2014. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Updated Edition. New York: W. W. Norton.
30.
NguyenKhav Vien. 2004. Vietnam: A Long History. Hanoi, Vietnam: The Gioi.
31.
PhanThanh Giản, ed. 1969. 欽定越史通鑑綱目[The imperially ordered annotated text completely reflecting the history of Viet]. Taipei, Taiwan: National Library.
32.
PhillipsAndrewSharmanJ. C.. 2015. International Order in Diversity: War, Trade, and Rule in the Indian Ocean. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Reus-SmitChristian. 2017. “Cultural Diversity and International Order.” International Organization71 (4): 851–85.
34.
Stuart-FoxMartin. 2003. A Short History of China and Southeast Asia: Tribute, Trade and Influence. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen and Unwin.
35.
TaylorKeith W.2013. A History of the Vietnamese. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36.
WaltStephen M.2005. Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy. New York, NY: Norton.
37.
Waltz KennethN.2000. “Globalization and American Power.” The National Interest59:46–56.
38.
WhitmoreJohn K.1977. “Chiao-Chih and Neo-Confucianism: The Ming Attempt to Transform Vietnam.” Ming Studies1977 (1): 51–92.
39.
WohlforthWilliam CLittleRichardKaufmanStuartKangDavidJonesCharlesHuiVictoria Tin-BorEcksteinArthurDeudneyDanielBrennerWilliam. 2009. “A Comedy of Errors: A Reply to Sangiovanni.” European Journal of International Relations15 (2): 381–388.
40.
WomackBrantly. 2006. China and Vietnam: The Politics of Asymmetry. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41.
WoodsideAlexander. 2006. Lost Modernities: China, Vietnam, Korea, and the Hazards of World History. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.
42.
WuShangqing. 1998. “«钦定越史通鉴纲目»评介 [Comments on the imperially ordered annotated text completely reflecting the history of Viet].” Journal of Historiography4:64–71.
43.
ZhangTingyu, ed. 1974. 明史[History of the Ming dynasty], vol. 12. Peking, China: Zhonghua Press.
44.
ZhengYongchang. 1996. “論清乾隆安南之役 : 道義與現實之間 [On Qianlong’s Annam War: Between morality and reality].” Bulletin of History Department at National Ch’eng Kung University22:209–41.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
