Sangpil Jin - Surviving Imperial Intrigues: Korea’s Struggle for Neutrality amid Empires, 1882–1907

The late nineteenth century saw an aggressive expansion of Western major power imperialism into East Asia. Benefiting from the economic and technological advancements derived from the Industrial Revolution, Western powers flexed their military and diplomatic muscles to carve out spheres of influence in East Asia and then obtain valuable concessions there. Struggling to survive in this period of imperialism, Korea, on the one hand, maintained traditional relations with China, but on the other, concluded unequal treaties with Japan and Western powers, which were pressuring Korea to open its doors. Regretfully, however, the rivalries for hegemony among the nations bordering Korea resulted in its loss of sovereignty as the country was unable to navigate the contemporary currents.

During this period, Korea became an object of major maritime and continental powers interest for the geostrategic reason that it could act as a bridgehead into the Asian continent and the Pacific. With Koreas future imperiled, many options were weighed, some by Korea alone, some by foreign countries, and others as joint efforts between Korea and outside parties. Such options included remaining a vassal state of China, declaring itself independent, transforming Korea into a neutralized state, attempting a Russian-led partitioning, and becoming a protectorate of Japan. Among these options, the main concern of this study is Koreas neutralization (also referred to as neutrality, neutral, and neutralized to reflect contemporary intellectual and policy discourse), which, despite receiving some domestic and international attention, still has not been studied in detail.

Korean neutralization never fulfilled its potential, but it is worth re-examining to better appreciate dynamic interstate relations in modern East Asia and their impacts on the West, as well as to show Koreas often overlooked role as an active participant in the changing world of then and now. Moreover, a historical understanding of neutralization as a policy tool warrants extra scrutiny, as it is still discussed as a possible solution in certain parts of the world, including on the Korean Peninsula, where denuclearization is an ongoing issue. Therein lie the primary aims of this study.

Among studies on Korean neutralization, Pak Hihos stands out. for example, presents a comprehensive account of the formation and activities of proneutralization forces in Korea by examining previously neglected proposals such as that by Chn Bynghun, and it demonstrates how major events such as the Boxer Uprising affected Korean neutralization attempts.

Other academic studies have investigated topics that enable a more astute comprehension of Korean neutralization. Acknowledging the power of words in international relations, Alexis Dudden looks beyond the common perception that Japans military might have trumped Korean independence. She instead analyzes how Japan successfully employed international law to annex Korea with international consent, making Koreas protest to major powers at the Hague Peace Conference futile.

To sum up, contemporary scholarship on Korean neutralization partly sheds light on key neutralization proposalstheoretically, chronologically, and geopoliticallyby taking advantage of underused primary sources and influencing factors to analyze these proposals. Even those works that do not directly address neutralization probe international law, modernity, and contemporary geopolitics, themselves important factors that could potentially change the geopolitical landscape of the modern Far East.