This dissertation analyzes how Qing China (1636-1912) and three of its tributary states (Chos?n Korea, Vietnam, Kokand) handled interstate refugees and criminals from the 1630s to the 1840s. I use Classical Chinese and Manchu memorials and diplomatic documents from Qing archives in Beijing and Taipei as well as Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese published sources to construct a bilateral view of these interstate relations and compare them. My research reveals multiple, flexible, and shifting conceptions of boundaries, jurisdiction, and sovereignty. Boundaries between Qing and its tributaries were not absolute to a Qing court that claimed universal rule, and the court often erased them by adopting tributary refugees as Qing subjects or encroaching on tributary domains. Further, the Qing court often asserted jurisdiction over tributary subjects committing crimes on its soil or against its subjects. In contrast, no tributary court openly asserted jurisdiction over Qing subjects. Together, these cases reveal two defining characteristics of the Qing tributary order: asymmetry and elastic sovereignty. They show how the political norms of early modern Asia defy post-Westphalian norms of inter-state equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of fellow sovereign states.

This work breaks new ground in Chinese history by highlighting Qing imperial projects outside today's Chinese borders and by comparing borderlands in Northeast, Southeast, and Central Asia. It is also a work of world history that combines the connective method and the comparative method in a novel way, focusing on interactions across interstate boundaries in Asia while comparing these Asian borderlands with those in other early modern empires such as Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Lastly, my work engages with the field of international relations by reconstructing the contours of interstate affairs in early modern Asia before the introduction of public international law to the region, thus answering the recent call by scholars for a more inclusive, pluralistic view of international relations.