This paper presents a review of the content about ancient international relations in three authorized textbooks of East Asian History, which were written according to the 2011 Curriculum and put to use in the first semester of 2014. The review results point out the followings:The textbooks of East Asian History are the result of an attempt to catch two rabbits, namely time-based organization and an approach by the topics. The textbooks sought after the approach by the topics in general with some exceptions. Such a structural feature differentiates them from the old textbooks of Korean History and World History written chronologically. Of them, the topic of “international relations” to be addressed in the present study is original, not having been dealt with in their own name in any textbooks in the nation. The changed achievement criteria of learning content in the domain of ancient international relations announced in the 2011 Curriculum, in particular, were designed to induce the multifaceted description of diplomatic relations in East Asia by defining ancient international relations in East Asia as “various diplomatic formats including tribute and investiture relations in East Asia” unlike the 2007 Curriculum that confined them to “tribute and investiture relations as a diplomatic format in East Asia.”The parts describing “ancient international relations” in the textbooks of East Asia History have been supplemented in some content as the achievement criteria changed from the description focused on investiture and tribute relations in the 2007 Curriculum to the description of various diplomatic relations including investiture and tribute relations in the 2011 Curriculum. However, the two textbooks not published by Chunjae Education are weak with significance granted to the limitations and actual state of investiture and tribute relations. When the learning materials are considered, the textbooks of East Asian History introduced in 2014 contain more exploratory activities and show improvements both in quantity and quality despite certain content errors and misses compared with their counterparts of 2012. Finally, the study proposes that research discourse on “ancient international relations in East Asia” and the perspectives of Korean academic circles for the period should begin in a bold and serious manner if they pursue East Asian History to present in balance “East Asian history in the world history” and “Korean history in East Asia.”(Daegu university / hiswoon@daegu.ac.kr)