法权会议期间美国的法界认知与对华外交

The Perception of the U. S. Legal Community and Diplomacy Towards China in the Activities of The Commission on Extraterritoriality in China

摘要:

法权会议是美国主导的近代国际联合对华立法、 司法调查。 美国在法权会议期间的对华外交呈现出尊重中国 _“ 主权完整_” 与维持 _“ 必要之恶_” 并行的特点。 在制定与践行该外交政策的过程中, 美国法界认知与政府决策密切互动。 20 世纪 20 年代前期, 对于在华治外法权问题, 美国法界主流舆论与政府认知相互影响。 在法权会议筹备阶段, 美国政府迎合法界共识并任用以法界代表司注恩为核心的代表团筹划组织架构与会议流程。 法权会议开幕后, 按照凯洛格对司注恩的训令, 美国对华外交在内部张力凸显后得以重新调适。 在报告书起草阶段, 美国政府继续宏观把控进程。 为保障和协调列强在华利益, 司注恩主导完成 《调查法权委员会报告书》。 最终维持 _“ 必要之恶_” 的现实需要压倒尊重 _“ 主权完整_” 的政策表达。

Abstract:

The Commission on Extraterritoriality in China , 1926 , was a modern international legislative and judicial investigation led by the United States with respect to China. During the commission activities , U. S. diplomacy towards China demonstrated a dual aspect , respecting China?s _“sovereignty_” while simultaneously maintaining the _“necessary evil_” . In the formulation and implementation of this diplomatic policy, there was a close interaction between the U. S. legal community and government decision-making. In the early 1920s, concerning the issue of extraterritoriality in China, the mainstream opinion within the U. S. legal community influenced government perceptions due to its unique social standing and the close connections between certain legal elites and government diplomatic decisions. Both sides recognized to varying degrees that addressing the issue of extraterritoriality in China required safeguarding U. S. interests in China within the framework of respecting China?s_“sovereign integrity_” . During the preparatory stage of the activities of the Commission, the U. S. government partly accommodated the consensus within the legal community, made appropriate concessions to China under the spirit of Washington Conference Resolution, and balanced the principles of respecting China?s _“sovereign integrity_” and maintaining U. S. interests in China. They also appointed a delegation, with the representative of the legal community, Silas H. Strawn , as the core to plan the organizational structure and work proceedings. The U. S. delegation vigorously sought unity among the major powers and appropriately addressed Chinese demands in minor details , continually shaping a friendly image toward China. However, after the opening session , Silas H. Strawn increasingly emphasized safeguarding U. S. interests in China , relatively neglecting the respect for China_'s _“sovereign integrity_” . Under the guidance of Kellogg_'s instructions to Silas H. Strawn , U. S. diplomacy toward China underwent a readjustment in response to internal tensions: formally respecting China_'s_“sovereign integrity_” while substantively safeguarding U. S. interests in China. When conflicts arose between the two, the practical necessity of safeguarding interests in China could override the policy expression of respecting China_'s _“sovereign integrity_” . During the drafting of the report, the U. S. government continued to oversee the process at a macro level. After the outbreak of the Northern Expedition, the diplomacy towards China, which tried to take both sides into account, faced dual resistance from legal representatives and the government. The similar attitudes of other Great Powers directly compelled the U. S. delegation to compromise in the _“recommendations_” proposal. To ensure and coordinate the interests of Great Powers in China, Silas H. Strawn presided over the completion of _“The Report of The Commission on Extraterritoriality in China _”. Ultimately, the practical necessity of maintaining the _“necessary evil_” prevailed over the expression of respect for _“sovereign integrity_” . As a consistent U. S. policy toward China since the Washington Conference, its underlying motivation was to maximize the protection of U. S. national interests. This also reveals the paradox of China_'s pursuit of modern legal reforms since the late Qing dynasty: At that time, the _“standard_” discourse used to maintain the extraterritoriality system by Western countries lacked a stable core, and the standard for assessing the effectiveness of modern Chinese legal reforms should be whether they can adapt to or promote China_'s development rather than merely seeking conformity with Western legal standards.