東西國際秩序原理的差異──「宗藩體系」對「殖民體系」

A Comparison of Eastern and Western Principles of International Order: Suzerainty vs. Colonization

規範「中華世界帝國」國際體系的國際秩序原理乃《中華世界秩序原理》，相對地，規範西方國際體系的國際秩序原理則是《國際法》。近代以前，中國對屬藩實施《中華世界秩序原理》之〈以不治治之論〉的統治方式，此乃基於民族自治，實行「屬藩政教禁令自主」的地方自治。西方對殖民地實行的統治方式為《國際法》的〈實效管轄領有論〉。西力東漸後，《中華世界秩序原理》與《國際法》開始接觸，並發生國際秩序原理的衝突。其中，中國對屬藩的領土主權歸屬之所以發生紛爭，即因〈實效管轄領有論〉與〈以不治治之論〉的原理爆發根本衝突所致，這就是宗藩體系與殖民體系在統治原理上的衝突。清季列強企圖奪取台灣、琉球、朝鮮、越南、西藏等屬藩、屬土時，提出以《國際法》的「實效管轄領有論」為利器，先在法理上進行「領其地，理其政，徵其稅」的「實效管轄」調查，然後在外交實務上展開國際秩序原理的交涉。中國因施行〈以不治治之論〉的民族自治政策，而提出「屬藩政教禁令自主」的主張，在外交上爆發激烈的中西國際秩序原理之法理論述的爭辯，此乃本文之研究焦點與論證的中心議題。

The principle of international order governing the international system of the ”world empire of China” is the ”order principle of the world of China.” In contrast, the principle of international order regulating the Western world IS ”international law.” Prior to the early-modem period, China applied a ”non-ruling governance” approach based on its principle through a suzerainty system founded on ethnic self-governance combined with prohibition of vassals from religious and political self-determination. As for the Western world, colonies were ruled by effective control. When the Western world started exerting its influence on Eastern countries, interaction between the Chinese notion of suzerainty and Western international law led to clashes over the principle of international order. Disputes related to the sovereignty of territories of vassals of China emerged. In order to seize Taiwan, Okinawa, Korea, Vietnam, Tibet, and other vassals or territories, Western nations used the ”actual land jurisdiction theory” of ”international law” as a means to implement effective control over these territories. Negotiation on international order principles ensued. This article examines the de jure disputes between China and Western powers that were rooted in different principles of the international order.