“朝貢”抑或“互市”？──從法規範看清代中、歐法律關係嬗變

Tributary or "Mutual Trading"?—The Evolution of Legal Relations between China and Europe in Qing Dynasty from the Perspective of Law Norms

清朝前期努力以傳統的“朝貢－冊封”體制來規範和解釋中歐互動，將歐洲各國等量齊觀地視作亞洲各朝貢國，強行納入“朝貢體系”的想像之中。而康熙開海之後則開始更加務實地正視與承認這些國家與中國交往的純粹經濟動因，就規範語言的角度來看，原本的“朝貢國”之外又提出了“互市國”概念並舉。由此可以看到，清朝對於荷蘭、西洋等歐洲國家事務的秩序設計，明顯經歷了一個由“朝貢”到“朝貢”與“互市”雜糅的轉變，這一轉變可以窺見清政府面對全新交往對象，突破舊有交往模式的調試努力與糾結心態。

The Qing Dynasty's legal framework concerning Europe, derived from statutes like the Da Qing Huidian (Collected statutes of the great Qing dynasty), Libu Zeli (Precedents of the Board of Rites), and the Da Qing Luli (Great Qing Legal Code), was fundamentally categorized into two levels and illustrated a shift from conceptual design to practical accommodation. In political and ceremonial contexts, against the backdrop of early interactions with nations such as the Netherlands and other Western countries, the Qing government endeavored to maintain a traditional tributary system to govern these relations. Following the Kangxi Emperor's maritime opening, the Qing's stance towards European nations evolved into a pragmatic acknowledgment of the predominantly economic drivers of their engagements with China. From a regulatory standpoint, the introduction of the "mutual-trading states" (Hu Shi Guo) concept extended beyond the original "tributary states" (Chao Gong Guo), leading to the formulation of specialized laws and regulations that governed economic transactions between China and the West. This initiative resulted in a new, comprehensive regulatory framework for the mutual trading system, expanding beyond the conventional tributary structure. During the early to mid-Qing Dynasty, the "tributary system" that purportedly governed interactions between the Qing and Europe largely reflected the Qing's unilateral aspirations rather than reality. This framework was built on the Qing's imagination, selective translation of laws and regulations, and only superficial adherence by European counterparts. Therefore, there was a notable discrepancy between this designed system and the actual Qing-European relations, as well as the real understanding of Europeans at that time. Nonetheless, this imagined system of engagement did manage to sustain interactions, albeit grudgingly, between the Qing and Europe over an extended period before the end of the Qing Dynasty. From the European trader's perspective on the deliberately designed "tributary system" during the early Qing Dynasty, it appeared that despite attempts by countries like the Netherlands and other Western nations to repackage the essence of mutual trade within the framework of the tributary system, these efforts did not achieve their intended goals. Prior to Kangxi's opening of maritime trade, nations such as the Netherlands and Portugal were required to conduct trade with China in the form of "tribute", and the scale of this trade was significantly limited. Even after Kangxi opened up overseas trade, trade between the Netherlands and China remained confined only to the port of Guangzhou without much expansion in scope. This scenario was compounded by the enduring sense of superiority held by the "Celestial Empire", which persisted in maintaining normative designs for tributary relationships with Western nations like the Netherlands, even in the absence of European tribute missions. Nevertheless, the realities of trade between China and the West compelled the Qing legal system to recognize and incorporate aspects of " mutual trading" practices. As a result, the regulatory framework of Qing-European relations politically employed the guise of a tributary system while economically engaging in mutual trading. This shift from tribute towards a hybrid order of tribute and mutual trading in Qing's interactions with European nations highlighted the deep-seated tensions between the old land empire and the emerging maritime powers of Europe, and subtly foreshadowed the inevitable transition from a traditional tributary framework to a modern treaty-based system.