<論説>帝国法制の外部展開 : 一九世紀中葉イギリス対中通商システムの構築

Abstract

本稿は、一八四二年にアヘン戦争の講和条約として南京条約が締結されて以降、中国においてイギリス帝国が構築した外交・通商に関する法制度と、それを軸に展開したイギリス対中通商システムを考察するものである。これまで当該時期の英中政治関係は、イギリス帝国史においては「非公式帝国」の一事例として、そして中国近代史においては「西洋の衝撃」として扱われてきた。これらの解釈には共通する問題点がある。それは、両者の外交・通商上の関係を分析する一方で、イギリス帝国が対中通商を保護・促進するために設置した法制度の存在を等閑視してきた点である。本稿では、その法制度を軸とした、イギリス帝国による外交・通商への体系的な関与の実態が明らかにされる。この事実は、イギリス帝国の政治権力行使の在り方を問い直し、さらには、東アジア国際関係の礎としてイギリス帝国の政治システムが有した重要性を示すことになるだろう。

This article describes the British commercial system in China, which consisted of the imperial legal and institutional structure related to commerce and diplomacy, and that later became the foundation of the East Asian international relations, during the period of 1842 to 1860. This article also sheds light on the function of this system, which influenced the development of East Asian international relations. Hitherto, in the study of British imperial history, Anglo-Chinese relations in this period have been regarded as an exceptional case of the British 'informal empire' in which, according to Gallagher and Robinson's argument, the British Empire exercised political influence on the Chinese government through the Anglo-Chinese treaties. The assumption that British economic power was superior to that of dependent countries is a necessary premise for the application of the 'informal empire' concept. But, at least in mid-nineteenth century, such British economic power can hardly be found in China. British commercial activities were limited in quantity and in scope to five 'treaty ports'. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that China was an exceptional case of the British 'informal empire, ' while the legal institutions of the British Empire, which can rather be categorised into the 'formal empire, ' have been disregarded. On the other hand, a revisionist approach has recently held an important place in Chinese modern history. Almost 60 years ago, the famous historian of modern China, J. K. Fairbank, established a classical framework for the analysis of Chinese foreign relations. He argued that Chinese foreign relations before the Opium War had been maintained according to the Chinese traditional order. And, he argued that after the war relations shifted gradually into the modern international relations. The Fairbankian interpretation was transformed into the term 'Western impact' by his critics. Following Paul Cohen's 'China-centred approach; the theory of 'Western impact' was criticised by scholars, especially Japanese and American, in Chinese modern history who emphasised the continuity of the Chinese indigenous 'world' order. They problematised the transformation from Chinese traditional order to modern international relations and argued that the Chinese traditional order encompassed Euro-American countries. The crux of this debate is the evaluation of the extent of the Euro-American influence in China. To overcome this impasse, recent studies have dealt with the interaction between Euro-American countries and China. Although this newly established approach emphasising the linkage has produced many studies, the problem of the reconsideration of 'Western impact' itself remains. In Chinese modern history, 'Western impact' has been evaluated as an external factor. But, these studies have not reconsidered the internal structure of 'Western impact' itself, which decisively affected the later historical development of East Asian international relations. 'Western impact' was, primarily, the impact of the British commercial system, which consisted of the imperial legal institution of the British Empire and became the foundation of contemporary East-Asian international system. Without this perspective, it is impossible to fully understand the influence of Euro-American countries. The author aims to reconsider international relations after the Anglo-Chinese treaties from the viewpoint that the legal institutions of the British Empire, which were connected with the treaties, were founded in China. In this article, the author reveals that systematic participation of the British Empire in Anglo-Chinese commercial relations was accomplished through international and domestic legal institutions. Conversely, this fact problematises the conventional conception of British imperial history by deconstructing the dichotomy between 'formal empire' and 'informal empire.' Subsequently, the author reconsiders the political aspect of imperial power. The author clarify in particular that the imperial legal institution, which regulated British commercial activities in the so-called 'informal empire' in China, conditioned the political influence of the British Empire. This article can be divided into three sections. In the first section, two statutes are investigated. These are the China Intercourse Act of 1843 [CIA] and the Foreign Jurisdiction Act of 1843 [FJA]. The CIA and FJA enabled the British government to deploy the legal institutions externally in China. The author demonstrates that the CIA represented the legislative aspect of the imperial legal institution and the FJA the administrative one. In the second section, the commercial institutions established in China are analysed. A consideration of the method of instituting regulations and executing them shows that the consuls in 'treaty ports' faced a dilemma that inclined the consuls to depend on the authority of the legal structure. Finally, the author proves the diachronic transformation of the British commercial system and its synchronic constraints. With an account of a decisive incident and quantitative and qualitative analysis of the reports of the legal authorities, the author clearly illustrates the strength and flexibility of the system. In conclusion, the British commercial system arises through a deconstruction of two dichotomies. The author thus reveals that neither the concept of 'Western impact' nor that of 'informal empire' is sufficient to explain the genuine impact of the system. In the analysis of the East Asian International relations after mid-nineteenth, the existence of the international political system that was constructed by the British Empire should be kept in mind.