<論説>第二辰丸事件と仲裁裁判

Abstract

一九〇八年二月マカオ沖で清朝が日本船籍の第二辰丸を武器密輸容疑で拿捕した事件は、日本との外交問題に発展した。この第二辰丸事件に関する研究は、交渉妥結後の反日ボイコットに集中してきた。だが、清朝外務部が英国海軍提督の仲裁裁判(公団)による解決を提案したことは、内外の新聞報道を通じて予想外の影響を引き起こしており、この件は日清と仲裁裁判をめぐる議論に新たな視点を与えてくれる。まず、当時の日本は仲裁裁判に消極的・反対的だったとされるが、この事件の仲裁裁判付託を一旦は閣議決定していた。また、『タイムズ』北京通信員モリソンは、第二辰丸事件とハーグ常設仲裁裁判所を結び付け、日露との満洲をめぐる懸案こそハーグ常設仲裁裁判所付託に相応しいとの印象を与える報道を行っており、こうした報道は、仲裁裁判を双方の合意に基づく裁判というより国際社会の「公論」による正義の実現と捉える中国の「公断」観を強めた。

On February 5, 1908, the Dai-ni Tatsu Maru 第二辰丸 (hereafter referred to as the Tatsu Maru), a Japanese steamship, was seized by Cantonese navy officers and customs officials off the coast of Macao on a charge of arms smuggling. The seizure of the Tatsu Maru triggered a diplomatic row between China and Japan. The Japanese government protested that the seizure of the Tatsu Maru was illegal and demanded immediate release of the ship and its cargo, as well as payment of an indemnity and punishment of the Chinese officers involved. On the other hand , the Viceroy of Liangguang 両広総督 asserted the legitimacy of the seizure and claimed that the case should be determined by a joint investigation based on customs regulation if the captain continued to maintain that the alleged irregularity had not been committed. After a month-long negotiation, the Chinese government released the ship, and promised to compensate the losses and punish the Chinese officers involved, in return the Japanese government declared that it would strengthen control over arms exports to Macao. This result of the negotiation sparked an anti-Japanese boycott in China and in overseas Chinese communities, which was the first anti-Japanese boycott in Chinese history. Thus, many studies have been conducted on this anti-Japanese boycott movement. However, few studies have examined the process of the negotiation in detail, and little attention has been given to the suggestion made by the Waiwu Bu 外務部, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Qing China, to the effect that the question of the arrest of the Tatsu Maru should be referred to the British Admiral Moore with a request to arbitrate (gongduan 公断). In fact, the Chinese suggestion of arbitration was reported in the domestic and international newspapers, which had an unexpected influence on the negotiation between the two countries. It is said that Japan at the time had a negative attitude towards or was opposed to arbitration. In fact, when the Waiwu Bu suggested to the Japanese Minister to China that Admiral Moore should be asked to arbitrate the Tatsu Maru case, the Japanese government rejected the suggestion, and used military threats to force the Chinese government to accept its demands. But, as the newspapers in Japan and abroad reported the Chinese suggestion of arbitration and the reaction of Japan, the Japanese government began to change its hardline stance. Considering international public opinion that encouraged dispute resolution through arbitration and criticized Japan's action in China after the Russo-Japanese war, the Japanese government then made a cabinet decision to agree to submit the case to the arbitration as suggested by China. The newspaper reports, especially those of western newspapers also had an influence on the tone of the Chinese newspaper, Shenbao 申報, a major Chinese newspaper in modern China. Receiving the information that China suggested that Admiral Moore should be asked to arbitrate the Tatsu Maru case, the leading article of The Times recommended submitting the dispute to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. After that, Shen Bao, which had previously been skeptical of arbitration and the Hague Peace Conference, based on the western newspaper reports like this leading article of The Times, criticized Japan for not accepting “gong duan” (i.e., international arbitration). In addition to the articles of G. E. Morrison, Peking correspondent of The Times, Thomas Millard, an American journalist, influenced Chinese people's understanding of arbitration. Morrison reported in The Times that in the course of the negotiations regarding the question of the Tatsu Maru, China suggested referral to the Hague, and that it was probable that China would propose that other questions, such as the Jiandao issue 間島問題 and the implementation of autonomy in Harbin by Russia be referred to the Hague. This article didn't report the Waiwu Bu's actual stance on arbitration, but Morrison attempted to give the impression that the infringement of Chinese sovereignty in Manchuria by Japan and Russia was an issue that should be referred to the Hague. Millard's article in the New York Times also concluded that the situation demanded international action if the integrity of China was to be maintain. Shen bao translated his conclusion as “other countries should actively conduct arbitration.” Since the late 19th century, the understanding that arbitration was international intervention against the injustice based on the public opinion (gonglun 公論) rather than a trial based on the mutual consent of both parties was prevalent in China. The articles of Morrison and Millard that aroused international public opinion and calls for international intervention on the Manchurian issue reinforced such an understanding by the Chinese people. As described above, this paper provides new perspectives on research about the stance and understanding of China and Japan toward arbitration.