阿禮國服裝規定與英籍華人治外法權認定

The Alcock Dress Regulation and Extraterritoriality for Ethnic Chinese with British Citizenship

黃希瀅(HUANG Xiying)；張志雲(CHANG Chihyun)

英國 ； 清朝 ； 治外法權 ； 司法管轄權 ； 阿禮國服裝規定 ； British Empire ； Qing Empire ； extraterritoriality ； jurisdiction ； Alcock Dress Regulation

法制史研究

37期（2020 / 12 / 01）

167 - 201

繁體中文

十九世紀正值帝國主義向殖民主義的在地化過渡。在英帝國通過條約制度逐步確立在華治外法權的背景下，華人通過出生地原則、歸化或者被殖民的方式成為英政府認可的英國臣民。然而清政府依據本身的法律習慣仍將華裔英國臣民視為大清子民。因此華裔英國臣民在華司法管轄權歸治外法權認定成為十九世紀中英政府糾紛的來源之一。為解決該問題，中英政府在1868年達成了《阿禮國服裝規定》，以穿著服裝的款式作為華裔英國臣民治外法權的認定依據。但在1892年王如玉一案中，英政府卻選擇無視《阿禮國服裝規定》，以王如玉依據英國法律是英國臣民為理由，在此案中堅持其在華的治外法權。而清政府亦選擇清朝法律習慣作為理由，堅持王如玉是清朝子民。這實質是兩個帝國在臣民身分界定上的法律碰撞，外在表現為治外法權與《阿禮國服裝規定》之效用問題。在這個案例中，亦可看出英政府以治外法權為基本實踐手段，試圖使清政府接受西方通行的法律秩序與觀念。

The long 19th century marks the British Empire's transition from a mentality of imperialism to the local application of colonialism. Once it had confirmed its extraterritoriality through a series of Sino-British treaties, the British Empire had to apply this extraterritoriality to its subjects in China. Among the different types of such subjects, the most controversial one was ethnic Chinese with British citizenship as the Qing Empire also considered them to be its subjects. In order to reconcile this judicial and diplomatic dispute, Rutherford Alcock issued a provisional solution, i.e. the ＂Alcock Dress Regulation＂ for confirming whether or not ethnic Chinese were British subjects. However, in the case of Wang Ju-yü of 1892, the British government ignored the ＂Alcock Dress Regulation＂ and insisted on Wang's British citizenship so that Wang was protected by the extraterritoriality. The Qing Empire likewise cited Qing law and custom in maintaining that he was a Qing subject. The British and Qing Empires then put aside the provisional solution and discussed the core of this judicial and legal debate. This was a representative case in the Qing Empire's gradual adaptation to the western legal system governing nationality.

1. The Statistical Department of the Inspectorate General of Customs. Treaties, Conventions, Etc., between China and Foreign States. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Shanghai: The Statistical Department of the Inspectorate General of Customs, 1917. 簡稱「TCECFS」。
2. FO (Foreign Office Documents). No. 17 and 405..
3. （清）文慶（編）,齊思和（整理）(1964).籌辦夷務始末（道光朝）.北京:中華書局.
4. （清）夏燮,高鴻志（點校）(1988).中西紀事.長沙:嶽麓書社.
5. （清）賈楨（編）,中華書局編輯部（整理）(1979).籌辦夷務始末（咸豐朝）.北京:中華書局.
6. Cassel, Pär Kristoffer(2012).Grounds of Judgment, Extraterritoriality and Imperial Power in Nineteenth-Century China and Japan.New York:Oxford University Press.
7. Chen, Li(2009).Law, Empire, and Historiography of Modern Sino-Western Relations: A Case Study of the Lady Hughes Controversy in 1784.Law and History Review,27(1),1-53.
8. Fairbank, John King(1953).Trade and Diplomacy on the China Coast: The Opening of the Treaty Ports, 1842-1854.Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
9. Fairbank, John King(1953).Trade and Diplomacy on the China Coast: The Opening of the Treaty Ports, 1842-1854.Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
10. Garner, Bryan A.(ed.)(2004).Dictionary of Law.St. Paul, Mn.:Thomson/West.
11. Keeton, George. The Development of Extraterritoriality in China. London: Longmans, 1928.
12. Martin, Elizabeth A.(ed.)(2002).A Dictionary of Law.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
13. Sai, Siew-Min(2019).Dressing Up Subjecthood, Straits Chinese, the Queue, and Contested Citizenship in Colonial Singapore.The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History,47(3),446-473.
14. 上海師範大學歷史系中國近代史研究室（編）,中國第一歷史檔案館編輯部（編）(1993).福建．上海小刀會檔案史料匯編.福州:福建人民出版社.
15. 吳文浩(2020)。跨國史視野下中國廢除治外法權的歷程（1919-1931）。近代史研究，2020(2)，117-133。
16. 村上衛,王詩倫（譯）(2016).海洋史上的近代：福建人的活動與英國、清朝的因應.北京:社會科學文獻出版社.
17. 阮元（校刻）(2003).十三經注疏.北京:中華書局.
18. 張俊義（編）,陳紅民（編）(2017).近代中外關係史研究（第 7 輯）.北京:社會科學文獻出版社.
19. 黃嘉謨(1986)。英人與廈門小刀會事件。中國近代現代史論集② 第二編教亂和民變，臺北:
20. 廖偉章(1985)。林則徐在交凶問題上與義律的鬥爭。中山大學學報（社會科學版），1985(3)，31-3 38。
21. 鄭振鐸（編）(2002).晚清文選.北京:中國社會科學出版社.
22. 篠崎香織(2008)。海峡植民地の華人とイギリス国籍──権利の正当な行使と濫用をめぐるせめぎ合いの諸相。華僑華人研究，5，100-123。
23. 顏志文(2013)。清朝判斷“華民＂國籍的原則探析。三峽大學學報（人文社會科學版），35(2)，101-104。
24. 羅玉東(2010).中國釐金史.北京:商務印書館.