“Her Majesty’s plenipotentiary has now to announce the conclusion of preliminary arrangements between the imperial commissioner and himself involving the following conditions:tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb- X2 A" E; G$ D, i; A
The cession of the island and harbour of Hongkong to the British crown. All just charges and duties tot the empire upon the commerce carried on there to be paid as if the trade were conducted at Whampoa.
An indemnity to the British government of six millions of dollars, on million payable at once, remainder in equal annual instalments ending in 1846.
Direct official intercourse between the countries upon equal footing.
The trade of the port of Canton to be opened within ten further arrangements are practicable at the new settlement."
) f6 a- `: M4 Y% d: l' l: a0 D- {
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb8 `' o a2 C- F' R2 |
( V6 |. D$ ?& I+ b
亞洲電視節目《解密百年香港 – 哪裡是香港》，簡述《穿鼻草約》的合法性。
. c! J: g, H) [- r- s6 U; F5.39.217.76由17世紀開始，英國為了壟㫁貿易，一般都會透過獲得海外領土，來擴張盎格魯撒克遜在當地的商貿權力 [5] 。按此經驗來看，從義律和後來接任的砵甸乍銳意割讓香港之目的可見，假如英國成功取得香港作為海外領土，香港便成為了其在華鴉片和其他貿易的據點。因此，割讓香港的其中一個重要原因，便是要將香港開辟為自由港，成為對內通市的通商口岸，而草約便是使「開辟」合理的法律工具。 # n# ^7 d3 p# S9 m; f3 ztvb now,tvbnow,bttvb4 G1 T' b) _$ q4 d6 \
可是，當時《穿鼻草約》沒有簽訂和承認，香港割讓只是建立在英軍的實際佔領和升旗禮之上，因此草約亦不能成為使「開辟」商埠合理的法律工具。對於類似國際間的強佔行為， 19 世紀初的國際法能夠產生約束力嗎？國際法又是如何詮釋條約效力的？ & D$ @% _8 d1 F5.39.217.76 1 `% g; N; T" E7 a7 L x5 CTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。現今泛指國際法這一詞，在 19 世紀後半葉一般稱為歐洲公法 (droit public de I’Europe, European public law) 。當時歐洲公法的特徵，主要都是圍繞著保障歐洲國際社會利益，例如歐洲中心主義、擴張主義等的法律秩序。歐洲認為公法是「文明國家之間的法律」，世界亦因而給劃分為歐洲文明國家、中國等半文明國家，和野蠻國家。為了要將侵略世界非文明國家的擴張行為合理化，歐洲公法乃成為一種帝國主義的法律工具 [6] 。 % h2 P% d7 a: |# a& h( \8 C. H( S: ~' J/ J3 X5 f
0 V: E4 k9 l+ `# g公仔箱論壇為証明自己是公正無私的文明國家，並要迫使不文明國家遵循他們的價值觀和法理規範來行事，以維護其特權和利益，在 18 世紀初，國際法著作便成為這種擴張主義的白手套。而國際法作者的國藉，便顯得尤其關鍵 – 列強爭相出版國際法。而當中的焦點，便是那個國家更有資格代表普世價值。因此， 19 世紀最著名的國際法著作，1836年分別在倫敦和費城出版的《Elements of International Law》（中譯為《國際法原理》），能夠在 1864 年由美國傳教士丁韙良 (W. A. P. Martin, 1827-1916) 翻譯為漢語版《萬國公法》，美國政府對翻譯的推動，包括時任中國海關稅務司司長赫德 (Sir Robert Hart, 1835-1911) 的支持，實在不可或缺 [7] 。因此，當時國際法的約束力，較為適用於列強間的秩序維繫和利益分配，多於對國際間的無限擴張。 v- u0 \. m, D% @2 A v$ y& ]tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb / W9 o, o2 M! l# p5.39.217.76在過去一個多世紀，世界各地在國際法和平條約的領土割讓實例中，一般劃分為因征服而割讓 (subjugation) ，和因條約 (treaty) 買賣而割讓兩種，而兩者均必須以條約為法律依據。那麼，條約基於什麼條件才產生法律效力？《國際法原理》第二章第五節中指出，有效的條約必須首先由君主賦予全權的代表，在達成協議之後，雙方代表簽署才能正式生效 [8] ： 9 G% w& c; m; C. l& k
As to other public treaties: in order to enable a public minister or other diplomatic agent to conclude and sign a treaty with the government to which he is accredited, he must be furnished with a full power, independent of his general letter of credence. Grotius, and after him Puffendorf, consider treaties and conventions, thus negotiated and signed, as binding upon the sovereign in whose name they are concluded, in the same manner as any other contract made by a duly authorised agent binds his principal according to the general rules of civil jurisprudence.0 b/ C6 b, [% O W
關於代理君主的大臣之職權，文中寫道： + m. B/ K' `: t0 @5.39.217.76
the sovereign is bound by the acts of his ambassadors, within the limits of his patent full-power, although the latter may have transcended or violated his secret instruction. But if the minister exceed his authority, or undertake to treat points not contained in his full-power and instructions, the sovereign is fully justified in delaying, or even refusing his ratification.公仔箱論壇6 m( |% ]5 b0 R# _/ O
換言之，假如全權大臣越權商議，君主是有權拒絕公約。5.39.217.76! z3 e) T: g( S: n. t9 L
那麼，君主能夠如何拒絕呢？即使全權代表已經同意條約，只要君主能夠証明全權代表偏離了其意旨，君主是有權拒絕條約的： ; ~/ {2 ~/ L/ E2 T9 Y5 H1 J5 W
before a sovereign can honourably refuse to ratify that which has been concluded in virtue of a full power, he must have strong and solid reasons, and, in particular, he must show that his minister has deviated from his instruction.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb, m7 Z; A) L( l; r" H2 z9 \
另外，《國際法原理》第四節又指出，假如全權代表擅自立約，在沒有得到君主准許或授權的情況下作出超越其權力的約定或承諾，最終仍必須得到（君主）的准許：6 T7 ]' }4 x5 \1 r3 m) L- L L
Such acts or engagements, which made without authority, or exceeding the limits of the authority under which they purport to be made, are called Sponions. These convention must be confirmed by express or tacit ratification.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb3 o" E) p) e' M3 k: ]2 Z- K
the assent of the chambers, clothed with the forms of a legislative act, is considered essential to the ultimate validity of a treaty ceding any portion of the national territory. * R6 C% }# l" i/ ~- s2 B/ r# M5.39.217.76
最後，與當今國際法一樣，在第八節中，亦清楚說到，在文明國家的法學中，「恃強逼勒」的情況下所簽訂的條約，是不能生效的 [10] ：TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。! B' N0 N/ B# s' J% y9 P, e
By the general principles of private jurisprudence, recognized by most, if not all, CIVILIZED COUNTRIES, a contract obtained by violence is void. Freedom of consent to the validity of every agreement, and contracts obtained under duress are void, because the general welfare of society requires that they should be so.（大寫為筆者所加）5.39.217.76# M4 }8 r# G5 d9 y1 P4 g
簡而言之，當時國際法似乎已清晰厘定，包含了領土割讓的條約，需要符合兩個前提才能生效： ( t% k0 o2 F+ e
本帖最後由 felicity2010 於 2016-1-27 02:15 AM 編輯 ' ~- W7 v' S2 R公仔箱論壇 ; W. ]% C; W& a5.39.217.76香港是如何開埠的？（二）— 時序篇：琦善有否同意割讓香港？ 9 n! ~4 ^/ F% ~7 C, F 8 E/ |# S4 z3 ?tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb & [( A) r& P/ g8 \/ c0 R7 c4 Y( w' M公仔箱論壇' A4 G( M/ a1 Z: Z- P- `) E3 [ TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。" x2 X7 w, ]# k) C* Q' y
1841 年 1 月 28 日，駐遠東艦隊支隊司令伯麥 (J. J. Gordon Bremer) 發出照會「議將香港等處全島地方，讓給英國主掌，已有文據在案」 ; y2 ]9 w- f x8 d . U0 ?( b; P7 B% l1 R公仔箱論壇上篇《從 19 世紀國際法和平條約談起》，談到 19 世紀國際法和平條約的基本概況和清朝欽差大臣的相關職權範圍。今篇將會從廣東談判中關於香港割讓的時序，分析琦善有否同意割讓香港。TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。; I: Q' T0 [; i; }; U" y
1841 年 1 月 26 日，英軍在升旗禮後，香港踏入開埠之路。為了使強佔的行為合理化和往後的長期貿易鋪路，必須一份聲稱雙方同意的正式法律文件 I J. f. e6 ?7 v! y7 ?8 i公仔箱論壇1841 年 1 月 20 日，義律於澳門發布一份《給英國女皇陛下臣民的通知》，這份公佈香港割讓給英國的正式文件，後來稱為「穿鼻草約」或「穿鼻協定」 (Convention of Chunpee) [1] ： 6 ~$ t" k' A! Q5.39.217.76
Her Majesty’s plenipotentiary has now to announce the conclusion of preliminary arrangements between the imperial commissioner and himself involving the following conditions: 8 L0 d5 n( x+ @$ _5.39.217.76
The cession of the island and harbour of Hongkong to the British crown. All just charges and duties tot the empire upon the commerce carried on there to be paid as if the trade were conducted at Whampoa.
An indemnity to the British government of six millions of dollars, on million payable at once, remainder in equal annual instalments ending in 1846.
Direct official intercourse between the countries upon equal footing.
The trade of the port of Canton to be opened within ten further arrangements are practicable at the new settlement.
根據草約所指，義律與琦善已達成「達成初步安排」 "the conclusion of preliminary arrangements between the imperial commissioner and himself" 。然而，這個「達成初步安排」的文據究竟是什麼呢？在義律發佈公吿後的第六天，即1841年1月26日英軍佔領香港這天，伯麥照會大鵬協副將賴恩爵，內容如下 [2] ：5.39.217.76$ v F! f7 N: k8 d
Bremer, Commander-in-chief, and Elliot, Plenipotentiary, etc., by this proclamation make know to the inhabitant of the island of Hongkong, that that island has now become part of the dominions of the Queen of England by clear public agreement between the High Officers of the Celestial and British Courts…..* k' e0 a! k B" `7 j. z
The island of Hongkong having been ceded to the British Crown under the seal of the Imperial Minister and High Commissioner Keshen, it has become necessary to provide the Government thereof, pending Her Majesty’s pleasure…… ) f, r" X: ]( Y1 L
兩份公告目的在於曉喻香港居民，英國已經成為香港的新統治者。即便如此，民眾亦毋需惶恐，因為中國傳統禮儀習俗、宗教儀式、風俗習慣等個人權利不但會繼續保留，而且基於引入一種華洋分治，一島兩制的二元化法律體系 (a dual legal system) ，即華人將繼續依從中國法律及習慣，英國及其他各國人士則接受英國法的統治 [4] 。9 W8 K2 r1 U! D t; x' E
根據中國社會科學院研究員劉存寛教授，在其著作《香港史論叢》第二章<英國強佔香港島與所謂「穿鼻條約」>中指出，這兩份公告的基礎，是以 1 月 20 日的通知為依據。換言之， 2 月 1 日公告中的 "clear public agreement between the High Officers of the Celestial and British Courts" ，和義律 2 月 2 日公告中所指的 "The island of Hongkong having been ceded to the British Crown under the seal of the Imperial Minister and High Commissioner Keshen" ，都是以義律在通知中的「達成初步安排」為依據。而這個有「達成」「安排」的「文據」，便是琦善在《穿鼻草約》蓋上的關防。6 C$ _; K9 R; j8 E& U2 S! N+ d, ^
…姑為急則治標之計，則暫示羈糜于目前，即當備剿于將來也 [20] 。 ) H. J3 h) S1 K# \* t. r; J. d公仔箱論壇
截至 2 月 16 日，琦善仍沒有蓋印，明顯地，莫說 1 月 20 日義律在澳門發出通知中「達成了初步安排」，或是 2 月 1 和 2 日兩份公告中聲稱 "clear public agreement between the High Officers of the Celestial and British Courts" 和 "under the seal of the Imperial Minister and High Commissioner Keshen" 均不可能提前發生，假如義律說早已於 1 月 20 日已與琦善簽訂了《穿鼻草約》，那根本毋需此後多次發出最後通牒脅迫琦善蓋印（最後的通牒死缐是 3 月 1 日。然而，義律早已急不及待，於 2 月 23 日已揮軍再攻虎門）。並且，既已簽約，琦善亦毋需分別在 1 月 31 日擬出《酌定章程》和 2 月 11-12 日重新提出《酌擬章程底稿》四條與義律再次洽談，而律義亦毋需於 2 月 13 日向琦善提出《善定事宜》作最後商議（關於上述兩章程的細節將於下篇《心態上》詳述）。+ t( g! _) B) {& ~' l0 ~. i1 e
You have obtained the Cession of Hong Kong, a barren Island with hardly a House upon it; and even this Cession as it is called, seems to me, from the conditions with which it is clogged, not to be a cession of the Sovereignty of the Island, which could only be made by the signature of the Emperor, but to be a permission to us to make a Settlement there, upon the same footing on which the Portuguese have an establishment at Macao. $ B! r( w+ k/ D; ~tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb
With reference to the Proclamation which has appeared in the Newspapers of this Country, issued by you to Her Majesty’s Subjects in China, in which you declare the Island of Hong Kong to be annexed forever tot the British dominions, I have to observe to you that no part of the Territory belonging to one Sovereign can be ceded and made over to another Sovereign, except by a formal Treaty, ratified by the Sovereign by whom the cession is made, and that no Subject has the power to alienate any portion of the territory of his Sovereign. Consequently, the agreement made by Keshen that Hong Kong should be ceded to the British Crown, EVEN IF THAT AGREEMENT HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE FORMAL SHAPE OF A TREATY, would have been of NO VALUE or force until it had been ratified by The Emperor of China. Your Proclamation was therefore ENTIRELY PREMATURE, inasmuch as it does not appear that any formal Treaty for the cession of Hong Kong had been signed between you and Keshen; and that all events, it is certain that at the time when you issued your Proclamation, no such Treaty, even if signed by Keshen, had been ratified by the Emperor.（大寫為筆者所加）5.39.217.76! r. }0 [: ]' ~- d ~
巴麥尊在文件中說得清楚不過，沒有達成協議，即不是一種協議；即使有，沒有大皇帝批准的，根本沒有價值可言。 ! |. v/ F; z N: \+ t" vtvb now,tvbnow,bttvb其實，草約的問題除了是在立約程序上違反國際慣例之外，巴麥尊對割讓是否屬實亦存疑慮。在 1841 年 4 月 21 日巴麥尊致義律炒魷函件的前一天，另一封名為 "STATEMENT" 的函件，詳列了義律在華之功過。當中，在 "B. DEMANDS" 第 4 項中，便清楚說明英方對於所謂割讓的疑慮 [3] ：% L6 K: M. U/ I+ G. L
In ignorance of Captain Elliot’s proposals of Jan 8, 1841, it is impossible to state clearly what was agreed to on this point; but it would appear that the Island of Hong Kong had been ceded as a place of settlement; clogged, however, with a condition that all duties are to be paired there in the same manner as they have hitherto been paid at Whampoa; that is (it is presumed) that they should be assessed and collected at Hong Kong by Chinese officers. In fact, IT DOES NOT CLEARLY APPEAR THAT HONG KONG IS CEDED TO GREAT BRITAIN IN ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY.（大寫為筆者所加） 4 W' _+ j( m) q" {5.39.217.76
The government of China is perfectly convinced that the Island of Hong Kong will not be yielded up, and if it suited the purposes or character of Her Majesty’s Government to accept it under any such modification as would save the appearance of its formal cession, and declaration were made that we were satisfied with that extent of territorial possession, they would be well content to adjust affairs at once. # {2 s& b7 f- N9 u# C/ q& k
發表於 2016-1-27 02:09 AM
| 
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。" x2 X7 w, ]# k) C* Q' y
