|
|
|
| Legal Orientalist Caleb Cushing and His Three Discourses on US Extraterritoriality in China |
| Qu Wensheng |
| School of International Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract During the early phase of formal Sino-American interactions, the United States fundamentally challenged Chinese legal civilization through the discourse of Legal Orientalism. This paper offers a comprehensive analysis of Caleb Cushing, the first U.S. commissioner, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to China, as a paradigmatic Legal Orientalist, focusing on his three distinct discourses on extraterritoriality and related archival materials surrounding the 1844 Treaty of Wanghia. By deconstructing the colonial logic and power dynamics embedded in Cushing’s theoretical framing and diplomatic practice across three stages, this study reveals how he systematically deployed Orientalist narratives to advance American imperial interests.Cushing’s first discourse emerged prior to the Treaty negotiations. He drew analogies between the 1830 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation Concluded Between the United States and the Ottoman Empire, which established extraterritorial jurisdiction in Muslim territories, and the forthcoming Treaty with China. By emphasizing civilizational differences between Christian and non-Christian legal systems, he laid the ideological foundation for American extraterritorial claims in China.The second discourse unfolded after Cushing’s arrival in Macao, centering on the Sue Aman Case. He constructed an essentialized binary between “Christian jurisprudence” and Chinese law, strategically invoking civilizational rhetoric to assert the superiority of American legal norms. By securing the ratification of the Treaty before the case could be adjudicated, Cushing effectively preempted Chinese territorial jurisdiction. Article 21 of the Treaty of Wanghia institutionalized consular jurisdiction by stipulating that U.S. citizens accused of crimes in China would be tried exclusively under American law by American authorities, thereby formally establishing the principle of extraterritoriality.The third discourse emerged during Cushing’s return voyage. He employed instrumentalist interpretations of international law to classify China as a “semi-international legal subject”, thereby crafting a paradox: China was denied full sovereign rights while simultaneously burdened with international obligations. Through this bilateral treaty framework, Cushing contributed to America’s exclusion of China from the “family of nations”, employing the tools of positivist international law to institutionalize legal asymmetry.Across these discourses, Cushing merged Legal Orientalism with affective imperial rhetoric to construct narratives of American victimhood, thereby legitimizing the unequal treaty system. His tripartite strategy served two interrelated goals: to justify unilateral extraterritoriality and to promote free trade imperialism under coercive legal mechanisms.A critical reassessment of these colonial discursive structures remains an essential scholarly endeavor for historians of Sino-American relations, international law, and global order. This case study demonstrates that Legal Orientalism functioned not merely as a descriptive taxonomy but as an active technology of imperial governance, shaping the colonial foundations of modern international legal regimes.
|
|
Received: 02 December 2024
|
|
|
|
1 Ruskola T.， Legal Orientalism： China， the United States， and Modern Law， Cambridge： Harvard University Press， 2013.
2 美］络德睦：《法律东方主义：中国、美国与现代性》，魏磊杰译，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2016年。
3 Tan C. G. S.， “How a ‘lawless’ China made modern America： an epic told in Orientalism，” Harvard Law Review， Vol. 128， No. 6 （2015）， pp. 1677-1704.
4 U.S. Government Printing Office， Treaties and Conventions Concluded Between the United States of America and Other Powers， since July 4， 1776， Washington DC： Government Printing Office， 1873.
5 Davids J. （ed.）， American Diplomatic and Public Papers： The United States and China， Series I： The Treaty System and the Taiping Rebellion， 1842-1860， vol. 8， Wilmington： Scholarly Resources， 1973.
6 Kuo P. C.， “Caleb Cushing and the Treaty of Wanghia， 1844，” The Journal of Modern History， Vol. 5， No. 1 （1933）， pp. 34-54.
7 美］马士：《中华帝国对外关系史》第一卷，张汇文、姚曾廙、章巽等译，上海：上海书店出版社，2000年。
8 United States Senate， Public Documents Printed by Order of the Senate of the United States， Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Congress， Begun and Held at the City of Washington， December 2， 1844， in the Sixty-Ninth Year of the Independence of the United States， vol. II， Washington： Gales and Seaton， 1845， pp. 65-66， 96-99.
9 Anon， “Art. III. Message from the president of the United States to the senate， transmitting the treaty concluded between Mr. Cushing and Kíying. Death of Sue Aman， （徐亞满Sü Amán） a Chinese shot by an American in Canton，” The Chinese Repository， Vol. 14， No. 11 （1845）， pp. 525-539.
10 王元崇：《中美相遇：大国外交与晚清兴衰（1784—1911）》，上海：文汇出版社，2021年。
11 李秀清：《中美早期法律冲突的历史考察——以1821年“特拉诺瓦案”为中心》，《中外法学》2010年第3期，第425-438页。
12 Donahue W. J.， “The francis terranova case，” Historian， Vol. 43， No. 2 （1981）， pp. 211-224.
13 Kenneth W. R.， Early Sino-American Relations， 1841-1912： The Collected Articles of Earl Swisher， Colorado： Westview Press， 1977.
14 屈文生、万立：《不平等与不对等：晚清中外旧约章翻译史研究》，北京：商务印书馆，2021年。
15 美］雅克·当斯：《黄金圈住地——广州的美国商人群体及美国对华政策的形成，1784—1844》，周湘、江滢河译，广州：广东人民出版社，2015年。
16 张贵永主编：《中美关系史料（嘉庆、道光、咸丰朝）》，台北：“中研院”近代史研究所，1968年。
17 屈文生：《〈望厦条约〉订立前后中美关于徐亚满案照会交涉研究》，《法学》2016年第8期，第133-144页。
18 美］泰勒·丹涅特：《美国人在东亚》，姚曾廙译，北京：商务印书馆，1959年。
19 郭卫东：《转折：以早期中英关系和〈南京条约〉为考察中心》，石家庄：河北人民出版社，2003年。
20 许克明：《〈望厦条约〉与美国法律帝国主义在东亚的实践（1844—1870）》，见杜金主编：《中山大学法律评论》第21卷第1辑，北京：社会科学文献出版社，2024年，第131-162页。
21 Hinckley F. E.， “Extraterritoriality in China，” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science， Vol. 39， No. 1 （1912）， pp. 97-108.
22 Cushing C.， Opinion of the Attorney General Concerning the Judicial Authority of the Commissioner or Minister and of Consuls of the United States in China and Turkey， Washington： A. O. P. Nicholson， 1855.
23 屈文生：《英美在近代中国行使治外法权主体之型化与形替》，《法学研究》2023年第3期，第205-224页。
24 Chen L.， “The State as victim： ethical politics of injury claims and revenge in international relations，” in Bloom A.， Engel D. & McCann M. （eds.）， Injury and Injustice： The Cultural Politics of Harm and Redress， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 2018， pp. 293-316.
25 Chen L.， Chinese Law in Imperial Eyes： Sovereignty， Justice and Transcultural Politics， New York： Columbia University Press， 2016.
26 屈文生：《第三种法律东方主义话语——以小斯当东折中的中国法律观为中心》，《探索与争鸣》2025年第1期，第142-159页。
27 加］陈利：《帝国时代的法律、知识与权力》，北京：商务印书馆，2024年。
28 Wheaton H.， Elements of International Law， Boston： Little， Brown and Company， 1855.
29 Staunton G. T.， Miscellaneous Notices Relating to China and Our Commercial Intercourse with That Country， Including a Few Translations from the Chinese Language， London： John Murray， 1828.
30 Anghie A.， Imperialism， Sovereignty and the Making of International Law， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 2005.
31 Foreign Policy Association， Extraterritoriality in China： Series 1925-1926， New York： Editorial Information Service of the Foreign Policy Association， 1925. |
|
|
|
2025, Vol. 55 
