1931-1937年国内废约舆论研究

发布时间：2018-12-14 23:39

【摘要】：南京国民政府建立后,继续进行反对不平等条约的斗争。在修约运动取得部分成绩的时候,1931年“九一八”事变的发生,使得修约交涉陷入停顿。国内废约舆论也随之沉寂,关于废约的文章只有寥寥数篇,知识分子均将注意力转至抗日救亡。1933年,中英、中美通商续约先后到期,废约舆论逐渐活跃起来。1937年,国民党五届三中全会通过撤废各国在华领事裁判权案,受到全国各党派团体的重视和响应。此外,埃及撤废领判权的努力也刺激了国内大批爱国人士。在国内外双重因素的激励下,废约舆论重新活跃起来。这时期废约舆论的主体包括政界、法学界和商界等领域的精英人士,他们通过发表言论引导国内民众继续关注废除不平等条约的任务,从而在全国构建了废约的舆论空间,对南京政府形成一定的压力和监督效力。舆论压力是政府修约实践的动力之一,而政府的修约姿态也进一步促进国内废约舆论的高涨,两者互为作用的推动着废约进程。知识分子讨论的主要内容基本是出于现实的需要,如修约在即,他们对我国历届政府的修约运动进行整体的回顾与反思,从中总结经验教训,并对中英、中美、中日修约提出合理的建议,提醒政府在修约中应当注意哪些问题。1934年《东方杂志》将第31卷第12号设为修约问题专号,这里成为舆论的重要阵地。在今后废约方式的探讨中,有学者提出了国际法角度废约的新思路,这是当时较为理性的主张。由于领事裁判权是不平等条约中影响最为严重的特权之一,当时有关这项特权的文章较多,国人在加强对领判权认识的基础上,提出四种撤废方式的建议。面对日本直接的军事侵略,知识分子还分析抗日与废约的缓急轻重,讨论撤废领判权的时机问题。除此以外,当时的舆论还探讨了其他较为重要的条约特权,如内河航行权和片面最惠国待遇。国内废约舆论分别在1934年和1937年掀起两次废约小高潮。总体而言,由于有社会精英的加入,这时期的废约舆论渐趋理性,不再一味地提出激烈的观点,而是结合当时的国情探讨问题,更像是为政府出谋划策。但是,由于当时处于民族危难时期,抗日救亡才是最紧要的任务,所以废约舆论的发展受到限制,不能如20年代的民众舆论那样影响政府的决策。
[Abstract]:After the establishment of the Nanjing National Government, the struggle against unequal treaties continued. At the time of partial achievement in the treaty revision movement, the September 18 incident in 1931 brought the treaty negotiation to a standstill. The public opinion on the abolition of the covenant in China was also silent. There were only a few articles on the abolition of the covenant, and the intellectuals turned their attention to resisting Japan and saving the country. In 1933, Sino-British and Sino-American trade contracts expired successively, and the public opinion on the abolition of the treaty became more and more active. In 1937, The third Plenary session of the Fifth Central Committee of the Kuomintang approved the abolition of consular jurisdiction in China, which received the attention and response of all political parties and organizations throughout the country. In addition, Egypt's efforts to abrogate the ruling power also stimulated a large number of patriots in the country. At home and abroad under the dual factors, the abolition of public opinion again active. During this period, the main body of public opinion on the abolition of the treaty included the elite in the political, legal and business fields, who through their speeches led the domestic people to continue to pay attention to the task of abrogation of unequal treaties, thus establishing a space of public opinion for the abrogation of the treaty in the whole country. To the Nanjing government forms the certain pressure and the supervision effect. The pressure of public opinion is one of the driving forces of the practice of the government's treaty revision, and the attitude of the government also further promotes the upsurge of domestic public opinion on the abolition of the treaty, and the two play a role in promoting the process of abrogation. The main content of the intellectuals' discussion is basically out of the practical need. If the treaty is about to be revised, they will review and reflect on the previous governments of our country, sum up the experience and lessons, and make a comprehensive review of the Chinese, British and American governments. The Sino-Japanese Treaty of Amendment puts forward reasonable suggestions to remind the government what problems should be paid attention to in the revision of the Treaty. In 1934, the Oriental Journal set the 31st Volume No. 12 as the special issue of amending the Treaty, which has become an important position of public opinion. In the future, some scholars put forward a new idea of abrogation from the angle of international law, which was a rational proposition at that time. As consular jurisdiction is one of the most serious privileges in unequal treaties, there were more articles about this privilege at that time. On the basis of strengthening the understanding of the right of judgment, Chinese people put forward four ways of abolishing. Faced with Japan's direct military aggression, intellectuals also analyzed the priority of anti-Japanese and annulment, and discussed the timing of abrogation. In addition, public opinion at that time also explored other more important treaty privileges, such as river navigation rights and partial most-favoured-nation treatment. In 1934 and 1937, the public opinion of abrogation in China set off two small climaxes of abrogation respectively. In general, due to the participation of the social elite, the public opinion on the abolition of the covenant in this period gradually became rational, and no longer blindly put forward a fierce point of view, but combined with the national conditions at that time to explore problems, more like a plan for the government. However, in the period of national distress, the most urgent task is to resist Japan and save the nation, so the development of the public opinion on the abolition of covenant is restricted and can not influence the government's decision like the public opinion in the 1920s.
【学位授予单位】：湖南师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：K26

【相似文献】