治外法權的局部存續：《中美新約》後的駐華美軍刑事案件

Abstract

《中美新約》生效後，美國宣布放棄在華治外法權，卻同時透過《中美關於處理在華美軍人員刑事案件換文》繼續擁有駐華美軍刑事案件的管轄權。針對此現象，現有研究大約可分為兩種觀點，一種持負面看法，認為此是美國在華治外法權的「復活」；一種持正面看法，認為此是兩國政府的合法共識，也是對既定事實的「追認」。然而，兩種截然不同的觀點，卻存在同樣的問題，即兩者皆僅側重於美國在華治外法權發展中的「連續性」，但卻忽略了《中美新約》對其發展確實造成斷裂的這一事實，因而無法對美國在華治外法權之演變有完整的認識。但若將此議題放在抗戰時期中美關係發展的整體脈絡下檢視，視之為治外法權的「局部存續」，則可在補足斷裂性的同時，兼顧連續性的面向，意即《中美新約》簽訂後，治外法權雖仍存在，但是受到了一定程度的限縮與干預。至於中方何以同意治外法權以局部存續形式存在，將是本文欲回答的核心問題。

The United States relinquished extraterritorial rights in China when the ＂Sino-American New Equal Treaty＂ became effective in 1943, but through an exchange of notes on military jurisdiction, the United States still retained jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed by American armed forces in China. Regarding this phenomenon, existing research can be roughly divided into two viewpoints. Some scholars view the United States` continued jurisdiction over crimes by American military personnel in China negatively as a ＂resurrection＂ of American extraterritorial rights. Others view it more positively as the recognition of already-established facts resulting from the legitimate consensus of the two countries` governments. However, these two opposing viewpoints share the same problem; that is, both focus only on the continuity of American extraterritorial rights in China while ignoring the fact that the ＂Sino-American New Equal Treaty＂ was also a significant rupture within development of American extraterritoriality in China. As a result, previous scholarship has yet to provide a complete understanding of the evolution of American extraterritorial rights in China. However, if we focus on the evolution of American extraterritorial power in China and the overall context of Sino-US relations during the Anti-Japanese War, we can see this as the partial continuation of extraterritorial rights, a concept that highlights the Sino-American New Equal Treaty as a moment of rupture while also taking into account aspects of continuity. After the signing of the ＂Sino-US New Equal Treaty＂, the United States continued to have extraterritorial jurisdiction in China, but it was limited and subject to a certain extent of interference. The reasons that China allowed the partial continuation of American extraterritoriality will be the core issue addressed in this article.