The Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed at the end of the First World War. It is said that the cause of collapse was the anti-Habsburg nationalities that inhabited in the Empire and wanted to be independent from the Empire made use of the right of the self-determination that the American president, Woodrow Wilson, declared in his “Fourteen Points” speech in January 8th 1918. But in the article of 10 of the Fourteen Points he insisted that “The peoples of Austria-Hungary should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development”. There was not the word “self-determination”. What does the word “autonomous” mean for the policy-makers of the Empire and the nationalities? This article examines how the policy-makers of the Empire, specially the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, understood and utilized Wilson’s principles after the speech of the Fourteen Points in order to rescue their Empire from the crisis of dissolution.

The Fourteen Points seemed to them a tool for the rescue the Empire. So the then Foreign Minister, Count Czernin, made a speech in support of the Fourteen Points at the end of January. In February the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent a note in the name of the emperor Charles via Spain to Wilson that the emperor could agree the Wilson’s principles in order to bring a peace to Europe. There was a good situation that a negotiated peace would be carried. But in the spring 1918 the United States changed her course and determined to collapsed the Empire. And the German Empire started the military offensive in the Western Front in March. Moreover the meeting between the leaders of the German Empire and the Austria-Hungary in May seemed to the United States that the emperor of the Austria-Hungary became a vassal. When the German offensive failed in August, the Austria-Hungary planned an armistice and peace-talks with the United States on the basis of the Fourteen Points. The policy-makers of the Empire understood that it is important to solve the South-Slav Question to persuade Wilson.

But in September the United States have already recognized that 1) a state of belligerency exit between the Czecho-Slovaks and Austria-Hungary and 2) the Czecho-Slovaks National Council is a de facto belligerent government. When the Austria-Hungary formally proposed the armistice and peace at the beginning of October, the United States rejected it. The United States insisted that the Fourteen Points was no longer relevant to the future of the Empire. Nevertheless the Austria-Hungary tried to appeal. She declared that she would approve Wilson’s opinion about the Czecho-Slovaks and the Jugo-Slavs. At last she determined to abandon her Allied, German Empire, and to propose a separate peace to the United States. But in the around of Empire the nationalities had declared the independence from the Empire on the ground of the self-determination.

On 3^rd November 1918 the army of the Empire concluded the armistice with the Entente and the war ended. This was also the end of the Empire.

抄録全体を表示

This paper examines how the Beijing government of Republican China built relationships with newly established European countries after World War I, and how it treated the citizens of these countries.
In March 1917, during World War I, Republican China broke off diplomatic relations with the German and Austro-Hungarian empires, scrapping all treaties with them, and declared war against them in August. It also cut off relations with the Russian empire, which had experienced a revolution in the same year, but treaties with this empire remained valid. Disputes on the succession of these treaties were to arise between Republican China and newly independent states in connection with the succession of consular jurisdiction.
After the war, talks started individually with central and eastern European countries over the issues of recognizing their independence, succession of the treaties with their old suzerains and treatment of the citizens of the newly independent countries with which treaties had yet to be concluded, i.e. ‘citizens of the non treaties powers’ as described in this paper. Republican China had similar problems also with newly independent countries that had come into existence after the collapse of the Russian empire. While being pressed to respond to the changed order in Europe, domestically the country was in need of laws regarding the treatment of the foreigners who were living in concessions or leased territories: citizens of non-treaty powers anticipating cancellation of consular jurisdiction.
This subject can be examined analogously to the government’s attempt to legally regulate Nanyang overseas Chinese who had become protectorates of third countries in the last years of the Qing Dynasty via the Citizenship Law (1910). The major challenge for Republican China was to establish that, unlike in the last years of the Qing Dynasty, not only the citizens of non- treaties powers (excluding protectorates) but also those of the newly established countries should be outside of consular jurisdiction. Treaty powers registered these citizens of non-treaties powers as protectorates under their consular jurisdiction or simply handled routine diplomatic functions on behalf of them. Sometimes, however, these issues between the countries were handled by treaty powers and citizens of non-treaties powers in a confusing manner that caused disputes with the government of Republican China as described below.
This paper examines how Republican China tried to position the citizens of non-treaties powers in law while attempting to cancel unequal treaties and establish its independent jurisdiction after World War I. The paper is based on a series of diplomatic archives, including ‘Draft on management of citizens of non-treaties powers’ and ‘Draft on treatment of citizens of non treaties powers’, from the Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica.

抄録全体を表示