172 Boundaries and Beyond
environment after the war are not hard to understand. Their position
was shared by some extra-provincial ofβicials, including those originally
from Fujian.
An evaluation of the Chinese response to the lease issue needs to
consider the broader context of the incident. The crux of the conβlict was
differing understandings of the existing treaties, not ignorance of their
provisions. First and foremost, there were imperfections in the wording of
the treaties. On the basis of the Chinese text, Chinese ofβicials believed that
the treaties did not grant foreign subjects, apart from consular ofβicials,
the right to reside within the city walls.^90 The trend in British policy at
this time is also relevant to an understanding of the whole episode. As
John K. Fairbank points out, historians have not paid sufβicient attention
to the role of the British diplomatic initiatives in 1850 in touching off the
anti-foreign measures of the young Xianfeng Emperor.^91
The Chinese reaction to the affair was to insist on strict compliance
with the treaty provisions. This attitude remained one major guiding
principle of both the Fuzhou authorities and the Court, as can be seen
from the imperial edicts. Even the literati cited the treaty as evidence to
support their contentions. The Chinese and the British in fact shared one
common approach, in that both cited the clauses most favorable to their
case. To the Chinese, this was exactly what was written in the Chinese
text, which local Chinese ofβicials possessed and could understand.
Throughout the dispute, the contending Chinese parties saw strict
observance of the treaty as the best protection of the status quo, and the
way to prevent further British infringements of Chinese interests. None
of them ever hinted at defying the treaty. In their eyes, it was the British
who were failing to observe its provisions.
As to the interpretation of treaties by different parties, some rules
enumerated by L. Oppenheim, the late Whewell Professor of International
Law of the University of Cambridge, are worth quoting here. He states,
among other things, that “(i)f two meanings of a provision are admissible,
that which is least to the advantage of the party for whose beneβit the
provision was inserted in the treaty should be preferred” and that
“(u)nless the contrary is expressly provided, if a treaty is concluded
in two languages and there is a discrepancy between the meaning of
the two different texts, each party is only bound by the text in its own
language”.^92 In deβining rules of interpretation, George B. Davis, Judge-
- Fairbank, Trade and Diplomacy, pp. 102‒3.
- Ibid., p. 378.
- L. Oppenheim, International Law, a Treatise, ed. H. Lauterpacht (8th ed.; London,
New York & Toronto: Longmans, Green and Co., 1955), pp. 954, 95 6 ‒7.
http://www.ebook3000.com