许多在不同历史时期被认为天经地义的事情或观念,当我们抽去时间的间隔将它们叠加在一起的时候,却能发现一些让我们错愕不已的对比。1839年,英国驻华商务总监督义律（Charles Elliot）来到广州,试图再一次为大英帝国争取与大清帝国平等的主权国家地位,因其在投递的禀帖内有“使两国彼此平安”一语,遭到当时最为开通的林则徐的严厉驳斥：“如两国二字,不知何解,我天朝臣服万邦,大皇帝如天之仁。……想是英吉利,米利坚合称两国,而文意殊属不明。”2312874林在《致英国国王照会》中宣称：“我天朝君临万国,尽有不测神威。”2312875至于其他君臣,此等想与大清帝国平等并称为“两国”的话语,就只能被视为痴人说梦了。在当时的中国人看来,中国是高高在上的天朝,无论哪个国家来到中国,都只是向天朝朝贡而已,平等的主权观念不仅是不可接受的,甚至是不可想象的。然而,也就是短短一百余年后,今天的中国人对主权观念的态度早已是另外一番景象。我们经常可以听到中国外交部发言人强调“主权神圣不可侵犯”,一些学者对于西方学界质疑或否定主权至上性的理论观点大加挞伐,斥之为暴露了帝国主义“侵略本性”。在对待主权问题上,今天的中国正如王铁崖所说的那样：“中华人民共和国坚持不懈地主张主权原则并在其外交文告中表现为主权原则的最热忱的拥护者。严格遵从主权不受侵犯原则,成为中华人民共和国外交政策的鲜明特色,并被视为国际关系的基础和整个国际法律体系的支柱。”2312876英国学者亚当·沃森（Adam Watson）也说：“在联合国,中国是捍卫其他国家主权的领导者和对它们内部事务干涉的反对者。”2312877曾经被视为“大逆不道”的主权,如今却被认为是“神圣”之物；曾经对主权“不知何解”的中国人,如今却成了主权观念最坚定的捍卫者。这两种对待国家主权的不同观点在各自时代都被认为是“天经地义”的,但叠加在一起,却有如天壤之别。

错愕之余,一个问题便出现了：短短一百余年时间,中国人的对外观念为什么会发生如此天翻地覆的变化？当然,自认为身处“现代社会”的我们,很容易给出一个“合理”解释：今天我们坚持的主权观念是天经地义、正确无疑的,晚清的人们不接受国家平等和主权观念,问题在于他们“太愚昧”“太顽固”。如果再想想他们的“愚昧”“顽固”给中国带来的落后和创伤,不免会因此痛恨得牙齿咯咯作响,可能同时还伴有身为高明“现代人”的沾沾自喜。但在沾沾自喜之余,我们不能忘了,马克思已经为人类社会设定了共产主义的必然归宿,到那时,国家和民族都是要消亡的。如果按照“愚昧”“顽固”的逻辑思维,那时候,该轮到后人嘲笑今天的我们“愚昧”“顽固”了。

如果仔细梳理一下近代以前中国人在处理对外关系中坚持天朝观念的悠久历史,以及近代以来主权观念取代天朝观念成为中国人对外意识主导观念的复杂过程,我们很容易发现,事情并不像“先进”取代“落后”、“文明”取代“愚昧”那么简单和绝对。

近代以前,中国在与周边国家的交往互动中,逐渐建构出一套中国自认为是天朝、周边国家认可中国这一定位并向中国朝贡的国际秩序,这就是天朝体系。就天朝观念在当时东亚地区的接受程度而言,相较于今天主权观念在国际政治中的接受程度,很难说哪一个的接受程度更高一些。两者都是特定时代在各自范围内得到普遍认可的国际观念。由于天朝观念居于中国人认知对外关系的核心长达两千余年时间,在近代以前一直是中国人处理对外关系牢不可破的思维定式。正如唐德刚在评论中国延续数千年的“帝制”转向“民治”时所说的那样,“它们都不是一朝一夕建立起来的,当然也不是一朝一夕就可以轻易废除得了的”2312878。所以,当近代西方列强开始打破天朝体制,把中国逐步纳入现代国际体系的时候,作为现代国际观念核心的主权观念不可避免地遭到中国人的强烈抵制。面对自认为是天朝的中国,西方列强曾经想尽一切办法试图让中国当政者以主权国家平等对待自己,以使自己能够与“拥有3.3亿人口——人类的三分之一——的国家平起平坐”2312879,但西方国家的早期努力均以失败告终。例如,引起史学界广泛关注的马嘎尔尼（George Macartney）使华觐见乾隆皇帝,就是其中最著名的事件。一些早期与中国交往的西方国家,比如葡萄牙、西班牙等,为了维持与中国的贸易,不得不至少在形式上接受了天朝礼制,向中国进行“朝贡”。直到鸦片战争以前,天朝体制的地位依然是不可撼动的。2312880

主权观念取代天朝观念,成为中国人处理对外关系的核心思想,经历了一个漫长而艰难的过程。如果仔细分析主权观念嵌入中国人对外意识的全过程,我们可以发现,清廷从来都不是顺应时势主动变革,而是一直在不断加重的打击下被动接受主权观念。主权观念在中国人的对外观念中确立其地位,靠的主要不是“以理服人”,而是一个充满暴力的“以力服人”的过程。正如后来担任英属印度总督的寇松（George N.Curzon）1894年不打自招地承认的那样：“到现在,西方国家联合施加影响已经超过50年时间,这种影响通常以外交方式,伴随频繁的威胁和某些时候的公开战争。”2312881而英国驻华公使阿礼国（Rutherford Alcock）说得更露骨：“不管以这种还是那种方式,也无论我们如何伪装,我们在中国的地位就是用武力达成的——赤裸裸的,粗暴的武力。”2312882见证了晚清急剧变革的王韬说：“西国议者以为中外和约之成,由于力致,非由情取。”2312883马克·曼可尔（Mark Mancall）对此总结道：“帝国和西方之间的相互交往结构很快形成一种明确的模式：战争导致谈判,引起帝国的局部调整和官僚们对新形势的反应和调适,这又反过来引起内部反应和再次战争。”2312884当中国最终被迫接受主权观念的时候,中国的主权已经被践踏得所剩无几了。晚清思想家龚自珍曾热切寄望于清廷“自改革”,然终晚清七十余年历史,由于因循守旧、顽冥不化,不顺应时代潮流进行主动变革,只能一次次挨打—变革—再挨打—再变革,推动实现被动式变革,整个民族为此承受了巨大苦痛,国家付出了高昂代价,最终却没有能达成一个理想的结局。或许,这就是晚清以来无以言表又无法释怀的中国悲剧。

到晚清末年,在列强的持续入侵下,曾经高高在上的“天朝”堕为任人宰割的“东亚病夫”,中国人由睥睨天下而变为仰人鼻息,在这巨大的心理落差面前,晚清国人丧失了对西方事物的反思能力。在危机深重的时候,时人以为,中国似乎只要引入主权观念,就会给予大清这个“老大帝国”作为一个全新主权国家的支柱,使得原本死的、前现代的天朝一下子注入还魂丹,脱胎而为现代国家。这样,主权观念被与“现代”“先进”“文明”等性质联系在一起,而天朝观念则被贴上了“落后”“愚昧”的标签。在今天,对现代事物和观念熟视无睹的我们,已经差不多遗忘了这一变革的历史过程。原本时间上相继的两个观念转化过程,被建构为一种现代的、先进的,乃至是神圣的、普世性的（universality）2312885主权观念取代中国腐朽的、愚昧落后的国际观念的二元对立模式。而且,这种二元对立思维在晚清时期,由于受危机蹙迫和改变受欺凌现状急切心情的深刻影响,被迅速强化、僵化。由此,中国的国际认知史被区分为现代和前现代两个阶段,原本连续的观念发展史出现了历史的断裂,以晚清为界限分成似乎截然分开的前后两段。在中国如此,在其他第三世界国家,恐怕也都有类似情形。被强加主权观念的中国以及其他非西方国家,到头来成了主权观念最坚定的坚持者,西方文化霸权借助这样一种“被动者”变为“主动者”的过程得以实现。2312886借助暴力与胁迫建构起主导地位的主权观念,不仅将中国原有的天朝观念扫除得荡然无存,还“悄悄抹去全部生产过程的历史痕迹,使知识失去自己的临时性和目的性,变成某种具有稳固性、超然性或真理性的东西”2312887。今天,对于源自西方的主权之类的现代概念,“我们已经学会如此熟练、几乎不假思索地使用的这些范畴和概念,以至于它们的出现看起来显得那么自然而不可避免。而它们有争议的历史,就很快被遗忘”2312888。曾经最顽固的反对者,如今成了最坚定的捍卫者。这是主权观念取代天朝观念的基本机制和历史悖论。如果再往大处说,这种模式也是大多数现代事物和观念在中国以及其他非西方国家确立其主导地位的重要机制,这就是非西方世界现代性的基本建构机制。反思这段历史,深究主权观念如何嵌入中国人意识的历史过程,对我们更深刻地认识和理解当前的国际社会以及中国所应有的国际主张将别有意味。

有意思的是,在作为被动接受者的我们坚决捍卫主权“神圣不可侵犯”的时候,发明主权观念的西方人却早已开始质疑主权的绝对性和至高无上性,不少超越主权甚至是否定主权的理论不断提了出来。比如,路易斯·亨金（Louis Henkin）说：“主权已经发展成为国家伟大强盛的一种神话,这种神话曲解了主权的概念、屏蔽了主权的真正的内涵和价值。这种神话往往是空洞的,有时甚至是对人类价值观的毁损……然而,更常见的是,主权已经被援引作为抵制各种外来的‘入侵’措施,而这些措施是用以监督（各国）确保其遵守有关人权的承诺和军控条约方面的国际义务。……现在是将主权拉回到尘世,加以检讨、分析、重新构思、重新包装甚至重新命名的时候了。”2312889这些质疑和否定,不乏一些偏激甚至别有用心的曲解,但主权观念面临新变革却是不可回避的事实,其中某些思考是否也预示着主权观念新的发展动向？今天的中国又该如何审视和应对主权国家时代的新变化？

“去圣乃得真孔子。”要全面平和地审视主权观念,有必要去除附着在主权之上的那些耀眼光环,把被圣化了的主权拉回尘世间,从历史、现实和未来的角度进行全面审视,还原其本来面目,并在此基础上广泛汲取国内外关于主权问题的新的有益知识,通过必要的反思和创新,培育形成中国视角的新型主权观,这将有助于今天的我们更好地把握中国应有的国家观念和国际认知。

Many things or ideas that were taken for granted in different historical periods, when we take the time interval to superimpose them, we can find some contrasts that make us stunned. In 1839, Charles Elliot, the British Superintendent of Commerce in China, came to Guangzhou to try to once again fight for the British Empire as a sovereign state on an equal footing with the Qing Empire, because of the phrase "make the two countries safe with each other" in the post, which was severely refuted by Lin Zexu, who was the most open at the time: "If the word two countries are two, I don't know how to understand, my heavenly empire is subject to all nations, and the great emperor is like the benevolence of heaven." ...... Think of it as England, Milliken collectively called the two countries, and the meaning is unclear. 2312874 Lin declared in the "Note to the King of England": "My heavenly empire reigns in all nations, and I have all the mighty powers. 2312875 as for other monarchs, such words that wanted to be equal to the Qing Empire and called "two countries" could only be regarded as foolishness. In the eyes of Chinese at that time, China was a high celestial empire, no matter which country came to China, it was only to pay tribute to the celestial empire, and the concept of equal sovereignty was not only unacceptable, but even unimaginable. However, just over a hundred years later, today's Chinese's attitude towards the concept of sovereignty is a different picture. We can often hear the spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry emphasize that "sovereignty is sacred and inviolable", and some scholars criticize the theoretical view of Western scholars questioning or denying the supremacy of sovereignty, denouncing it as exposing the "aggressive nature" of imperialism. On the issue of sovereignty, China today is, as Wang Tieya said: "The People's Republic of China has persistently advocated the principle of sovereignty and has shown itself in its diplomatic communications as the most ardent advocate of the principle of sovereignty." Strict observance of the principle of inviolability of sovereignty has become a distinctive feature of the foreign policy of the People's Republic of China and is regarded as the foundation of international relations and the pillar of the entire international legal system. Adam Watson, a 2312876 British scholar, also said: "At the United Nations, China is a leader in defending the sovereignty of other countries and an opponent of interference in their internal affairs." 2312877 sovereignty, once considered a "great rebellion," is now considered a "sacred" thing; Chinese, who once "did not know what to understand" sovereignty, have now become the staunchest defenders of the concept of sovereignty. These two different views on national sovereignty were considered "natural" in their respective eras, but when taken together, they are very different. After being stunned, a question arises: Why has Chinese's foreign concept changed so drastically in just over a hundred years? Of course, we who think we are in a "modern society" can easily give a "reasonable" explanation: the concept of sovereignty we adhere to today is natural and correct, and the people of the late Qing Dynasty did not accept the concept of national equality and sovereignty, the problem is that they are "too ignorant" and "too stubborn". If we think about the backwardness and trauma that their "ignorance" and "stubbornness" have brought to China, it is inevitable that our teeth will crunch with hatred, and it may also be accompanied by the complacency of being a smart "modern person". But in addition to being complacent, we must not forget that Marx has set the inevitable destination of communism for human society, and by that time, the state and the nation will die. If we think according to the logic of "ignorance" and "stubbornness", at that time, it will be the turn of future generations to laugh at today's "ignorant" and "stubborn" us. If we carefully sort out the long history of Chinese adherence to the concept of the Celestial Empire in handling foreign relations before modern times, and the complex process in which the concept of sovereignty has replaced the concept of the Celestial Empire as the dominant concept of Chinese foreign consciousness in modern times, we can easily find that things are not as simple and absolute as "advanced" replacing "backward" and "civilized" replacing "ignorance". Before modern times, in its exchanges and interactions with neighboring countries, China gradually constructed a set of international order in which China considered itself to be the Celestial Empire, and neighboring countries recognized China's positioning and paid tribute to China, which is the Celestial Empire system. In terms of the acceptance of the concept of the Celestial Empire in East Asia at that time, it is difficult to say which one is more acceptable than the acceptance of the concept of sovereignty in international politics today. Both are internationally recognized in their respective contexts at a particular time. Because the concept of the Celestial Empire has been at the core of Chinese's understanding of foreign relations for more than 2,000 years, it has always been an unbreakable mindset for Chinese handling foreign relations before modern times. As Tang Degang said when commenting on China's thousand-year-old "imperial system" to "rule by the people," "none of them were established overnight, and certainly not easily abolished overnight 2312878. Therefore, when the modern Western powers began to break the Celestial Empire system and gradually integrate China into the modern international system, the concept of sovereignty, which is the core of the modern international concept, inevitably met with strong resistance from Chinese. Faced with China, which considers itself a celestial empire, Western powers have tried by all means to get China's rulers to treat themselves as sovereign states as equals, so that they can be on an equal footing with "a country of 330 million people — one-third of humanity — 2312879 early efforts have failed. For example, George Macartney, who attracted widespread attention from historians, brought China to meet the Qianlong Emperor, which is the most famous event. Some Western countries that had early dealings with China, such as Portugal and Spain, had to accept the Celestial Empire ritual system at least formally in order to maintain trade with China, paying tribute to China. Until the Opium War, the status of the Celestial Empire system was still unshakable. 2312880 concept of sovereignty replaced the concept of the Celestial Empire and became the core idea of Chinese handling foreign relations, which has gone through a long and difficult process. If we carefully analyze the whole process of embedding the concept of sovereignty in Chinese foreign consciousness, we can find that the Qing court has never taken the initiative to change in accordance with the times, but has been passively accepting the concept of sovereignty under the ever-increasing blows. The concept of sovereignty has established its position in the Chinese's foreign concept, not mainly by "convincing people with reason", but on a violent process of "convincing people with force". As George N. Curzon, who later became governor-general of British India, admitted in 1894 without hesitation: "It has been more than 50 years since the combined influence of the West, usually diplomatically, accompanied by frequent threats and sometimes open war." 2312881 British Minister to China Rutherford Alcock put it even more bluntly: "One way or another, and no matter how we disguise, our position in China was achieved by force—naked, brutal force." Wang Tao, who 2312882 witnessed the drastic changes in the late Qing Dynasty, said: "The Western parliamentarians thought that the conclusion of the Sino-foreign peace treaty was due to force, and it was not taken by feelings. Mark Mancall 2312883 concluded: "The structure of interaction between the empire and the West soon developed a clear pattern: war led to negotiations, local adjustments to the empire and bureaucrats to react and adjust to the new situation, which in turn led to internal reactions and renewed war." "2312884 by the time China is finally forced to accept the concept of sovereignty, China's sovereignty has been trampled on to the limit. The late Qing thinker Gong Zizhen once earnestly hoped that the Qing court would "reform itself", but in the more than 70 years of the history of the late Qing Dynasty, due to conformism and stubbornness, and did not follow the trend of the times to carry out active change, it could only be beaten again and again - change - beaten again - again to promote the realization of passive change, the whole nation suffered great pain, the country paid a high price, and finally failed to achieve a desired ending. Perhaps, this is the unspeakable and unrelenting Chinese tragedy since the late Qing Dynasty. By the end of the late Qing Dynasty, under the continuous invasion of the great powers, the once high "Celestial Empire" degenerated into a "sick man of East Asia" who was slaughtered by others, and Chinese changed from looking at the world to relying on others. At a time when the crisis was deep, people thought that as long as China introduced the concept of sovereignty, it would give the "old empire" of the Qing Dynasty as a pillar of a new sovereign state, so that the originally dead, pre-modern Celestial Empire would suddenly be injected with the Soul Restoration Pill and become a modern country. In this way, the concept of sovereignty is associated with the nature of "modern", "advanced" and "civilized", while the concept of the Celestial Empire is labeled as "backward" and "ignorant". Today, we who turn a blind eye to modern things and ideas have almost forgotten the historical process of this change. The original successive conceptual transformation process was constructed as a modern, advanced, and even sacred and universal concept of sovereignty 2312885 a binary opposition model in which China's decadent, ignorant and backward international concept was replaced. Moreover, this kind of binary opposition thinking was rapidly strengthened and rigidized in the late Qing Dynasty due to the profound influence of the urgency to change the status quo of bullying. As a result, China's international cognitive history is divided into two stages, modern and pre-modern, and the original continuous history of conceptual development has been ruptured, and the late Qing dynasty is divided into two paragraphs that seem to be diametrically separated. This is true in China, and I am afraid that there are similar situations in other third world countries. China and other non-Western countries that have been imposed on the concept of sovereignty have become the staunchest adherents of the concept of sovereignty, and Western cultural hegemony has been realized through such a process of "passive" becoming "active". 2312886 the dominant concept of sovereignty built by violence and coercion not only swept away China's original concept of the Celestial Empire, but also "quietly erased the historical traces of the entire production process, so that knowledge lost its temporary and purposeful nature, and became something solid, detached or true"2312887. Today, with regard to modern concepts such as sovereignty of Western origin, "we have learned to use these categories and concepts so skillfully and almost unthinkingly that their emergence seems so natural and inevitable." And their controversial history is quickly forgotten"2312888. What was once the most stubborn opponent is now the staunchest defender. This is the basic mechanism and historical paradox by which the concept of sovereignty replaces the concept of the Celestial Empire. If we go further, this model is also an important mechanism for most modern things and ideas to establish their dominance in China and other non-Western countries, which is the basic construction mechanism of modernity in the non-Western world. Reflecting on this history and deeply exploring how the concept of sovereignty is embedded in the historical process of Chinese consciousness will be of great significance to our deeper understanding and understanding of the current international community and China's international proposition. Interestingly, while we, as passive recipients, resolutely defend the "sacrosanctity" of sovereignty, Westerners who invented the concept of sovereignty have long begun to question the absoluteness and supremacy of sovereignty, and many theories that transcend sovereignty or even deny sovereignty have been continuously proposed. Louis Henkin, for example, said, "Sovereignty has developed into a myth of national greatness and greatness that distorts the concept of sovereignty and obscures its true meaning and value." Such myths are often hollow and sometimes even destructive to human values... More commonly, however, sovereignty has been invoked as a counterweight to various foreign 'invasions' to monitor compliance with their human rights commitments and international obligations under arms control treaties. ...... It is time to pull sovereignty back to earth, to review, analyze, reimagine, repackage and even rename it. 2312889 these doubts and denials, there are some extreme and even ulterior motives of misinterpretation, but it is an unavoidable fact that the concept of sovereignty is facing new changes, and do some of these reflections also indicate a new development trend of the concept of sovereignty? How should China today examine and respond to the new changes in the era of sovereign states? "Go to the Holy Nai to get the true Confucius." To comprehensively and peacefully examine the concept of sovereignty, it is necessary to remove the dazzling aura attached to sovereignty, pull the sanctified sovereignty back to the earth, conduct a comprehensive examination from the perspective of history, reality and the future, restore its original appearance, and on this basis, extensively absorb new and useful knowledge on sovereignty issues at home and abroad, and cultivate a new concept of sovereignty that forms a Chinese perspective through necessary reflection and innovation, which will help us today better grasp China's national concept and international understanding.（AI翻译）