PROFILBARU.COM

宗主权（英語：suzerainty）是指一個國家代表其屬國或附庸國處理外交事務的權力，^[1]^[2]宗主權下，属国對其內政仍具主權（或稱自治）。^[3]^[4]行使這種權力的國家普遍被稱為「宗主国」。^[5]

定義

「宗主權」原是指封建領主對諸侯行使之權利，當時領主被視作封臣的「宗主」。^[6]現代國際法體系成型後，「宗主權」一詞就用來介定鄂圖曼帝國及屬國的關係。

與主權下的領土、屬土不同，宗主權下的屬國對內政仍擁最高權力。^[3]^[4]個別例子中，屬國甚至具一定程度「國際法人」（International personality）的身份，能就通郵、通商、興建鐵路等非外交事宜，直接與外國簽訂條約。^[7]學者普遍認為，用現代國際法去解釋宗主和屬國的關係具一定難度。^[8]^[9]

中国

藩属国是藩国和属国的合称，历史上中国主张自身是天下的中心，周围国家承认中国的宗主地位，中國則为其提供保护。例如越南、朝鮮等。即使在天下分治時期，中國政治理論通常仍只承認統治中原的君主具有正統的地位（如周、秦、漢、曹魏、西晉、前秦、北魏、北周、隋、唐、五代、北宋、金、元、明、清等）。

理論上，藩屬國從中國皇帝身上得到治權，但中國皇帝對從屬國的影響力因朝代而不同。藩屬國常以“進貢”之名行貿易之實。屬國進貢後中國常還以等值或更多的禮物，其价值往往远远超过朝贡者所进贡的物品。荷兰、葡萄牙等欧洲殖民国家在早期也以朝贡的名义来华贸易。但這套系統在18世紀之後便逐漸衰敗，因清朝皇帝以不同的權力理論統治各族，並開始區分實質統治的地區（藩部）和名義上稱臣納貢的“藩属国”（也称“册封国”或“朝贡国”）。西方勢力進入中國之後，國際法的思想及加速其瓦解。^[10]

歐洲國家常用宗主關係和有限主權論，形容清朝和其週邊國家的關係。譬如李氏朝鮮、越南阮朝等等。向中国朝廷朝贡的国家，因中国并不能干预其对外交往，被国际法视为独立国家。^[11]

朝鮮

從李成桂立國之始，就派使節到明朝，擬兩個國號方案「朝鮮」（古朝鮮國名）和「和寧」（李成桂之父李子春就仕之地）奏請明太祖朱元璋裁定，朱元璋圈定朝鮮二字，於是開始以「朝鮮」為國名。朝鮮是明朝和清朝的藩国，直至中日甲午戰爭為止。

越南

阮朝嘉隆帝立國之始，便派使到清朝，自稱為「南越國長」求封為「南越國王」，清朝嘉慶帝不認同「南越」二字，改封阮福映為「越南國王」，於是開始以「越南」為國名。

緬甸

元朝政府設置緬中行省，管理緬甸東北部地區後併入雲南行中書省。明朝中葉後一度斷絕來往，直至乾隆十五年（1750年）遣使往來，纳贡求封。

琉球

琉球國對中國明、清两朝稱藩屬，後被日本薩摩藩作为附庸国，同時向江户幕府納貢。1879年併入日本，改稱沖繩縣。

尼泊爾（廓爾喀）

1790年廓爾喀入侵西藏，乾隆帝派福康安等人領兵入藏增援。1792年中，清軍攻入廓爾喀境內並逼近加德滿都，廓爾喀最後遣使求和。此戰之後，廓爾喀成為中國的屬國，並「定下五年一貢之制」。^[12]

泰國（暹羅）

暹羅從康熙年代開始向中國進貢，1767年，暹羅首都被緬甸攻陷，國王被殺。後來，華僑鄭昭成功擊退緬甸軍隊，被推舉為王，遷都曼谷，繼續向中國朝貢。後來大將帕佛陀約華朱拉洛篡位，號稱拉瑪一世，並遣使中國接受冊封。^[12]

錫金（哲孟雄）

1791年，中國清代西藏出兵支援錫金對抗廓爾喀。廓爾喀戰敗後，甘丹颇章政权暂时確立了對錫金的控制，锡金向其进贡。^[13]

浩罕

浩罕立國後與鄰國連年交戰，加上清軍壓境，1758年浩罕君主伊爾達娜向阿富汗國王求援未果後，接受中國宗主權，成為大清屬國。^[14]^[15]

其他

按照《清史稿》的记载（与周边国家文献有出入），中國的屬國或朝貢國，還包括南掌、蘇祿、阿富汗、蘭芳、拉达克、不丹、坎巨提等等。^[16]^[17]

具爭議例子

西藏

7世紀至9世紀，吐蕃是個獨立的帝國，和中原王朝的唐帝國成互相結盟的平等關係，與唐朝在今中國西北維持長達兩百多年的軍事對峙；在蒙元時期由於蒙古經略、藏傳佛教薩迦派對蒙古貴族的號召力，雙方凉州会盟，使得元朝統治者通过萨迦政权在西藏行使治權，西藏成為宣政院轄地。1720年之前西藏的和硕特汗国被認為是一個獨立的藩屬國，但是1720年後，清朝派驻驻藏大臣，對西藏的掌控日益加強。20世紀初，噶厦在清朝滅亡後迅速聯合英國驱逐满汉官员，但新成立的中華民國政府並未承認西藏獨立。1951年之后，中華人民共和國實際管治西藏至今並稱對其擁有主權，但西藏獨立運動人士認為中國歷史上對西藏只有從檀越关系而來的宗主權，從未曾實際統治西藏。

清政府18世紀率军驱除入侵西藏的蒙古准噶尔汗国军队，从此继清朝后继续驻军西藏，并在西藏设有驻藏大臣进行实际上的管理，同时保留自治的甘丹颇章政权。虽然清朝政府长期地治理過西藏。^[18]^[19]清政府并在19世纪与20世纪时與大英帝國簽定過《中英藏印條約》、《中英續訂藏印條約》等涉藏條約。由於噶廈政府並未參與《中英藏印續約》的談判，噶廈否認清廷所簽條約，拒絕開放與印度的貿易。1903年英軍由錫金入侵西藏。由於清廷無法迫使噶廈政府聽令，喬治·寇松侯爵1904年4月對國會表示，清廷對西藏的宗主權是「假裝的政治姿態」（英語：a constitional fiction, a political affectation）。^[20]^[21]自由亞洲電台史學研究員華倫史密斯则指出1906年《中英續訂藏印條約》條文變相承認中國清朝對西藏的主權，^[22]但其他同情藏獨人士認為中国对西藏只有宗主權，從未因此可以解释为西藏不是中國的一部份。1907年《英俄條約》雖有「承認中國對西藏宗主權」之條款，^[23]^[24]但由於中國並非簽署國，條文對北京並沒有約束力。^[25]

1911年辛亥革命後，拉薩發生第一次驅漢事件，第十三世達賴喇嘛於1913年宣佈西藏獨立，^[26]^[24]其後更傳出蒙藏互認獨立的消息，但十三世達賴喇嘛與西藏政府否認，未对此表示认可。^[27]雖然西藏噶厦与南京國民政府有非正式往来，並派遣制憲國大代表，但從1912年到1949年西藏一直处在實際獨立狀態，中華民國鞭長莫及，虽英國勢力範圍不包括西藏，但中國政府亦無法從政治和軍事上控制西藏。直到1951年解放軍進軍拉薩後，中華人民共和國中央政府控制西藏，使中國正式全面統治西藏。

2008年10月29日，英国外交大臣戴维·米利班德（David Miliband）正式宣布，英国承认中华人民共和国对西藏的主权。美國與歐盟也承認中华人民共和国对西藏的主权。^[28]

外蒙古

1911年蒙古在满清统治200多年後恢复独立。1913年《中俄聲明文件》（連《附件》）與1915年《中俄蒙協約》先後承認中華民國對外蒙古之「宗主權」，但兩份文件亦指外蒙古「為中國領土一部分」。^[29]^[30]條文解釋與當時一些西方學者對「宗主權」的定義存在出入。1924年《中蘇解決懸案大綱協定》更直認外蒙古為「完全中華民國之一部分，及尊重在該領土內中國之主權」。^[31]不过随着同年蒙古人民共和国的正式成立和1946年中华民国国民政府正式承认蒙古独立，上述有关主权或宗主权的内容均已告失效。^[32]

印度

錫金王國

緊接著印度1947年的獨立，錫金却嘉與印度總理賈瓦哈拉爾·尼赫魯簽訂了一個宗主條約。此條約確定錫金為印度的保護國，以換取錫金王國的自治，直到1975年錫金王國的君王被廢黜。錫金現為印度人口最少的邦。

不丹

印度現今雖已不干涉不丹外交、國防、通訊等方面，但印度仍提供不丹皇家軍隊很大的協助，並承諾抵禦外侮。

拉克沙群島

位於阿拉伯海上，喀拉拉邦西南方的拉克沙群島是印度最小的聯合屬地。蒂普蘇丹於1787年，統治雅敏迪維群島（Amindivi）（包含雅敏尼（Amini）、喀德馬（Kadmat）、契珥單（Kiltan）、察他喇（Chetlat）及比差（Bitra））。在第三次英禰戰爭（Third Anglo-Mysore（邁索爾）War）後治權轉移至英屬印度的南卡納達區。其他的島嶼成了肯諾（Cannanore）的阿剌克家族（Arakkal）的進貢國。之後英國因阿剌克的欠款接管了這些地區、依附在馬德拉斯省下的瑪拉巴（Malabar）區。印度1956年的國家重組法中，將這些島嶼從印度本島行政單位中劃出，結合所有小島成立新的領域聯盟。

鄂圖曼帝國

埃及

1517年，鄂圖曼帝國塞林一世征服埃及，並將之納為行省。19世紀初，埃及成為鄂圖曼帝國之藩屬，在土耳其宗主權下，埃及在國際社會中仍擁有很大活動空間，在毋須知會宗主國情況下，能直接跟外國簽署通郵和通商條約。^[7]

保加利亞

根據1878年《聖斯特法諾條約》和《柏林條約》成立的保加利亞大公國，法律上是鄂圖曼帝國的附屬國，^[33]但在鄂圖曼帝國宗主權下仍有很大國際活動空間，可直接與外國就通郵和通航等議題簽訂條約。^[7]

英國

南非

1881年第一次布爾戰爭結束後，英國與南非共和國簽署《比勒陀利亞公約》，除確立英國對南非之宗主權外，亦承認南非的「完全自治」地位。根據《比勒陀利亞公約》，英國能於南非境內自由調動軍隊，並控制南非的對外關係，包括締結條約及與外國進行外交往來。^[34]

兩國於1884年簽訂《倫敦公約》，取代《比勒陀利亞公約》。《倫敦公約》容許南非在毋須英國批准下直接與奧蘭治自由邦締結條約。^[35]至於與其他國家所簽訂之條約則仍須交付英國審批，但英方須於六個月內作出決定並知會南非。^[36]

其他

在現今的國際关系中，大國控制或者代理小國的外交和國防存在的事实。通常，這和傳統宗主不同處，在於弱國可以通過公民投票取消這關係。

主權代理國（大國）	受代理國（小國）	所屬情況	签署条约
義大利	圣马力诺	國中國
義大利	梵蒂冈	國中國	《拉特朗条约》
法國	摩納哥	微型國家	《s:法国-摩纳哥条约》
法國	安道尔	緩衝國	《s:法国-安道尔条约》
西班牙	安道尔	緩衝國	《s:西班牙-摩纳哥条约》
瑞士	列支敦斯登	微型國家	《s:瑞士-列支敦士登条约》
新西兰	庫克群島	島國聯繫邦	《s:庫克群島憲法修正法案》
新西兰	纽埃	島國聯繫邦	《s:紐埃憲法修正法案》
美国	马绍尔群岛	島國聯繫邦	《自由联合协定》
美国	帛琉	島國聯繫邦	《自由联合协定》
美国	密克羅尼西亞聯邦	島國聯繫邦	《自由联合协定》
澳大利亞	瑙鲁	島國	《s:澳大利亚-瑙鲁条约》
印度	不丹	開發中國家	《s:不印永久和平与友好条约》
越南	老挝	開發中國家	《越老友好合作条约》

資料來源

^ Oppenheim, L., International Law: A Treatise (Volume I), p162 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）, "Modern suzerainty involves only a few rights of the suzerain State over the vassal State which can be called constitutional rights. The rights of the suzerain State over the vassal are principally international rights, of whatever they may consist...One may correctly maintain that suzerainty is a kind of international guardianship, since the vassal State is either absolutely or mainly represented internationally by the suzerain State."
^ 《重編國語辭典修訂本》：宗主權. 國家教育研究院. [2022-04-05]. （原始内容存档于2022-04-05）. 國家對於屬國的內政外交，具有干預的權利，此權稱為「宗主權」。
^ ^3.0 ^3.1 Oppenheim, L., International Law: A Treatise (Volume I), p162 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）, "Suzerainty is by no means sovereignty. If it were, the vassal State could not be sovereign in its domestic affairs and could never have any international relations whatever of its own."
^ ^4.0 ^4.1 suzerain．见：霍恩比，李北达．牛津高阶英汉双解词典（4）．香港：牛津大学出版社，1997 ISBN 0-19-587421-8, ISBN 9780195874211
^ 《重編國語辭典修訂本》：宗主國. 國家教育研究院. [2022-04-05]. （原始内容存档于2022-04-11）. 對屬國有宗主權的國家，通稱為「宗主國」。
^ Oppenheim, L., International Law: A Treatise (Volume I), p162 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）, "Suzerainty is a term which was originally used for the relation between the feudal lord and his vassal; the lord was said to be the suzerain of the vassal."
^ ^7.0 ^7.1 ^7.2 Oppenheim, L., International Law: A Treatise (Volume I), p163 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）, "Egypt, while she was still a vassal State of Turkey, could conclude commercial and postal treaties with foreign States without the consent of suzerain Turkey, and Bulgaria could, while she was under Turkish suzerainty , conclude treaties regarding railways, post, and the like."
^ Milner, Hashim, Mishra (Ed.), Asia and Europe in the 21st Century: New Anxieties, New Opportunities, p333, "It was difficult for "suzerainty" to be reconciled with the western concepts of international relations"
^ Oppenheim, L., International Law: A Treatise (Volume I), p161 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）, "The union and the relations between a suzerain and its vassal State create much difficulty in the science of the Law of Nations."
^ 原田環. 東アジアの国際関係とその近代化－朝鮮と越南－ (PDF). 日韓歴史共同研究委員会第一期第3分科報告書 (日韓文化交流基金). 2005-03: 73―102頁 [2023-08-09]. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于2015-09-10）.
^ Zhu, Yuan Yi. Suzerainty, Semi-Sovereignty, and International Legal Hierarchies on China's Borderlands. Asian Journal of International Law. 2020-07, 10 (2) [2023-08-09]. ISSN 2044-2513. doi:10.1017/S204425132000020X. （原始内容存档于2023-08-11）（英语）.
^ ^12.0 ^12.1 黃大受，《中國通史》，頁822
^ Singh, O.P.(1985), Strategic Sikkim, p43
^ Grousset, R., The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia, p488, "In 1758, Irdana or Erdeni, khan of Kokand, was compelled to recognize the suzerainty of China, whose armies had reached his frontiers. He tried to form a coalition against them with Armed the Durrani, king of Afghanistan, but a demonstration by Durrani between Kokand and Tashkent in 1763 had no effect."
^ Starr, S.F., Ferghana Valley: The Heart of Central Asia, p32, "In 1758, weakened by contact wars with his neighbors, Irdana Bey had to accept the suzerainty of China."
^ 繆鳳林，《中國通史要略》，頁429
^ 何函潔，《中共處理邊界爭議的戰略選擇(1949-2009) - 守勢現實主義的驗證》，頁164
^ Ahmed, Zahiruddin, China and Tibet, 1708-1959: A Résumé of Facts, Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1960, p31, "Chinese Imperial authority in Tibet was, no doubt, indistinguishable from sovereignty."
^ Goldstein, Melvyn C., A History of Modern Tibet: 1913-1951, University of California Press, 1989, p44, "While the ancient relationships between Tibet and China are complex and beyond the scope of this study, there can be no question regarding the subordination of Tibet to Manchu-ruled China following the chaotic era of the 6th and 7th Dalai Lamas in the first decades of the eighteenth century."
^ Lezlee Brown Halper; Stefan A. Halper. Tibet: An Unfinished Story. Oxford University Press. 2014年: 15–16頁 [2017-09-18]. ISBN 978-0-19-936836-5. （原始内容存档于2019-05-13）.
^ Sam Van Schaik. Tibet: A History. Yale University Press. 2011年: 306頁 [2017-09-18]. ISBN 978-0-300-17217-1. （原始内容存档于2019-05-13）.
^ Smith, Warren, Tibetan Nation: A History of Tibetan Nationalism and Sino-Tibetan Relations, p157 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）, "Negotiations were reopened in 1906 at Peking. The British Government was not interested in an alliance with Russia. A first step in that direction would be to alleviate Russian fears concerning British designs upon Tibet. An agreement was therefore quickly concluded. The Chinese agreed to accept the Lhasa Convention of 1904; the British agreed not to interfere in China's administration of Tibet if the Chinese would exclude all other foreign power. China was defined as not a foreign power in relation to Tibet, which implicitly recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet."
^ Goldstein, Melvyn C., A History of Modern Tibet: 1913-1951, University of California Press, 1989, pp829-830
^ ^24.0 ^24.1 西藏問題從何而來？. 德国之声. 2008-03-18 [2013-12-29]. （原始内容存档于2014-01-03）.
^ Brownlie, Ian, Principles of Public International Law (seventh edition), Oxford University Press, 2008, p627, "The maxim pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt expresses the fundamental principle that a treaty applies only between the parties to it."
^ Proclamation Issued by His Holiness the Dalai Lama XIII (1913). 1913-01-08 [2013-12-29]. （原始内容存档于2019-02-04）. （英文）
^ Bell, Charles (1924), Tibet Past and Present, pp150f, 228f, 304f, 商務印書館宮廷璋譯本：「達賴未嘗授德爾智以與蒙古訂立任何條約之權，遺德爾智之書，系屬普通信札，謹請其努力為佛教謀利益而已。」
^ Spencer, Richard. UK recognises China's direct rule over Tibet. The Daily Telegraph. 2008-11-05 [2010-07-12]. （原始内容存档于2010-11-03）.
^ Addy, P., Tibet: Pawn anf Pivot of the Great Game, pp321-322 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）
^ 張忠紱，《中華民國外交史(1911-1921)》，頁116
^ 《中蘇解決懸案大綱協定》第五條（页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）
^ 其木格（Enkchimeg Baatarkhuyag）. 蒙古獨立與蒙中俄關係 (1911-1945年). 幸福綠光出版社. 2016. ISBN 9789868582859.
^ Keltie, J.S. (Ed.), The Statesman's Year-Book: Statistical and Historical Annual of the States of the World for the Year 1892, p1030 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）, "The Principality of Bulgaria was created by the Treaty of Berlin, signed July 13, 1878. It was ordered by Art. 1 of the Treaty that Bulgaria should he 'constituted an autonomous and tributary Principality under the suzerainty of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan. It will have a Christian Government and a national militia.'"
^ Pretoria Convention (1881) （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）, Article 2, "Her Majesty reserves to herself, her heirs and successors,(a) the right from time to time to appoint a British Resident in and for the said State, with such duties and functions as are hereinafter defined ; (b) the right to move troops through the said State in time of war, or in case of the apprehension of immediate war between the Suzerain Power and any Foreign State or Native Tribe in South Africa ; and (c) the control of the external relations of the said State"
^ Oppenheim, L., International Law: A Treatise (Volume I), p163 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）
^ London Convention (1884) （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）, Article IV, "Such approval shall be considered to have been granted if Her Majesty's Government shall not, within six months after receiving a copy of such treaty (which shall be delivered to them immediately upon its completion), have notified that the conclusion of such treaty is in conflict with the interests of Great Britain or any of Her Majesty's possessions in South Africa."

参见

[1] Oppenheim, L., International Law: A Treatise (Volume I), p162 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）, "Modern suzerainty involves only a few rights of the suzerain State over the vassal State which can be called constitutional rights. The rights of the suzerain State over the vassal are principally international rights, of whatever they may consist...One may correctly maintain that suzerainty is a kind of international guardianship, since the vassal State is either absolutely or mainly represented internationally by the suzerain State."

[2] 《重編國語辭典修訂本》：宗主權. 國家教育研究院. [2022-04-05]. （原始内容存档于2022-04-05）. 國家對於屬國的內政外交，具有干預的權利，此權稱為「宗主權」。

[Oppenheim162-3] 3.0 ^3.1 Oppenheim, L., International Law: A Treatise (Volume I), p162 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）, "Suzerainty is by no means sovereignty. If it were, the vassal State could not be sovereign in its domestic affairs and could never have any international relations whatever of its own."

[OXFORDDICT-4] 4.0 ^4.1 suzerain．见：霍恩比，李北达．牛津高阶英汉双解词典（4）．香港：牛津大学出版社，1997 ISBN 0-19-587421-8, ISBN 9780195874211

[5] 《重編國語辭典修訂本》：宗主國. 國家教育研究院. [2022-04-05]. （原始内容存档于2022-04-11）. 對屬國有宗主權的國家，通稱為「宗主國」。

[6] Oppenheim, L., International Law: A Treatise (Volume I), p162 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）, "Suzerainty is a term which was originally used for the relation between the feudal lord and his vassal; the lord was said to be the suzerain of the vassal."

[TRsuzerainty-7] 7.0 ^7.1 ^7.2 Oppenheim, L., International Law: A Treatise (Volume I), p163 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）, "Egypt, while she was still a vassal State of Turkey, could conclude commercial and postal treaties with foreign States without the consent of suzerain Turkey, and Bulgaria could, while she was under Turkish suzerainty , conclude treaties regarding railways, post, and the like."

[8] Milner, Hashim, Mishra (Ed.), Asia and Europe in the 21st Century: New Anxieties, New Opportunities, p333, "It was difficult for "suzerainty" to be reconciled with the western concepts of international relations"

[9] Oppenheim, L., International Law: A Treatise (Volume I), p161 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）, "The union and the relations between a suzerain and its vassal State create much difficulty in the science of the Law of Nations."

[10] 原田環. 東アジアの国際関係とその近代化－朝鮮と越南－ (PDF). 日韓歴史共同研究委員会第一期第3分科報告書 (日韓文化交流基金). 2005-03: 73―102頁 [2023-08-09]. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于2015-09-10）.

[11] Zhu, Yuan Yi. Suzerainty, Semi-Sovereignty, and International Legal Hierarchies on China's Borderlands. Asian Journal of International Law. 2020-07, 10 (2) [2023-08-09]. ISSN 2044-2513. doi:10.1017/S204425132000020X. （原始内容存档于2023-08-11）（英语）.

[hist822-12] 12.0 ^12.1 黃大受，《中國通史》，頁822

[13] Singh, O.P.(1985), Strategic Sikkim, p43

[14] Grousset, R., The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia, p488, "In 1758, Irdana or Erdeni, khan of Kokand, was compelled to recognize the suzerainty of China, whose armies had reached his frontiers. He tried to form a coalition against them with Armed the Durrani, king of Afghanistan, but a demonstration by Durrani between Kokand and Tashkent in 1763 had no effect."

[15] Starr, S.F., Ferghana Valley: The Heart of Central Asia, p32, "In 1758, weakened by contact wars with his neighbors, Irdana Bey had to accept the suzerainty of China."

[16] 繆鳳林，《中國通史要略》，頁429

[17] 何函潔，《中共處理邊界爭議的戰略選擇(1949-2009) - 守勢現實主義的驗證》，頁164

[18] Ahmed, Zahiruddin, China and Tibet, 1708-1959: A Résumé of Facts, Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1960, p31, "Chinese Imperial authority in Tibet was, no doubt, indistinguishable from sovereignty."

[19] Goldstein, Melvyn C., A History of Modern Tibet: 1913-1951, University of California Press, 1989, p44, "While the ancient relationships between Tibet and China are complex and beyond the scope of this study, there can be no question regarding the subordination of Tibet to Manchu-ruled China following the chaotic era of the 6th and 7th Dalai Lamas in the first decades of the eighteenth century."

[HalperHalper2014-20] Lezlee Brown Halper; Stefan A. Halper. Tibet: An Unfinished Story. Oxford University Press. 2014年: 15–16頁 [2017-09-18]. ISBN 978-0-19-936836-5. （原始内容存档于2019-05-13）.

[Schaik2011-21] Sam Van Schaik. Tibet: A History. Yale University Press. 2011年: 306頁 [2017-09-18]. ISBN 978-0-300-17217-1. （原始内容存档于2019-05-13）.

[22] Smith, Warren, Tibetan Nation: A History of Tibetan Nationalism and Sino-Tibetan Relations, p157 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）, "Negotiations were reopened in 1906 at Peking. The British Government was not interested in an alliance with Russia. A first step in that direction would be to alleviate Russian fears concerning British designs upon Tibet. An agreement was therefore quickly concluded. The Chinese agreed to accept the Lhasa Convention of 1904; the British agreed not to interfere in China's administration of Tibet if the Chinese would exclude all other foreign power. China was defined as not a foreign power in relation to Tibet, which implicitly recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet."

[23] Goldstein, Melvyn C., A History of Modern Tibet: 1913-1951, University of California Press, 1989, pp829-830

[德国之声-24] 24.0 ^24.1 西藏問題從何而來？. 德国之声. 2008-03-18 [2013-12-29]. （原始内容存档于2014-01-03）.

[25] Brownlie, Ian, Principles of Public International Law (seventh edition), Oxford University Press, 2008, p627, "The maxim pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt expresses the fundamental principle that a treaty applies only between the parties to it."

[26] Proclamation Issued by His Holiness the Dalai Lama XIII (1913). 1913-01-08 [2013-12-29]. （原始内容存档于2019-02-04）. （英文）

[bell-27] Bell, Charles (1924), Tibet Past and Present, pp150f, 228f, 304f, 商務印書館宮廷璋譯本：「達賴未嘗授德爾智以與蒙古訂立任何條約之權，遺德爾智之書，系屬普通信札，謹請其努力為佛教謀利益而已。」

[28] Spencer, Richard. UK recognises China's direct rule over Tibet. The Daily Telegraph. 2008-11-05 [2010-07-12]. （原始内容存档于2010-11-03）.

[29] Addy, P., Tibet: Pawn anf Pivot of the Great Game, pp321-322 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）

[30] 張忠紱，《中華民國外交史(1911-1921)》，頁116

[31] 《中蘇解決懸案大綱協定》第五條（页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）

[32] 其木格（Enkchimeg Baatarkhuyag）. 蒙古獨立與蒙中俄關係 (1911-1945年). 幸福綠光出版社. 2016. ISBN 9789868582859.

[33] Keltie, J.S. (Ed.), The Statesman's Year-Book: Statistical and Historical Annual of the States of the World for the Year 1892, p1030 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）, "The Principality of Bulgaria was created by the Treaty of Berlin, signed July 13, 1878. It was ordered by Art. 1 of the Treaty that Bulgaria should he 'constituted an autonomous and tributary Principality under the suzerainty of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan. It will have a Christian Government and a national militia.'"

[34] Pretoria Convention (1881) （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）, Article 2, "Her Majesty reserves to herself, her heirs and successors,(a) the right from time to time to appoint a British Resident in and for the said State, with such duties and functions as are hereinafter defined ; (b) the right to move troops through the said State in time of war, or in case of the apprehension of immediate war between the Suzerain Power and any Foreign State or Native Tribe in South Africa ; and (c) the control of the external relations of the said State"

[35] Oppenheim, L., International Law: A Treatise (Volume I), p163 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）

[36] London Convention (1884) （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）, Article IV, "Such approval shall be considered to have been granted if Her Majesty's Government shall not, within six months after receiving a copy of such treaty (which shall be delivered to them immediately upon its completion), have notified that the conclusion of such treaty is in conflict with the interests of Great Britain or any of Her Majesty's possessions in South Africa."

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

宗主权

定義

中国

朝鮮

越南

緬甸

琉球