The Articles of Favorable Treatment for the Qing Imperial Family: Sovereignty Transfer and Order Transformation under Natural Law
I. Introduction: The Contractual Nature of the Abdication Edict
On February 12, 1912, the Qing Emperor, through Empress Dowager Longyu, issued the abdication edict, transferring ruling authority to the newly established Republic of China. Simultaneously, “The Articles of Favorable Treatment for the Qing Imperial Family” were promulgated, aimed at preserving certain dignities and interests of the imperial family. On the surface, this act might be viewed as a unilateral declaration ending imperial rule. However, examined from a natural law perspective, its essence should be understood as a conditional sovereignty transfer contract, whose validity was neither unconditional nor irrevocable.
The deeper significance of this historical event transcends mere political institutional change. When subsequent regimes failed to fulfill their promises and violated this agreement, it not only challenged the established political order but also raised profound questions about the legitimacy of power transfer and political integrity. Re-examining this historical process concerns not only the exploration of political justice but also touches on fundamental reflections about the nature of order foundations during national transformation.
II. The Primordial Nature of Sovereignty and Natural Law Foundations: Fundamental Order Beyond Statutory Law
2.1 The Primordial Nature of Sovereignty: Fundamental Power Preceding State and Law
The core of the sovereignty question lies in understanding its primordial nature and transcendent character. Unlike modern views that regard sovereignty as created or granted by statutory law, sovereignty can be understood as a fundamental political entity that exists prior to any legal system. It is not a product of human convention or legal provisions, but rather the prerequisite for all laws to emerge and take effect.
The Ontological Status of Sovereignty: As the supreme power of a political community, sovereignty possesses ontological priority. As Jean Bodin argued in “Six Books of the Commonwealth,” sovereignty is “the supreme power over citizens and subjects unrestrained by laws.” This supremacy implies that sovereignty itself transcends all statutory laws, as all laws derive their validity from the sovereign’s will.
Historical and Logical Priority: The statutory law of any political community can only emerge after sovereignty is established. For instance, a constitution can take effect because there exists behind it a constituent power, which is the manifestation of sovereignty. This proves that sovereignty exists both logically and historically prior to statutory law. Sovereignty is not a product of law; law is the concrete manifestation of sovereign will.
The Decisionist Nature of Sovereignty: German jurist Carl Schmitt astutely observed: “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.” When statutory law cannot address extreme crises, it is the sovereign, not existing legal provisions, who decides how to act. This demonstrates that the decisionist nature of sovereignty transcends all normative statutory law.
2.2 Natural Law Tradition’s Confirmation of Sovereignty’s Original Nature
Classical Natural Law’s View of Sovereignty: The natural law tradition from Aquinas to Grotius generally holds that the legitimacy of political power stems from universal natural order rather than artificially enacted laws. This natural order can be manifested in historical accumulation, cultural inheritance, and the organic combination of political power. The sovereign’s position can be viewed as “natural” because it conforms to the inner essence and universal justice of the political community.
Natural Law Logic of Sovereignty Transfer: Precisely because sovereignty possesses this primordial nature, its transfer or cession cannot be conducted merely according to statutory legal procedures, but must follow universal principles in natural law. This includes: the transfer must be based on genuine will (even if agreements formed under pressure), must have clear consideration and promises, and if the transferee violates these promises, the legitimacy of the cession will be lost accordingly.
2.3 International Law’s Recognition of Sovereignty’s Transcendent Nature
The Revolutionary Significance of the Peace of Westphalia: The 1648 Peace of Westphalia not only ended the Thirty Years’ War but more importantly established the fundamental principles of the modern international system: sovereign equality and non-interference in internal affairs. The deeper meaning of this principle is recognition that each sovereign entity possesses supreme decision-making power that transcends its internal laws.
Political Reality of Sovereignty Recognition: The recognition principle in international law actually acknowledges a fact: the existence of sovereignty does not necessarily depend on legal provisions, but more on political reality. A political entity either possesses sovereignty or does not; legal provisions cannot create sovereignty, they can only recognize or refuse to recognize existing sovereignty facts.
2.4 Limits of Statutory Law’s Adjustment of Sovereignty
Constitutional Limits on Sovereignty’s Core: Even statutory constitutions cannot arbitrarily dispose of sovereignty’s fundamentals. For example, the U.S. Constitution explicitly stipulates that certain clauses cannot be amended (such as equal representation of states in the Senate), and Germany’s Basic Law establishes “eternity clauses” (Ewigkeitsklausel), all of which can be viewed as recognition of the inviolability of sovereignty’s core.
Essential Distinction Between Sovereign Affairs and Administrative Affairs: Daily governance of modern states can be conducted according to statutory law, but fundamental decisions involving sovereignty’s survival, cession, or division transcend the scope of general administrative procedures. Such decisions relate to the fundamental existence of the political community and must rely on higher-level principles.
Sovereignty Limits of Judicial Authority: Even in countries with judicial independence, courts typically cannot review fundamental decisions of sovereignty. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court’s political question doctrine acknowledges that certain questions transcend the scope of judicial power, which actually recognizes the extra-judicial nature of sovereignty decisions.
2.5 Understanding Sovereignty’s Origin in the Chinese Context
The Chinese civilization’s understanding of supreme power has a certain degree of convergence with the Western natural law tradition. The traditional concept of “Mandate of Heaven” can be interpreted as a profound recognition of sovereignty’s original nature. It indicates that the legitimacy of ruling power stems from a natural order that transcends human artifice, is sacred and not easily changed, rather than merely through forceful seizure or simple legal provisions. This granting and receiving of “Mandate of Heaven,” even during regime transitions, is often accompanied by deep considerations of morality and order.
At the end of the Qing Dynasty, amid the great torrent of historical change, the Qing Emperor’s abdication and promulgation of “The Articles of Favorable Treatment for the Qing Imperial Family” can be viewed as a unique attempt at civilizational transformation in Chinese history. This act broke through the violence and chaos patterns common in traditional dynastic transitions, aiming to achieve peaceful power transition through conditional agreements. This action itself embodied the pursuit of higher-level order and principles of good faith. It proved that even in fundamental moments like sovereignty transfer, civilized society can seek solutions that conform to moral principles and contractual spirit. Therefore, understanding the nature of this conditional sovereignty transfer during the Qing Emperor’s abdication provides us with an important historical case for re-exploring political justice and order foundations.
III. Analysis of the Contractual Nature of the Abdication Edict
3.1 The Political Substance of Conditional Cession
The abdication edict and “The Articles of Favorable Treatment for the Qing Imperial Family” together formed an exchange agreement based on natural law. The Qing Emperor’s abdication was not a completely voluntary relinquishment of ruling power, but rather a power transfer conducted under multiple pressures from Yuan Shikai, North-South negotiations, and others, with preserving the imperial family’s life and dignity as consideration.
The conditional nature of this cession is embodied in:
- Retention of the Emperor’s title, to be treated with the protocol of a foreign monarch
- Annual provision of four million taels of silver as stipend
- Temporary residence in the Forbidden City, with future relocation to the Summer Palace
- Palace staff to remain as usual
- Perpetual worship at Qing imperial tombs as before
- Protection of existing private property
These conditions can be viewed as necessary consideration for maintaining the legitimacy of sovereignty transfer. Without fulfillment of these conditions, the legitimacy foundation of sovereignty cession would be questioned.
3.2 The Dual Legal Implications of “Protocol of a Foreign Monarch”: Establishment of a Micro-Sovereign Entity
International Law Significance of Sovereignty Recognition: The expression “to be treated with the protocol of a foreign monarch” contains deep legal implications, not merely ceremonial arrangements, but a form of recognition of the Qing imperial family’s international legal personality. This arrangement can be compared to micro-sovereign entities in modern international law:
- Vatican Model: The 1929 Lateran Treaty established Vatican’s sovereign status, with an area of only 0.44 square kilometers yet enjoying complete international legal personality. The Pope, as Vatican’s monarch, enjoys sovereign status in international law.
- Precedent of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta: As a sovereign entity without territory, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is still recognized in international law as having limited sovereign rights and maintains diplomatic relations with multiple countries.
Micro-Sovereign Status of the Forbidden City: Based on this understanding, the Qing imperial family’s status in the Forbidden City should be viewed as a limited sovereign international legal personality. The Republic of China both recognized the Qing Emperor’s status as a “foreign monarch” and promised to provide specific material guarantees, constituting an arrangement of quasi-international treaty nature. The Qing Emperor enjoyed within this scope:
- Internal autonomy: complete jurisdiction over palace affairs
- Diplomatic immunity: diplomatic status as a “foreign monarch”
- Limited territorial sovereignty: exclusive rule within the Forbidden City
3.3 Historical Practice of Sovereignty Divisibility Theory
This arrangement embodies the practical application of sovereignty divisibility theory:
- Separation of Internal and External Sovereignty: The Qing Emperor ceded nationwide ruling power (external sovereignty) but retained internal sovereignty within the Forbidden City. This arrangement is theoretically feasible and supported by international precedents.
- Conditional Sovereignty Transfer: The cession of nationwide sovereignty was conditional, one condition being recognition and protection of the Qing imperial family’s micro-sovereign status within the Forbidden City.
3.4 Historical Analogies of Contractual Principles
In England’s 1688 Glorious Revolution, new monarchs William and Mary were forced to accept the Bill of Rights before ascending the throne, constituting a political contract between monarch and parliament. If violated, legitimacy of rule could be questioned. Similarly, America’s 1776 Declaration of Independence was justified partly by the belief that the English king had violated certain universal obligations and agreements, thus giving colonies the right to restore their sovereignty.
Although the Qing imperial abdication lacked explicit parliamentary provisions for contractual relations, viewed from the political process and conditional exchange, it can essentially be regarded as an implied contractual relationship, whose core spirit shares no essential difference with the above historical cases in maintaining order transformation and power legitimacy.
3.5 International Law Confirmation of Contract Sanctity
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties clearly states: “Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith” (Pacta sunt servanda)—this principle indicates that once a treaty or contract is established, parties must fulfill it. Article 60 further stipulates that one party’s material breach constitutes legitimate grounds for terminating or suspending treaty obligations.
Based on the establishment of the Qing imperial family’s “foreign monarch” status, “The Articles of Favorable Treatment for the Qing Imperial Family” should be understood as:
- Quasi-international treaty: One party being the newly established Republic of China, the other being the Qing imperial political entity enjoying “foreign monarch” status
- Equal arrangement: Not unilateral preferential treatment, but an equal agreement between two political entities
- International law protection: Therefore fully applicable to relevant principles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
This principle can to some extent also apply to sovereignty cession agreements. When new regimes fail to fulfill preferential conditions, this can be viewed as breach of contract, thus causing the sovereignty cession act to lose its moral and legal foundation. This accords with the natural law tradition’s emphasis on the principle of consideration justice—”no consideration, no validity.”
IV. Dual Impact of Contract Violation: Damage to Political Legitimacy and Social Integrity
4.1 Legal Violations of Feng Yuxiang’s Coup
In 1924, Feng Yuxiang launched a coup, expelling Puyi from the palace, stopping the annual stipend, and confiscating Qing imperial property, thoroughly destroying “The Articles of Favorable Treatment for the Qing Imperial Family.” From the perspective of micro-sovereign entities, this action constituted triple violations:
Violation of Domestic Legal Procedures: The “Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China” clearly stipulated that major political decisions required proper procedures. Feng Yuxiang, as a military officer, lacked necessary legal authorization for his unilateral abolition of national agreements. “The Articles of Favorable Treatment for the Qing Imperial Family,” confirmed through North-South negotiations, had the legal validity of national commitments, and any changes required proper procedures.
Violation of International Law Principles: Based on the Qing imperial family’s “foreign monarch” status, Feng Yuxiang’s actions actually constituted:
- Forced occupation: Expelling Puyi from the palace was equivalent to forced occupation of a micro-sovereign entity
- Treaty abolition: Unilateral cessation of fulfilling quasi-international treaty obligations
- Sovereignty violation: Violation of basic principles of sovereign equality and non-interference in internal affairs
Violation of Contract Sanctity Principle: Forced expulsion and property confiscation can be viewed as violations of the contract sanctity principle established by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Such acts of abolishing agreements through military coups are typically not considered legitimate grounds for treaty termination.
4.2 Erosion of Social Integrity Foundation by Contract Breach and Subsequent Effects
More importantly, this breach of faith had profound effects on society’s integrity foundation, with consequences manifested in subsequent social development.
Weakening of Good Faith Principle: In many civilizations, “trust” is viewed as the cornerstone of social operation. When solemn national commitments can be arbitrarily torn up by force, it may set a precedent for “power overriding agreements,” potentially leading to weakening of integrity principles in society and providing excuses for subsequent political behaviors lacking moral constraints.
Shaking Order Foundations: The formulation of “The Articles of Favorable Treatment for the Qing Imperial Family” was viewed at the time as a gesture of moderation and tolerance toward the previous dynasty, helping smooth transition. When this political civilization based on mutual trust was trampled, social order might face greater uncertainty and could lead to a cultural atmosphere of distrust toward future commitments.
This betrayal of agreements and commitments can be seen in similar controversies in subsequent history. For example, the Sino-British Joint Declaration, as an international treaty registered with the United Nations, had as its core content China’s commitment to Hong Kong’s basic policies, including maintaining Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and way of life unchanged for fifty years (the “One Country, Two Systems” principle). However, in recent years, the international community generally believes that China has substantially deviated from and violated some commitments in this declaration in its Hong Kong practices. This includes but is not limited to modifications to Hong Kong’s electoral system, the impact of the National Security Law on original freedoms, and restrictions on civil society organizations, raising widespread questions about its contractual spirit and international credibility. Such events, in nature similar to the destruction of “The Articles of Favorable Treatment for the Qing Imperial Family,” both involve the fulfillment of solemn national commitments and the resulting trust crises and continued scrutiny of legitimacy. They collectively point to a question: when national-level commitments can be arbitrarily negated, what impact will this have on internal order foundations and external international image?
V. The Continuity Problem of Political Legitimacy
5.1 Legitimacy Crisis of Sovereignty Succession
From the perspective of natural law and international contractual obligations, if new political entities fail to fulfill preferential consideration, then the legitimacy of the Qing Emperor’s sovereignty cession act would be questioned. The Qing imperial family’s potential claim to sovereignty cannot be viewed as completely extinguished after contractual conditions were destroyed.
Today’s two main political entities in China, whether the People’s Republic of China or the Republic of China, have neither continued to fulfill the Qing imperial preferential conditions nor obtained re-authorization from the Qing imperial family. Therefore, their sovereignty succession chain may have incomplete legitimacy foundations at the natural law level. If sovereignty cession was based on contract, then when the contract becomes invalid, the complete validity of the cession should be re-examined.
5.2 Legal Continuity of Micro-Sovereignty
Based on the theoretical framework of micro-sovereign entities, the Qing imperial family’s sovereign status in the Forbidden City did not naturally disappear due to the 1924 forced expulsion. On the contrary, this forced action may constitute illegal infringement of existing sovereignty:
Indestructibility of Sovereignty: International law recognizes that sovereignty does not naturally disappear due to temporary invalidation or occupation. Just as governments-in-exile may still maintain legitimacy in international law, the Qing imperial family’s sovereignty claims have legal continuity.
Temporary Nature of Forced Occupation: Feng Yuxiang’s actions should be viewed as temporary forced occupation rather than legitimate sovereignty transfer. Such occupation lacks legitimate basis in international law.
5.3 Implications of Interrupted Political Transformation
The breach of faith toward the Qing imperial agreement was not only a specific political event, but may symbolically have interrupted attempts to achieve legitimate power transfer through peaceful agreements in modern state transformation. This interruption makes subsequent tracing of political legitimacy sources potentially face more complex challenges.
VI. Restorative Justice: Rethinking Order and Civilization
6.1 Restoration of Political Justice and Reaffirmation of Contractual Principles
To repair the legitimacy problems arising from this, re-examining and adhering to original agreements is important. This is first a reaffirmation of contractual spirit, conveying a message to society: agreements should be respected, and justice principles should be upheld. This reconstruction of moral authority is crucial for establishing any stable political order.
Theoretically speaking, only through formal authorization from the Qing imperial family (for example, confirming succession through some ceremony or agreement) can any new political entity obtain complete sovereignty legitimacy. This is not only a formal consideration, but an exploration of the source of political legitimacy.
6.2 Pluralistic Exploration of Political Order Models
When original contracts are destroyed, restoring the original status of contracting parties is one of the basic requirements of natural law. Regarding this, some views hold that constitutional monarchy still operates well in many countries worldwide (such as Britain, Japan, Thailand, etc.), proving it is not absolutely incompatible with modern civilization. China itself also has a long monarchical political tradition, whose legitimacy may be re-examined; a century-long interruption cannot cause it to lose legitimacy.
In this context, possibilities for new political entity models can also be explored. This might include theoretically restoring certain historically existing power structures, or having original sovereign heirs re-authorize new monarchs or governments, to return to certain traditional models of sovereignty succession. China’s historical tradition of abdication (such as Yao and Shun’s abdication, Cao Wei replacing Han, etc.) provides precedents for peaceful transfer of supreme power, which might provide directions for thinking about future political transformation.
6.3 Reconstruction of Political Legitimacy
Through examining and potentially repairing historical injustices, a political entity can obtain a more solid position on legitimacy foundations. If the fundamental problem of sovereignty sources is not resolved, any political entity must face questions about unclear legitimacy origins.
VII. Conclusion: From Historical Turning Point to Order Reconstruction and Civilizational Considerations
The Qing Emperor’s abdication and the establishment of the Republic of China was not merely regime change, but an extremely fragile conditional sovereignty cession. When subsequent regimes failed to fulfill their consideration, the legitimacy of the entire cession was questioned. Re-examining this history today is not for nostalgia, but to awaken people’s renewed understanding of political justice and the natural law foundations of sovereignty—sovereignty is not granted by regimes, but exists primordially, with its own dignity and order, and should not be arbitrarily trampled.
Particularly important is that the deeper meaning of the clause “protocol of a foreign monarch” actually established the Qing imperial family’s international law status as a micro-sovereign entity. This arrangement was similar to sovereign entities recognized by modern international law such as Vatican and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, embodying theoretical practice of sovereignty divisibility. The destruction of this arrangement in 1924 was not only a violation of domestic political agreements, but also a trampling of international law principles.
Therefore, if such historical legacy issues cannot be properly handled, then regarding the legitimacy chain of current sovereignty succession, under certain historical and legal analytical frameworks, it may face continued scrutiny and questioning. From a broader perspective, a truly civilized nation is marked not only by its material achievements or institutional forms, but more by its adherence to contractual spirit, integrity principles, and historical justice. Returning to respect and practice of these basic principles may be the substantive move toward more solid civilizational order and gaining universally recognized civilized status in international society.
Facing history squarely and examining justice is not only accountability to the past, but responsibility for future political order construction. A society that can honestly confront historical complexity and commit to repairing its legitimacy foundations can obtain a more solid position in international order.
About The Author
