多民族国家的议会制选择:20世纪初中国的主权、边疆治理和代表制

Q2 Arts and Humanities Parliaments, Estates and Representation Pub Date : 2022-01-02 DOI:10.1080/02606755.2022.2039454
Egas Moniz Bandeira
{"title":"多民族国家的议会制选择:20世纪初中国的主权、边疆治理和代表制","authors":"Egas Moniz Bandeira","doi":"10.1080/02606755.2022.2039454","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article reconstructs two modes of parliamentary representation of (post-)imperial diversity in early twentieth-century China. One model foresaw a differentiated representation of the borderlands in the nascent parliamentary institutions, using upper house seats to garner loyalty from the nobility at the same time as it denied electoral participation. The second model stipulated electoral equality between the borderland regions and the inner provinces. While the first model parliamentarized imperial forms of governance, it was also informed by and partially conformed to global models of governance. The second was informed by notions of undivided national sovereignty. In the late Qing Empire, the government decided against the second model, for it was deemed to presuppose a degree of national integration not given in the Empire. The challenges posed by the proclamation of the Republic of China, in particular the declarations of independence of Mongolia and Tibet, led to a strong emphasis on the newly-founded state’s unity and the swift adoption of the second model. This choice, however, was neither uncontested nor was its implementation complete.","PeriodicalId":53586,"journal":{"name":"Parliaments, Estates and Representation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Parliamentary options for a multi-ethnic state: sovereignty, frontier governance, and representation in early twentieth-century China\",\"authors\":\"Egas Moniz Bandeira\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02606755.2022.2039454\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article reconstructs two modes of parliamentary representation of (post-)imperial diversity in early twentieth-century China. One model foresaw a differentiated representation of the borderlands in the nascent parliamentary institutions, using upper house seats to garner loyalty from the nobility at the same time as it denied electoral participation. The second model stipulated electoral equality between the borderland regions and the inner provinces. While the first model parliamentarized imperial forms of governance, it was also informed by and partially conformed to global models of governance. The second was informed by notions of undivided national sovereignty. In the late Qing Empire, the government decided against the second model, for it was deemed to presuppose a degree of national integration not given in the Empire. The challenges posed by the proclamation of the Republic of China, in particular the declarations of independence of Mongolia and Tibet, led to a strong emphasis on the newly-founded state’s unity and the swift adoption of the second model. This choice, however, was neither uncontested nor was its implementation complete.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53586,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Parliaments, Estates and Representation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Parliaments, Estates and Representation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02606755.2022.2039454\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Parliaments, Estates and Representation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02606755.2022.2039454","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文重构了20世纪初中国(后)帝国多样性的两种议会代议模式。一种模式预见了在新生的议会机构中边疆地区的不同代表,利用上议院席位来获得贵族的忠诚,同时拒绝选举参与。第二种模式规定了边疆地区和内陆省份之间的选举平等。虽然第一个模式是议会制的帝国治理形式,但它也受到全球治理模式的影响,并部分符合全球治理模式。第二个是国家主权不可分割的概念。在晚清帝国,政府决定反对第二种模式,因为它被认为预先假定了某种程度的民族整合,而这在帝国中是没有的。中华民国的宣告,特别是蒙古和西藏的独立宣言所带来的挑战,导致了对新成立的国家的统一的强烈强调,并迅速采用了第二种模式。然而,这一选择既不是没有争议,也不是完全执行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Parliamentary options for a multi-ethnic state: sovereignty, frontier governance, and representation in early twentieth-century China
ABSTRACT This article reconstructs two modes of parliamentary representation of (post-)imperial diversity in early twentieth-century China. One model foresaw a differentiated representation of the borderlands in the nascent parliamentary institutions, using upper house seats to garner loyalty from the nobility at the same time as it denied electoral participation. The second model stipulated electoral equality between the borderland regions and the inner provinces. While the first model parliamentarized imperial forms of governance, it was also informed by and partially conformed to global models of governance. The second was informed by notions of undivided national sovereignty. In the late Qing Empire, the government decided against the second model, for it was deemed to presuppose a degree of national integration not given in the Empire. The challenges posed by the proclamation of the Republic of China, in particular the declarations of independence of Mongolia and Tibet, led to a strong emphasis on the newly-founded state’s unity and the swift adoption of the second model. This choice, however, was neither uncontested nor was its implementation complete.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Parliaments, Estates and Representation
Parliaments, Estates and Representation Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊最新文献
Interpreting multilateral diplomacy in the Indonesian Parliament’s debates on climate crisis and sustainability Red star over the Baltic: the sovietisation of representative assemblies in Poland's ‘Recovered Territories’ via the ‘three times “Yes”’ referendum of 1946 Importable or exceptional? Swiss direct-democratic instruments in the French and German Parliaments, 2000–19 The Portuguese customary electoral constitution: the election of representatives to the ancient cortes The German Parliament and the political crisis of 1917–18: the role of the Intergroup Commission
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1