Abstract

This paper examines the 1832 Qing-Khoqand peace settlement to explore the concept and practice of Qing sovereignty prior to its encounter with the West in the 1840s. This event constitutes a critical turning point in the diplomatic history of nineteenth-century China, as the Qing court conceded extraterritoriality and tax exemption privileges to Khoqand. Joseph Fletcher famously characterized this agreement as China's "first unequal treaty" and a precursor to the Western imperialist system. Conversely, scholars such as Laura Newby and Pär Cassel have argued that these concessions were rooted in established Qing frontier governance conventions, including legal pluralism and personal jurisdiction.

Through a systematic analysis of Manchu and Chaghatay documents from the First Historical Archives of China, dating from the mid-eighteenth to the early nineteenth century, this paper proposes a revision to these prevailing perspectives. The research yields three central findings. First, Qing tax exemptions for Khoqandi goods were strictly confined to the state-to-state tributary framework; private commercial goods remained subject to taxation. Second, the administrative practices, such as judicial adjudications, central-local correspondence, and travel pass management, demonstrate that the Qing court exercised territorial jurisdiction based on a principle of impartiality, balanced with the diplomatic ideal of "cherishing men from afar." Third, the Qing state maintained strict territorial jurisdiction over foreign merchants within its borders, mandating their adjudication under Qing law by local officials.

Ultimately, I argue that while the 1832 Qing-Khoqand peace settlement bears formal similarities to the unequal treaties signed with Western powers after 1842, it was neither a passive reflection of traditional Qing legal practices nor an inertial extension of its Central Asian governance logic. Rather, it was a conscious "strategic retraction" undertaken by the Qing court in response to internal financial crises and the military ascendance of Khoqand. Therefore, this settlement cannot be regarded as a natural continuation of consistent Qing frontier strategies, nor can it be simply subsumed under the traditional framework of Qing legal pluralism. Instead, it was a distinct, pragmatic geopolitical adaptation.