关于中缅边界谈判中的“麦克马洪线”问题之再认识

发布时间：2018-05-31 02:00

本文选题：中缅边界谈判 + “麦克马洪线”　；参考：《南亚研究》2014年01期

【摘要】：在当代中国陆地边界划定、勘定史上,20世纪50年代后半期至60年代初的中缅边界谈判,无疑是具有"率先垂范"意义的成功样板,遗留下丰富而深刻的历史经验和现实启示。当然,需要特别指出的是,国内学界对于其中非常敏感的"麦克马洪线"问题的处理方式,即一方面坚持中缅之间的"麦克马洪线"是不具有任何约束力的"非法条约线",我们不予承认,另一方面,又主张在已经明辨了历史是非的基础上将其视为"传统习惯线"而作为双方划界、勘界的重要历史依据(因为其与我们一贯主张的"传统习惯线"是基本重叠的),一直存在有"仁智互见"的不同认识。笔者认为,中缅边界谈判在解决该问题时,所遵循的"尊重历史、尊重现实"和"互谅互让"之指导思想和基本原则,对于同时和此后进行的13场中外边界谈判,均有传承和借鉴意义,但是,其具体的处理方式,并没有改变中国政府不承认非法的"麦克马洪线"的一贯立场,并不构成中印边界谈判之"遵从先例"的法律和事实约束,而仅仅是"特殊情况特殊处理"的非典型个案。
[Abstract]:The boundary negotiations between China and Myanmar from the second half of 1950s to the early 1960s in the history of the demarcation of the land boundary in contemporary China are undoubtedly a successful model with the significance of "setting an example ahead of others", leaving behind rich and profound historical experience and practical enlightenment. Of course, it should be pointed out in particular that the way the domestic academic community deals with the issue of the "McMahon Line", which is very sensitive among them, That is, on the one hand, we do not recognize the "McMahon Line" between China and Myanmar as an "illegal treaty line" which is not binding; on the other hand, Advocating also that the historical right and wrong be regarded as a "traditional customary line" and as a demarcation between the two sides, on the basis of a clear distinction between right and wrong, The important historical basis of the demarcation (because it and we have always advocated "traditional customary line" is basically overlapping, there has always been "benevolence and wisdom to see each other" different understanding. The author believes that the guiding ideology and basic principles of "respecting history, respecting reality" and "mutual understanding and mutual accommodation" followed in the Sino-Myanmar border negotiations in resolving this problem. However, its specific handling methods have not changed the Chinese Government's consistent position that it does not recognize the illegal "McMahon Line," and does not constitute a legal and factual constraint on "complying with precedents" in the Sino-Indian border negotiations. It is only an atypical case of "special case special treatment".
【作者单位】：中国人民大学马克思主义学院中共党史系;
【分类号】：D823;D822.333.7

【参考文献】