The Origins of Extraterritoriality and the Need for Mixed Courts

The concept of extraterritoriality—where foreign nationals were exempt from local laws—became entrenched in China after the 1842 Treaty of Nanking (Nanjing). This agreement granted British citizens immunity from Chinese jurisdiction, a privilege later extended to other Western powers. However, a legal gray area emerged as foreign residents increasingly employed Chinese servants, and waves of refugees flooded into Shanghai’s concessions during the Taiping Rebellion (1850–1864).

The original justification for extraterritoriality—cultural and legal incompatibility—proved inadequate when disputes arose between Chinese subjects within foreign-administered zones. With few legal professionals among expatriates, British consul Sir Harry Parkes proposed a hybrid court to handle cases involving Chinese defendants or intra-Chinese conflicts. Crucially, this court excluded cases where Chinese plaintiffs accused foreigners—a glaring asymmetry that underscored colonial power dynamics.

The Birth of the Mixed Court: Structure and Limitations

On May 1, 1864, the Shanghai Mixed Court launched as a provisional experiment. Its formalization came five years later through the Yangjingbang Official Mixed Court Regulations, signed by the U.S., Britain, and Germany. The ten-article charter established unique procedures:

– Chinese-Only Cases: A Qing-appointed magistrate presided alone over disputes between Chinese nationals.
– Mixed Cases: Foreign consular officers jointly adjudicated matters involving foreign interests.
– French Resistance: Refusing to sign, France created a parallel tribunal in its concession, resulting in two competing mixed courts.

Though nominally a Qing institution—funded by the Shanghai Circuit Intendant (Daotai)—the court’s foreign participants wielded disproportionate influence. This duality mirrored the erosion of Chinese sovereignty under the “unequal treaties.”

The Jin YuJun Murder Case: Legal Chaos and Diplomatic Maneuvering

The 1894 assassination of Korean reformist Jin YuJun (Kim Ok-gyun) by compatriot Hong Jong-u in Shanghai’s International Settlement exposed the system’s contradictions. Key legal questions arose:

1. Jurisdictional Ambiguity: Since Korea lacked a consulate in Shanghai, Article 7 of the Mixed Court regulations suggested joint Sino-foreign adjudication. However, Qing officials insisted Korea was a tributary state, not foreign territory, demanding exclusive Chinese jurisdiction—a claim foreign assessors tacitly accepted to avoid political entanglement.
2. Japanese Intervention: Tokyo-based activist Ōkuma Shigenobu argued Jin’s body should be repatriated to Japan, where he had lived in exile. This demand, lacking legal basis, reflected nationalist sentiment rather than international law.

Cultural Clashes and the Human Cost

The case revealed deeper cultural rifts:

– Funerary Practices: Jin’s aide Wada Enjirō (a Japanese national from the Ogasawara Islands) navigated Chinese burial customs, purchasing a coffin and lime for preservation—only to face interference from Japanese consular officials.
– Colonial High-Handedness: British police, allegedly at Japan’s behest, seized Jin’s coffin from a warehouse, citing “procedural requirements.” Wada’s emotional protests highlighted the powerlessness of individuals against bureaucratic collusion.

Legacy: Extraterritoriality’s Long Shadow

The Mixed Court system endured until 1927, leaving a complex legacy:

– Judicial Hybridity: It pioneered hybrid legal models later seen in colonial territories worldwide.
– Nationalist Backlash: Its inequities fueled Chinese anti-imperialist movements, contributing to the treaty revision campaigns of the 1920s–30s.
– Modern Parallels: Contemporary “special economic zones” with distinct legal regimes echo—albeit voluntarily—the concessions’ jurisdictional experiments.

The Jin YuJun affair epitomized how legal technicalities masked power struggles. As Wada’s futile efforts showed, the Mixed Court was less a neutral arbiter than an instrument of colonial control—a stark reminder of China’s “century of humiliation.” Its history remains relevant in debates over sovereignty and transnational justice today.