1885年6月簽訂的《天津條約》結束了中法戰爭。結果，清朝「喪失」了「屬國」越南，法國對越南的殖民地化政策獲得更大的進展。如何導致這樣的結果，亦即所謂「越南問題」的詳細經過，已經清楚地說明了。然而，終究大動干戈的清法兩國，究竟因何而針鋒相對？怎樣達成協議？雙方的具體的利害關係和外交談判，其實尚未辨明清楚。本文為了得到解決這些問題的線索，將以1882年年底，清法雙方同意的《李寶節略》為中心，研究兩國的談判過程。1880年11月，因出使法國大臣曾紀澤向法國外交部提出抗議，使得清法兩國為「越南問題」而產生的對立變得明顯。1882年，在法國駐北京公使寶海與總理衙門交涉的過程中，出現了在北圻地區畫分勢力範圍的提案，同年年底，寶海與北洋大臣李鴻章在天津談判，擬定了《李寶節略》，將這個提案明文化。只是， 《李寶節略》的漢文和法文版本有出入。在漢文版本中，記載「巡查保護」的部分，對應的法文版本只有「 surveillance(監視)」之意，並不含有「保護」的意思。這樣的差異，恰好說明清法雙方的利害關係和潛在的矛盾。 清朝方面通過寫明「保護」，主張越南就是清朝的「屬邦」。相對於此，法方則不提「保護」二字，否認清朝對越南的宗主權，並想要使清朝承認法國對越南有事實上的「保護權」。就這樣，因為雙方的基本利益始終相反，《李寶節略》遭到否認只是遲早的事、不可避免的結果。即使是脫利古特使代替寶海，與李鴻章交涉，也無法輕易地消解雙方的緊張關係。清法兩國不久就走向戰爭之路。

The results of the Treaty of Tientsin, signed in June of 1885, which put an end to the Sino-French War were the “loss” of the vassal state of Vietnam by China and a giant step toward achivement of its colonization by the French. Given this outcome, the changes that occurred during what is known as the “Tonkin Affair” might be termed a matter of course. Nevertheless, in regard to many of the facts that led to warfare between France and China , much remains unclear, such as what brought about their confrontation, how they reached a compromise, the special interests that concerned them, and the diplomatic negotiations between them. This article explores clues to explain such questions by examining the course of the negotiations from the proposal of the Li-Bourée Convention concluded in late 1882 until its later abandonment. The confrontation between France and China over the Tonkin Affair became conspicuous when the Chinese Minister to France, the Marquis Tseng, protested to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the end of 1880. In the negotiations between the French Minister to China, Frédéric-Albert Bourée, and the Tsungli-Yamen (總理衙門 ) at Peking in 1882, parting spheres of influence in Tonkin were proposed, and, at the end of the same year, were put in writing during the negotiations between Bourée and the imperial commissioner for Northern Ports Li Hung-chang at Tientsin. However, the term hsün-ch'a pao-hu (巡査保護 ), meaning to surveille and protect which appears in the Chinese version of the Li-Bourée Convention, was recorded only as surveillance in the French, resulting in a discrepancy. This expresses the interests of the two parties and latent contradictions regarding them. In opposition to the Chinese use of the term pao-hu “protect,” which furthered the advocacy of the vassalité of Vietnam to China , the French denied the sužeraineté of China by not referring to protection and thereby aimed to win recognition of Vietnam as a de facto protectorat of France. In this way, not only were the fundamental interests of the parties at odds, but this became increasingly apparent, so that the rejection of the Li-Bourée Convention was inevitable. There was no easy way that the confrontation might be ameliorated in the following negotiations between Arthur Tricou and Li, and France and China proceeded step by step toward rupture and warfare.