總理衙門檔案記載,1895年5月8日中日在中国煙臺利順德飯店換約。據查中方換約大臣伍廷芳和聯芳(非聯元)於5月6日從天津乘船到煙臺,旋即被排在建於光緒17年的廣仁堂內住宿。日本換約代表伊東巳代治於5月7日來煙臺,下榻於德國人開的海濱旅館(Beach Hotel)。7日及8日雙方於大清登萊青道道署舉行三次會議見面商談。5月8日晚10時於烟臺山下利順德飯店(或為The Astor House Hotel,有人誤譯為順德飯店,大陸飯店)正式換約。[21]
^1.01.1Frank W. Ikle, "The Triple Intervention. Japan's Lesson in the Diplomacy of Imperialism."Monumenta Nipponica 22.1/2 (1967): 122-130.online (页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆)
^Marius B. Jansen,Japan and China: From War to Peace, 1894-1972 (1975) pp 17-29, 66-77.
^Conde Pérez, Elena; Valerieva Yaneva, Zhaklin.国际法中的不平等条约Unequal Treaties in International Law. Oxford Bibliographies Online. 2019-04-12 [2024-01-20]. (原始内容存档于2023-12-16) –通过Oxford Bibliographies Online(英语).The “unequal treaties” (known also by the terms “unjust,” “coercive,” “predatory,” “enslaving,” “leonine”) refers fundamentally, but not exclusively, to a historical category of bilateral treaties concluded in the late 19th and early 20th century between European states, the United States of America (USA) or Latin American countries (states that fulfilled the standards of “civilization”), and Asian or African states (perceived as “uncivilized”). “不平等条约”,(也被称为“不公正”,“强迫”,“掠夺”,“奴役”,“如同狮子般的”)基本上是指历史上主要由(但不仅限于)19世纪末和20世纪初由欧洲国家、美国或拉丁美洲国家等符合“文明”标准的国家与亚洲或非洲国家等被视为“未开化”的国家之间签订的一类的双边条约,
^Carven, Matthew.What Happened to Unequal Treaties? The Continuities of Informal Empire(PDF). 伦敦大学亚非学院. 2005-10-14 [2024-01-20]. (原始内容(PDF)存档于2024-04-16) –通过Nordic Journal of International Law(英语)....that the agreements had been procured by dint of coercion – that they had not been freely consented to, and reflected rather the presence of coercion and the inequalities in bargaining positions of the parties at the time of their conclusion. In the case of China, several treaties had been procured directly as a consequence of coercion. This was the case as regards the agreements with Britain, France and the United States had followed the Opium War in 1842, those with France after the Franco-Chinese war of 1884, andthat with Japan following the Chinese-Japanese War of 1894–5.(中文译文)...这些协议是通过威逼利诱达成的——它们并不是签署国自由同意的结果,而是反映了当事各方在达成协议时的威胁存在和谈判地位的不平等。对于中国,有几项协议直接是因为被威胁而获得的。这适用于与英国、法国和美国签署的协议,在1842年的鸦片战争后,与法国在1884年的中法战争后,以及在中日战争(1894-1895年)后与日本签署的协议。
^Peters, Anne; Wolfrum, Rüdiger.Treaties, Unequal. Oxford Public International Law. 2018-03. (原始内容存档于2023-03-30) –通过Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law(英语).Current international law as it stands does not accept a special legal category of unequal treaties with special legal effects.…The majority of academic writers do not qualify the idea of unequal treaties as a legal concept.
^Chiang, Y.One-China Policy and Taiwan. Fordham International Law Journal. 2004-01-01,28 (1).The term "unequal treaty" is a political concept rather than a legal term recognized in international law.
^Conde Pérez, Elena; Valerieva Yaneva, Zhaklin.国际法中的不平等条约Unequal Treaties in International Law. Oxford Bibliographies Online. 2019-04-12 [2024-01-20]. (原始内容存档于2023-12-16) –通过Oxford Bibliographies Online(英语).However, applying the current international law—both its conventional (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) and customary sources—there are not enough foundations to affirm the existence of an autonomous category of “unequal treaties” and, above all, that they could possibly have some legal consequences.