22 August 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working to restore services and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 April 2017
The equality of states has been regarded as a basic principle of modern international law. It also constitutes an important source of friction among nations in the present world. For instance, Germany and Japan want equality of armament and colonial rights, France and the United States insist upon equality of security, and China desires the termination of her unequal treaties, while other states may have other aspirations.
The author wishes to acknowledge his profound indebtedness to the Harvard-Yenching Institute for a grant of money which has made this investigation possible.
1 With the advent of the new political régime in Germany in 1933, some German writers even elevated the notion of equality of states to the authority of the basic principle of international law. For instance, Victor, Bruns, Deutschlands Gleichberechtigung als Rechtsproblem (A paper read at the First Plenary Meeting of the Academy of German Law on Nov. 5, 1933), Berlin, 1934 Google Scholar.
2 Professor Arnold D. McNair called James Lorimer the first jurist to question the doctrine of equality of states. “Equality in International Law” in Michigan Law Review, Vol. XXVI (1927), p. 134; and James Lorimer’s Institutes of the Law of Nations (Edinburgh and London, 1883–84), Vol. I, pp. 44, 170–171; Vol. II, pp. 193, 260. However, before the publication of Lorimer’s work, Funck-Brentano and Sorel seem to be equally skeptical of the equality of states. Précis du droit des gens (Paris, 1877), p. 47.
3 The difference in the conceptions of equality, state, and international law may be easily found in Dickinson, E. D., The Equality of States in International Law (Cambridge, Mass., 1920), pp. 61–62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lorimer, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 260, note 1; Pillet, A., “Recherches sur Us droits fondamentaux des États,” Revue générale de droit international public, Vol. V (1898), pp. 70–71 Google Scholar; Tachi, Sakutaro, A Treatise on International Law in Peace Time (in Japanese), 3rd ed., (Tokyo, 1933), pp. 185–186 Google Scholar.
4 The Chinese word “li” has been variously translated into English as “rites,” “ceremonial,” “manner,” or “protocol.” Professor Jean Escarra believes that the best translation is probably the German word “Sittlichkeit.” See his “Chinese Law” in the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. IX, p. 250. However, none of these words can be regarded as an exact equivalent.
5 On the ancient Chinese international law, see Britton, R. S., “Chinese Interstate Intercourse before 700 B.C.,” this Journal, Vol. XXIX (1935), pp. 616–635 Google Scholar; Chang Hsin-chêng, Ch‘un-ch‘iu kuo-chi kung-fa, Peip‘ing, 1924; Ch‘ên Ku-yuan, Chung-kuo kuo-chi-fa so yuan, Shanghai, 1934; Ch‘eng, Te-hsu, “International Law in Early China,” Chinese Social and Political Science Review, Vol. XI (1927), p. 38 Google Scholar et seq.; Hsü Chuan-pao, Hsin Ch‘in kuochi-fa chih i-chih, Shanghai, 1931; Siu Tchoan-pao (Hsü Chuan-pao), Le droit des gens et la Chine antique, Paris, 1926; Hung Chun-pei, Ch‘un-ch‘iu kuo-chi kung-fa, Shanghai, 1939; Lan Kuang-tse, Ch‘un-ch‘iu kung-fa pi-ifa-wei, 1901, 6 vols.; Martin, W. A. P., “Les vestiges d’un droit international dans l’ancienne Chine,” Revue de droit international et de législation comparée, Vol. XIV (1882), pp. 227–242 Google Scholar (A paper read before the Congress of Orientalists in Berlin in 1881. An English version was given in his Lore of Cathay, London, 1901, and a Chinese translation was published under the title of Chung-kuo ku-shih kung-fa in 1884, which was reprinted in Hsi cheng tsung-shu, Vol. VII, 1897); Russell, F. M., Theories of International Relations, New York, 1936; Ziah, C. F., Philosophe politique de la Chine ancienne (700-221 avant J. C), Paris, 1934 Google Scholar. The works of Hung Chun-pei and C. F. Ziah have been unavailable to the author.
6 The authenticity and authorship of the Ch‘un-ch‘iu and the three commentaries has been a controversial problem among Sinologists for centuries. A recent scientific account of the history of these books has been given by Professor William Hung of Yenching University in his preface to the Ch‘un-ch‘iu ching chuan yin-tê, Peip‘ing, 1937. Ch‘un-ch‘iu and Tso’s Commentary have been translated into English by James Legge under the title, The Ch‘un Ts‘ew with the Tso Chuen (in The Chinese Classics, Vol. V, 2 parts), Oxford, 1893-95. They have also been translated into French by S. Couvreur under the title Tch‘ouen Ts‘iou el Tso Tchouan in three volumes, Ho Kien Fou, 1914. In this study, references are to be made to the Chinese originals instead of Legge’s translations for three reasons: first, the translations are incomplete, leaving the Kung-yang and Ku-liang untranslated; secondly, the translations are not always correct, particularly the indiscriminate use of the word “duke” in the titles of the feudal lords of various ranks makes the translations inadequate to legal studies; and thirdly, the translations are not always consistent, e.g., see the translations of the Chinese words, chou-hang, in The Chinese Classics, Vol. IV, pt. I, p. 8 and Vol. V, pt. II, p. 469. The three commentaries have, of course, different values from the Sinological point of view. However, this is a matter of secondary importance to students of international law so far as these commentaries are not in conflict concerning the questions under discussion here. The edition of the Ch‘un-ch‘iu and the three commentaries used here is the Harvard-Yenching Institute Sinological Index Series edition in four volumes, Peip‘ing, 1937.
7 Tso-chuan, Bk. IX, yr. XXVI, p. 311.
8 Ibid., Bk. VIII, yr. II, p. 213.
9 Ibid., Bk. IX, yr. Ill, p. 255.
10 Ibid., Bk. X, yr. VIII, p. 384.
11 Chou Li (Kai-ming Thirteen Classics ed., Shanghai, 1934), Ch. V, p. 63. This work is also a Chinese classic and has been translated into French by Édouard Biot under the title of Le Tcheou li, ou rites des Tcheou in two volumes with a separate Table analytique, Paris, 1851. The authorship of this book has also been much disputed among Sinologists. It is now generally believed that the real author of this book is Liu Hsin of the Han dynasty (206–8 B.C.).
12 Ch‘un-ch‘iu (Yuan Yuan Thirteen Classics ed., Nanchang, 1815), Tü Yii’s annotation on Chuan XIV, p. 21a.
13 Tso-chuan, Bk. III, yr. XXX, p. 76.
14 Ch‘un-ch‘iu, Bk. V, yr. XXVIII, p. 135.
15 Ibid., Bk. VIII, yr. XV, p. 237.
16 Ibid., Bk. V, yr. XIX, p. 114; Ku-liang, Bk. V, yr. XXII, p. 119.
17 Ch‘un-ch‘iu, Bk. V, yr. XXVIII, p. 131; Ku-liang, Bk. V, yr. XXVIII, p. 131.
18 Dr. Edwin D. Dickinson believed that the principle of equality of states was introduced into international law through the analogy between natural persons and separate states or international persons, op. cit., pp. 29–31. On the other hand, Dr. Julius Goebel, Jr., maintained that the equality of states was derived from the equality of sovereigns in the ancient and medieval times and that it was only after the rise of the idea of popular sovereignty that the equality of sovereigns was transformed into the equality of states. The Equality of States (New York, 1923), pp. 46–47. Professor Charles H. McIlwain traced the origin of the equality of states to the principle that “the King is Emperor within his own realm” in the later Middle Ages. The Growth of Political Thought in the West (New York, 1932), p. 268.
19 These two names are entirely different in Chinese.
20 Kung-yang, Bk. III, yr. IV, p. 50.
21 Tso-chuan, Bk. VIII, yr. V, p. 222.
22 Ibid., Bk. X, yr. XXIII, p. 409.
23 Ibid., Bk. V, yr. XXVIII, p. 136.
24 Ch‘un-ch‘iu, Bk. V, yr. XXVIII, pp. 130–136; Kung-yang, Bk. V, yr. XXVIII, pp. 130–136; Ku-liang, Bk. V, yr. XXVIII, pp. 130–136; Tso-chuan, Bk. V, yr. XXVIII, pp. 130–136.
25 Tso-chuan, Bk. V, yr. IX, p. 101.
26 Ibid., Bk. V, yr. XXVIII, p. 133.
27 Ibid., Bk. IX, yr. XI, pp. 273–274.
28 Tso-chuan, Bk. VII, yr. XV, p. 203.
29 Ibid., Bk. VIII, yr, XII, p. 232.
30 Kung-yang, Bk. V, yr. XXV, p. 125; Ku-liang, Bk. V, yr. XXV, p. 125; Tso-chuan, Bk. V, yr. XXV, p. 125.
31 Tso-chuan, Bk. V, yr. XXVIII, p. 136.
32 Ibid., Bk. I, yr. I, p. 4.
33 The terms “state will” and “state act” are commonly used in the literature of international law, particularly in those by European continental writers. For instance, see Kelsen, H., Legal Technique in International Law: A Textual Critique of the League Covenant (Geneva Studies, Vol. X, No. 6), Geneva, December, 1939 Google Scholar. What is really meant by these terms is the will or act of natural persons expressed in the name of the state. A state as such cannot have a will nor act independent of human will and action.
34 Tso-chuan, Bk. IX, yr. XXVIII, p. 319.
35 Ibid.
36 Ch‘un-ch‘iu, Bk. V, yr. XXVIII, pp. 133–134; Ku-liang, Bk. V, yr. XXVIII, pp. 133, 135; Kung-yang, Bk. V, yr. XXVIII, p. 134.
37 Ch‘un-ch‘iu, Bk. V, yr. V, p. 95; Ku-liang, Bk. V, yr. V, p. 95.
38 Ch‘un-ch‘iu, Bk. V, yr. IX, p. 100.
39 Ibid., Bk. VII, yr. VII, p. 187; Tso-chuan, Bk. VII, yr. VII, p. 188.
40 Ch‘un-ch‘iu, Bk. XII, yr. XIII, p. 485.
41 Ibid., Bk. V, yr. XXIX, p. 136; Tso-chuan, Bk. V, yr. XXIX, p. 137.
42 Dickinson, E. D., op. cit., Ch. VII.
43 Works (Kai-ming Thirteen Classics ed., Shanghai, 1934), Ch. XII, p. 40.
44 Ibid., Ch. XIV, p. 45.
45 Ch‘un-ch‘iu, Bk. I, yr. I, p. 2; Ku-liang, Bk. I, yr. I, p. 2; Tso-chuan, Bk. I, yr. I, p. 2.
46 Ch‘un-ch‘iu, Bk. III, yr. V, p. 51, Ku-liang, Bk. III, yr. V, p. 51, Tso-chuan, Bk. III, yr. V, p. 51.
47 Tso-chuan, Bk. IX, yr. II, p. 254.
48 Ibid., Bk. IX, yr. XXVII, p. 317.
49 Kung-yang, Bk. VIII, yr. XV, p. 239.
50 Ch‘un-ch‘iu, Bk. VII, yr. XI, p. 193.
51 Ku-liang, Bk. VII, yr. XI, p. 193.
52 Tso-chuan, Bk. VIII, yr. II, p. 217.
53 Ku-liang, Bk. VI, yr. I, p. 146.
54 Kung-yang, Bk. V, yr. XXIX, p. 136.
55 Ibid., Bk. IX, yr. XVIII, p. 286.
56 Ibid., Bk. III, yr. XXX, p. 77.
57 Ku-liang, Bk. VIII, yr. XII, p. 232.
58 Ibid., Bk. III, yr. X, p. 58; Bk. X, yr. XXIII, p. 410.
59 Tso-chuan, Bk. III, yr. XXXI, p. 78.
60 Ibid., Bk. VIII, yr. II, p. 217.
61 Cf. ibid., Bk. IX, yr. XIV, p. 278.
62 For instance, Ku-liang, Bk. VIII, yr. IX, p. 229; Tso-chuan, Bk. V, yr. XXIX, p. 129.
63 See Kung-yang, Bk. V, yrs. IV, XXI, XXIII; Bk. VIII, yr. XV; Bk. X, yr. V; Bk. XI, yr. IV, pp. 91, 117, 141, 239, 359, 443–444; Ku-liang, Bk. V, yrs. XV, XXIII; Bk. X, yr. XI; Bk. XII, yr. XIII, pp. 108, 142, 374, 485; Tso-chuan, Bk. VIII, yr. VII, p. 224.
64 Kung-yang, Bk. X, yr. XXIII, p. 410.
