Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T10:08:11.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chinese Philosophy and International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2010

Junwu PAN*
Affiliation:
Northwest University of Politics and Law, People’s Republic of China

Abstract

As a growing power, China is confronted with many challenges that include the revision of its erstwhile philosophies so as to better adapt itself to globalization and the contemporary international legal order. This article analyzes the close relationship between China’s attitude to international law and Chinese philosophy. It aims to help people to understand China’s behaviour on the global plane and the steps China is taking to integrate more seamlessly into the international legal order.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Asian Journal of International Law 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Northwest University of Politics and Law, Xi’an, People’s Republic of China. I wish to thank Professor Rein Müllerson for supervising my research work.

References

1. See generally KIM, Hyung I., Fundamental Legal Concepts of China and the West: A Comparative Study (New York: Kennikat Press, 1981)Google Scholar; BODDE, Derk, “Evidence for ‘Law of Nature’ in Chinese Thought” (1957) 20 Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 709CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. The Chinese translation is: Fa bei xiao ren, bu fang jun zi.

3. The Analects of Confucius, online: UCLA Center for Asian Studies 〈www.international.ucla.edu/eas/documents/lunyuCh2.htm〉, chapter 2, verse 3.

4. SHEN, Yiming, Resolution of Disputes Between Foreign Banks and Chinese Sovereign Borrowers: Public and Private International Law Aspects (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2001) at 13Google Scholar.

5. The first Opium War (1840–1842) was when Imperial China started to lose its former predominant status in its history. See FAY, Peter Ward, The Opium War, 1840–1842: Barbarians in the Celestial Empire in the Early Part of the Nineteenth Century and the War by Which They Forced Her Gates Ajar (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975)Google Scholar.

6. LI, Zhaojie, “Teaching, Research, and the Dissemination of International Law in China: The Contribution of Wang Tieya” (1993) 31 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 189 at 210Google Scholar.

7. LI, Zhaojie, “Traditional Chinese World Order” (2002) 1 Chinese Journal of International Law 20Google Scholar.

8. LENG, Shaoquan, “Chinese Law” in Arthur LARSON, Clarence Wilfred JENKS et al., eds., Sovereignty Within the Law (London: Stevens and Sons Ltd; Dobbs Ferry, New York: Oceana Publications, 1965), 245 at 247Google Scholar.

9. WANG, Tieya and WEI, Min, eds., International Law (Beijing: Law Press, 1981) at 44Google Scholar.

10. YANG, Zewei, “Guoji Zhixu yu Guojia Zhuquan Guanxi Tanxi” [A Probe into the Relationship Between International Order and State Sovereignty] (2004) 6 Science of Law (Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law) 80Google Scholar.

11. According to traditional Chinese ideology, without Li, there is no way in which a society can be a harmonious one or one ruled by real law. Thus, Fa, in international society is often regarded as a temporary expedient instead of a permanent institution. The Confucian concept of Li involves the use of moral rules to regulate behaviour with the universe. See CREEL, Herrlee Glessner, “Legal Institutions and Procedures during the Chou Dynasty” in Jerome Alan COHEN, R. Randle EDWARDS, and CHANG CHEN Fu-mei, eds., Essays on China’s Legal Tradition (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 3839Google Scholar.

12. At the inaugural meeting of the Chinese Society of International Law in February 1980, HUAN Xiang, President of the Society, called for a progressive development of New China’s own theory and system of international law guided by Marxist-Leninist and Maoist ideology.

13. The Confucian conception of minimum order has three core ideas: (1) absence of unauthorized coercion or violence; (2) disappearance of litigation; and (3) authorized use of force. See CHEN, Frederick Tse-shyang, “The Confucian View of World Order” in Mark J. JANIS and Carolyn EVANS, eds., Religion and International Law (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1999), 27 at 33Google Scholar.

14. Confucius, “Great Learning (Da Xue)”, online: MIT 〈http://classics.mit.edu/Confucius/learning.html〉.

15. CHEN, Frederick Tse-shyang, “The Confucian View of World Order” (1991) 1 Indiana International and Comparative Law Review 45 at 57Google Scholar.

16. WALEY-COHEN, Joanne, “Collective Responsibility in Qing Criminal Law” in Karen G. TURNER, James V. FEINERMAN, and R. Kent GUY, eds., The Limits of the Rule of Law in China (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2000), 112 at 119Google Scholar.

17. See generally CHEN, Phillip M., Law and Justice: The Legal System in China 2400 B.C.–1960 A.D. (New York: Dunellen Publishing Company, 1973)Google Scholar; see also NAFZIGER, James A.R. and RUAN, Jiafang, “Chinese Methods of Resolving International Trade, Investment, and Maritime Disputes” (1987) 23 Willamette Law Review 619 at 624Google Scholar.

18. ZHU, Liru, “Refuting Chen Tiqiang's Absurd Theory of International Law” Renmin Ribao [People's Daily] (18 September 1957)Google Scholar.

19. CHIU, Hungdah, “Chinese Attitudes Towards International Law in the Post-Mao Era, 1978–1987” (1987) 21 International Lawyer 1127 at 1128Google Scholar.

20. YU, Xingzhong, “Legal Pragmatism in the People's Republic of China” in Perry KELLER, ed., Chinese Law and Legal Theory (Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2001), 71 at 7172Google Scholar.

21. LIU Fengming, Xiandai Guoji Fa Gangyao [Essentials of Modern International Law] (Beijing: Mass Press, 1982) at 5.

22. Wang and Wei, supra note 9 at 1.

23. Li, supra note 6 at 206.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid., at 193.

26. Ibid.

27. BROWNLIE, Ian, Principles of Public International Law, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979) at 1Google Scholar. See also DANILENKO, G.M., Law-Making in the International Community (Dordrecht/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993) at 3436Google Scholar.

28. Statute of the International Court of Justice, 26 June 1945, 33 U.N.T.S. 993 (entered into force 24 October 1945), art. 38(1) [ICJ Statute].

29. O'BRIEN, John, International Law (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2000) at 67Google Scholar. The matter was discussed in 1920 and an attempt to include the words “in the undermentioned order” in Article 38 was rejected by the committee so that the article in its final form included no express reference to hierarchy.

30. The 1982 Constitution of the PRC is silent on the status and validity of international law in Chinese municipal law. See WEI, Min and LUO, Xiangwen, “The New Constitution of Our Country and Principles of International Law” (1983) 5 Law Magazine (Beijing) 16Google Scholar.

31. General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China, 12 April 1986, online: CCCL 〈www.civillaw.com.cn/english/article.asp?id=10〉, art. 142.

32. Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, 23 August 1982, online: Judicial Protection of IPR in China 〈www.chinaiprlaw.com/english/laws/laws11.htm〉, art. 17.

33. Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China, 12 March 1984, online: Judicial Protection of IPR in China 〈www.chinaiprlaw.com/english/laws/laws4.htm〉, art. 20.

34. Law of Succession of the People’s Republic of China, 14 November 2003, online: Consulate-General of PRC in New York 〈www.nyconsulate.prchina.org/eng/lsqz/laws/t42224.htm〉, art. 36.

35. Fisheries Law of the People’s Republic of China, 20 January 1986, online: China.org.cn 〈www.china.org.cn/environment/2007-08/20/content_1034340.htm〉, art. 8.

36. Postal Law of the People’s Republic of China, 2 December 1986, online: China Trade in Services 〈http://tradeinservices.mofcom.gov.cn/en/b/1986-12-02/8107.shtml〉, art. 42.

37. Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, 4 April 1989, online: law-lib 〈www.law-lib.com/law/law_view.asp?id=5641〉, art. 72.

38. Maritime Law of the People’s Republic of China, 7 November 1992, online: xinhuanet.com 〈news.xinhuanet.com/legal/2003-01/21/content_700641.htm〉, art. 268.

39. KIM, Samuel S., “The Development of International Law in Post-Mao China: Change and Continuity” (1987) 1 Journal of Chinese Law 117 at 134Google Scholar.

40. Ibid., at 135.

41. SUN, Ang and WANG, Liyu, “A Preliminary Discussion on the Validity of Treaties in Municipal Law” (1986) 5 Law Review 82Google Scholar.

42. WANG, Tieya, “International Law in China: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives” (1991) 1 Chinese Yearbook of International Law 1Google Scholar.

43. Ibid.

44. Ibid.

45. Wang, supra note 42.

46. On 8 March 1963, Renmin Ribao [People’s Daily] contained an editorial evaluating the American Communist Party’s Declaration, where some unequal treaties were mentioned as examples:

During the time of more than 100 years before the victory of Chinese revolution, the imperialist and colonist states, such as the United States, Britain, France, Imperial Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, Austria, Holland, Portugal, etc., invaded China aggressively. They coerced the Chinese government into signing scores of unequal treaties, such as the 1842 Nanking Treaty, the 1858 Aigun Treaty, the 1858 Tientsin Treaty, the 1860 Peking Convention, the 1881 Yili Treaty, the 1887 Sino-Portuguese Treaty of Peking, the 1895 Shimonoseki Treaty, the 1898 Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory, the 1901 Boxer Protocol, etc. Through these unequal treaties, these states seized land in the east, west, north and south of China, and leased land in the coastal and inner China. Some of them used force to occupy Taiwan, Penghu Islands, some of them used coercion to occupy Hong Kong and lease Kowloon, and some them occupied Macao by force.

See “A Comment on the Statement of the Communist Party of the U.S.A”. Renmin Ribao [People’s Daily] (8 March 1963), online: Marx to Mao 〈www.marx2mao.com/Other/CCP2CPUSA63.pdf〉.

47. The general procedure concerning settlement of border issues in the PRC’s practice is characterized by an agreement as the result of negotiations preceding the final recognized treaty. See generally Wang, supra note 42.

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid.

50. Agreement of Sino-Soviet Eastern Border, 16 May 1991 (entered into force 16 March 1992), online: china.com.cn 〈www.china.com.cn/chinese/zhuanti/pjfh/1157570.htm〉 [Sino-Soviet Eastern Border Agreement].

51. Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation, 16 July 2001 (entered into force 28 February 2002), online: The Global Collaborative on Denuclearization Design 〈www.gcdd.net/TX.011=2001.07.16..Ch+Ru.html〉 [Treaty of Sino-Russian Friendly Cooperation].

52. The “unequal treaties” mainly refer to the 1858 Aigun Treaty, the 1860 Peking Convention, the 1864 Sino-Russian North-West Border Delimitation Agreement, the 1881 Yili Treaty (Treaty of St Petersburg). See e.g., WANG, Dong, China’s Unequal Treaties: Narrating National History (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005) at 934Google Scholar.

53. Wang and Wei, supra note 9 at 32.

54. WOLFKE, Karol, Custom in Present International Law (Dordrecht/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff, 1993) at 72Google Scholar.

55. LAUTERPACHT, Hersch, The Development of International Law by the International Court (London: Stevens and Sons Limited, 1958) at 9Google Scholar.

56. ZHAO, Jinsong, “Zhongguo Heping Jiejue Guoji Zhengduan Wenti Chutan” [A Tentative Discussion about the Chinese Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes] (2006) 1 Science of Law (Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law) 97 at 102Google Scholar.

57. WANG, Tieya, International Law (Bejing: Law Press, 1995) at 612Google Scholar.

58. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 21 December 1965, 660 U.N.T.S. 195 (entered into force 4 January 1969). [CERD].

59. See China’s reservation to CERD, online: UN Treaty Collection 〈http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-2&chapter=4&lang=en〉. (The reservation was circulated by the UN Secretary-General on 13 January 1982.)

60. Zhao, supra note 56 at 100.

61. SHAO Tianren, XU Guangjian, XUE Hanqin, and LIU Nanlai are arbitrators of the PCA. See “109th Report of the Permanent Court of Arbitration 2009”, Annex 6: Members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, online: PCA 〈www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/21%20Annex%206%2067-109.pdf〉, 74.

62. WANG, Tieya and LI, Haopei, Chinese Yearbook of International Law 1987 (Beijing: Law Press, 1988) at 461Google Scholar.

63. GASSAMA, Ibrahim J., “World Order in the Post-Cold War Era: Relevance and Role of the United Nations After Fifty Years” (1994) 20 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 255Google Scholar.

64. SU, Xiaohong, “Zhongguo Canyu Guoji Sifa de Kunzu yu Duice Fenxi” [What Hinders China from Using International Judicial System: Analysis and Recommendation] (2004) 3 Journal of East China Normal University: Philosophy and Social Science 62 at 66Google Scholar.

65. GAO, Fengjun, “Zhongguo Guojifa Jiazhiguan Xilun” [Analysis of the Value of International Law: From the Chinese Perspective] (2005) 2 Law Review 76 at 78Google Scholar.

66. HUANG, Deming, “Zhongguo Heping Fazhan zhong Waijiao Zhineng Tiaozheng de Qianyan Falü Wenti” [The Urgent Legal Problems Concerning Adjustment of the Diplomatic Functions in China's Peaceful Development] (2006) 2 Law Review 107 at 113Google Scholar.

67. CHENG, Binsheng, “Guoji Fayuan Zuoyong Tantao” [On the Function of the International Court of Justice] (2001) 3 Modern Law Science 150 at 155Google Scholar.

68. ZHU, Fenglan, “Zhongri Donghai Zhengduan Jiqi Jiejue de Qianjing” [The Dispute in the East China Sea between China and Japan: The Prospect of Settlement] (2005) 7 Contemporary Asia-Pacific Studies 3 at 16Google Scholar.

69. HENKIN, Louis, How Nations Behave (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979) at 18Google Scholar.

70. JESSUP, Philip C., A Modern Law of Nations (New York: Macmillan, 1948) at 20Google Scholar.

71. WELLS, Catharine Pierce, “Why Pragmatism Works for Me” (2000–2001) 74 Southern California Law Review 347 at 354Google Scholar.