Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Wellington Koo, International law and Modern China

  • Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of International Law

Abstract

Wellington Koo (1888–1985) is a prominent jurist and diplomat in the Republic of China. The article examines his contribution to international legal order and Chinese diplomacy. It argues that Koo’s involvement in international jurisprudence and Chinese foreign policy validated the universality of international law and reinforced the normative foundation of global governance. First, the article sheds light on the historical background of Republican China and assesses Koo’s decisions as a judge in the International Court of Justice, including high-profile disputes over South West Africa and the Temple of Preah Vihear. Second, it examines Koo’s impact on Chinese diplomacy based on assertive legalism. In particular, it focuses on Koo’s efforts to deal with the Japanese aggression to Shandong and Manchuria, to end China’s unequal treaties and to contribute to the forming of the United Nations. Hence, Koo left a rich legacy in the evolution of modern Asia’s approach to international law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See, Jonathan Clements, Wellington Koo: China (Haus Publishing, London, 2008) 172–183. Wellington Koo is known as Vi Kuiyuin or Gu Weijun in the Chinese-speaking world.

  2. The preamble to the 1907 Hague Convention first mentioned the term, “civilized nations.” See, Proclamation of President Sun Yat-sen on the Establishment of the Republic of China on January 1, 1912 (‘With the establishment of Provisional Government we will try our best to carry out the duties of a civilized nation so as to obtain the rights of a civilized state’).

  3. Clements, supra note 1, 178–82. Koo famously said: ’The recent history of both Europe and Asia shows beyond a doubt the futility of trying to turn a tiger into a kitten by giving it a dish of cream.’ see, V.K. Wellington Koo, Columbia250 http://c250.columbia.edu/c250_celebrates/remarkable_columbians/v_k_wellington_koo.html.

  4. Stephen Craft, V.K. Wellington Koo and the Emergence of Modern China (Univ Press Kentucky, Lexington, 2004) 90, 91. In the name list issued by the Chinese Community Party (CCP) in 1948, Wellington Koo was listed as the 22nd among 43 Kuomintang (KMT) war criminals.

  5. In 1972, Zhang Hanzhi, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) delegate to the UN, visited Koo and conveyed Mao’s invitation. Koo did not share the "classical legal consciousness." Instead Koo ‘shared the modern legal consciousness that defined the disciplinary sensibilities of international lawyers at the beginning of twentieth century.' AB Lorca, Mestizo International Law: a global intellectual history 1842–1933 (CUP, Cambridge, 2014) 6, 23, 25–26, 118.

  6. Chiu Hungdah, Comparison of the Nationalist and Communist Chinese Views of Unequal Treaties, in Jerome Alan Cohen (ed) China’s Practice of International Law: Some Case Studies: With contributions by Philippe Ardant (Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, 1972) 239, 241–46; Wang Tieya, International Law in China: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, 221 Recueil Des Cours (II-1990) 252–53.

  7. Milton J Helmick, United States Court for China, 14(18) Far Eastern Survey (1945) 252, 253; Manley Hudson, The Rendition of the International Mixed Court at Shanghai, 21 American J Intl L (1927) 451, 454. In the French Concession of Shanghai, a separate Mixed Court also was established.

  8. Chiu, supra note 6, at 245–46 (reviewing Chinese Nationalist Party declarations on the abrogation of unequal treaties).

  9. Lydia H. Liu, The Clash of Empires: The Invention of Chan in Modern World making 135 (2004). Lin, Xuezhong, Cong Wan Guo Gong Fa Dao Gong Fa Wai Jiao: Wang Qing Guo Ju Fa De Zhuan Ru, Quan Shi Yu Ying Yong [from Law of Nations to Public Law Diplomacy: The Introduction, Interpretation and Application of International Law in Late Qing] (Ancient Books Publishing, Shanghai, 2009) 305–40.

  10. Liu, supra note 9, at 113–15.

  11. Craft, supra note 4, at 18–19; Clements, supra note 1, at 31. While at Columbia, Koo was a star debater and orator of the class of 1908. Specializing in international law, he earned a master's degree at Columbia in 1909 and a Ph.D. in 1912. Fluent in English, French and German, Koo became English secretary to the President of the newly established Republic of China. He served briefly as Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Finance Minister in the 1920's and 1930's. See, Wolfgang Saxonvk, Wellington Koo dies, The New York Times (16 November 1985).

  12. Clements, supra note 1, at 33 & 174.

  13. The Republic of China (Nationalist or Republican China)-nominated judges of international courts include Wang Chung-hui (1921–1939) and Cheng Tien-hsi (1939–1946) of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Hsu Mo (1946–1957) and Wellington Koo (1957–1967) of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and Mei Ju-ao (1946–1948) of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. Ni Zhengyu became the first PRC judge of the ICJ in 1985. For a discussion, see, Prabhakar Singh, The rough and tumble of international courts and tribunals 55 Indian J Intl L (2015) 329, 369, fn 191.

  14. Shigeru Oda & E McWhinney (ed) Judge Shigeru Oda and The Progressive Development of International Law: Opinions (Declarations, Separate Opinions, Dissents on The International Court of Justice, 1976–1992) (M Nijhoff, Boston, 1993). For details of all ICJ Members, see, <http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=2&p3=2> (last visited 26 Dec 2016).

  15. Gu Weijuin Hui Yi Lu (Memoirs of V. K. Wellington Koo), Vol. I. Translated by the Institute of Modern History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, People’s Republic of China, from the original English Oral History microfilm text (Zhung Hua Shu Ju, Beijing, 1983) at 12–13. Prabhakar Singh, Sino-Indian Attitudes to International Law: of Nations, States and Colonial Hangovers, 3 Chinese J Comp L (2015) 348, 351-352 noting ‘Wellington Koo, a diplomat and later a judge of the ICJ, ... actively used rebus sic stantibus since the 1920s to renegotiate colonial treaties.’

  16. Presidency <http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=3> (last visited 26 Dec 2016); Ibid. 30–31.

  17. See generally, Memoirs of V. K. Wellington Koo, supra note 15, 30; Separate opinions by Koo, in, Case concerning the Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v India), Applications of the Convention of 1902 Governing the Guardianship of Infants (Netherlands v Sweden), Interhandel (Switzerland v United States of America), Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v United Kingdom), Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v Spain); Dissenting opinions by Koo in South West Africa (Liberia v South Africa) and Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand).

  18. Case concerning the Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v India), Merits, Judgment of 12 April 1960, ICJ Rep 7–10.

  19. Ibid., 42–44.

  20. Statute of the International Court of Justice (1945), Art 38(1)(c).

  21. Separate Opinion of Judge VK Wellington Koo, in, Case Concerning the Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v India), Judgment of 12 April 1960 [1960] ICJ 63 [20].

  22. Ibid.

  23. Sjoerd Douma, Optimization of Tax Sovereignty and Free Movement (IBFD, Amsterdam, 2011) 82; Ciarán Burke, An Equitable Framework for Humanitarian Intervention (Bloomsbury Publishing, Oxford, 2013) 122.

  24. Case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co Ltd (Belgium v Spain) Second Phase, [1970] ICJ Rep 35, 50–51.

  25. Separate Opinion of Vice-President Wellington Koo, in, Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Co, ibid, 58. For an analysis of other judges’ challenges to the majority, see, LC Cafliscb, The Protection of Corporate Investments abroad in the Light of the Barcelona Traction Case, 31 Heidelberg J Intl L (1971) 162, 189.

  26. Ibid.

  27. Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection with Commentaries (2006) 63–65 <http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_8_2006.pdf>.

  28. CJR Dugard, The South West Africa Cases, Second Phase, 83 South African L J (1966) 429, 430.

  29. South West African Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa: Second Phase) [1966] ICJ Rep10–14.

  30. Ibid. 6; Editors, The South West Africa Cases: Ut Res Magis Pereat Quam Valeat, 115 Univ Penn L Rev (1967) 1170, 1172; Brian Flemming, South West African Cases: Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa: Second Phase, 5 Canadian Yrbk. Intl L (1967) 241, 245–46.

  31. Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President VK Wellington Koo, in, South West African Cases (Ethiopia v South Africa/Liberia v South Africa) Second Phase [1966] ICJ Rep 223–35.

  32. Ibid. 219.

  33. Ibid. 219–20.

  34. Ibid.

  35. Case concerning the Temple of Preach Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand), Merits, Judgment of 15 June 1962 [1962] ICJ Rep 30, 34–37.

  36. See generally, Lyndel Prott v, The Style of Judgment in the International Court of Justice, 5 Australian Yrbk Intl L (1970) 75, 87; John D Ciorciari, Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand),108 Am J Intl L (2014) 288, 288–92.

  37. Case concerning the Temple of Preach Vihear (Cambodia V. Thailand), Merits, Judgment of 15 June 1962 [1962] ICJ Rep 30.

  38. Ibid. 31.

  39. Dissenting Opinion of Judge Wellington Koo, Case Concerning the Temple of Preach Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand) [1962] ICJ Rep 91.

  40. Ibid.

  41. Imperial Decree to Establish the Tsung-li Ya-men, BO NIAN ZHUAN CHENG ZOU CHU HUO LU: ZHONG HUA MIN GUO WAI JIAO SHI LIAO TE ZHAN [A Century of Resilient Tradition: Exhibition of the Republic of China’s Diplomatic Archives] (Office of Foreign Affairs, Beijing, 2011) 260.

  42. Boxer Protocol of 7 September 1901, Art. XII.

  43. Madeleine Chi, China Diplomacy, 1914–1918 (Harvard University Asia Center, Cambridge,1970) 88.

  44. Koo’s speech, cited in Clements, supra note 1, 71.

  45. La Fargue, Thomas Edward, Appendix III: Annotation of the Minutes of the Discussions of the Shantung Question, 1919, in, China and The World War (Stanford Univ Press, California, 1937) 250.

  46. Craft, supra note 4, 68–71.

  47. The British Supplementary Treaty of the Bogue of October 8, 1843, Art. 8.

  48. Article 25 of the Treaty of Wanghia extended consular jurisdiction from disputes between US and Chinese nationals to those between US and non-Chinese nationals. Hence, Chinese courts lost complete jurisdiction over cases involving Americans. Based on the most-favored-nation clause, British nationals received the same treatment. There were 14 countries that received “direct” extraterritorial rights under their treaties with China, but other countries claimed the same treatment under the MFN clause in their treaties. Albert H Putney & Raymond L Buell, The Termination of Unequal Treaties, 21 ASIL Proceedings (1927) 87, 96.

  49. Chen-Feng Tsai, ZHONG GUO SHOU GUAN DE AO SH GUAN WEI DUI JI JUN XIE ZHI YAN JIU (1917–1922) [The Research of China’s Taking over German and Austro-Hungarian Embassy Guards and Weapons], in Hui-Min Chou (ed) GUO JI FA ZAI ZONG GUO DE GUAN SHI YU YUN YONG [The Interpretation and Application of International Law in China] (Office of Foreign Affairs, Beijing, 2012). The Nationalist government’s declaration of war against Japan similarly terminated treaties with Japan, such as the Treaty of Shimonoseki.

  50. Chi-Hua Tang, 1926–29 NIAN ZHONG BI XIU YUE AN YAN JIU [A Study of Treaty Revision Negotiations between China and Belgium, 1926–1929], 31 GUO LI ZHENG ZHI DA XUE LI SHI XUE BAO, NCCU J History (2009) 115–164.

  51. The Sino-Belgium Treaty of November 2, 1865, art. 46. See, Matthew Craven, What Happened to Unequal Treaties? The Continuities of Informal Empire, 74 Nordic J Intl L (2005) 335, 346 (explaining the arguments and proceedings).

  52. Application Instituting Proceedings, Denunciation of the Treaty of 2 Nov 1856 (China v Belgium) [1927] PCIJ Rep (Ser A) No 8, 4 ff. Craven, supra note 51, 367.

  53. Tang, supra note 50, 156–28.

  54. Ibid. 129–31.

  55. Chi-Hua Tang, China-Europe, in, Bardo Fasssbender & Anne Peters (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law (OUP, Oxford, 2012).

  56. Hatsue Shinohara, US International Lawyers in the Interwar Years: A Forgotten Crusade (CUP, New York, 2012) 121; SG Craft, Saving the League: VK Wellington Koo, the League of Nations and Sino-Japanese Conflict, 1931–39, 11 Diplomacy & Statecraft (2000) 91, 95; The Covenant of the League of Nations, 28 April 1919, 1919 UKTS 4 (Cmd. 153) Arts. X, XI, and XV.

  57. Shinya Murase, Thomas Baty in Japan: Seeing Through the Twilight, 73 British Yrbk Intl L (2002) 315, 327–32.

  58. See generally, League of Nations, Appeal by the Chinese Government: Report of the Commission of Enquiry (League of Nations, 1932); The League of Nations Starts Its “Conciliation Machinery,” <https://kjc-sv013.kjc.uni-heidelberg.de/gpos/the-league-of-nations-starts-its-conciliation-machinery> (last visited 1 Dec 2016).

  59. Shinohara, supra note 56, 112–15.

  60. Zhongyun Zi, Big Power Assurance of Peace versus the Principle of Equality among All Nations, in, Ernest R. May & Angeliki E. Laiou (eds) The Dumbarton Oaks Conversations and the United Nations 1944–1994 (Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington DC, 1998).

  61. Tang, supra note 55, 721.

  62. China Institute of International Affairs, China and the United Nations, Report of a Study Group Set up by the China Institute of International Affairs (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace/Manhattan Publishing Co., New York, 1959) 16–47.

  63. Ibid. 58–60.

  64. See, The Cairo Declaration of November 26, 1943 (‘[A]ll the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China’).

  65. Craft, supra note 4, 246–48.

  66. The Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty of March 3, 1955, Art VI.

  67. VK Wellington Koo, What is at Stake in the Formosa Strait? The Security of All Free Nations in Southeast Asia, April 18, 1955, in, 21(15) Vital Speeches of the Day (McMurry Inc., Pheonix, 1955) 1223.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Associate Professor, Singapore Management University School of law, Singapore, Singapore

    Pasha L. Hsieh

  2. Member of the Executive Committee, Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law, Taipei, Taiwan

    Pasha L. Hsieh

Authors
  1. Pasha L. Hsieh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pasha L. Hsieh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hsieh, P.L. Wellington Koo, International law and Modern China. Indian Journal of International Law 56, 307–323 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40901-017-0054-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40901-017-0054-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation