Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction: Meaning and Function of a Chinese Theory of International Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover A Chinese Theory of International Law

  • 441 Accesses

Abstract

Although international law should be regarded as a public good for the whole world, it bears the characteristics of national culture from the very beginning.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    E.g., Shi Yinhong, “Global Challenge and China”, Modern International Relations 2009 (3); Shi Yinhong, “Reflections on China’s Great Powers' Position and Its Image”, International Economic Review 1999 (5); He Lan, “Changes in the international situation and the promotion of the right to speak in China”, Modern International Relations 2009 (11) (时殷弘: 《全球性挑战与中国》, 《现代国际关系》 2009 年第 3 期; 时殷弘: 《关于中国的大国地位及其形象的思考》, 《国际经济评论》 1999 年第5期; 何兰: 《国际局势变化与中国话语权的提升》, 《现代国际关系》 2009 年第 11 期;) Guiguo Wang, “China’s FTAs: Legal Characteristics and Implications”, 105 The American Journal of International Law 493 (2011); Ho-fung Hung and Jaime Kucinskas, “Globalization and Global Inequality: Assessing the Impact of the Rise of China and India, 1980–2005”, 116 American Journal of Sociology 1478 (2011); Jonathan Holslag, “China’s Roads to Influence”, 50 Asian Survey 641 (2010); Anne-Marie Brady, “China’s Rise in Antarctica?”, Asian Survey 759 (2010).

  2. 2.

    Cf. e.g., Joseph S. Nye Jr., Erza Vogel, Xue Lan, and Anthony Saich, The Rise of China’s Soft Power, President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2006; Carola McGiffert (ed.), Chinese Soft Power and Its Implications for the United States, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 2009; S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, The Rise of China and Its Soft Power: Conference Report, Singapore: Nanyang Technological University, 2007. Ying Fan, “Soft Power: Power of Attraction or Confusion?” 4 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 147 (2008).

  3. 3.

    See. e.g., He Lan, “Changes in the international situation and the promotion of the right to speak in China”, Modern International Relations 2009 (11); Wu Ying, “Study on the Effect of the Settlement of Chinese Discourse—Taking the Press spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China as an Example”, World Economy and Politics 2011 (2) (何兰: 《国际局势变化与中国话语权的提升》, 《现代国际关系》 2009 年第 11 期; 吴瑛: 《中国话语的议程设置效果研究——以中国外交部新闻发言人为例》, 《世界经济与政治》 2011 年第 2 期.).

  4. 4.

    Discussion and analysis for Chinese discourse and position from different academic backgrounds, see Shen Zhuanghai, “Chinese Soft Power of Chinese Culture, China’s Circumstances and China’s Road”, Marxist Studies 2009 (11); Xie Liaobin, “Chinese discourse in economic confusion”, Economist 2002 (1); Qu Lindong, “On the contemporary Chinese history discourse system construction of several issues”, Chinese Social Science 2011 (2); Wu Zongjie and Hu Meixin, “beyond the characterization: the interpretation of Chinese discourse tradition and its current view”, Literature, History, an Philosophy 2010 (4); Wu Xuan, “Theoretical Original Chinese Position”, Jianghai Academic Journal 2009 (1); Hu Haibo, “Creating the 'Self in Thought' of the Chinese Nation: Professor Gao Qinghai's Study of Marxist Philosophy in China's Position and Way”, Jilin University Journal of Social Science, 2007 (6); Zhang Rulun, “On the modernization of Chinese philosophy”, Research in Philosophy 2006 (5); Wang Xiao Gang, “Seriously treat China’s reflective legal system modernization”, Tribute on Politics and Law 2007 (4); Shu Guoying, “Chinese Jurisprudence through the Historical Jungle”, Tribute on Politics and Law 2005 (1). (沈壮海: 《文化软实力的中国话语, 中国境遇与中国道路》, 《马克思主义研究》2009年第 11 期; 谢廖斌: 《经济学困惑中的中国话语》, 《经济学家》 2002 年第 1 期; 瞿林东: 《关于当代中国史学话语体系建构的几个问题》, 《中国社会科学》 2011 年第 2 期; 吴宗杰, 胡美馨: 《超越表征: 中国话语的诠释传统及其当下观照》, 《文史哲》 2010 年第4期; 吴炫: 《理论原创的中国立场》, 《江海学刊》 2009 年第 1 期; 胡海波: 《创造中华民族的 “思想自我”——高清海先生研究马克思主义哲学的中国立场与方式》, 《吉林大学社会科学学报》 2007 年第 6 期; 张汝伦: 《论 “中国哲学的现代化”》, 《哲学研究》 2006 年第 5 期; 王小钢: 《认真对待中国反思性法制现代化》, 《政法论坛》 2007 年第 4 期; 舒国滢: 《在历史丛林里穿行的中国法理学》, 《政法论坛》 2005 年第 1 期.).

  5. 5.

    Discussions on this topic, see Zeng Lingliang, “Contemporary Construction of Chinese International Law Discourse System”, Chinese Social Science, 2, 2011 (2); Zeng Lingliang, “On the impact of China’s peaceful development and international law interaction and role”, Chinese law 2006 (4); Zhou Zhonghai, “China’s peaceful rise needs to strengthen the study of international law”, Chinese Journal of Law 2004 (2); Zhu Wenqi, “International Law and China’s Internationalization”, Jurists 2008 (1); He Zhipeng, “From ‘Peace and Development’ to ‘Harmonious Development’: The Evolution of International Law Values and the Adjustment of China’s Position”, Jilin University Journal of Social Sciences, 2011 (4). (曾令良: 《中国国际法学话语体系的当代构建》, 《中国社会科学》 2011 年第 2 期; 曾令良: 《论中国和平发展与国际法的交互影响和作用》, 《中国法学》 2006 年第 4 期; 周忠海: 《中国的和平崛起需要加强对国际法的研究》, 《法学研究》 2004 年第 2 期; 朱文奇: 《国际法与中国的国际化》, 《法学家》 2008 年第 1 期; 何志鹏: 《从“和平与发展”到“和谐发展”——国际法价值观的演进与中国立场调适》, 《吉林大学社会科学学报》 2011 年第 4 期.).

  6. 6.

    In December 2011, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs held a small seminar to discuss the “theoretical system of international law with Chinese characteristics”. The theme of the 2012 China International Law Society Academic Annual Conference was “Contemporary China and International Law—State Practice and Theoretical Thinking”, and there are many sub-topics are directly related to this.

  7. 7.

    If international law is universal in the world, the relative theory is also common to the world, and the theory of international law with Chinese characteristics will be lack of necessity and legitimacy. Just as laws are implemented uniformly in China, it is impossible to explore a theory of criminal law with a province/city/district characteristics.

  8. 8.

    The practices of extradition, asylum, recognition and how a treaty may enter into force in a state are unilateral; economic and trade cooperation treaty, dispute settlement, territorial system and so on are mainly bilateral. Multilateral conventions such as the Charter of the United Nations and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, multilateral organizations such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank Group have become the main aspects of international law since the twentieth century because of their wide scope and wide impact. However, multilateral treaties and multilateral organizations do not mean that all countries and regions are covered, and there are almost no treaties and organizations that cover all countries and regions in the world. Regional organizations such as the European Union and the African Union play an important role within the framework of international law.

  9. 9.

    Hans Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 7th ed., edited by Kenneth W. Thompson and W. David Clinton, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006, pp. 285–286.

  10. 10.

    M. Koskenniemi, “Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law,” Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, A/CN.4/L.702, UN, 2006, pp. 1–25; M. Koskenniemi and P. Leino, “Fragmentation of International Law? Postmodern Anxieties,” 15:3 Leiden Journal of International Law (2002) 553–579.

  11. 11.

    The connotation of inter-temporal law is that the legitimacy of a legal claim should be taken into account at the prevailing norms of international law. Island of Palmas Case (1928) 2 R.I.A.A. 831 at 845. The sole arbitrator of the case, Max Huber explained, “As regards the question which of different legal systems prevailing at successive periods is to be applied in a particular case (the so-called inter-temporal law), a distinction must be made between the creation of rights and the existence of rights. The same principle which subjects the acts creative of a right to the law in force at the time the right arises, demands that the existence of the right, in other words its continued manifestation, shall follow the conditions required by the evolution of law.” The principle is respected in many cases concerning territorial and treaty interpretation, for example, (1909) 11 R.I.A.A. 155; Minquiers and Ecrehos Case 1953 I.C.J. Rep. 47; Western Sahara Case 1975 I.C.J. Rep. 12; Rights of U.S. Nationals in Morocco Case 1952 I.C.J. Rep. 176; Right of Passage Case 1960 I.C.J. Rep. 6.

  12. 12.

    The historic school of law on legal theory (Historische Rechtsschule) views that the law is the embodiment of national spirit. See, e.g. Savigny, On the Contemporary Mission of Legislation and Law, Xu Zhangrun (trans.), China Legal Press, 2001, pp. 7–9 ([德]萨维尼: 《论立法与法学的当代使命》, 许章润译, 中国法制出版社, 2001, 第 7–9 页). This can be applied not only to domestic law but also to international law. Over the past few hundred years, international law has a strong Western cultural orientation. It expressed not only in the form of international law, the process of trial, but also the specific principles and norms of international law. All of the phases are the fusion of civil law and common law system. Non-Western culture has only sporadic embodiment in international law.

  13. 13.

    Dr. Yi Ping called it “the paradoxical existence the trend of discretization in contemporary international law under the environment of globalization.” See Yi Ping, “Introduction to the New Approach to International Law,” Peking University Law Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, Peking University Press, 2011, p. 9. (易平《“国际法研究新进路”导言》, 《北大法律评论》 第 12 卷第 1 辑, 北京大学出版社, 2011, 第 9 页.).

  14. 14.

    More detailed discussions, see He Zhipeng and Sun Lu, “Dialectics of International Law”, Jiangxi Social Sciences 2011 (7). (何志鹏, 孙璐: 《国际法的辩证法》, 《江西社会科学》 2011 年第7期.).

  15. 15.

    Since the time of its own existence, the state has always been in a state where there is no higher government command. Thus, anarchy is the basic prerequisite for international politics and all the doctrines of international relations are the starting point. Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 247–269.

  16. 16.

    Hans Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The struggle for Power and Peace, Alfred A. Knopf, 1948, pp. 4–15; Ernst B. Haas, “The balance of power: prescription, concept, or propaganda”, 5 World Politics 442 (1953).

  17. 17.

    See Su Xiaohong, International Justice in Changing the World, Peking University Press, 2005, pp. 31–37, 107–109, 113–117. (苏晓宏: 《变动世界中的国际司法》, 北京大学出版社, 2005, 第 31–37, 107–109, 113–117 页.).

  18. 18.

    On New Haven School, see Michael Reisman, “The View from the New Haven School of International Law”, International Law in Contemporary Perspective, Foundation Press, 1992; David Kleimann, “Positivism, the New Haven School, and the Use of Force in International Law” 3 BSIS Journal of International Studies 26 (2006); Laura A. Dickinson, “Toward a ‘New’ New Haven School of International Law?”, 32 The Yale Journal of International Law 547 (2007).

  19. 19.

    This treaty of alliance was concluded between the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union on February 14, 1950, it meant the two sides declaring null and void the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance signed by Kuomintang Government of China and the Soviet Union on 14 August 1945, so as to set forth anew the guiding principles and legal basis for the new Sino-Soviet relations in a changed situation.

  20. 20.

    Oppenheim stated that international law should be divided into general international law and special international law. Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts (eds.), Oppenheim's International Law, 9th ed., Harlow: Longman, 1992, vol. I, p. 4. In the world today, or more special international law.

  21. 21.

    Anne-Marie Slaughter Burley, “International Law and International Relations Theory: A Dual Agenda”, 87 American Journal of International Law 205 (1993); Gerry Simpson, “Duelling Agendas: International Relations and International Law (Again)”, 1 Journal of International Law & International Relations 61 (2005).

  22. 22.

    Wang Puqu, et al., Fundamentals of Political Science (2nd ed.), Peking University Press, 2006, pp. 14–15. (王浦劬等: 《政治学基础 (第二版)》, 北京大学出版社, 2006, 第 14–15 页.).

  23. 23.

    In this sense, the law also has the function of coordinating political relations, regulating political behavior, promoting political development and resolving political problems. See Zhang Wenxian (ed.), Jurisprudence (3rd ed.,), Higher Education Press and Peking University Press, 2007, pp. 367–369. (张文显主编: 《法理学(第三版)》, 高等教育出版社, 北京大学出版社, 2007, 第 367–369 页.).

  24. 24.

    Mathieu Deflem, Sociology of Law Visions of a Scholarly Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, p. 162.

  25. 25.

    Some people may think that the functions of the UN Security Council have made the ability of supranational to a certain extent. But if we make a detailed analysis of the composition of the Council and its way of operation, it can be concluded that the Council has so far been a group of great powers rather than a supranational organization.

    At the same time, some people think that the EU has gained the position of a super-national power. In the general sense, the EU does have a higher legal status than member states in many aspects. However, if we push it to extreme, any member state of the EU has the opportunity to withdraw from the EU. In 2016 the British decided to leave the EU (Brexit) is such an example.

    Thus, from the general pattern of international law, today's international relations still do not form an international institutional system that transcends national power and constitutes a constraint and guidance to the state.

  26. 26.

    Anarchy is the basic prerequisite for international politics, and all the doctrines of international relations are used in the context of the existence of the state. Since the appearance of the states, states are always in an environment where there if no higher government command. See Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 247–269.

  27. 27.

    John Baylis, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens, The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 5th ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, chapters 5–8; Robert Jackson and Georg Sørensen, Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, 4th ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, chapters 3–6; Joshua S. Goldstein and Jon C. Pevehouse, International Relations, 10th ed., Harlow: Longman, 2011, chapters 2–3.

  28. 28.

    An analysis of the status of national interests in the international community and international law, see Clyde Eagleton, “International Law or National Interest”, 45 The American Journal of International Law 719 (1951); Myres S. McDougal, “The Hydrogen Bomb Tests and the International Law of the Sea”, 49 The American Journal of International Law 358 (1955); Covey T. Oliver, “International Law, Morality, and the National Interest: Comments for a New Journal”, 1 American University International Law Review 57 (1986); Martha Finnemore, National Interests in International Society, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996; R. James Woolsey (ed.), The National Interest on International Law and Order, Transaction Publishers, 2003; Lee Lane, “Climate Engineering and International Law: What Is in the National Interest?”, 105 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 525 (2011).

  29. 29.

    See panel discussion “Common rules of intellectual property and autonomous discourse”, Chinese Social Sciences 2011 (5); Zhao Yao, Wu Yuling, and Hu Hanhui, “Intellectual Property and Anti-monopoly Law: General Relationship, American Experience and China's Position”, Jianghai Academic Journal, 2008 (6). (专题讨论 《知识产权的共同规则与自主话语》, 《中国社会科学》 2011 年第 5 期; 赵耀, 吴玉岭, 胡汉辉: 《知识产权与反垄断法: 一般关系, 美国经历与中国立场》, 《江海学刊》 2008 年第 6 期.).

  30. 30.

    The writings of American international relations scholars generally use American international relations as the hypothetical background, and many examples are directed at US foreign affairs.

  31. 31.

    Zhang Xiaoming, The English School of International Relations: History, Theory and the View of China, People's Publishing House, 2010, pp. 136–137. (张小明: 《国际关系英国学派: 历史, 理论与中国观》, 人民出版社, 2010, 第 136–137 页.).

  32. 32.

    As early as the Roman era, the jurist Gaius thought that the jus gentium (the laws of people from different nations, later evolved into the “law of nations”, in 1789 by the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham named it as “international law”) is common law to all. See Scott ed., “The Four Commentaries of Gaius on the Institutions of the Civil Law”, 1 The Civil Law 81 (1973); Mark Janis, An Introduction to International Law, Aspen Publishers, 2003, p. 1.

  33. 33.

    Mary Ellen O'Connell, Richard F. Scott, and Naomi Roht-Arriaza, The International Legal System: Cases and Materials, 6th ed., Foundation Press, 2010, pp. 1164 ff.

  34. 34.

    Mark W. Janis and John Noyes, International Law: Cases and Commentary, 3rd ed., Thomson: West, 2006, p. 1.

  35. 35.

    Jean Bodin, On Sovereignty: Four Chapters from The Six Books of a Commonwealth, trans, Julian H. Franklin, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 3.

  36. 36.

    I. A. Shearer, Starke’s International Law, 11th ed., Butterworths, 1994, pp. 9–10.

  37. 37.

    R. R. Churchill and A. V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea, 2nd ed., Manchester University Press, 1988, p. 122.

  38. 38.

    Louis Henkin, International Law: Politics and Values, 1995, p. 10; Louis Henkin, “The Mythology of Sovereignty”, Presidential Notes, American Society of International Law Newsletter (February—March 1993), p. 1, also in Ronald St John Macdonald (ed), Essays in Honour of Wang Tieya, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1994, p. 351.; John H. Jackson, “The Great 1994 Sovereignty Debate: United States Acceptance and Implementation of the Uruguay Round Results”, 36 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 157 (1997); John H. Jackson, “Sovereignty-Modern: A New Approach to an Outdated Concept”, 97 The American Journal of International Law 782 (2003).

  39. 39.

    Malcolm Shaw, International Law, 6th ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, p. 13.

  40. 40.

    Wang Tieya, An Introduction to International Law, Peking University Press, 1998, pp. 252–253. (王铁崖: 《国际法引论》, 北京大学出版社, 1998, 第 252–253 页.).

  41. 41.

    See Article 38, paragraph 1 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.

  42. 42.

    See Liu Fangxiong, A Research on Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Jurisdiction, Zhejiang University Press, 2008, pp. 177–178. (刘芳雄: 《国际法院咨询管辖权研究》, 浙江大学出版社, 2008, 第 177–178 页.).

  43. 43.

    The postmodern theorist Jean Francois Lyotard argues that all knowledge is in the narrative, and that this narrative must be based on the ultimate principle of its legitimacy. Thus, those things that are said to be universally normative are also based on a particular cultural basis. If we digest the surface narrative of its surface, it is not difficult to see the cultural foundation it relies on. See Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Translation from the French by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi, Manchester University Press 1984, pp. 23–39). In this sense, international law has deep regional characteristics and cultural heritage.

  44. 44.

    Habermas believes that the law gains legitimacy in common political and economic interests. Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: The Discourse Theory on Law and Democratic Legal Systems, Tong Shijun (trans.), SDX Joint Publishing Company, 2003, p. 60. ([德] 哈贝马斯: 《在事实与规范之间: 关于法律和民主法制国的商谈理论》, 童世骏译, 生活·读书·新知三联书店 2003, 第 60 页.).

  45. 45.

    Legal principle needs to be weighed in a specific case. See Michael D. Bayles, Principles of law: A Normative Analysis (Reidel Publishing Company, 1987), pp. 11–15.

  46. 46.

    The principle of natural extension, the principle of equidistant middle line, both of which have considerable claims, but are not universally recognized principles. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides for “fairness”, but what is fair, there is not have a clear explanation. See Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (7th ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 196–197, 214–220.

  47. 47.

    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 226, para 105.

  48. 48.

    See Declaration of President Bedjaoui, Declaration of Judge Herczegh, Declaration of Judge Shi, Declaration of Judge Vereshchetin, Declaration of Judge Ferrari Bravo, Separate Opinion of Judge Guillaume, Separate Opinion of Judge Ranjeva, Separate Opinion of Judge Fleischhauer, Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Schwebel, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Oda, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Koroma, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Higgins.

  49. 49.

    Analysis and comments, see Yu Mincai, “Comments on the Advisory Opinion on the Kosovo Independent case”, are and He Zhipeng: “The Judicial Dilemma in Power Politics: Reflection and Inspiration of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Independence of Kosovo”, both published in ZUEL Law Journal, No. 6, 2010. (余民才: 《“科索沃独立咨询意见案”评析》; 何志鹏: 《大国政治中的司法困境——国际法院“科索沃独立咨询意见”的思考与启示》, 《法商研究》 2010 年第 6 期.).

  50. 50.

    Sean David Murphy, “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies”, in Cesare Romano (ed.), The Sword and The Scales: The United States and International Courts and Tribunals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 46; E. A. Posner and F. P. de Figueiredo, “Is the International Court of Justice Politically Biased?” 34 Journal of Legal Studies 599 (2005); Michael J. Kelly, “Pulling at the Threads of Westphalia: ‘Involuntary Sovereignty Waiver’—Revolutionary International Legal Theory or Return to Rule by the Great Powers?”, 10 UCLA J. Int’L L. & For. Aff. 361 (2005); Renata Szafarz, The Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993, p. 12; Andreas L. Paulus, “From Neglect to Defiance? The United States and International”, 15 European Journal of International Law 783 (2004).

  51. 51.

    In theory, the judge's position is not necessarily consistent with his government's position. However, in practice, this unity is very obvious. For example, on 9 July 2004, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, believing that the construction of the wall constituted a number of violations on Israel's role in the application of international humanitarian law and under the commitment of human rights instruments. Only US judges voted against it. Then, the US government expressed its opposition to the opinion.

  52. 52.

    Rosalyn Higgins, “International Law and the Avoidance, Containment and resolution of Disputes” (General Course on Public International Law), Recueil des cours, Vol. 230, 1991, 25–26; Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994, pp. 3–5.

  53. 53.

    Professor Hao Tiechuan argues that modern law is not only a manifestation of the will of the state, but also a manifestation of the mainstream will of the international community, and discusses the reasons and ways of the formation of the mainstream will of the international community. He made this conclusion from the following aspects: the transformation of the will of the invading world by the mainstream will of the international community after World War II, the restraint of the United Nations on the will of its members, and the transformation of the will of other international organizations to its member states. See Hao Tiechuan: “law is only” the embodiment of the will of the state?—“and the law is also the embodiment of the mainstream of the international community”, Legal Science, 1998 (3). (郝铁川 : 《法仅仅是“国家意志的体现”吗?——兼论法亦为国际社会主流意志的体现》, 《法律科学》 1998 年第 3 期.).

  54. 54.

    See Yang Zewei, History of International Law, Higher Education Press, 2011, Chapters 2–4. (杨泽伟: 《国际法史论》, 高等教育出版社, 2011, 第 2–4 章.).

  55. 55.

    Francis Fukuyama, “The End of History?”, The National Interest, Summer, 1989.

  56. 56.

    Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?” 72:3 Foreign Affairs 22 (1993); Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996; Huntington (ed.), The Clash of Civilizations?: The Debate, New York, Foreign Affairs, 1996; Hans Köchler (ed.), Civilizations: Conflict or Dialogue?, Vienna: International Progress Organization, 1999; Jonathan Sacks, The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations, London: Continuum, 2002; Monica Duffy Toft, The Geography of Ethnic Violence: Identity, Interests, and the Indivisibility of Territory, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003; Couze Venn, “Clash of Civilisations”, in Prem Poddar et al., Historical Companion to Postcolonial Literatures—Continental Europe and its Empires, Edinburgh University Press, 2008.

  57. 57.

    Shao Sha-ping and Huang Ying, “The mission of China’s international law in the new multilateralism”, Philosophy and Social Sciences Journal of Jinan University, 2011 (1); Yu Minyou and Liu Heng, “On the development of international law in China”, Wuhan University Journal of Philosophy and Social Sciences, 2010 (5). (邵沙平, 黄颖: 《新多边主义时代中国国际法的使命》, 《暨南学报(哲学社会科学版)》 2011 年第 1 期; 余敏友, 刘衡: 《论国际法在中国的发展走向》, 《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》 2010 年第 5 期.).

  58. 58.

    For analysis, see Zhang Haibin, “China’s Position in International Climate Change Negotiations: Continuity and Change and Its Causes”, World Economy and Politics 2006 (10); Tang Jieke, He Xiuzhen, Benjulang, and Liu Wenjun, “China’s position and challenge in participating in international agreements on global climate change”, World Economy and Politics 2002 (8); Zhang Lijun, “Climate change and China’s national image: Western media and the public perspective”, European Studies 2010 (6); Xu Chongli, “WTO Multilateral Investment Agreement and China 's Basic Strategy Analysis”, Legal Science 2004 (4); Luo Xuxu, “WTO anti-dumping negotiations and China’s position”, International Trade Issues 2006 (6); He Zhipeng, “China’s Position in the Rotterdam Rules”, Chinese Journal of Maritime Law 2011 (2). (张海滨: 《中国在国际气候变化谈判中的立场: 连续性与变化及其原因探析》, 《世界经济与政治》 2006 年第 10 期; 唐更克, 何秀珍, 本约朗, 刘文俊: 《中国参与全球气候变化国际协议的立场与挑战》, 《世界经济与政治》 2002 年第 8 期; 张丽君: 《气候变化与中国国家形象: 西方媒体与公众的视角》, 《欧洲研究》 2010 年第 6 期; 徐崇利: 《WTO 多边投资协定议题与中国的基本策略分析》, 《法律科学》 2004 年第 4 期; 骆旭旭: 《世贸组织反倾销谈判及中国的立场》, 《国际贸易问题》 2006 年第 6 期; 何志鹏: 《〈鹿特丹规则〉的中国立场》, 《中国海商法年刊》 2011 年第 2 期.).

  59. 59.

    Selected Works of Wang Tieya (China University of Political Science and Law Press, 2003), pp. 351–361. (《王铁崖文选》, 中国政法大学出版社, 2003, 第 351–361 页.).

  60. 60.

    Quoted from Huang Huikang, “The diplomatic international law work under the new situations”, China News Network, (自黄惠康: 《新形势下的外交条法工作》, 中国新闻网) http://www.chinanews.com/gn/z/html/waijiaotiaofa.shtml.

  61. 61.

    Xie Yixing (ed.), Contemporary Diplomacy of China (1949–2009) (3rd ed., China Youth Publishing House, 2009). (谢益星主编: 《中国当代外交史 (1949–2009)》, 中国青年出版社, 2009 年第 3 版.).

  62. 62.

    See Liu Zhiyun, “The ‘Concept’ of Development of International Lawand Its Influence”, Modern Law 2007 (4); Qin Yaqing, Culture and the International Society: Theoretical Studies of Constructivist International Relations, World Knowledge Publishing House, 2006, Preface, pp. 22–27. (刘志云: 《国际法发展进程中的“观念”及其影响途径》, 《现代法学》 2007 年第 4 期; 秦亚青: 《文化与国际社会: 建构主义国际关系理论研究》, 世界知识出版社, 2006, 前言第 22–27 页.).

  63. 63.

    See, e.g., Zhou Zhonghai, “China’s peaceful rise needs to strengthen the study of international law”, Chinese Journal of Law 2004 (2); Zeng Lingliang, “On China’s peaceful development and international law interaction and role”, Chinese law 2006 (4); Zhu Wenqi, “China’s peaceful development needs of international law”, Jurist 2004 (6). (参见周忠海: 《中国的和平崛起需要加强对国际法的研究》, 《法学研究》 2004 年第 2 期; 曾令良: 《论中国和平发展与国际法的交互影响和作用》, 《中国法学》 2006 年第 4 期; 朱文奇: 《中国的和平发展需要国际法》, 《法学家》 2004 年第 6 期.).

  64. 64.

    See Deng Lie, “International Law and China’s response towards traditional security threats around”, Law Review 2009 (3). (邓烈: 《国际法与中国周边传统安全威胁的应对》, 《法学评论》 2009 年第 3 期.).

  65. 65.

    Although some scholars have discussed the issue of self-determination of peoples and provided an important reference for us to understand the relevant rules, however, in view of the series of events facing China itself, the Chinese government should have a clearer position on national self-determination. For relevant literatures, see Bai Guimei, “self-determination and minority rights in international law”, Peking University Law Journal 1997 (4); Bai Guimei, “Aboriginal and self-determination,” Peking University Law Journal 1997 (6); Bai Guimei, “On internal and external self – determination”, Chinese Journal of Law 1997 (3); Zhao Jianwen, “The main body of the people’s right to self-determination”, Chinese Journal of Law 2008 (2). (白桂梅: 《国际法上的自决权与少数者权利》, 《中外法学》 1997 年第 4 期; 白桂梅: 《土著人与自决权》, 《中外法学》 1997 年第 6 期; 白桂梅: 《论内部与外部自决》, 《法学研究》 1997 年第 3 期; 赵建文: 《人民自决权的主体范围》, 《法学研究》 2008 年第 2 期).

  66. 66.

    Closely related with the right of self-determination, territorial integrity is one aspect of China’s need to articulate its position and provide adequate theoretical support. See Zhao Jianwen, “The relationship between the right of peoples to self-determination and the territorial integrity of the country”, Chinese Journal of Law 2009 (6) (赵建文: 《人民自决权与国家领土完整的关系》, 《法学研究》 2009 年第 6 期). Existing government advocates and academic research in this regard still need to be deepened and rich.

  67. 67.

    China, as a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations, has participated in international negotiations on armed intervention, especially in 2011 against Syria's draft resolution, expressing China’s stance, but the corresponding theoretical follow-up is still inadequate; At the same time, there is a need for a clear attitude and sufficient justification for the use of force without the United Nations.

  68. 68.

    For example, China should call on the international community to define the scope of terrorism and decide on the limits of counter-terrorism measures, in the light of its own national circumstances, for the war crimes that the United States strongly advocated, especially Killing Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011.

  69. 69.

    China has always advocated that “the right to subsistence and the right to development are the most basic human rights”, this view should be discussed more in-depth. So far, theoretical analysis in this respect is not solid enough. Thus, it is not convincing for foreign theorists, practitioners and the Chinese themselves.

  70. 70.

    China advocates that human rights cannot hurt sovereignty, engage in power politics, hegemonism, and Deng Xiaoping also put forward the concept of “state rights”. See Deng Xiaoping’s “The United States should take the initiative to end the severe relationship between China and US”, “The sovereignty and security of a state should always be the first” and other conversations, in Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping (vol. 3, People’s Publishing House, 1993), pp. 331, 345, and 348. This view is useful for correcting the Western idea of human rights which is often one-sided unequal and unfair. An in-depth analysis of this issue also contributes to the deepening of the theory of international law. But it is regrettable that the existing international academic research on relevant issues is mostly a circular argument and does not provide a convincing basis. Related discussion, see Zhang Hua, “On respect for human rights as the basic principles of international law and its impact on China’s peaceful development”, Law Review 2007 (2). (张华: 《论尊重人权作为国际法的基本原则及其对中国和平发展的影响》, 《法学评论》 2007 年第 2 期.).

  71. 71.

    It is clear that China, as a developing country, should put forward more vivid view on the relationship between environmental protection and economic growth, developed countries and developing countries on environmental issues between the common and differentiated responsibilities.

  72. 72.

    “China’s peaceful development is bound to make an important contribution to the universal core values of the theme of peace and development of international law and human rights, the rule of law and democracy.” Zeng Lingliang, “On China’s peaceful development and international law interaction and role”, Chinese law 2006 (4). (曾令良: 《论中国和平发展与国际法的交互影响和作用》, 《中国法学》 2006 年第 4 期.).

  73. 73.

    “With the rising strength of China, especially since the 2008 financial crisis, the trend of power transfer around the world has accelerated, and the international system is in a major turning point. China’s ability to shape and construct the international order has greatly improved. China gradually gained the ability to reshape the international order and promote the development of the international order in a more fair and reasonable way. It has become an important part of China’s foreign policy. The ability to improve the consciousness of reshaping the international order and the ability to construct the international order has become a major issue in China’s foreign policy.” Liu Aming and Zhou Jianming, “From ‘Advocate’ to ‘Shaping’: On Improving Self-Confidence and Consciousness in China’s Reshaping of International Order”, Social Science, 2012 (4). (刘阿明, 周建明: 《从“主张”到“塑造”——试论提高中国在重塑国际秩序中的自信与自觉》, 《社会科学》 2012 年第 4 期.).

  74. 74.

    Detailed analysis, see Chao Zhongchen, Ming Dynasty Sea Ban and Overseas Trade (People’s Publishing House, 2005) (晁中辰: 《明代海禁与海外贸易》, 人民出版社, 2005); Wang Wanying, Southeast channel: The Ming and Qing Dynasties Zhejiang marine trade and commodity economy (Ocean Press, 2009). (王万盈: 《东南孔道: 明清浙江海洋贸易与商品经济研究》, 海洋出版社, 2009).

  75. 75.

    See Yang Zewei, “Entering China in Modern International Law and Its Influence”, Chinese Journal of Law 1999 (3); Zeng Tao, “Modern China and International Law”, Journal of China University of Political Science and Law 2008 (5). (杨泽伟: 《近代国际法输入中国及其影响》, 《法学研究》 1999 年第 3 期; 曾涛: 《近代中国与国际法的遭逢》, 《中国政法大学学报》 2008 年第 5 期.).

  76. 76.

    In 1839, when Lin Zexu was ordered to go to Guangzhou to ban opium served as imperial envoy, invited United States missionary Peter Parker and Yuan Dehui to translate several chapters of the book Law of Nations by famous Swiss international jurist E. De Vattel (1714–1767) into Chinese, thereafter, Wei Yuan put the chapters in the book Records and Maps of the World (1843). In the 1860s, Robert Mart (1835–1911), who worked at the Chinese customs office, had translated the contents of the diplomacy of the American International jurist Henry Wheaton (1785–1848) in the Elements of International Law for reference of the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Zongli Yamen, 总理衙门) to persuade the Qing Dynasty to send diplomatic representatives abroad. Later, William M.P. Matin (1827–1916) took over the work and received the support of Hurd and US Ambassador Anson Burlingame (1820–1870), translating the entire contents in a short time, which was praised by some of the senior Chinese officials, modified and polished by the officials in Minister of Foreign Affairs, like Chen Qin, Li Changhua, Fang Junshi, and Mao Hongtu and others. When it was printed and issued to the provinces, it was named as Universal Law of Nations. For relevant discussions, see Tian Tao, “Late Qing Dynasty International Law”, Tianjin Social Sciences 1999 (6); Cheng Peng, “On the Western international law first introduced to China”, Peking University Journal of Philosophy and Social Sciences 1989 (5). (田涛: 《晚清国际法输入述论》, 《天津社会科学》 1999 年第 6 期; 程鹏: 《西方国际法首次传入中国问题的探讨》, 《北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》 1989 年第 5 期.).

  77. 77.

    The book Lin Zexu translated had an important impact and supported the Qing government initially take a firm anti-smoking stance, and engaged in a reasonable diplomatic struggle with the British businessmen. When Elements of International Law was translated into Chinese, the Chinese diplomats have used the principle of international law, Successfully handled the “Dagu Port Ship Incident with Prussia and Denmark”.

  78. 78.

    See He Qinhua, “On the theory and practice of transplantation of international law in the Republic of China period”, The ZUEL Law Journal 2001 (4) (何勤华: 《略论民国时期中国移植国际法的理论与实践》, 《法商研究》 2001 年第 4 期.).

  79. 79.

    Xie Yixian (ed.), China’s Contemporary Diplomatic (China Youth Publishing House, 2009), pp. 496–522. (谢益显主编: 《中国当代外交史》, 中国青年出版社, 2009, 第 496–522 页.).

  80. 80.

    For a summary of these experiences, see Duan Jielong (ed.), Practices and Cases of China Concerning International Law (Law Press China, 2011). (段洁龙主编: 《中国国际法实践与案例》, 法律出版社, 2011.).

  81. 81.

    China’s experience in international law is also a challenge to future international practice, see Yu Minyou, “On the new development and new challenges of China’s international law since the 21st century”, Theoretical Monthly 2012 (4). (余敏友: 《论 21 世纪以来中国国际法的新发展与新挑战》, 《理论月刊》 2012 年第 4 期.).

  82. 82.

    For the study of tributary system, see Huang Xingzeng and Zhang Xie, Notes on Western Pilgrimage and Recorded in the Eastern (Xie Fang (notes), Zhonghua Book Company, 2000); Hao Xiangman, Tribute System Construction and Deconstruction: Another View of Sino-Japanese Relations (Hubei People’s Publishing House, 2007); Fu Baichen, A Research on Sino-Korean Dynastic Tribute System (Jilin People’s Publishing House, 2008). (黄省曾, 张燮: 《西洋朝贡典录校注 东西洋考》, 谢方注, 中华书局, 2000; 郝祥满: 《朝贡体系的建构与解构: 另眼相看中日关系史》, 湖北人民出版社, 2007; 付百臣: 《中朝历代朝贡制度研究》, 吉林人民出版社, 2008.).

  83. 83.

    Spring and Autumn Period (春秋时期, 770–476 BC), is a period during the Zhou dynasty (1046–256 BC) in Chinese history, specifically the first portion of the Dong (Eastern) Zhou, when the country was divided into many even smaller states, and these vassal states fought and competed for supremacy. It was named for the title of a Confucian book of chronicles, Chunqiu (春秋), covering the period 722–479 BC. During the Spring and Autumn Period the imperial house, with priestly, ritualistic, and diplomatic functions but with diminishing authority, slowly sank out of sight as the local nobles struggled with one another for power. Survival required coalitions, both political and economic, as well as the accumulation of productive wealth. To this end, many drainage operations, canals, dikes, reservoirs, roads, and the like were undertaken, often on an interstate or multistate basis. Long walls too were thrown up as a means of protection not only against one another but also against aboriginal and nomadic tribes. Merchants and artisans began to assume some significance. Education and intellectual life advanced, this being the period of Confucius and other famous thinkers.

  84. 84.

    Warring States Period (战国时期, 475–221 BC), also called Contending States period, designation for seven or more small feuding Chinese kingdoms whose careers collectively constitute an era in Chinese history. The name Warring States is derived from an ancient work known as the Zhanguoce (Intrigues/Strategies of the Warring States). This period was one of the most fertile and influential in Chinese history. It not only saw the rise of many of the great philosophers of Chinese civilization, including the Confucian thinkers Mencius and Xunzi, but also witnessed the establishment of many of the governmental structures and cultural patterns that were to characterize China for the next 2,000 years. In these intrigues, two states, Qin and Chu, eventually emerged supreme. Qin finally defeated all the other states and established the first unified Chinese empire in 221 BC.

  85. 85.

    The Strategies of the Warring States is an ancient Chinese text that contains anecdotes of political manipulation and warfare during the Warring States period (5th to 3rd centuries BC). It is an important text of the Warring States Period as it describes the strategies and political views of the School of Diplomacy and reveals the historical and social characteristics of the period.

  86. 86.

    See Yan Xuetong and Xu Jin, Selected Readings China’s Thoughts on Politics among Nations in pre-Qin Dynasty (Fudan University Press, 2008), pp. 16–19, 131–146, 148–191. (阎学通, 徐进: 《中国先秦国家间政治思想选读》, 复旦大学出版社, 2008, 第 16–19, 131–146, 148–191 页.).

  87. 87.

    Cf. B. S. Chimni, “Prolegomena to a Class Approach to International Law”, 21 The European Journal of International Law 57 (2010).

  88. 88.

    This analysis, if not specially noted, is only for the mainland. But many problems are common for Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao and the mainland region. It is generally believed that the study of international law in Taiwan has experienced a sharp decline in recent years.

  89. 89.

    See Hou Fang et al., 60 Years of New China’s International Law, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press, 2009. (侯放等: 《新中国国际法 60 年》, 上海社会科学院出版社, 2009.).

  90. 90.

    For example, Yang Zewei, “30 years of reform and opening up China’s international legal research: review and forward”, Diplomatic Review 2008 (3); He Zhipeng, “30 years of China’s International Law: achievements and experience”, Contemporary Law Review 2009 (1); He Zhipeng, “Reform and Opening up and China’s International Law Research”, in Zhang Wenxian (ed.), Review and Prospect—Collected Papers of Jilin University to commemorate the 30th Anniversary of the reform and opening up (Jilin University Press, 2008). (杨泽伟: 《改革开放 30 年来中国国际法学研究的回顾与前瞻》, 《外交评论》 2008 年第 3 期; 何志鹏: 《中国国际法学 30 年: 成就与经验》, 《当代法学》 2009 年第 1 期; 何志鹏: 《改革开放与中国国际法研究》, 《回顾与展望——吉林大学纪念改革开放三十周年学术论文集》, 吉林大学出版社, 2008.).

  91. 91.

    Among them are: Zhang Wenxian (ed.), Report on Development in Philosophy and Social Sciences in Chinese Universities (1978–2008 law), Guangxi Normal University Press, 2008, the part of international law was written by He Zhipeng; Ministry of Education Key Research Base on Humanities and Social Sciences—Law Base (9 + 1) cooperative preparation, Chinese Law Three Decades (1978–2008), Renmin University of China Press, 2008, the part of international law was written by the Wuhan University International Law Research Center, the authors including He Qisheng, Yang Zewei, Zhang Hui, and Xu Wei; Li Lin (ed.), Chinese law 30 years (1978–2008), China Social Science Press, 2008, the part of international law was written by Liu Nanlai (public international law), Shen Juan, Xie Xinsheng (private international law), and Liu Jingdong (International Economic Law); China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Institute of Law, Chinese Law and the Rule of Law For 30 Years, China Social Science Press, 2008; Shu Yang (ed.), Chinese Law in the Past 30 Years, Zhongshan University Press, 2009; and in addition, also series of special articles in law jounals like Contemporary Law Review 2009 (1) Journal of Law 2009 (1) and (2). (张文显主编: 《中国高校哲学社会科学发展报告(1978–2008法学)》, 广西师范大学出版社, 2008, 国际法部分执笔人为何志鹏; 教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地——法学基地(9 + 1)合作编写: 《中国法学三十年 (1978–2008)》, 中国人民大学出版社, 2008, 国际法部分由武汉大学国际法研究中心承担, 执笔人为何其生, 杨泽伟, 张辉, 许威; 李林主编: 《中国法学 30 年 (1978–2008) 》, 中国社会科学出版社, 2008, 国际法部分由刘楠来(国际公法), 沈涓, 谢新胜(国际私法), 刘敬东(国际经济法)撰写; 中国博士后科学基金会, 中国社会科学院, 中国社会科学院法学研究所编: 《中国法学与法治发展 30 年》, 中国社会科学出版社, 2008; 舒扬主编: 《中国法学 30 年》, 中山大学出版社, 2009; 此外还有《当代法学》 2009 年第 1 期, 《法学杂志》 2009 年第 1, 2 期的一系列专文.).

  92. 92.

    All these international law masters have important international law writings, for example, Zhou Gengsheng, International Law (Commercial Press, 1976, 2018; Wuhan University Press, 2007 re-publishing); Ni Zhengyu, Collected Works on Law by Ni Zhengyu (Law Press China, 2006); Mei Ruao, Far East International Military Court (Law Press China, 2005); Mei Ruao, Mei Ruao Law Collection (China University of Political Science and Law Press, 2007); Li Haopei, Li Haopei Anthology (Law Press China, 2000); Li Haopei’s Collected Writings of Law (Law Press China, 2006); Wang Tieya, Wang Tieyan Anthology (China University of Political Science and Law Press, 2003); Chen Tiqiang, Writings on International Law (Law Press China, 1985), and many more. (周鲠生: 《国际法》, 商务印书馆, 1976, 武汉大学出版社, 2007年重排出版; 《倪征日奥法学文集》, 法律出版社, 2006; 梅汝璈: 《远东国际军事法庭》, 法律出版社, 2005; 《梅汝璈法学文集》, 中国政法大学出版社, 2007;《李浩培文选》, 法律出版社, 2000;《李浩培法学文集》, 法律出版社, 2006;《王铁崖文选》, 中国政法大学出版社, 2003;陈体强: 《国际法论文集》, 法律出版社, 1985, 等等.).

  93. 93.

    For example, Professor Sienho Yee’s research on the direction of international law has shown its own characteristics. See Sienho Yee, Towards an International Law of Co-progressiveness (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004).

  94. 94.

    See Chiu Hungdah, Modern International Law (3rd ed., Sanmin Bookstore, 2012); Su Yixiong, General International Law (4th ed., Sanmin Bookstore, 2007). (丘宏达: 《现代国际法(修订三版)》, 三民书局, 2012;苏义雄: 《平时国际法(修订四版)》, 三民书局, 2007.).

  95. 95.

    For the analysis of the gains and losses of China’s international legal development, see Cheng Xiaoxia: “Ten years of the foundation of China’s international law”, Study and Research on Law 1990 (2);Yang Zewei, “30 years of reform and opening up China’s international legal research: review and forward”, Diplomatic Review 2008 (3); He Zhipeng, “30 years of China’s International Law: achievements and experience”, Contemporary Law Review 2009 (1). (程晓霞: 《中国国际法学奠基的十年》, 《法律学习与研究》 1990 年第 2 期;杨泽伟: 《改革开放 30 年来中国国际法学研究的回顾与前瞻》, 《外交评论(外交学院学报)》 2008 年第 3 期;何志鹏: 《中国国际法学 30 年: 成就与经验》, 《当代法学》 2009 年第 1 期.).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Center of Legal Theory, School of Law, Collaborative Innovation Center of Judicial Civilization, Jilin University, Changchun, China

    Zhipeng He

  2. Jilin Academy of Social Sciences, Changchun, China

    Lu Sun

Authors
  1. Zhipeng He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lu Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Law Press China and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

He, Z., Sun, L. (2020). Introduction: Meaning and Function of a Chinese Theory of International Law. In: A Chinese Theory of International Law. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2882-8_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2882-8_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-15-2881-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-15-2882-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation