Abstract
The idea that states and political communities on the globe today constitute a unified international system is only recent. Just as the image that our physical world is an indivisible whole was formulated slowly in history with discoveries and exploration of continents and gradually superseded the other images of the world, the idea of our political world as an interconnected and inseparable entity only emerged progressively as Europe expanded across the rest of the globe to incorporate other political communities into the states system originated in Europe. This chapter studies the meeting of two ‘families of nations’, the European and the Chinese, and traces the process through which the Chinese Empire was brought into the periphery of the global international system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
Given the ambiguity of the terms ‘East’ and ‘West’ in their contemporary usage, it must be made clear that in this book, I mean by ‘East’ China and EAst Asia, and by ‘West’, Europe, especially the Western European nations.
In Adam Watson’s words, ‘The Renaissance turned men’s minds towards classical models of independent statehood. The Reformation broke the authority of the universal church, which came to depend on the lay power of the new rulers even where it remained Catholic’ (Adam Watson, ‘European International Society and its Expansion’, in Bull & Watson Expansion, p. 15).
For controversies about this point, see Wight, M., Systems of States, chs. 1, 4, 5, also Northedge, F. S., The International Political System, ch. 3.
Bryce, J,. The Holy Roman Empire, (2nd edn) p. 372.
For want of a better term, ‘state’ and ‘nation’ are also used in the description of the Eastern Family of Nations at the risk of anachronism.
Depuis described the medieval European order in the following words: ‘Le moyen âge avait rêvé d’organiser l’Europe sur la double base de l’unité de la chretienreté et de la hiérarchie de pouvoirs. Le pape et l’empereur placés au sommet de la société internationale devaient, en théorie, maintenir l’unité, en se partageant la domination dans l’ordre spirituel et dans l’ordre temporel’ (Depuis, C., Le Principe d’Équilibre et le Concert Européen, p. 9).
‘Sovereignty is supreme power over citizens and subjugated peoples and is bound by no law.’ Quoted in Northedge, International Political Systems, p. 56.
See Wight, M., Systems of States, p. 21.
See Hay, D., Europe, the Emergence of an Idea, p. 233.
Gross, L., ‘The Peace of Westphalia, 1648–1948’, American Journal of International Law (hereafter, AJIL), vol. 42, 1948, p. 29.
See Dictionnaire de la Terminologie du Droit Internationale, p. 283.
Gross, L., ‘Westphalia’, AJIL, vol. 42, p. 29.
See Schwartz, B., ‘The Chinese Perception of World Order, Past and Present’; in Fairbank, J. K. (ed.), The Chinese World Order, pp. 277–8.
Mencius explained the five relationships, saying, ‘Between father and son, there should be affection; between sovereign and minister, righteousness; between husband and wife, attention to their separate functions; between old and young, a proper order; and between friends, fidelity’ (Mencius, Book III, Part I, Ch. 4). He further observed, ‘Of all which a filial son attain to, there is nothing greater than honouring his parents’ (Mencius, Book V. Part I, Ch. 4).
The most challenging account is probably provided in Rossabi, M. (ed.), China Among Equals — the Middle Kingdom and Its Neighbours, 10th–14th Centuries.
Lien-sheng Yang, ‘Historical Notes on the Chinese World Order’, in Fairbank, J. K. (ed.), Chinese World Order, p. 20. See also Tao Jinsheng, Song-Liao Guanxi Shi Yanjiu (A Study of Relations Between Song and Liao Dynasties).
Tsiang, T. F., ‘China and European Expansion’, Politica, vol. II, no. 5 (1936), p. 3.
Ibid.
Vattel, E., The Law of Nations (tr. by Chitty, J.) p. 3.
Confucius, Book of Rites, ch. IX.
Quoted in Northrop, The Meeting of East and West, p. 325.
For a detailed account of what constituted li in relations between China and members of the Family of Nations in East Asia during the Qing Dynasty, see Fairbank, J. K. (ed.) Chinese World Order, pp. 10–11.
Ibid., p. 9.
Needham, J., Within the Four Seas — the Dialogue Between East and West, p. 11.
These are lines from a poem written by the Portuguese poet, Luiz de Camoes (1524–80). Quoted in Bozeman, A., Politics and Culture in International History, pp. 289–90.
Pratt, J. T., The European Expansion into the Far East, p. 34.
Ibid., p. 37.
See Hudson, G., Europe and China, pp. 134–68.
See Needham, J., Science and Civilization in China, vol. I, pp. 150, 223, 239.
Confucius, Analects, II, 3.
Pratt, European Expansion, p. 18
Bozeman, Politics and Culture, p. 389
Lord Macartney’s mission to China in 1793 was the first attempt of Great Britain to establish diplomatic contact with China. For more about Lord Macartney and his mission, see Cramner-Byng, J. L. (ed.), An Embassy to China: Lord Macartney’s Journal, pp. 3–38.
Ibid., p. x.
See Pratt, European Expansion, p. 69.
Cranmer-Byng, Lord McCartney’s Journal, p. 219.
Quoted in Northrop, Meeting of East and West, title page.
Bull and Watson, Expansion, p. 27.
Gentzier, J. (ed.), Changing China, p. 21.
Bull, Anarchical Society, p. 10.
Literally, ‘Office in General Charge of Foreign Affairs’. It was actually a prototype Foreign Ministry.
Quoted in Fairbank, J. & Twitchett, D. (eds.), Cambridge History of China (hereafter, CHC), vol. 11, p. 154.
Fairbank, J. K. ‘The Early Treaty System in the Chinese World Order’, in Fairbank, J. (ed.), Chinese World Order, p. 259.
Ibid.
Zhong Shuhe, Zou Xiang Shijie (From East to West), p. 78. It is interesting to read that in 1860 Emperor Xian Feng, after reading the American Credential from the President of the United States addressed in terms of mutual equality, wrote on the margin ‘Ludicrous conceit of the King of Yelang. Ridiculous!’
Hsu, I. China’s Entrance into the Family of Nations, pp. 93, 97.
For details of these two changes, see Hsu, I., China’s Entrance and Banno, M., China and the West, 1858–1861: the Origins of Tsungli Yamen.
Banno, M., China and the West, p. 1.
See Teng, S. Y. & Fairbank, J. K. China’s Response to the West, 1839– 1923, p. 48.
Zongli Yamen was meant to be a temporary office to be abolished as soon as the matters concerning the Anglo-French Expedition were all sorted out. In the memorial submitted by Prince Gong and others on January 13, 1861, it was suggested that ‘As soon as the military campaigns are concluded and the affairs of the various countries are simplified, the new office will be abolished and its functions will again revert to the Grand Council for management so as to accord with the old system’. See Teng & Fairbank, Response, pp. 47–8.
For China’s earlier efforts to practise and to learn international law, see Cohen, J. and Chiu, H., People’s China and International Law — A Documentary Study, ch. I Introduction. Two interesting events have been noted. First, the Jesuit who acted as an interpreter for China in the Sino-Russian negotiations in 1689 and 1713 later claimed that those negotiations were conducted in the spirit of the law of nations. And secondly in 1840, Commissioner Lin ordered the translation of part of Vattel’s The Law of Nations.
Teng & Fairbank, Response, p. 47.
Quoted in Ting-yi Kuo and Kwang-ching Lieu, ‘Self-Strengthening: The Pursuit of Western Technology’, CHC, vol. 10, pp. 492–3.
See Teng & Fairbank, Response, p. 98 and Ch’en, J., China and the West, p. 62.
For details, see Hsu, China’s Entrance, pp. 132–48.
Ibid., p. 207.
Holland, T. E., Studies in International Law, p. 128.
Britain, France and the United States proposed, as early as 1854–1856, having mutual diplomatic missions resident in the capitals to facilitate communication between the states. But the Chinese rejected the idea on the ground that it was not compatible with Chinese institutions. To Emperor Xian Feng, their demand was ‘extremely presumptuous’ and must be ‘sternly rebuked so that they would never think of it again’. For further details of controversies and eventual dispatch, see Hsu, China’s Entrance, pp. 149–198.
Hsu, China’s Entrance, p. 209.
Holland, International Law, p. 115.
Fairbank (ed.), Chinese World Order, p. 11. Also found in the list are Sulu, Holland and Western Ocean, which includes, as is made clear, Portugal, the Papacy and England.
Hsu, China’s Entrance, p. 207.
Holland, T. E., Lectures on International Law, p.39.
Ch’en, J., China and the West, p. 59. See also Zhong Shuhe, Zou Ziang Shjie, p. 23.
Zhong Shuhe, Zou Ziang Shjie p. 29.
See Yen-p’ing Hao and Erh-min Wang, ‘Changing Chinese Views of Western Relations, 1840–1895’, CHC, vol. 11, p. 148.
Ibid.
See Cohen, P., ‘Wang Tao and Incipient Chinese Nationalism’, Journal of Asian Studies, vol. XXVI, no. 4, Aug. 1967, pp. 559–74.
Significantly, Wang argued that the extraterritorial jurisdiction impinged directly on national sovereignty and was only found in China, Japan and Turkey, but not among European themselves. See ibid, p. 568.
See Hao and Wang, ‘Changing Chinese View,’ p. 194.
See ibid, pp. 190–3 and Cohen, P., ‘Wang Tao’, p. 569.
Gentzler, Changing China, p. 34.
Quoted in Kuo and Liu, ‘Self-Strengthening’, CHC, vol. 10., p. 447.
Ibid, p. 534
Xue Fucheng, Chou Yang Zhou Yi-Bian Fa (Proposals Concerning Western Affairs-Reform); English translation from de Bary et al, (eds), Sources of Chinese Tradition, p. 716.
See Hao and Wang, ‘Changing Chinese Views’, CHC, vol. 11, p. 181.
Kuo T’ing-i, Guo Songtao, vol. II, pp. 665–6.
See Hao Chang, ‘Intellectual Change’ in CHC, vol. 11, p. 275.
Ch’en, China and the West, p. 272
See Hao Chang, ‘Intellectual Change and the Reform Movement, 1890–1898’, in CHC, vol. 11, pp. 277–82.
Quoted in Levenson, J., Liang Ch’i-chao and the Mind of Modern China, pp. 42–43.
Bull & Watson, Expansion, p. 16
It is important to note that, in terms of contact or interactions between members of the original regional international systems, or in other words between non-European nations, say between China and Egypt, the progress was rather limited. The existence of a core in the expanding international system was partly borne out by this fact.
Keylor, W. R., The Twentieth Century World — An International History, p. 4. He, however, refers to the process, not very convincingly, as ‘Europeanization of the world’.
Northedge has identified seven main stages in the expansion of the European international system up to the 1960s when decolonization was virtually completed. By the end of the nineteenth century, he believes, five stages had passed which were marked by the admission into the international system of first, the United States of America in 1783, secondly, the rebellious Latin American states in 1823, thirdly, the Ottoman Empire and Romania in 1856, fourthly, Japan and fifthly, China, both in the latter half of the nineteenth century. See Northedge, International Political Systems, pp. 74–6.
Bull & Watson, Expansion, p. 27.
Wight, Systems of States, pp. 42–3.
Wight’s regarding the American states as at the periphery in the third period 1763–1914 is obviously out of the calculation of their involvement in the European balance of power. In the broader perspective of an emerging universal international system, however, they were more at the core than at the periphery, for although they played a somewhat peripheral role in European politics in that period, they were full legal personalities and enjoyed full membership in the European Family of Nations.
Bull & Wsitson, Expansion, p. 5.
Keylor, Internation History, p. 6.
Gentzler, Changing China, p. 34.
For a brief and persuasive argument, see Cassese, A., International Law in a Divided World; pp. 40–2.
Watson, A., ‘Hedley Bull, States Systems and International Society’, Review of International Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, p. 151.
Cassese, Divided World, p. 55.
Holland, Lectures, pp. 39–40.
Hall, W., A Treatise on International Law, (8th ed) pp. 47–8.
Lorimer, J., The Institutes of the Law of Nations, vol. I, pp. 101–3.
See Oppenheim, L., International Law, (1st ed), vol. 1, p. 32.
Bull & Watson, Expansion, p. 6.
Cassese, Divided World, p. 39.
Gong in Bull & Watson, Expansion, p. 171
Bozeman, Politics and Culture, p. 3.
Lorimer, Law of Nations, vol. 1, p. 239.
Northedge, International Political Systems, p. 77.
See Gong, The Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society, pp. 47–93.
Northedge, International Political Systems, p. 76.
Quoted in Gong, Standard, p. 158.
See, for example, Teng, S-Y. & Fairbank, J. K., China’s Response to the West, Part Six ‘Reform and Revolution, 1901–1912’, pp. 195–230; Hsu, I., The Rise of Modern China, Part IV ‘Reform and Revolution 1898– 1912’, pp. 355–492; Wright, M., ‘Introduction: The Rising Tide of Change’, in Wright, M. (ed.), China in Revolution, The First Phase 1900– 1913, pp. 1–63; and Young, E., ‘Nationalism, Reform and Republican Revolution in the Early Twentieth Century’, in Crowley, J. B. (ed.), Modem East Asia: Essays in Interpretation, pp. 151–79.
Bull, H., ‘The Emergence of a Universal International Society’, in Bull and Watson, Expansion, p. 122.
Quoted in Teng & Fairbank, Response, p. 196.
Wright, China in Revolution, p. 24.
For more details of Imperial China’s administrative reform, see ‘Administrative Reform and the Central Power’ in Fairbank, J. K., Reischauer, E.O. & Craig, A.M., East Asia — The Modern Transformation, pp. 622–5.
Wright, China in Revolution, p. 28.
Young, in Crowley, Modern East Asia, p. 162.
Quoted in Wright, China in Revolution, p. 69.
See Morse, H. B., The International Relations of the Chinese Empire, vol. III (The Period of Subjection, 1894–1911). Morse identified three periods in China’s relations with the West from 1840 to 1911, the other two being the Period of Conflict, 1840–1860, and the Period of Submission, 1861–1893.
Young, in Crowley, Modern East Asia, p. 154.
See Willoughby, W. W., Foreign Rights and Interests in China.
Wright, China in Revolution, p. 55.
Ibid., p. 56.
Wilson, G., Handbook of International Law, (2nd edn) p. 25.
See MacMurray, J. V. A., Treaties and Agreements with and Concerning China, 1894–1919, vol. I (Manchu Period 1894–1911) pp. 682–3.
Bull, Anarchical Society, p. 13.
Wright, M. China in Revolution, pp. 3–4.
Liang Baochang to Koo, Feb. 20, 1961; Koo Papers, Box 1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1991 Zhang Yongjin
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Yongjin, Z. (1991). An Empire Contracted in a World Expanded. In: China in the International System, 1918–20. St Antony’s. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21238-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21238-5_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-21240-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-21238-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)