Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law. Cambridge; New York; Melbourne; New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 2019. xv, 274 pp. (Figures, illustration.) US$110.00, cloth. ISBN 978-1-108-47419-1.
In Sovereignty in China, Maria Adele Carrai traces the history of China’s reception of the concept of sovereignty in international law since it was introduced into China more than 190 years ago. This well-researched and stylishly presented work charters the historical development and the changing meanings of a transplanted concept in a foreign soil far away from its birthplace. Carrai persuasively argues that the meaning and scope of a concept can grow independent of its origin and interact with the environment it finds itself in, thus acquiring a new life of its own. Although the concept of sovereignty originated in Europe centuries ago, it has acquired new meanings in China’s modernization of its political and economic institutions.
Theoretically, it is not surprising that the notions of international law and sovereignty could develop on their own in China’s new environment, without the background in which they emerged. Concepts have their own life and can have relative autonomy, a view supported by modern systems theory, theories of autopoiesis, and Karl Popper’s theory of three worlds (“The Three Worlds,” The Tanner Lecture on Human Values, delivered at the University of Michigan, April 7, 1978). However, when the sweet Southern orange is transplanted to the North, it might grow sour and bitter, as a famous Chinese saying goes. It might not be easy to evaluate the pros and cons of a legal transplant, since the concept of sovereignty in Europe has also evolved and has more connotations than its political and collective meanings. For instance, it has also been used to refer to the sovereignty of a person.
Sovereignty in China contains six main chapters, arranged in spatial order, addressing China’s reception and utilization of the concept of sovereignty in international law. Chapter 1 sets the stage for the discussion by introducing China’s understanding of the world and its interactions with other countries before its encounter with modern international law arising from the Westphalian peace, focusing on the clash of Chinese and Western normative orders. Chapter 2 examines China’s efforts to adjust to the new world order by accepting international law; translating the concept of sovereignty into Chinese during the 1830s; China’s defeat in the First Opium War; and the First Sino-Japanese War in 1895. Chapter 3 discusses the introduction of Darwinian thought into China through prominent Chinese scholars at the time, and how this profoundly changed Chinese visions of international law and of China in international society. Chapter 4 addresses China’s efforts to use the notion of sovereignty to fight for its position in the context of “unequal treaties.” Chapter 5 examines the use of the concept of sovereignty by Chinese officials and scholars during the early years of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), when that concept was first discarded for being imperialistic and then revived with the argument that the PRC was the legitimate government representing China, of which Taiwan and Hong Kong were integral parts. Chapter 6 examines the Chinese version of sovereignty during the reform years and its current status, how the PRC government and official-scholars became sophisticated in employing the term in the PRC’s interests and to support China’s position on many fronts, including maintaining territorial integrity and rallying domestic consensus. The concluding part succinctly sums up China’s pragmatic attitude in accepting the idea of sovereignty, consistent with its overall position towards legal transplants.
This book has contributed to our appreciation of China’s international community engagement and international law, not only of the historical transformations that have taken place, but also in terms of understanding the present-day Chinese mentality. The Confucian admonition that one needs to study the past to understand the present is especially apt when it comes to China and sovereignty. Traditionally, the Chinese conceived the earth as being square and heaven as being round, with a map of the world countries being all under heaven and China being at the centre of it, worshipped and revered by the tributary countries around it. Although no word for sovereignty existed in the Chinese language, the substance captured by the concept of sovereignty, especially the earlier notions of it celebrated by Jean Bodin and others, which equated the king to the sovereign, did exist in Chinese culture. This is evident in a poem in The Book of Poetry, one of the major Chinese classics from about 2,500 years ago: “Under the wide heaven, all is the King’s land. Within the sea-boundaries of the land, all are the King’s servants” (James Legge, trans. The Book of Poetry, Shanghai: The Commercial Press, 1930–1931).
To a certain extent, this book is a miniature of the broader history of China’s modernization process since the 1840s. It could be read as a new interpretation of China’s encounter with international law and the notion of sovereignty in an effort to survive against the imperialist and colonialist onslaught, with positive recognition of China’s contributions to the development of international law in the process. The book confirms the general attitude of a group of Chinese official-scholars that “Western learning is for application only,” despite the equally vehement opponents who argued for total Westernization.
Since the founding of the PRC, sovereignty has been a stronghold with which China has claimed its rightful place in the world, fended off criticisms for its human rights record, resume its governance over Hong Kong and Macao, justified its claim for the activities in the South China Sea, and promoted the oxymoronic concept of cyber sovereignty amidst the rise of the global internet. Consistent with China’s acceptance and use of concepts like the rule of law, human rights, and democracy, China’s use of sovereignty demonstrates a strong sense of pragmatic instrumentalism.
Xingzhong Yu
Cornell University, Ithaca