Law and Politics in Modern China, Cambria, 2009 (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Idea of “Law” in China: An Overview
Perspectives on Chinese Business and Law
China, with its millenarian empire ranging from the first Qin dynasty (221-206 BCE) to the threshold of last century (1911), has known one of the longest-lived and mighty political-institutional structures ever existed. However, according to a still widespread opinion, China has not experienced a development of the idea (and ideal) of 'law,' that is to say a 'legal tradition' comparable to the Western one. In the face of differences, especially cultural and political, as striking between East and West, this article analyzes the concept of right and draw a comparison with Western law, to observer the peculiarities of an eastern view on the subject.
Studying Contemporary Chinese Law: Limits, Possibilities and Strategy
The American Journal of Comparative Law, 1991
Johnson & Bridges, San Francisco. This article grew out of a paper originally presented at a conference on American Studies of China organized by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars at the Wye Plantation in 1988. The author is grateful for support provided by the Law Schools of Harvard and Stanford, where he revised the article while in residence as Visiting Professor in the spring semesters of 1989 and 1990, respectively, and by the law firm of Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges. Judith M. Lubman, William P. Alford and James V. Feinerman were kind enough to read and comment on earlier drafts. 5. Without pretending to completeness, I cite the following alumni of the Harvard East Asian Legal Studies Program, who have written widely and promoted the study of Chinese law as law teachers or practitioners: R. Randle Edwards, currently teaching Chinese law at Columbia Law School; William P. Alford, who after teaching Chinese law at UCLA returned to Harvard in 1989 (see n. 42 infra); James V. Feinerman, currently teaching Chinese law at Georgetown Law School; Victor H. Li, who taught Chinese law at Stanford before becoming President of the East
In Michael Ng and Yun Zhao, eds., Chinese Legal Reform and the Global Legal Order: Adoption and Adaption (forthcoming, Cambridge University Press) Abstract: Over the past century, China has undertaken a series of legal reforms in order to establish a “modern” legal system. Despite the efforts of several generations of reformers, many commentators and scholars continue to find the Chinese legal system lacking in what they consider indispensable to a modern legal system or modern rule of law. They have often attributed this unsatisfactory outcome of China’s century-long legal transformation to incommensurability between Chinese tradition and modern values and institutions as represented by those of the industrialized Western countries since the nineteenth century. Underlying this view is a widespread assumption that there exist natural boundaries between “traditional” and “modern” law and between Chinese and Western law. To better understand the history of Chinese legal modernity, this essay argues that it is important to examine the question of how and why the Chinese legal system was labelled as traditional (and hence presumably incompatible with modern or Western law) in the first place. As the first stage of China’s efforts to restructure its legal institutions after Western models (often through Japanese interlocutors), the late Qing legal reform of 1902-11 provides a valuable example of how Chinese law was turned into the traditional, inferior other of both Western and modern law. To understand the relevant processes and implications, we need to explore at least three questions: (1) How was Chinese law Orientalized or self-Orientalized and made incompatible with modern law? (2) How did the Chinese negotiate with the Euroamericentric notions of tradition and modernity? (3) How did the late Qing legal reform project contest or contribute to the traditionalization (chuantong hua) of Chinese law? By reexamining the changing sentiments and debates among the late Qing literati and officials during the last four decades of the Qing including the New Policy period of 1902-1911, this essay shows that the traditionalization of indigenous Chinese legal culture was both a cause and product of the legal reform movement over the past century. It also calls for more attention to the frequently overlooked symbolic epistemic violence that accompanied the Euroamericentric discourses of modern law and civilization and conditioned the Chinese legal reforms in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. I believe that instead of debating whether China has succeeded in “modernizing” its legal system, it would be more fruitful to understand the historical specificities and complexities of Chinese experiences and to problematize the normative assumptions of the dominant discourse of legal modernity. I first trace how the dominant narrative of modern law came to affect late Qing understanding of Chinese and Western law and culture in the 1870s through the 1890s. Next, I re-examine debates in the Qing legal reform of 1902-11 to analyze how a Chinese legal tradition was constructed in contradistinction to Western or modern law. I offer some brief observations in the last section. Besides studying the issues mentioned earlier, this essay illustrates how real or constructed differences between Chinese and Western law were represented, politicized and institutionalized through the discourse of legal reform and modernity in the Sino-foreign contact zones during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.