Symposium | Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law at 20
Searching for a middle ground? The Reception of Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law in China
By Dr. Lin Zhaoran
Since its publication two decades ago, Anthony Anghie’s Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law (ISMIL) has had profound impact around the world. The influence of and responses to the book vary in different countries, necessitating a comparative study. In China, a country that has undergone great changes in the past century and therefore contains many different dynamics and conflicting narratives, the book has triggered considerable but ambivalent reactions. Part of this book resonates deeply with the fundamentals of the official ideology of the People’s Republic of China concerning international affairs. In contrast, many other key concepts of this book, including the ‘dynamic of difference’, ‘civilizing mission’ and ‘other-ness’, have been unfamiliar to the majority of Chinese international lawyers. While most scholars resonate with the book’s anti-imperialist ideas, many of them are hesitant to reimagine international law in Anghie’s way. This blogpost focuses mainly on the Chinese literature to provide an overview of how the mainland Chinese academia perceives and makes use of Anghie’s book.
Recent but fast-developing impacts in China
ISMIL, together with Anghie’s other works, gained influence in China mainly in the last decade. Chinese international lawyers, for example Ming Li in Peking University, and some scholars in international relations (IR), including Shiping Tang in Fudan University, first read Anghie’s works as the continuation of the ‘Critical International Legal Theory’ trend led by Martti Koskenniemi and David Kennedy. Despite the swift introduction of ISMIL, this book itself did not garner sufficient attention in China until quite recently. Nonetheless, this landscape has been changing rapidly since mid-2010s. Generally speaking, the book evokes Chinese recollections of the status of being both a ‘semi-colony’ and ‘semi-civilised’ state: a period collectively referred to as an experience of ‘national humiliation’. Chinese international lawyers have been trained in a milieu where the government self-identifies as and aligns with developing countries, so they have no trouble applying certain concepts from Anghie’s book to develop their own critiques of unfair or unjust international legal rules. As interest in international legal theory or philosophy has increased in several prestigious law schools in China, ISMIL has become a common reference in recommended reading lists. Beyond its methodological discussions, references to Anghie can be observed in various specific areas of international law scholarship, such as the law of war, the law of the sea, international criminal law, international economic and financial law, international environmental law, and human rights law. The book’s impact also reaches subjects like IR and area studies, political philosophy, world history, and translation theory. ISMIL is especially favoured by postgraduates in the past decade, including foreign students in China, predominantly from developing countries, serving as an indispensable reference in their master or PhD dissertations (see here, here, and here). In this process, Chinese scholars have grown more familiar with Anghie as an important figure of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL), a critical scholarly movement aiming to empower the Third World in international legal norms and narratives, most notably by revealing how international law has been instrumental or complicit in the exploitation and subordination of the underdeveloped non-western world.
The influence has also gone beyond academia. In both 2023 and 2024, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China supported and directed the organisation of annual forums titled ‘Developing Countries and International Law’, facilitating communication between Chinese international lawyers and international lawyers from developing countries and scholars who may be generally branded as ‘TWAILers’. Anghie and his influential monograph were among the focal points in these forums. All these phenomena exemplify growing interests in Anghie’s theories.
A cautious salute?
With that said, many discussions in China about ISMIL so far appear to be rather superficial. While Anghie’s general critique of imperialism and colonialism has been cited extensively, few have attempted to deploy his methodology to reshape the content and form of their legal analysis. It is noteworthy that Anghie’s works remain untranslated into Chinese, whereas numerous works promoting his ideas, such as those by David Kennedy, Teemu Ruskola, Jennifer Pitts, and Karen Alter, have been translated. One can think of multiple reasons for this omission, including the dominance of British-formalist-style international law education in the post-Open and Reform era, the lack of familiarity with the intellectual context of Anghie’s works, including postcolonial theory and subaltern studies, and the contemporary prevalence of a liberal belief in an Anglophone version of ‘rule of law’ within Chinese law circle.
Another possible reason, which has already been well illustrated by Yilin Wang in her Asian Journal of International Law and TWAIL Review articles, is that many Chinese international lawyers do not necessarily object to the idea of state-centrism/sovereignty-centrism, the discourse of civilisation, or the dichotomised conceptualisation of (international) law that Anghie highlighted and critiqued. Instead, many Chinese scholars and practitioners adopt a so-called pragmatic or neutral stand toward the core concepts of Eurocentric international law while criticizing specific consequences of Eurocentric biases and Western hegemony. For many, Anghie’s call for a novel international legal imagination that challenges and redefines the form, structure, and methodology of international law is not desirable. According to this line of thinking, the issue does not lie with international law per se, but rather with the manner in which Western states have failed to implement it in a fair and equitable fashion. For example, according to Bingbing Jia, a prominent professor of international law in Tsinghua University:
The policies implemented by the Chinese government can achieve more ideal results in international practice when based on respect of the current legal order. The idea of trying to change this legal order is not realistic in the short term; on the contrary, acting in accordance with the current rules and procedures can save us time and resources, helping us quickly adapt to the system and gain the power to change its fundamental rules from within, thereby eventually leading it to a way that is more beneficial to the ‘Third World’, including China.
This understanding of Professor Jia is emblematic of a broader Chinese mainstream. Despite a general empathy towards developing countries, Chinese mainstream scholars have not shown great interest in the TWAIL project as a whole. After the generation led by Wang Tieya, who is sometimes hailed as a TWAIL representative in China, Chinese positivist scholars seemed to dissociate themselves even further from this banner. Scholars have paid attention to some legal ideas with clear Third World labels, such as New International Economic Order (NIEO), permanent sovereignty over natural resources, and common heritage of mankind, without sharing Anghie’s or TWAIL’s commitment to a comprehensive questioning and reform of international law. Some other legal concepts, principles or agendas are dismissed or treated as ideas manipulated by the West with utmost doubts and cautions, while their clear historical links to Third World-ism and socialism are often ignored. Self-determination and jus cogens are just two outstanding examples. With some notable exceptions, self-determination is generally understudied within Chinese international law academia due to its various political potentials. Within the few available studies on the topic, the Leninist tradition is virtually absent, still less the relevant debates between Lenin and Luxemburg. Similarly, as an idea once promoted by the Third World and socialist camps, especially in regard to unequal treaties, jus cogens, is now being scrutinised watchfully as a plausible tool for politically smearing China.
Anghie and Chinese Lineages of Critique
It is difficult to categorise ‘critical theories’ in China. In respect to international law, ‘crits’ can mean anyone discontent with the liberal mindset and formalist method in mainstream international law scholarship. Many of them welcome the various methods provided by critical studies while rejecting the conclusions and solutions of these studies. These critical scholars have developed divergent understandings of ISMIL and Anghie’s other works. For example, a ‘critical realism’ that tries to bridge international law, international relations theory and China’s official positions is quite influential in the law schools of Jilin University and Xiamen University, where the approach of ‘IL plus IR’ was systematically introduced and experimented with. ISMIL has become an important reference point to argue for more non-western elements in international law. It has also been understood as a call for comparative international law studies. According to this reception of Anghie’s work, only by introducing plural cultural, political and ethical ideas, including those from Chinese traditional thoughts (i.e. Tianxia-ism), can international law become truly universal and legitimate. Another school of thought in China with similar views to this ‘critical realism’ is the ‘School of Empire Studies’. This group of legal historians and political theorists, including Leijie Wei (Xiamen University) and Yongle Zhang (Peking University), join Anghie in questioning the presumption that international law has only been developed by European Westphalian-styled states. By dissecting the prevailing narrative on how the international legal order has evolved into its current state, these scholars endeavour to situate and explain China’s position in the international order. ISMIL thus becomes the starting point of the search for China’s theoretical subjectivity. These endeavours defy colonialism and postcolonialism simultaneously. In other words, while they agree that concepts like sovereignty, territory and states are connected with Westphalian-style statism and colonialism that should be thoroughly critiqued, they certainly do not believe in a total deconstruction of these ideas. Their agreement with ISMIL comes to an end when Anghie cuts too deep and starts questioning ‘sovereignty’ itself in a postmodern tone.
Apart from these different intellectual trajectories, in recent years there also has been growing participation of Chinese scholars in the ‘turn to history’ in international law, including IR scholars. In this context, Anghie’s book is not only regarded as a milestone in this ‘turn to history’ but also serves as an important case for critical reflection. A noteworthy example is the discussion of the debates on the goals and methods of doing history of international law between international lawyers and historians, which is often framed as ‘critical normativism vs contextualism’. For example, the criticism of inherent Eurocentrism and anachronism in Anghie’s works has raised attention. A new generation of Chinese international lawyers who have engaged in these debates thus developed a more ‘demystified’ understanding of both international law and international legal history.
Conclusion
Chinese international lawyers, and scholars with similar interests in the world order, have been striving to find a ‘middle ground’ theory. During the last decade, the need for a self-consistent legal narrative for, of and by China, has grown unprecedented and urgent. Anthony Anghie’s book Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law found its place in China against this backdrop. His ideas are seen as part of this ‘middle ground’ project to reinterpret and reshape international law, instead of submissive recognition or total abolishment. This particular standpoint (or non-standpoint) of Chinese international lawyers and scholars conforms with China’s self-image. Many Chinese international lawyers also join Anghie in his criticisms on colonialism, racialism, imperialism, and marginalisation of non-western world, etc. Meanwhile, the postcolonial and postmodern inclinations of Anghie’s works are much less appreciated, especially his critiques on the inherent imperialist nature of sovereignty, in both Chinese mainstream and critical scholarship. Probably, the most important point for the Chinese international lawyers that Anghie has brought to the forefront of Chinese legal debates is the importance of engaging actively in interpretations of histories of international law. This point, together with other Anghie’s ideas, will continue to influence China’s search for its own ‘middle ground’.
Zhaoran LIN is currently a postdoctoral researcher in Institute of Ocean Research and School of Law in Peking University, China. His research interests include law of the sea, law of territory, and international legal theories and histories thereof.