Journal•ISSN: 2044-2513
Asian Journal of International Law
Cambridge University Press
About: Asian Journal of International Law is an academic journal published by Cambridge University Press. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): International law & Political science. It has an ISSN identifier of 2044-2513. Over the lifetime, 319 publications have been published receiving 1298 citations. The journal is also known as: AsianJIL.
Topics: International law, Political science, Human rights, Arbitration, China
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: For instance, if a country claims that a matter is under its "domestic jurisdiction" and refers to Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, we are inclined to think of this as an effort by its leaders to hide from well-founded international criticism as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: To suggest that there might be good use for state sovereignty sounds counter-intuitive. After all, at least since the time of the League of Nations, we international lawyers have been critical of sovereignty. We have thought it a narrow, ethnocentric way to think about the relations of human beings. We have rehearsed a moral case against it. Sovereignty, we say, upholds egoistic interests of limited communities against the world at large, providing unlimited opportunities for oppression at home. It is, we sometimes say, “organized hypocrisy”.1 If a country claims that a matter is under its “domestic jurisdiction”, and refers to Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, we are inclined to think of this as an effort by its leaders to hide from well-founded international criticism. From a sociological perspective, we have attacked it because it fails to articulate the economic, environmental, technological, and ideological interdependencies that link humans all across the globe, giving a mistaken description of the reality of human relationships across the world. And from a functional perspective, we have observed its failure to deal with global threats such as climate change, criminality, or terrorism, while obstructing such beneficial projects as furthering free trade and protecting human rights. Therefore, we have wanted to replace it with international or global approaches, working across “artificial” national boundaries in pursuit of objectives that have nothing territorially limited about them.2
59 citations
TL;DR: The authors assesses the extent to which the recently formulated Chinese concept of "Responsible Protection" offers a valuable contribution to the normative debate over R2P's third pillar following the controversy over military intervention in Libya.
Abstract: This paper assesses the extent to which the recently formulated Chinese concept of “Responsible Protection” (RP) offers a valuable contribution to the normative debate over R2P's third pillar following the controversy over military intervention in Libya. While RP draws heavily on previous proposals including the 2001 ICISS report and Brazil's “Responsibility while Protecting” (RwP), by amalgamating and repackaging these earlier ideas in a more restrictive form the initiative represents a new and distinctive interpretation of R2P. However, some aspects of RP are framed too narrowly to provide workable guidelines for determining the permissibility of military intervention for humanitarian purposes, and should be clarified and refined. Nevertheless, the Chinese proposal remains significant because it offers important insights into Beijing's current stance on R2P. More broadly, China's RP and Brazil's RwP initiatives illustrate the growing willingness of rising, non-Western powers to assert their own normative preferences on sovereignty, intervention, and global governance.
40 citations
TL;DR: The emerging principle of a "responsibility to protect" presents a direct challenge to China's traditional emphasis on the twin principles of nonintervention in the domestic affairs of other states and non-use of military force as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The emerging principle of a “responsibility to protect” (R2P) presents a direct challenge to China’s traditional emphasis on the twin principles of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other states and non-use of military force. This paper considers the evolution of China’s relationship with R2P over the past ten years. In particular, it examines how China engaged with R2P during the recent Libyan crisis, and considers what impact this conflict may have first, on Chinese attitudes to R2P, and second, on the future development and implementation of the doctrine itself. This paper argues that China’s decision to allow the passage of Security Council resolution 1973, authorising force in Libya, was shaped by an unusual set of political and factual circumstances, and should not be viewed as evidence of a dramatic shift in Chinese attitudes towards R2P. More broadly, controversy over the scope of NATO’s military action in Libya has raised questions about R2P’s legitimacy, which have contributed to a lack of timely international action in Syria. In the short term at least, this post-Libya backlash against R2P is likely to constrain the Security Council’s ability to respond decisively to other civilian protection situations.
30 citations
TL;DR: The authors examine what challenges globalization poses to China and "Eastphalian" sovereignty, and assess the engagement of European powers with China as a means of contextualizing Eastphalian sovereignty's essence as ideology and worldview.
Abstract: It is the purpose of this paper to examine what challenges globalization poses to China, and “Eastphalian” sovereignty. Some commentators have suggested that globalization's advance will transform the globe into something more closely resembling the West. Accordingly, it could be said that it is inevitable that globalization's influences will bring Western perceptions of liberalism and democracy to China. The paper will briefly sketch the broad outlines of sovereignty and globalization to enable working definitions of “Westphalian” and “Eastphalian” sovereignty. The authors then discuss and assess the engagement of European powers with China as a means of contextualizing Eastphalian sovereignty's essence as ideology and worldview. This discussion sets the background for the following analysis of China's and Eastphalian sovereignty's reaction to the notion of a global community.
22 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that many areas of soft law exhibit strong network effects, rendering such soft law uniquely calibrated to induce voluntary adoption and even compliance, and that policy-makers can strategically harness this dynamic to stimulate legal harmonization, but cautions that policymakers must also remain mindful of the negative consequences that network effects can generate.
Abstract: This paper explains why so much soft law is widely adopted and followed despite lacking legal and coercive force. It argues that legal standards are susceptible to network effects. Network effects occur when the value of a standard to a user increases as the number of other agents using the same standard grows, which in turn draws more users to the standard. This can trigger a spontaneous coalescence around a standard in a “snowball effect” fashion. The paper argues that many areas of soft law exhibit strong network effects, rendering such soft law uniquely calibrated to induce voluntary adoption and even compliance. The model helps explain why certain soft law gains traction, and has important implications for international governance. Finally, the paper argues that policy-makers can strategically harness this dynamic to stimulate legal harmonization, but cautions that policy-makers must also remain mindful of the negative consequences that network effects can generate.
21 citations