Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:03:01.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

China's Participation in the Second Hague Conference and the Concept of Equal Sovereignty in International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2021

Ryan Martínez MITCHELL Open the ORCID record for Ryan Martínez MITCHELL [Opens in a new window]
Ryan Martínez MITCHELL*
Affiliation:
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the Qing Empire's formal inclusion as a member of the Eurocentric community of states by the turn of the 20th century, its lack of full sovereign status was frequently reasserted in practice. This included proceedings where legal norms were unilaterally applied to it as an object of regulation, provoking a pursuit of agency. In particular, the unprecedented foreign occupation and administration of China after the Boxer crisis of 1899–1901 spurred efforts in pedagogy, legal reform, and diplomacy. Several such efforts subsequently overlapped at the Second Hague Conference in 1907. There, Qing diplomats for the first time influenced multilateral negotiations, and discovered a nascent solidarity with other “weak” states in Latin America and Asia. Joint struggle against great power initiatives sparked new conversations about the equality of states, however, major questions about the implications of sovereign status for genuine agency, and the contingent forms of international legal “progress,” remained unresolved.

Keywords

History and theory of international lawother areas of international law
Type
Article
Information
Asian Journal of International Law , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , July 2021 , pp. 351 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. MAI Menghua 麦孟华, “Paiwai Pingyi 排外平議 [A Critique of Xenophobia]” (1901) Qing Yi Bao 清議報 68. On the details of the devastating Boxer crisis and its aftermath, see e.g., Robert BICKERS and R. Gary TIEDERMAN, eds., The Boxers, China, and the World (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2007). The Boxer Protocol itself imposed not only a vast reparation burden on the Qing state, but also required a restructuring of its finances (including the vital tariff system), criminal punishment of key officials, the elevation of status and even renaming of the Foreign Ministry, and ongoing permission for foreign forces to continue occupying Chinese territory as needed to protect their states’ “interests”. See International Protocol (1901) in Treaties, Conventions, etc., Between China and Foreign States, 2nd ed. (Shanghai: Maritime Customs Service, 1917) at 301–45.

2. For detailed accounts of the Chinese official communications surrounding both Hague Conferences, see TANG Qihua, “Qingmo Minchu Zhongguo dui ‘Haiya Baohehui’ zhi Canyu” (1899–1917) 清末民初中國對’海牙飽和會’之參與 (1899–17) [China's Late Qing–Early Republican Era Participation in the ‘Hague Peace Conferences’] (2005) Guoli Zhengzhi Daxue Lishi Xuebao 國立政治大學歷史學報 23 at 45–9.

3. Cf. KUEHL, Warren F., Seeking World Order: The United States and International Organization to 1920 (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1969)Google Scholar at 89–90; SUTTNER, Bertha von, “Slow Evolution” (1900) 62 The Advocate of Peace 208Google Scholar at 208–9.

4. See LI Guilian 李贵连, 1902: Zhongguo Fa de Zhuanxing 中国法的转型 [1902: The Transformation of Chinese Law] (Guilin: Guangxi Shifan Daxue Chubanshe, 2018).

5. See Tang, supra note 2.

6. William Alexander Parsons MARTIN, The Siege in Peking: China Against the World (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1900).

7. Rune SVARVERUD, International Law as a World Order in Late Imperial China: Translation, Reception and Discourse; 1847–1911 (Leiden: Brill, 2007) at 108, 177.

8. Martin had introduced both zhuquan and zizhu zhi quan as interchangeable translations of “sovereignty” in his 1864 Chinese translation of Henry Wheaton's Elements of International Law. However, zhuquan, which was an existing term in Classical Chinese that had close associations with the personal authority of the Emperor, was not adopted by Qing officials until it had become a major part of Meiji Japanese public law discourse and diplomacy. Cf. Gongfa Huitong 公法會通 (1880); Qing Shilu, Guangxu Era, Juan 56.

9. Amanda J. CHENEY, “Tibet Lost in Translation: Sovereignty, Suzerainty and international Order Transformation, 1904–6” (2017) 26 Journal of Contemporary China 107 at 769–83.

10. Japanese Foreign Ministry Archives 外務省外交史料館: 5-2-18-0-33_002 (31 July 1905—11 September 1905).

11. Theodore ROOSEVELT, “Annual Message of the President to Congress” in Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States Vol. 1, XLVIII (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1904).

12. Qing Shilu, Guangxu Era, Juan 486 (1901).

13. Memorial of WU Shouquan 吳壽全, 5 June 1907, Foreign Affairs Ministry Database, Academia Sinica, Taiwan (hereafter WJDA): 02-21-001-03-009.

14. John W. FOSTER, Diplomatic Memoirs. Volume II (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1909) at 213.

15. Carl SCHMITT, Der Nomos der Erde im Volkerrecht des Jus Publicum Europaeum (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1950) at 204 (“So war eine asiatische Großmacht entstanden und anerkannt.”) (“Die Atmosphäre, das ‘Ambiente’ der ersten Haager Friedenskonferenz von 1899 war noch rein europäisch im Vergleich zu der zweiten Haager Konferenz von 1907…. Aber die Füße derer, die sie hinaustragen sollten, standen schon vor der Tür.”).

16. Dom Pierre-Célestin LOU Tseng-tsiang [Lu Zhengxiang], Souvenirs et Pensées (Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1946) at 51–54.

17. Ibid., at 38.

18. Diplomatic Cable of Lu Zhengxiang, 22 December 1906, WJDA: 02-21-002-01-043.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. Wang would become China's first international judge in 1922, and was well-regarded among his colleagues at the Permanent Court of International Justice. Cf. SPIERMANN, Ole, “Judge Wang Chung-hui at the Permanent Court of International Justice” (2006) 5 Chinese Journal of International Law 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 115–128 (2006).

22. Foster, supra note 14.

23. Ibid.

24. For a discussion focused mainly on Latin American states’ participation in and reaction to the incident, see Arnulf BECKER LORCA, Mestizo International Law (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014) at 158–68. Cf. Robert A. KLEIN, Sovereign Equality Among States: The History of an Idea (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974) at 61.

25. James Brown SCOTT, The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, Vol. I (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1909) at 428.

26. James Brown SCOTT, ed., The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences, The Conference of 1907, Vol. II Meetings of the First Commission (New York: Oxford University Press, 1921) at 322 (hereinafter Proceedings).

27. Ibid., at 321.

28. Ibid., at 328.

29. Ibid., at 612–3.

30. William T. STEAD, “Les juges de la nouvelle cour permanente,” Courrier de la Conférence de la Paix (20 August 1907).

31. Proceedings, supra note 26, at 605–6.

32. Ibid.

33. Ibid.

34. Lu Zhengxiang to Waiwubu, 2 September 1907, WJDA: 02-21/10-(1).

35. Deuxième Conférence Internationale de la Paix, Actes et Documents, Tome II, Première Commission (La Haye: Imprimerie Nationale, 1907) at 53.

36. Ibid.

37. Proceedings, supra note 26 at 622–3.

38. See e.g., discussion in Becker Lorca, supra note 24.

39. Proceedings, supra note 26 at 690–706. See also Becker Lorca, supra note 24 at 166 (which incorrectly lists the date as September 8).

40. “Joseph Choate, of U.S., Beaten at Hague by Brazil Delegate in Hot Word Duel,” Evansville Press (23 September 1907).

41. Ruy BARBOSA, “Rank Among States not Determined by Their Military Standing” (1908) 70 The Advocate of Peace 36 at 36–8.

42. Proceedings, supra note 26 at 817; James Brown SCOTT, ed., American Addresses at The Second Hague Peace Conference (Boston: World Peace Foundation, 1916) (original publication 1910) at 210.

43. Alfred Thayer MAHAN, The Influence of Sea Power upon History: 1660–1783 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1890).

44. Proceedings, supra note 26 at 1051–6.

45. Ibid., at 1056–9.

46. The Pious Fund of the Californias (United States v Mexico), Award of 14 October 1902 [1902] IX Reports of International Arbitral Awards 1.

47. Proceedings, supra note 26 at 786 (First Commission, Second Subcommission, meeting of 4 July 1907).

48. Agnes FRY, A Memoir of the Right Honourable Sir Edward Fry, G.C.B. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1921) at 196.

49. Ibid.

50. Ibid.

51. Cf. Cheney, supra note 9.

52. Fry, supra note 48 at 203.

53. Ibid., at 202.

54. Proceedings, supra note 26 at 844–5.

55. Il Conferência da Paz Haia 1907: A correspondência telegráfica entre o Barão do Rio Branco e Rui Barbosa (Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão, 2014) at 97, 152 (hereinafter Il Conferência da Paz Haia 1907).

56. WJDA: 02-21-004-01-003-046-058 (16 January 1908).

57. See e.g., James L. TRYON, “International Prize Court and Code” (1910) 20 Yale Law Journal 604 at 604.

58. Hans WEHBERG, The Problem of an International Court of Justice (Clarendon Press, 1918) (citing the similar views of the prominent legal scholar Otfried Nippold) at 115.

59. Franz von LISZT, Das Wesen des völkerrechtlichen Staatenverbandes und der international Prisenhof (Breslau: M. & H. Marcus, 1910) at 11.

60. Deuxième Conférence Internationale de la Paix, Actes et Documents, Tome I, Séances Plénières de la Conférence (La Haye: Imprimerie Nationale, 1907) at 90–2.

61. Fry, supra note 48 at 222.

62. “The Danger Point at The Hague” The Times (14 September 1907).

63. James Brown SCOTT, ed., The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences, The Conference of 1907, Vol. III Meetings of the Second, Third, and Fourth Commissions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1921) at 167 (meeting of 12 July 1907).

64. John Watson FOSTER, Diplomatic Memoirs, Vol. II. (Boston; New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1910) at 239.

65. Ibid.

66. For an overview of this resolution and its content, see e.g., Adil Ahmad HAQUE, “The Definition of Aggression and Self-Defense,” Just Security (14 December 2020) online: Just Security <www.justsecurity.org/73858/the-definition-of-aggression-and-self-defense/>.

67. James Brown SCOTT, The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, Vol. II (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1909) at 356–67, 415–20.

68. William T. STEAD, “Notes,” Courrier de la Conférence de la Paix, 7 July 1907.

69. Scott, supra note 25 at 411; Il Conferência da Paz Haia 1907, supra note 65 at 71.

70. Scott, supra note 25 at 179.

71. William T. STEAD, “La Neutralité de la Mer, Discours de M. Foster”, Courrier de la Conférence de la Paix, 12 July 1907.

72. Ibid.

73. William T. STEAD, “Le Défi des Coréens,” Courrier de la Conférence de la Paix, 9 July 1907.

74. WJDA: 02-19-016-01-012 (13 September 1907).

75. Ibid.

76. Proceedings, supra note 26 at 533.

77. Ibid.

78. Ibid., at 115.

79. WJDA: 02-21-002-03-051 (海牙保和會列中國為三等國請修明法律以保主權由 [The Hague Conference listed China as a third-class state. We request enlightened law reform in order to preserve sovereignty]).

80. Ibid.

81. WJDA: 02-21-010-01-004 (29 December 1907).

82. Ibid.

83. Ibid.

84. See Zhongguo Di Er Lishi Dang'an Guan 中國第二歷史檔案館, Lu Zhengxiang Chuxi Haiya Baohehui Zouzhe Liangjian 陸徵祥出席海牙保和會奏摺兩件 [Two Memorials of Lu Zhengxiang Regarding Participation at the Hague Peace Conference]” (2000) 2 Minguo Dang'an 民國檔案 37 at 37–42 (Lu is ambivalent about the notion of cooperation with Japan in such an “Asian faction,” noting that China had missed early opportunities for such cooperation before the war of 1894–5 but not ruling out the possibility).

85. For critical appraisals of the role of state sovereignty in such (later) discourses of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL), see, e.g. Mohsen al ATTAR, “Subverting Eurocentric Epistemology: The Value of Nonsense When Designing Counterfactuals” in Kevin John HELLER and Ingo VENZKE, eds., Situating Contingency in International Law: On the Possibility of Different Legal Histories (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021) at 160–76; for a perspective focusing on how the state, like other legal forms, can serve as a site of “relative autonomy” reflecting struggles over agency and distribution between social actors, see Umut ÖZSU, “The Necessity of Contingency: Method and Marxism in International Law” in ibid at 75–92.

86. Cf. Ingo VENZKE “Introduction: Situating Contingency in the Path of International Law” in ibid at 18–35.

87. See e.g., HICKS, F. C., “The Equality of States and the Hague Conferences” (1908) 2 American Journal of International Law 530Google Scholar at 530–61; de LAPRODELLE, A. G. and STOWELL, Ellery C., “Latin America at the Hague Conference” (1907) 17 Yale Law Journal 270Google Scholar; DAVIS, Hayne, “Legal Aspects of the Hague Conference” (1908) 5 American Lawyer 1Google Scholar at 1; HULL, William I., “The United States and Latin America at the Hague” (1907) 1 International Conciliation 759Google Scholar at 759; ALVAREZ, Alejandro, “Latin America and International Law” (1909) 3 American Journal of International Law 269CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 269–353.

88. Max HUBER, “Die Gleichheit der Staaten” in Rechtswissenschaftliche Beiträge: Juristische Festgabe des Auslandes zu Josef Kohlers 60. Geburtstag, 9. März 1909 (Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1981) (original publication 1909).

89. Thomas Joseph LAWRENCE, International Problems and Hague Conferences (London: JM Dent, 1908) at 148.

90. HUBER, supra note 88 at 118.

91. Ibid.

92. Max HUBER, “Beiträge zur Kenntnis der soziologischen Grundlagen des Völkerrechts und der Staatengesellschaft” in Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr 1910) at 7.

93. Ibid.

94. See e.g., William Dudley FOULKE, “Arbitration the Shortest Road to International Justice”, Report of the Annual Lake Mohonk Conference on International Arbitration (New York: Lake Mohonk Conference on International Arbitration, 1911) at 99–100.

95. Theodore MARBURG, “The Significance of the International Court of Arbitral Justice”, Report of the Annual Lake Mohonk Conference on International Arbitration (New York: Lake Mohonk Conference on International Arbitration, 1910) at 87.

96. WU Ting-Fang, “China's Attitude Towards Arbitration”, Report of the Annual Lake Mohonk Conference on International Arbitration (New York: Lake Mohonk Conference on International Arbitration, 1909) at 67–71.

97. William H. TAFT, Address of President Taft at the Banquet Given in his Honor by the Americus Club, Pittsburgh, P.A., 2 May 1910 (Library of Congress, 1910) at 18.

98. Ibid., at 17.

99. Ibid., at 13–15.

100. Elihu ROOT, “Basis of Protection to Citizens Residing Abroad” (1910) 4 American Journal of International Law 517 at 520.

101. Ibid., at 521

102. Ibid.

103. Thomas BARCLAY, Problems of International Practice and Diplomacy: With Special Reference to the Hague Conferences and Conventions and Other General International Agreements (London: Sweet & Maxwell Limited, 1907) at 153–6.

104. Ibid.

105. Ibid.

106. See list of appointees in Ole SPIERMANN, International Legal Argument in the Permanent Court of International Justice: The Rise of the International Judiciary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) at 134.

107. See e.g., “China Is Not Willing to Be Led by Hand: Is No Longer Interested In Treaty Technicalities, Says Dr. Wang” The China Press (19 November 1925).

108. EYFINGGER, Arthur, “A Highly Critical Moment: Role and Record of the 1907 Hague Peace Conference” (2007) 54 Netherlands International Law Review 197Google Scholar at 228.

109. The New York Times (23 September 1907) (“To call the meetings at the Hague a fiasco would merely be to repeat the public opinion of the whole of Europe.”).

110. Walther SCHÜCKING, Die Organisation der Welt (Leipzig: Kröner, 1909); Walther SCHÜCKING, Das Werk vom Haag, Erster Band: Die Staatenverband der Haager Konferenzen (Munich and Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1912) at 81. See discussion in Martti KOSKENNIEMI, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) at 216–18.

111. Cf. Samuel MOYN “From Situated Freedom to Plausible Worlds” in Heller and Venzke, supra note 85 at 532–41.

112. See BECKER LORCA, supra note 35 at 158, 179.

113. SIMPSON, Gerry, Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 135.

114. ANGHIE, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)Google Scholar at 182.