Nineteenth-century comparative sciences profoundly informed Sinology, but this field remains largely unexplored. Despite recent attention to the comparative study of Chinese religion, researchers have overlooked the comparative spirit underpinning British understanding of Chinese law. This article addresses this oversight by focusing on George Jamieson's (1843–1920) translation and interpretation of Chinese inheritance law in the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912). Drawing on Henry Maine's (1822–1888) comparative jurisprudence, Jamieson reflected upon China's lack of the legal concept of wills, which was a starting point for him to decipher the different developmental routes of Roman and Chinese law. As a parallel to Maine's comparison of Hindu and Roman law, Jamieson compared Chinese with Roman law, revealing that sacrificial duties to ancestors and underdevelopment of the legal profession were key factors contributing to China's legal particularities.

The question of whether arbitrary deprivation of nationality constitutes persecution for the purposes of a determination of refugee status has received increased attention in recent jurisprudence. However, no systematic argument has been made to date on the ordinary meaning of words, context, object and purpose of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as it applies to stateless refugees. This is an important question because the absence of determination procedures and a protection regime specifically for stateless persons in many jurisdictions makes refugee and/or complementary protection the only options. This article examines existing landmark judicial decisions worldwide, relevant UN documents, and academic writing on whether arbitrary deprivation of nationality, either on its own or when taken with other forms of harm, amounts to persecution within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and if so on what grounds. It concludes by suggesting when (arbitrary) deprivation of nationality should lead to a finding of persecution, based on good practice, and points to a global consensus on a new rights perspective concerning nationality.