Introduction
This essay critically examines whether China positions itself as a challenger or defender of the existing legal order under international law. As a rising global power, China’s actions and rhetoric in international legal forums have sparked debate over its intentions towards the established norms and institutions that govern global interactions. Drawing primarily on module materials and supplemented by academic literature, this essay will explore China’s engagement with international law through its policies, participation in global institutions, and specific case studies such as its stance on the South China Sea dispute. The analysis will consider whether China seeks to uphold the current legal framework or challenge it to align with its national interests. The discussion is structured into three key sections: China’s historical relationship with international law, its role in international institutions, and its behaviour in territorial disputes. Ultimately, this essay argues that China adopts a dual position, selectively defending aspects of the legal order that serve its interests while challenging those that conflict with its ambitions.
China’s Historical Relationship with International Law
To understand China’s contemporary stance, it is essential to consider its historical engagement with international law. Historically, China was a latecomer to the Western-dominated international legal system, encountering it during the 19th century through unequal treaties imposed by colonial powers (Wang, 2017). This experience bred a deep-seated suspicion of international law as an instrument of Western hegemony. However, following the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, China gradually began to engage with international legal frameworks, particularly after its admission to the United Nations (UN) in 1971. This shift marked a pragmatic acceptance of international law as a tool for protecting sovereignty, a principle China holds paramount (Johnston, 2013).
Nonetheless, China’s historical grievances continue to shape its approach. While it defends norms like state sovereignty and non-intervention—key tenets of the UN Charter—it often resists aspects of international law perceived as infringing on its autonomy, such as human rights obligations. This selective engagement suggests that China does not outright challenge the legal order but rather seeks to reinterpret it in ways that align with its historical perspective and national priorities. Such a stance reveals a nuanced position, neither wholly defensive nor entirely oppositional.
China’s Role in International Institutions
China’s participation in international institutions provides further insight into its positioning vis-à-vis the global legal order. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China wields significant influence over the maintenance of international peace and security, often aligning with the principle of sovereignty to veto interventions that it perceives as infringing on state autonomy (Foot, 2014). For instance, China has consistently opposed UN actions in conflicts involving regime change, such as in Syria, arguing that such interventions violate international law’s non-interference norm (Foot, 2014). This behaviour indicates a defensive posture, as China upholds established principles when they protect its interests and those of its allies.
However, China’s growing economic clout has also led it to promote new institutions that arguably challenge the existing order. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) reflect China’s desire to shape global economic governance, sometimes bypassing traditional Western-led institutions like the World Bank (Ikenberry and Lim, 2017). While these initiatives operate within the broader framework of international law, they signal a push for alternative norms and structures that better accommodate China’s developmental model. Therefore, while China defends certain pillars of the legal order through its UN role, its creation of parallel frameworks suggests a subtle challenge to Western dominance in global governance.
Case Study: The South China Sea Dispute
A critical test of China’s position on international law is its conduct in the South China Sea, where territorial disputes with neighbouring states have drawn global attention. In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruled against China’s expansive claims in the South China Sea, particularly its ‘nine-dash line,’ in a case brought by the Philippines under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (PCA, 2016). China rejected the ruling, asserting that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction and that its claims were grounded in historical rights predating UNCLOS (Ku, 2016). This rejection has been widely interpreted as a direct challenge to the authority of international legal mechanisms.
Yet, it is worth noting that China remains a signatory to UNCLOS and has not formally withdrawn from the treaty, indicating a reluctance to completely abandon the legal framework. Instead, China appears to challenge specific interpretations of international law that conflict with its strategic interests, while still engaging with the broader system through bilateral negotiations with claimant states (Ku, 2016). This duality complicates the narrative of China as a pure challenger; arguably, it seeks to reshape rather than reject the legal order, prioritising its sovereignty claims over binding arbitration. This selective approach underscores a broader tension in China’s international legal posture.
Critical Analysis: Challenger or Defender?
Evaluating whether China is a challenger or defender of the international legal order requires acknowledging the complexity of its position. On one hand, China defends core principles such as sovereignty and territorial integrity, which are foundational to the post-World War II legal order. Its rhetoric often invokes the UN Charter as a shield against perceived Western overreach, positioning it as a guardian of traditional norms (Johnston, 2013). On the other hand, China’s actions—whether through rejecting PCA rulings or promoting alternative governance models—suggest a willingness to challenge aspects of the legal order that hinder its rise as a global power (Ikenberry and Lim, 2017). This dual stance reflects a pragmatic strategy: China engages with international law instrumentally, defending it when beneficial and contesting it when restrictive.
Indeed, this duality raises questions about the coherence of the existing legal order itself. If powerful states like China can selectively interpret or disregard rulings, the enforceability and universality of international law are arguably undermined. However, China’s actions also highlight a limitation of the current system, which was largely shaped by Western powers and may not fully accommodate the perspectives of rising states. Thus, while China’s behaviour poses challenges, it also prompts a necessary debate about reforming the legal order to reflect contemporary global realities.
Conclusion
In conclusion, China’s position regarding the existing legal order under international law is neither wholly that of a challenger nor a defender but rather a complex amalgam of both. As explored, China upholds principles like sovereignty and engages with institutions like the UN to defend the status quo when it aligns with its interests. Conversely, through actions in the South China Sea and the creation of initiatives like the BRI, China challenges aspects of the legal framework that constrain its ambitions. This duality suggests a pragmatic approach, leveraging international law as a tool for national advancement. The implications of this stance are significant, as they highlight the adaptability—and potential fragility—of the global legal order in the face of shifting power dynamics. For international law to remain relevant, it may need to evolve to better incorporate the perspectives of states like China, ensuring that the system is perceived as equitable rather than a relic of historical imbalances. This topic warrants further exploration, particularly as China’s influence continues to grow.
References
- Foot, R. (2014) China and the United Nations: The Constraints of Internationalism. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 7(3), pp. 315-340.
- Ikenberry, G.J. and Lim, D.J. (2017) China’s Emerging Institutional Statecraft: The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Prospects for Counter-Hegemony. Brookings Institution Report.
- Johnston, A.I. (2013) How New and Assertive Is China’s New Assertiveness? International Security, 37(4), pp. 7-48.
- Ku, J. (2016) China and the Future of International Adjudication. Chinese Journal of International Law, 15(1), pp. 1-10.
- Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) (2016) The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China). Case No. 2013-19. The Hague: PCA.
- Wang, T. (2017) China and International Law: Historical Legacies and Contemporary Challenges. Asian Journal of International Law, 7(2), pp. 205-220.
