UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law

China’s economic growth, expanding political influence, and strategic initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative, challenge the existing paradigms of international law and transnational legal ordering. As China increasingly asserts its interests and perspectives in international, regional, and bilateral forums, it catalyzes debates on sovereignty, human rights, economic relations, and private law, potentially reshaping the contours of international and transnational legal discourse and practice. While the debates are still ongoing, a sizable body of literature has already emerged. Some argue that China’s growing influence will negatively impact the liberal international legal order,  while others see China’s rise as a manageable challenge unlikely to undermine the foundations of the existing system.  In contrast, some scholars hold a more optimistic view, emphasizing the potential positive contributions China could make through its more active participation in reforming international law.  Recently, some scholars have taken an empirical approach, documenting China’s evolving policies toward international law and institutions.  Others, however, see international law as largely irrelevant in any China-driven shift of global geopolitics.

Sovereignty is a singularly prominent element in China’s approach to international law throughout the People’s Republic of China era, but its centrality and specific content have varied over time and across issue areas. During Mao Zedong’s era, a vulnerable China in a hostile international environment strongly embraced sovereignty. In the early Reform Era, an increasingly secure China pursuing international engagement adopted more flexible positions, especially in international economic law, while largely retaining sovereignty’s primacy. Differences across economic, human rights, and territorial sovereignty law reflect China’s power, interests, and agendas, with the most assertive stances on territorial issues implicating core interests. Under Xi, a powerful China facing a warier world and having less to gain from the international legal status quo has turned back to more uncompromising sovereignty claims, except where its expanding global interests and influence point to a “sovereignty for me but not for thee” posture. China’s approach to sovereignty is likely to sharpen and reconfigure further amid ideological rivalry with the West and the “securitization” of economic and normative disputes.

China has adopted a pragmatic approach to international human rights law in the early 21st century, characterized by pragmatic experimentation in the appropriation and modification of human rights norms, selective decoupling of international and domestic human rights rules, and divergent enforcement in the legislative and practical responses to various human rights issue areas. This approach permits significant gaps between “law on the books” and “law in action,” as well as between domestic rules and international law. Analysis of China’s engagement with the ICCPR and CEDAW, respectively focused on criminal procedural rights and women’s rights, reveals the complex and uneven nature of China’s human rights governance. While China has gradually reduced overt violations of human rights within criminal procedures, it has concurrently developed a more opaque and institutionalized punitive system. In comparison, despite recent legislative advances, limited practical enforcement and increased state control on feminist activists characterize women’s rights protections in China. Understanding China’s pragmatic approach is crucial for effectively addressing human rights concerns within the country.

Despite the increasing tension between China and the United States, a student of Chinese law will be surprised at the increasing similarity between corporate and securities laws in China and the United States. As many Chinese twists as there are, the overall trajectory of China’s corporate and securities laws appears to be evidently moving closer toward their American counterparts. I will trace the recent changes in Chinese laws, regulations, and judicial interpretations and decisions to substantiate this point. At the same time, I will also present an analytical framework to explain this legal convergence in an era of decoupling between China and the United States. My explanation is based on two key factors: legal professionalism and political populism. Understanding the convergence of Chinese corporate and securities laws to their American counterparts will enable us to make a better-informed assessment of the uniqueness of China’s corporate governance and securities regulation paradigms.

China’s interaction with international commercial arbitration (ICA) norms reveals a trajectory from initial resistance to gradual alignment and potential emergence as a rule contributor. This early resistance manifested in its unique dual-track arbitration mechanism and institutional arbitration monopoly. Reforms signal a shift towards global standards, driven by pro-arbitration judicial efforts and institutional competition in China’s vibrant arbitration market. As China’s global influence expands, it is innovating to shape the ICA landscape through initiatives like the China-Africa Joint Arbitration Centre, the China International Commercial Court’s one-stop dispute resolution platform, and the International Commercial Dispute Prevention and Settlement Organization. The role of transnational legal elites in China further facilitates this evolution.

China has long been hailed as the biggest success story in economic development through integration into global value chains, especially since its accession to the WTO 20 years ago. However, it is much less well-known how China refitted the global value chain narrative to influence economic analysis and trade governance. At the same time, the value chains analysis also backfired when the U.S. tried to cut China out of its supply chains and pushed for decoupling with China, while China itself started to abuse its role in value chains for political gains. The process was further accelerated by the Ukraine war, which prompted efforts by the U.S. and its allies to build supply chains based on values rather than value, which will have a profound impact on China and the global trade order.