Last week’s opening ceremonies were full of Russian stereotypes – ballet, nutcrackers, revolution, really bad techno. But one image that was far from a cliché was the cozy relationship between Russian President Vladamir Putin and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping. Over at Concurrent Opinions, law professor and China expert Margaret K. Lewis, mused about what appears to be a deepening friendship and what this could mean for China. Will Xi be wearing a tracksuit anytime soon? Read Lewis’ post here.
Posts tagged: Margaret K. Lewis
Happy birthday China Law & Policy! Monday marks the 4th anniversary of this blog’s founding and we want to take this moment to thank all our readers, commentators and supporters these past four years. When we posted our first post on July 15, 2009, we didn’t know where this blog would take us. Over the past 4 years, we have been able to analyze various areas of Chinese legal development and interview a number of experts in the field.
Year 4 started off with a bang. Last July, we ran a three part series on the proposed legislation in the United States known as the Chinese Media Reciprocity Act that was picked up by a number of other websites. The Chinese government’s increasing belligerence toward Western reporters became an issue that we would return to throughout the year, especially after New York Times reporter Chris Buckley’s journalist visa was not renewed and after China’s most prestigious news paper – Southern Weekend – protested government censorship of the paper’s New Year’s message.
In terms of traditional legal development, China Law & Policy interviewed Prof. Margaret K. Lewis on China’s amended Criminal Procedure Law which took effect in January of this year. Soon after that interview, Gu Kailai – the wife of Bo Xilai – was tried and found guilty of the murder of British citizen Neil Heywood. Glenn Tiffert, a PhD candidate in history at the University of California, Berkley, guest blogged in two posts analyzing the jurisdictional issues in the Gu Kailai trial and the role of the party-state in the Bo Xilai affair. Those two posts are still being commented on.
So what does the future hold for China Law & Policy? This blog’s goal has always been to make one of the most important relationships in the world – the United State’s relationship with China – more accessible to the general public, to those who are not “China people.” Central to understanding a modern China is understanding its developing legal system.
So we will continue to blog about legal developments in China and general policy issues. We will look to increase the number of experts we interview and hopefully can convince more people to guest blog. We will also continue with our periodic book reviews and “Just For Fun” section which often informs you of the best Chinese restaurants out there.
This means that China Law & Policy needs you! Have a blog post idea, email us (email@example.com). Want to write a blog post, email us (all posts are reviewed and edited). We are especially looking for younger, less established “China people” so don’t think just because you don’t have a PhD you can’t blog.
All suggestions from the public to make this website better are always appreciated. Like something we did and want to see more of it? Don’t like something? Just email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Happy birthday and thank you again to everyone who has helped to make this blog a success!
Last week, Seton Hall University School of Law featured an interesting and timely panel discussion on the role of China in UN peace operations. As China rises, what role does it envision in such operations? With its new global capacity has China moved away from a policy of non-intervention? China’s reaction to the humanitarian intervention in Libya is indeed instructive. Below, Zachary Kelman and Desiree Sedehi, two third-year law students at Seton Hall, report on last week’s fascinating discussion.
Steven Hill on a New Beijing Consensus in UN Peace Operations
By Zachary Kelman and Desiree Sedehi*
Steven Hill, Visiting Professor from 2010-2011 at the Hopkins-Nanjing Center in Nanjing, China, visited Seton Hall Law School on September 22, 2011, and spoke in a personal capacity about the research he conducted there on the subject of Chinese participation in UN peace operations. At an event hosted by Professor Margaret K. Lewis, a Public Intellectuals Program Fellow with the National Committee on US-China Relations, and Professor Kristen E. Boon, Director of Seton Hall Law’s International Programs, he posed the following questions: How has China’s approach to international relations changed since assuming its role on the UN Security Council in the 1970s? And is China’s approach to the humanitarian intervention in Libya the harbinger of a new “Beijing Consensus”?
In his presentation, Mr. Hill discussed the evolution of China’s approach to foreign relations, from the “Molotov cocktail-throwing revolutionaries” of the early 70s to the top contributor to peacekeeping missions among the five permanent members of the Security Council. According to Mr. Hill, this movement signals a shift from “non-intervention” to “tolerance, maybe even some enthusiasm and engagement.”
Mr. Hill recounted for his audience how, from when the People’s Republic of China regained China’s seat in the UN in 1971 until the 1990s, China had been largely detached from UN peacemaking activities.
Mr. Hill noted that China’s “traditional approach” to UN peacekeeping privileges stressed the importance of non-intervention. While China’s position has evolved considerably as it applies to UN peace operations, shades of it can be seen, for example, in Ambassador Li Baodong’s 2011 statement that the international community should “respect the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity” of Libya.
Hill further noted, importantly, that in spite of this rhetorical deference to sovereignty, China abstained from voting on UNSCR 1973—an abstention which was instrumental in authorizing the largely European-led intervention in Libya. China’s rhetoric led many commentators to believe that it would vote against the resolution. However, China’s ultimate abstention has been seen by many to symbolize its larger shift from a non-aligned power to a global power that has a substantial stake in the international community.
According to Mr. Hill, that China felt it necessary to evacuate 36,000 workers from Libya due to this humanitarian crisis featured prominently in its decision on how to vote on the Libya resolutions. Moreover, China’s growing stake in the international community means increased interest in avoiding catastrophic scenarios, and hence likely a more active China on the global scene.
That being said, Mr. Hill cautioned against unbridled optimism with respect to China’s “new role.” He noted that China made every effort to defer to traditional notions of national—and then regional—self-determination. This position was evidenced by China’s acknowledgment of Arab League and African Union positions. In addition, China reserved abstention as a “special circumstance” and was careful not to set precedent. This cautiousness, said Mr. Hill, exemplifies China’s broader attitude toward UN peacekeeping—the possible emerging “Beijing Consensus”—to promote a limited “blue helmet” approach within the general understanding of military procedure, but to avoid “nation building” and other more interventionist forms of intervention. Whether this approach will change to a more progressive humanitarian attitude, as held by some of China’s Western counterparts on the Security Council, remains to be seen.
After Mr. Hill’s presentation, both Professors Lewis and Boon offered commentary to the audience. Professor Lewis,
who recently appeared before the Congressional-Executive Commission on China in a roundtable discussion on the “Current Conditions for Human Rights Defenders and Lawyers in China, and Implications for U.S. Policy,” raised China’s need for global stability for the safety of its investments as an impetus for its increased role in UN peace operations. Professor Lewis further emphasized that China’s increased participation in UN peacekeeping efforts may be improving its reputation in the eyes of the international community. Such positive reputational benefits could encourage China’s future involvement.
Professor Boon, who has written extensively on the UN and the Security Council, suggested it might be wise for the US to rethink its skepticism towards international institutions, given the growing influence of China. The United Kingdom took the approach in the 20th century of placing greater emphasis on international institutions. As its national power waned relative to the rising US, it has maintained a far more powerful seat in global affairs than it would have if it had not actively engaged in international institutions. The US has an opportunity to solidify its interests in the current international legal and political order, which could serve it well in the future. Professor Boon also highlighted the importance of the new Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, and suggested that these could affect the willingness of permanent Security Council members to engage in new endeavors as much as a new “Beijing Consensus.”
Following their commentary, both Professors Lewis and Boon invited the audience to ask questions and provide comments. Professor Michael Ambrosio of Seton Hall Law School asked Mr. Hill to comment on the success and efficiency of China’s participation in UN peacekeeping, and to rate China’s involvement. Mr. Hill responded that he would rate China’s increased participation quite high, and noted that China has provided crucial assistance in terms of medical and engineering troops, police units, and military observers to UN missions around the world. Mr. Hill emphasized the dire need for police units and explained that China’s assistance in this capacity was especially successful because it was so necessary.
* The authors are both third-year Juris Doctor students at Seton Hall University School of Law. Mr. Kelman is also a Deborah T. Poritz Fellow and Ms. Sedehi is the former president of Seton Hall’s International Law Society.
As China emerges as a global power, the question arises: what role will it play in the UN, especially in peacekeeping operations? Since first re-emerging on the world stage in 1978, China has maintained a philosophy of noninterference in other countries’ domestic affairs, making China’s involvement in peacekeeping operations limited.
But more recently, China has begun to step up to the plate in UN peacekeeping operations, sending non-combat PLA soldiers to assist with such effort. In March 2011, Beijing issued a white paper on the matter, commending its troops for serving in UN peacekeeping operations and stating that such a role is important for a “responsible party.”
So why the change? And how will China move forward? Noted China law professor Margaret K. Lewis will examine these developments and discuss China’s future role with Steven Hill, Counselor for Legal Affairs at the United States Mission to the United Nations, at an event next Thursday at Seton Hall Law School. All are welcomed to attend; RSVPs (to get a sense of numbers) are very much appreciated; for lawyers in the house, the event will provide 2.0 hr NJ/NY CLE.
***RSVP HERE: http://law.shu.edu/About/News_Events/new-beijing-rsvp.cfm ***
A New Beijing Consensus in UN Peacekeeping Operations
Featuring Steven Hill, Counselor for Legal Affairs at the United States Mission to the United Nations
with Comments by Prof. Margaret K. Lewis, Seton Hall Law School
Thursday, September 22, 2011
4 pm – 6pm
Seton Hall Law School, 5th Floor Faculty Library
1 Newark Center
Newark, NJ 07102
(2 minute walk from Newark Penn Station which has the Path & NJ Transit)
INVITATION TO BLOG – China Law & Policy’s staff will be out of town next week; anyone interested in blogging about the event please contact me at email@example.com This is an interesting event and should provide for a stimulating blog post. Thank you in advance.