CHINESE DOCTRINE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE ERA OF MAO ZEDONG AND DENG XIAOPING (1949–1992)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
МЕЖДУНАРОДНОЕ И ИНТЕГРАЦИОННОЕ ПРАВОwere later modified and adapted to the PRC's foreign policy objectives.This article examines the history of Chinese doctrine from 1949 (the founding of the PRC) to 1992 (the victory of the reformists).During this period, China underwent several radical changes in both domestic and foreign policy.These changes, however, hardly affected legal doctrine: works published in the 1980 s are less radical than those published in the 1950 s , but also emphasise sovereignty, reconciliation of wills, coexistence, etc.After an examination of the internal and external contexts, the author describes development of legal education and science, Marxist approach as the methodological basis of Chinese doctrine, positions of Chinese doctrine in relation to particular problems of international law and, finally, its contribution to the development of international law as seen by Chinese scholars themselves.The conclusion highlights the general features of Chinese doctrine.These include loyalty of scholars to the state, lack of claims to originality, shortage of criticism and public debate, structuralisation of doctrine, underdevelopment of abstract thinking and legal language, narrow (Chine se) perspective and significant external influences.Many of these features are explai ned by the special social status of the Chinese scholar: Chinese intellectuals never formed a separate class, but were always part of the ruling class; an important part of a scholar's career was passing the civil service examination; his main goal was not to establish the truth, but to support the government and care for the people.Overall, the Chinese doctrine of international law appears to be a unique and interesting artefact.On the one hand, it reproduces many Western ideas; on the other hand, it contains elements of Confucian morality, expresses a Sinocentric conception of the world order, and has similarities with the doctrines of the imperial and Kuomintang periods.The question of its prospects for development and its possible influence on the global order remains open.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".