1 The United States Joint Publication Research Service (JPRS) has translated into English a number of articles on international law published in various Communist Chinese periodicals. Besides JPRS materials, the author does not know of any systematic study in this field.

2 ‘ ‘ China Political Science and Law Association Held Its Fourth General Meeting,'' (1964) Cheng-fa yen-ehiu (Studies in Political Science and Law) [hereinafter cited as CFYC], No. 4, at 28.

3 E.g., the United Nations Charter, which sets forth many of the important principles of international law, is cited as follows in the preamble to the Sino-Afghanistan Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Non-aggression, Aug. 26, 1960: “ … conclude the present treaty in accordance with the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter … “ 3 Peking Review, No. 51, at 18 (1960). See also Art. 1 of the Sino- Hungarian Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation, May 6, 1959, 2 ibid., No. 19, at 23 (1959).

4 E.g., in the Statement by the Chinese Embassy in Indonesia on the Forcible House Arrest of the Chinese Consul, May 13, 1960, it is stated that “[t]he forcible house arrest of Consul Chiang Yen, the crude encroachment upon the functions and rights, the personal safety and freedom of the consul … have violated the universally acknowledged international norms… . “ 3 Peking Review, No. 20, at 34, 35 (1960).

5 E.g., Communist China justifies its position in the border dispute with India in terms of international law, maintaining that, since China had never Satified the 1914 Simlar Convention, the boundary had thus never been formally fixed by any treaty. See Note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China to the Indian Embassy in China, Dec. 26, 1959, in The Sino-Indian Boundary Question 57-58 (Peking, enlarged ed., 1962).

6 See p. 263 below.

7 “The Soviet State and Law at the Contemporary Stage,” in Eomashkin (ed.), Fundamentals of Soviet Law 20 (Moscow) (published by the Institute of State and Law of the Academy of Sciences of the TJ.S.S.B.). The Small Soviet Encyclopedia also states: “Socialist law expresses the sovereignty and the totality of rights of the urban and rural workers and serves the building of a Communist society. It is a powerful weapon in the struggle against the enemies of the people, against the disorganizers of Socialist society.” Vol. 7, at col. 494 [passed for publication on Dee. 1, 1959] (3d ed.); quoted in Vallat, “International Law—A Forward Look,” 18 Year Bk. of World Affairs 248, 250 (1964).

8 E.g., it was stated in an article entitled “Some Questions of the People's Democratic Legal System in Our Country” that “since the policy of the party is the soul of the legal system, legal work is merely the implementation and execution of party policy… . The law of our country is a changing law, adapted to the perpetual revolution.” (1959) CFYC, No. 2, at 3. See also “Political and Legal Work Must Follow Absolutely the Guideline of the Party,” ibid. 9.

9 Report on Judicial Work, New China News Agency, Oct. 31, 1951.

10 “On the People's Democratic Dictatorship,” 4 Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung 411, 418 (Peking, 1961) [English version]. For a study of this question, see also Lu Chih and Chang Hao, “The Position and Function of Socialist Laws in People's Democratic Dictatorship,” (1962) CFYC, No. 4, at 26; Szu Chin, “Chinese Socialist Law,” ibid. 5; Chou Hsin-min, “Law is a Sharp Weapon of Class Struggle,” Jen min jih pao (People's Daily), Oct. 28, 1964.

11 E.g., Shen Chün-ju declared that: “Not a small number of cadres look upon the nation's judicial work (a work of the strongest political nature) as a purely technical matter, and fail to consider it as a weapon to protect democracy and enforce dictatorship.“ Report on Judicial Work, op. cit. note 9 above. During the period of the 1957-1958 rectification campaign, this view was severely criticized. See several articles in (1957) Fa hsüeh (Science of Law), Nos. 5 and 6.

12 Kozhevnikov (ed.), International Law, A Textbook for Use in Law School 10, 11 (Moscow, 1957, English version, 1961) (Published by the Institute of State and Law of the Academy of Sciences of the TT.S.8.E.).

13 The fact that both the Soviet Union and Communist China consider that international law should serve a state's foreign policy does not mean that they agree on the present-day role of international law. Thus, despite the fact that both countries advocate the foreign policy of peaceful coexistence, they differ in the contents or scope of this policy. For instance, Communist China considers that this policy is not applicable to “imperialism and its lackeys” nor does it exclude the use of force in a “national liberation war.” For details see The Polemic on the General Line of the International Communist Movement (Peking, 1965).

14 (1958) Chiao hsüeh yü yen chiu (Teaching and Research), No. 3, at 52. The main theme of Chou's article was that there is only one universal system of international law which adjusts relations among various countries, Socialist or capitalist. It is interesting to note that Lin Hsin, who held the view that there are now two systems of international law—Socialist and capitalist, also maintained a similar view on the role of international law. See his “A Discussion of the Post World War II Systems of International Law,” ibid., No. 1, at 34. See also Shih et al., “ An Initial Investigation into the Old Law Viewpoint in the Teaching of International Law,” ibid., No. 4, at 14. Shih and other co-authors attack rightist influence in the teaching of international law, condemning certain teachers for “emphasizing that the main purpose of the course was to give students a systematic knowledge of international law. … These comrades do not recognize that international law is the legal instrument serving our country's foreign policy.” Ibid. 15.

15 “Refute the Absurd Theory Concerning International Law by Ch'en T ‘i-ch ‘iang,“ People's Daily, Sept. 18, 1957. Chen T'i-chiang was educated at the University of London (Ph.D. in International Law) and his book, International Law of Eeeognition, was published in England in 1951. Before he was purged in 1958, he held the position of Head of Division of International Law of the Institute of International Eelations of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

16 A Modern Law of Nations 20 (1948). Another writer explains more clearly: “The main object of international law has been to produce an ordered rather than a just system of international relations, yet in later developments … there has been evidence of some striving to ensure that, objectively, justice be done between States.“ Starke, An Introduction to International Law 3 (5th ed., 1963). A few Western writers, however, also advocate a theory on the ru1e of law which is essentially the same as that of Communist (Soviet or Communist Chinese) writers. For instance, Professor McDougal and his followers have consistently argued that law is an instrument of policy. Professor Falk has summarized McDougal's view as follows: “First of all, for McDougal, the cold war represents a value conflict between Communist totalitarian myths and the Western defense of human dignity and liberal democracy; thus the outcome of the struggle has a crucial significance for all that we cherish as nontotalitarians. Second, the Communist strategists are fully aware that law is really a process for the promotion of policies and are adept at manipulating legal doctrine to serve Communist policies. Third, a mechanical subservience to legal restraint by Western nations, independent of policy implications, handicaps our side in the cold war and gives the Sino-Soviet block a pervasive and unnecessary advantage that may prove to be decisive. In view of this situation it is a matter of moral and political survival, as well as jurisprudential integrity, to acknowledge that a public official probably applies the law only when he promotes the policies of the normal community which he serves. There is no existing universal moral order. Without such universality the world exhibits contending systems as its primary characteristic and it is up to those on our side to help it prevail.'’ Book review of McDougal and Feliciano, Law and Minimum World Public Order (1961), 8 Natural Law Forum 171, 176-177 (1963). It is interesting to note that no writer in Communist China has ever either cited McDougal's writings or commented on his view.

17 Ho Wu-shuang and Ma Chün, ‘ ‘ A Criticism of the Reactionary Viewpoint of Ch'en T'i-ch'iang on the Science of International Law,” (1957) CFYC, No. 6, at 35,

18 Vol. I, at 4 (ed. Lauterpacht).

19 Ting T'ao, “Recognize the True Face of Bourgeois International Law from a Few Basic Concepts,” (1960) Kuo-chi wen-t'i yen-chiu (Studies in International Problems) [hereinafter cited as KCWTYC], No. 1, at 42, 44. The article says: ” … their [i.e., bourgeoisie] criterion for the so-called ‘civilized’ or ‘uncivilized’ is neither long history nor culture. Even though China has 5,000 years of excellent culture, she was not included in the group of ‘civilized states.’ “ Ibid.

20 E.g., the eighth edition of Oppenheim's International Law omits the adjective “civilized” before states in its definition of international law. Vol. I, at 4-5 (ed. Lauterpacht, 1955).

21 At 3 (2d ed., 1952). See also Starke, An Introduction to International Law 3 (2d ed., 1950). The first edition of Starke's book published in 1947 accepted Hyde's definition of international law as a law among states.

22 Schwarzenberger, op. cit. note 21 above, at 38-39. For a discussion of individuals and international organizations as subjects of international law, see generally Jessup, op, cit, note 16 above.

23 K'ung Meng, “A Criticism of the Theories of Bourgeois International Law on the Subjects of International Law and the Recognition of States,” (1960) KCWTYC, No. 2, at 44, 46-49.

24 Kozhevnikov, op. cit. note 12 above, at 7. The definition is cited in Chou, loc cit. note 14 above, at 53. In an article by Ho and Ma, loc. cit. note 17 above, they cited a similar definition given by Vyshinsky as the correct definition of international law.

25 See their Theory, Law, and Policy of Soviet Treaties 49-52 (1962).

26 It is not clear whether the lack of response to the new Soviet doctrine is due to ignorance of the recent Soviet development or to disagreement with it. Despite the fact that the eight edition of Oppenheim's International Law, published in 1955, has omitted the adjective “civilized” in its definition of international law, some writers in Communist China continued, as late as 1960, to rely on the seventh edition (published in 1948), which was translated into Chinese, in evaluating the Western definition of international law. E.g., see Ting T'ao, loc. cit. note 19 above, at 43. Similarly, many writers in Communist China appear to rely heavily on a book entitled Fundamental Principles and Problems in Modern International Law (Peking, 1956), which is a collection of translations of 21 articles of Soviet writers all published before 1955.

27 K'ung Meng, loc. cit. note 23 above, at 49. Cf. Kozhevnikov, op. cit. note 12 above, at 90, where a similar view, though not in such a radical form, is expressed.

28 Quoted in Chakste, ‘’ Soviet Concepts of the State, International Law and Sovereignty,” 43 A.J.I.L. 26, 27 (1949). But this group of jurists recognizes that certain rules of law could apply in areas of practical common interest, such as postal communication, health regulations, etc. According to Tunkin, Korovin himself afterwards recognized such opinions as erroneous and the overwhelming majority of Soviet jurists never shared the views expressed by Professor Korovin. “Co-existence and International Law,” 95 Hague Academy Recueil des Cours 5, 60 (1958). For a criticism of Professor Korovin's view by Soviet jurists, see (1952) Soviet State and Law (in Russian), No. 7, at 67-77.

29 Kozhevnikov, op. cit. note 12 above, at 11.

30 Ibid. 12.

31 Ibid. 20. It is there stated that: “The Soviet socialist state from the very outset repudiated all unequal treaties and abolished consular jurisdiction. It proclaimed the principles of self-determination of nations, peaceful coexistence… . “

32 Ibid. 88. They explain that Socialist international law is still in the stage of development.

33 (1957) Science of Law, No. 3, at 16-19.

34 Loc, cit. note 14 above, at 34-38,

35 A few Western writers also have expressed their doubt on the question of whether a universal (general) international law can still exist under the current global ideological conflict between the Communist bloc and the Western bloc. Professor Wilk of Wells College, for instance, writes that: “ In the contemporary state of division on fundamentals, the growth of bodies of rules of particular international law over wide areas, each with common interests and values which hold it together and separate it from areas outside, is both challenging and disturbing… . What remains of universal international law may thus come to shrink in content, not only proportionately to the growth of particular international law, but even absolutely, as interest is given up in the survival of much of its content and understanding of its standards is correspondingly lost. Universal agreement would no longer survive on matters that used to be governed by universal international law. Carried to its extreme, such a development could break up the universal system of international law, as it has come down to us, into regional or other partial systems, with no international legal rules to govern the actions of states across the frontiers of the various systems.” “International Law and Global Ideological Conflict,” 45 A.J.I.L. 648, 669 (1951). See also Smith, The Crisis of the Law of Nations 1-32 (1947). Such a denial of the existence of a universal international law is severely criticized by Tunkin. He considers that the “thesis about the impossibility of the existence of general international law leads objectively to a justification of the ‘position of strength’ policy and of the ‘cold war'.” Loc. cit. note 28 above, at 60. Professor Chou Keng-sheng of Peking University seems to agree with Tunkin's comment. See his Trends in Thought of Modern English and American International Law 9 (Peking, 1963). It may be interesting to observe that while Professor Wilk's article received little attention by Western international jurists, both Tunkin and Chou made lengthy comments on his view.

36 Loc. cit. note 14 above, at 52-56.

37 Chou considers that there is only one international law which is applicable to all states. Another writer, Chu Ch'iwu, also shares Chou's view on the single system of international law. He expresses the view that after the establishment of the Soviet Union in 1917 and the people's democracies after World War II, the previous bourgeois international law was transformed into modern international law. “The transformation from bourgeois international law to modern international law is not only a historical development, but also a change of essence.” However, such a transformation does not exclude modern international law from succeeding some progressive norms of bourgeois international law in the sense that “all progressive norms of international law which have already been formulated in human society can be criticized, reformed and absorbed upon a new basis.” He does not deny that modern international law also possesses a class character, but he points out that its class character does not express the will of the ruling class of a single state, but the will of the ruling class of states with differing systems. His conclusion is that, with respect to international law ” [Stalin's theory that] the superstructure is created together with the creation of the base, and is extinguished together with the extinction of the base, must be restricted and supplemented.” “ [M]any norms of international law last longer than the base from which they were created; moreover, they continue to develop on the new base. The principle of sovereignty, the principle of equality and the principle of non-intervention were all originally proposed by the bourgeoisie, although they have never practiced these principles. The Socialist states have not only accepted those principles but also have infused new democratic substance into them. Although these norms of international law have changed together with the change of the social economic base, yet they have continued to exist as the superstructure. Therefore, we cannot generally hold all the superstructure is created by the base, and exclude all the elements created by historical development.” “Looking at the Class Character and Succession Character of Law from the Point of View of International Law,” Kuang Ming jih pao, May 13, 1957. The question of the succession character of international law discussed by Chu is a controversial question among Communist Chinese writers. Professor Chou Tzu-ya of the East China Institute of Political Sicence and Law advocates a theory similar to that of Chu by arguing that even norms of Socialist international law do succeed many progressive norms formulated in the old approach. See his “The Question of the Nature of Modern International Law—The Class, Specialty, Compulsion and Succession Character of International Law,” (1957) Hsüeh shu yüeh k'an (Academic Monthly), No. 7, at 67, 71-72. Liu Chia-chi, however, denies that Socialist international law has the character of succession. He argues that, regardless of which norms are applied in relations between Socialist countries, they are all lined up by the proletarian internationalism which can never have its existence in the old epoch. Liu cites Korovin's “Some Basic Problems of the Current Theory of International Law” ((1954) Soviet State and Law, No. 6) to support his argument. But whether general international law has the character of succession, he does not explain. See his “Some Questions Concerning the Nature and Systems of International Law,“ (1958) Science of Law, No. 3, at 43, 44-45.

38 Most of the participants published their views in (1958) Science of Law, No. 3, under the general heading of “A Discussion of the Question Concerning Contemporary Systems of International Law.“

39 Only Keng Fu-ch'eng supports Lin Hsin's view. See his “Talks on Current Systems of International Law,” ibid. 52-54.

40 Hu Wen-chih, ‘ ‘ On the Three Systems of International Law at the Present Stage,” ibid. 49-51.

41 E.g., see Ch'iu Jih-eh'ing, “Second Discussion on the Systems of International Law at the Present Stage,'’ ibid. 40-43.

42 What is meant by the term “proletarian internationalism” is an interesting question. Although this term has been used officially or unofficially so often in Communist China, only a few writers try to explain or define it. Professor Ch'iu once quotes a few passages from Tunkin's article entitled “Socialist Internationalism and International Law” (in (1957) New Times, No. 51, and translated into Chinese in (1958) Collected Translations of International Problems, No. 2), which states: “As a principle of international law, socialist internationalism implies that each socialist state has definite rights and obligations. For instance, the right to assistance from other socialist states, and, conversely, the obligation to render such assistance.“ Quoted in Ch'iu, loc. cit. note 41 above, at 40. With respect to the relation between Socialist internationalism and proletarian internationalism, Tunkin gives the following explanation in the same article: “Relations between the countries of the socialist camp rest on Marxism-Leninism, on the principle of proletarian internationalism— on the principles, in other words, that underlie the policy of working-class parties. The roots and aims of the struggle waged by workers in different countries are identical, and that struggle is against a common enemy, the bourgeoisie, in the interests of the workers of the whole world. This has impelled the working class of different countries to form a fraternal union for joint struggle to liberate all working folk and create a new social system free from exploitation… . With the appearance of many socialist states, proletarian internationalism, while continuing to remain the guiding principle of the international movement, becomes, at the same time, the principle underlying inter-governmental relations—relations between the socialist states. This is what [is meant] … by the term socialist internationalism.” New Times, loc cit. above. Another writer, Chiang Yang, gives the following explanation: “Proletarian patriotism and internationalism are the idea for the unity, cooperation and common fight of the proletariat and toiling people of various countries. This idea is one of the fundamental principles of the international Communist movement. In order to be liberated, the working class of various countries must exterminate the exploiting class of their respective countries, overthrow the rule of their respective reactionary classes, and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. The struggle of the working class proceeds under their concrete national conditions, and their own country is the stage for their direct struggle. However, the working class of various countries have common interests and face a common class enemy—the international bourgeoisie. The latter's plunder and exploitation are also international; therefore, the revolutionary struggle of the working class of various countries is also international. In view of this, the proletariat the world over and all the oppressed nations and people must unite and render mutual support in the course of their struggle.” “The Reactionary Thought of ‘Universalism’ in American Jurisprudence,” People's Daily, Dec. 17, 1963.

43 E.g., see Sino-Mongolian Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance, May 31, 1960, 3 Peking Review, No. 23, at 10 (1960). Foreign Minister Chen Yi once said: “Relations between our socialist countries are international relations of an entirely new type. Socialist countries have the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism as their common ideological foundation and the building of socialism and communism as their common goal; our fundamental interests are completely identical.” 5 ibid., No. 37, at 11 (1962).

44 See Sino-Czechoslovakian Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, March 27, 1957, 6 Compilation of Treaties of the People's Republic of China 40 (Peking, 1958).

45 E.g., see Sino-Afghanistan Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Non-Aggression, Aug. 26, 1960, loe. cit. note 3 above, at 18.

46 See Tammes, ‘ ‘ Decisions of International Organs as a Source of International Law,” 94 Hague Academy Eecueil des Cours 265 (1958); Starke, op. cit. note 16 above, at 30-31. For a discussion of Western views on the sources of international law, see generally Parry, The Sources and Evidences of International Law (1965).

47 Ying T ‘ao, loc. cit. note 19 above, at 46.

48 Ibid. 47.

49 See Triska and Slusser, op. cit. note 25 above, at 9-31.

50 See Kozhevnikov, op. cit. note 12 above, at 12-14.

51 Triska and Slusser, op. cit. note 25 above, at 29.

52 E.g., see Ting Ku, “Firmly Maintain the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence,” (1959) KCWTYC, No. 2, at 1, 2. Chao Yüeh writes: “ I n many important treaties concluded with … other countries, our country proposed a series of democratic principles which have produced great influence and become commonly observed principles among various countries.” “A Preliminary Criticism of Bourgeois International Law,” ibid., No. 3, at 1, 8. Wei Liang writes: “Treaties are an important source of international law and an important form of expressing international law.” “On the Post Second World War International Treaties,” in International Treaty Series, 1953-1955, at 660 (Peking, 1961).

53 See Starke, op. cit. note 16 above, at 103. Even Chou Keng-sheng, a prominent Communist Chinese jurist, expressed a similar view. See his “The Principles of Peaceful Co-existence from the Viewpoint of International Law,” (1955) CFYC, No. 6, at 37-41.

54 See note 4 above. See also Chou Keng-sheng, ‘ ‘ The Persecution of Chinese Personnel by Brazilian Coup d'Etat Authority Is a Serious International Illegal Act,“ People's Daily, April 24, 1964. Chou argues that such a persecution is in violation of “international custom.“

55 Writers in Communist China rarely cite judicial decisions (except in citing Western judicial decisions to criticize the conduct of Western countries) in their writings. The citing of the Anglo-Norwegian Fishery Case decided by the International Court of Justice in 1951 in Fu Chu's On the Question of the Territorial Sea of Our Country (1959) is among the few examples known to this writer. But it may be noted that, in a book of selected documents on international law edited by the Office of Teaching and Research of International Law of the Institute of Diplomacy and published in Peking in 1958, three documents selected under the heading of sources of international law are: (1) Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice; (2) Resolution of the United Nations General Assembly on Progressive Development of International Law and Its Codification (Dee. 11, 1946); and (3) Resolution of the United Nations General Assembly on Affirmation of the Principles of International Law Recognized by the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal (Dec. 11, 1946). Reference Documents of International Law 11-12.

56 Trends in the Thought of Modern English and American International Law 67 (Peking, 1963). But the resolutions of the United Nations have been occasionally cited to prove or disprove the existence of a rule of international law. E.g., Li Haopei, Research Fellow of the Institute of International Relations of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, cites General Assembly Resolution 626 (VII) on permanent sovereignty over natural resources as one of the evidences that no rule of international law requires the nationalizing state to make compensation to foreigners. See his “Nationalization and International Law,” (1958) CFYC, No. 2, at 10.

57 E.g., see Ying T'ao, loc. cit. note 19 above, at 47-48; Chou, op. cit. note 56 above, at 29-34.

58 Kozhevnikov, op. cit. note 12 above, at 15. For a survey of this problem, see Ginsburgs, “The “Validity of Treaties in the Municipal Law of the ‘Socialist' States,” 59 A.J.I.L. 523 (1965). One may observe that among Socialist countries there can be no conflict between norms of Socialist international law and municipal law because both reflect the same values and implement the same policies. There can therefore be no problem of “primacy” of international law, and the problem of “incorporation” virtually vanishes. However, such a problem becomes significant with respect to rules of international law governing relations between Socialist countries and bourgeois countries, as those rules do not entirely reflect values of Socialist countries.

59 It should be noted that writers in Communist China have consistently emphasized that international law is a law between (not above) states. See Chou, op. cit. note 56 above, at 66. It is thus unlikely that Communist China would accept the theory of the supremacy of international law over municipal law. On the other hand, the supremacy of municipal law over international law once advocated by some German writers is criticized as an “absurd theory” fabricated to provide legal justification for imperialist external aggression. Ying T'ao, loc. cit. note 19 above, at 48. In view of this, the author of this paper concludes that the current Soviet doctrine would be acceptable to Communist Chinese writers.

60 2 Collection of Documents on the Problem of Japan 126 (Peking, 1958).

6l Chung-hua jên-min kung-ho kuo fa-kwei hui-pien. Up to 1963, 13 volumes have been published.

62 Loc. cit. note 17 above. The standard Soviet textbook on international law also emphasizes the characteristics of the Soviet science of international law. “For the first time in the history of International Law its study was in Soviet legal literature founded on a genuinely scientific basis, on the unshakable foundation of Marxism- Leninism.” Kozhevnikov, op. cit. note 12 above, at 88. It does not expressly say that the Soviet science of international law is different from the bourgeois science of international law, though such an intention may be implied. See ibid. 59-88.

63 See also Chao Yüeh, loc. cit. note 52 above, at 4.

64 Ying T ‘ao, loc. cit. note 19 above, at 50.

65 Ibid.

66 Ibid. 50-51. See also Chao Chen-chiang, “The Reactionary Essence of the Legal Theory of Social Solidarity,” People's Daily, Dec. 20, 1962.

67 See Chiang Tang, loo. cit. note 42 above; Yang Hsin and Ch'en Chien, “Expose and Criticize the Absurd Theory of Imperialists Concerning the Question of State Sovereignty,” (1964) CFYC, No. 4, at 6-11. See also Modrzhinskaia, Kosmopolitizmimperialisticheskaia ideologiia poravoshcheniia natsii (Universalism is the imperialist thought of enslaving peoples of various countries) (1958) (Translated into Chinese by Tsai Hua-wu, Peking, 1962).

68 Chiang Yang, loo. cit. note 42 above.

69 Loo. cit. note 19 above, at 51.

70 In 1960, this Association withdrew from the International Law Association in protesting the admission of the Republic of China to the latter Association. 3 Peking Review, No. 32, at 24-25 (1960). See also International Law Association, Report of the Forty-Ninth Conference (Hamburg) excii (1960).

71 See note 38 above and accompanying text.

72 First published in 1954 as a bi-monthly and since 1960 as a quarterly.

73 First published in 1959 as a bi-monthly. It is not clear whether the publication was suspended between 1961 and 1963. Since 1964, it has appeared as a bi-monthly.

74 First published under the title of Hua-tung cheng-fa hsüeh-pao (East China Journal of Political Science and Law) in 1956 by the Shanghai Law Association. In 1957 it was renamed under the present title and published as a bi-monthly. In 1958 it became a monthly, but the publication appears to have been suspended since 1959.

75 People's China (in English) was first published in 1950 as a fortnightly, but the publication was discontinued in 1958 when it was replaced by the weekly periodical, Peking Review (in English). Both occasionally include some articles on international law, official documents on foreign relations, texts of treaties, etc. English versions of important articles or editorials of People's Daily are also published in Peking Review.

76 China People's University did edit a monograph entitled ‘ ‘ Lectures on International Law,” but it does not appear to have been published. The author knows only one writer who has cited these Lectures. See Liu Chia-chi, loo. cit. note 37 above, at 44. At least until 1958, some teachers in Communist China still used Western textbooks such as Oppenheim's International Law in their teaching. See Shih et al., loc. cit. note 14 above, a t 14-16.

77 Hsien-tai ying-mei kuo-chi fa ti szu-hsiang tung-hsiang (46,000 words), reviewed by this writer in 59 A.J.I.L. 170 (1965).

78 Kuo-chi fa chung t ‘ i shih-fa kuan-hsia wen-t'i (88,000 words). The book deals with the question of the state's jurisdiction both in criminaland civil cases involving foreign elements. To be reviewed by this writer in the American Journal of Comparative Law.

79 Wo-kuo ti ling-hai wen-t'i (about 20,000 words).

80 Kuo-chi wen-t'i yi-ts'ung (monthly). It was first published in 1953, but it is not clear whether the publication continued after 1959. The articles on international law were mainly translated from New Times, International Affairs, and Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo (Soviet State and Law). Communist China also published several books comprising selected essays on international law by Soviet jurists. The most important two are Hsien-tai kuo-chi fa shang ti chi-pen yuan-tse ho wen-t'i (Fundamental Principles and Problems in Modern International Law) (Peking, 1956) (310,000 words) ; and Kuo-chi ssu-fa lun-wen chi (Collected Essays of Private International Law) (Peking, 1959) (202,000 words).

81 Mezhdunarodnoe chastnoe pravo.

82 Mezhdunarodnoe pravo. English translation published in 1961. Reviewed by E. E. Baxter in 56 A.J.I.L. 1131 (1962).

83 Osnovy sovremennogo mezhdunarodnogo prava; uchebnoe posobie.

84 Mezhdunarodnyi sud organizatsii obedinennykh natsii.

85 Lenin o mezhdunarodnoi politike i mezhdunarodnom prave.

86 “Vol. I (7th ed., Lauterpacht). Translated into Chinese by the Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs.

87 2d ed. Translated from the Russian version.

88 2d ed.

89 Chung-hua jên-min kung-ho kuo tiao-yü chi. The book is edited each year by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Communist China. Up to 1964, 13 volumes have been published. Vols. I and II comprise treaties concluded respectively in 1949-1951 and 1952-1953, and since 1954 each volume comprises treaties concluded in one year only. There is an index at the end of Vol. X (1961) for treaties concluded between 1949 and 1961.

90 Chung-hua jên-min kung-ho kuo tui wai kwain-hsi wen-chien chi. Edited by Shih-chieh chih-shih ch'u-pan shê. Vols. I to IV comprise documents issued respectively in 1949-1950, 1951-1953, 1954-1955, 1956-1957, and since 1958 each volume comprises documents issued in one year only. Up to 1963, ten volumes have been published. The information office of the China Ocean Transport Company also edited a collection of treaties entitled “Hai-shang Kuo-chi Kung-yüeh hui-pien” (Compilation of International Maritime Conventions) (Peking, 1963) (472,000 words).

91 Kuo-chi t'iao-yüeh chi. The 8 volumes cover treaties concluded respectively in the periods 1917-1923, 1924-1933, 1934-1944, 1945-1947, 1948-1949, 1950-1952, 1953-1955, and 1956-1957. Each volume is approximately 600,000 words.

92 Chung wai ehiu yüeh ehang hui-pien (A Collection of Old Agreements, Regulations and Treaties Between China and Foreign Countries). The three volumes cover respectively the periods 1689-1901, 1901-1919, and 1919-1949.

93 To the knowledge of this writer, twelve collections have been published which respectively comprise documents relating to the Geneva Conference, Indo-China question, Japanese question, German question, Disarmament, European Security, Suez Canal, Prohibition of Atomic “Weapons, etc.

94 Kuo-chi kung-fa ts'an-k'ao wen-chien hsuan-chi.

95 The writer proposes to discuss this question in a separate paper.

96 Ch'en T'i-ch'iang, Head of the Division of International Law of the Institute of International Relations of the Chinese Academy of Sciences until 1958, when he was purged, also once expressed his concern about the poor quality of research work done in Communist China. People's Daily, Sept. 18, 1957. Professor Wang Tieh-yeh of Peking University also expressed the view that “the study of international law and the training of international lawyers has been suspended for seven years due to the fact that traditional legal science has been completely written off as of no practical value … “ Kuang ming jih pao, June 10, 1957. Cited in Mac Farquhar (ed.), The Hundred Flowers 116 (1960).