This article explores the quest for sovereign equality by China and Japan as it unfolded in a specific historical moment, the third quarter of the nineteenth century. It does so by focusing on the debate around the ‘coolie trade’, i.e., the traffic of Chinese indentured labourers, which offered an opportunity for non-Western countries such as China and Japan to position themselves with respect to Western conceptions of ‘modernity’ or ‘civilization’ and thereby advance their quest for ‘parity with all nations’. Through a study of the Maria Luz case, decided in the early 1870s by Czar Alexander II and drafted by de Martens, the article sheds light on the different approaches of Japan and China with respect to international law at this critical historical juncture. Specifically, it shows that, although the coolie trade mostly affected China, it was Japan who first managed to reap a parity dividend by firmly condemning the practice, whereas China’s action was steered by the circumstances. Eventually, however, China’s growing interest in Chinese populations abroad paved the way for the establishment of its first permanent diplomatic representations overseas. For both countries, the events encapsulated by the Maria Luz case unveil an important, yet overlooked, moment in their quest for parity with all nations and, more generally, in their engagement with international law.

The arrival of Westphalian sovereignty principles in nineteenth-century East Asia was not a uniformly transformative “shock” as commonly assumed. The Sino-centric order did not suddenly disappear; rather it lingered and evolved in a gradual and contested process of change. I argue that enduring domestic understandings of sovereign autonomy affected how Westphalian sovereignty was interpreted in Japan and Korea. Even as the regional structure shifted from regional hierarchy under China to a Western-led international state system, the lens of hierarchy—the long-standing sense of vulnerability and the need to attain autonomous status in a world of great powers—remained unchanged. In addition, each ruling regime in East Asia attempted to reconcile Westphalian sovereignty with existing diplomatic practices to protect its own interests within the Sino-centric order, which resulted in a new hybrid system of interstate relations encompassing notions of both equality and civilizational hierarchy. Within each country, contestation on sovereignty occurred in multiple stages, driven by existing security relationships and changing domestic politics debating the competing standards of civilization in the region.

The chapter takes as its starting point Pieter Kooijman's critique of Vattel's thinning out of the concept of authority in international law, one which attaches to the idea of state equality the possibility for each state to insist upon its own standards to the exclusion of any objective standards in the conduct of international relations. The chapter traces Vattel's contextual background in major Enlightenment shifts which set up a pernicious triad of thinkers such as Mandeville, Smith and de Sade. These thinkers make of post-Enlightenment economic and social relations a struggle of Master and Slave, most easily and clearly depicted in feminist studies, but also finding expression in imperialist relations and in particular, the unequal relations between the West and China, with the continuing inconclusive debate about unequal treaties. The chapter uses close study of a possible ‘anti-feminist’ novel, and feminist critique thereof, as well as a fairly extensive critique of the place of China in the recent history of international law, to argue that the present return of China to the position of a world power able to challenge the global system, could auger ill for post-Vattelian international law. Feminist critique is used to show that the post-Enlightenment ethical-cultural resources of international law are not equal to offering a country such as China more than a ‘masculine’ resort to its own self-strengthening. A search for alternatives ways to constructive dialogue are imperative, but, as Kooijmans shows, after Vattel the task of the international lawyer to contribute effectively is immeasurably disadvantaged.

On 1 July 1997 the People's Republic of China recovered Hong Kong in accordance with the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 19 December 1984. On the same day, China announced the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) formally established and functioning as of 1 July 1997.

On 1 July 1997 the People's Republic of China recovered Hong Kong in accordance with the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 19 December 1984. On the same day, China announced the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) formally established and functioning as of 1 July 1997.