While it might appear that Lius Legislating the Universal The Circulation of International Law in the Nineteenth Century is of little relevance for scholars of international relations, it is definitely not the case. One of the major strengths of this piece, which focuses on the translation of Henry Wheatons Elements of International Law into Chinese in 1864 by W. A. P. Martin, is its comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach. Borrowing methods and insights from discourse studies, linguistics, historiography, philosophy, and jurisprudence, the author makes important observations about the implications that circulation of legal texts has had for historical developments in international relations.

The central argument the author advances is that translated texts produce intended and unintended meaning between discursive contexts of source and target languages, especially if such languages had little contact before and are only learning to speak in each others political discourse (which certainly was the case with English and Chinese in the middle of the nineeenth century). Thus, translators are charged with creating hypothetical equivalences between languages which are subsequently fixed through repeated use. Martin had to come up with neologisms which were barely intelligible to his Chinese contemporaries,such as quanli for right, created by removing negative connotations associated with quanshi (power or domination) and adding the word li (interest of calculation) from commercial vocabulary nowadays, the terms seem perfectly natural. However, it is important to keep in mind that due to different connotations attached to any word in target language, concepts are transplanted from one discourse to another with a great degree of imprecision.    

Leaving the linguistic peculiarities aside, the author examines how Western powers employed international law to project their influence around the globe. Chinese ordered translations of some passages from Vattels Le droit des gens (another work considered by Martin for translation which, however, was not endorsed by American authorities because of the author being French) to justify their refusal to trade in opium. In such a way, the approach to international law among Chinese was purely instrumental they tried to use it as a rhetorical device to persuade the West (the British Empire in this case) of righteousness of their position. Western powers ignored the letter and spirit of the law during the Opium Wars, forced numerous unequal treaties upon China, colonized Hong Kong, and opened its ports to international vessels. Under such historical circumstances, the translation of Wheatons Elements of International Law was considered timely for two main reasons. First of all, it helped to construct the image of the West as a more benign power which relied not only on force but also law in its dealings with other nations. Secondly, it legitimized unequal treaties and served as a useful instrument for ensuring their implementation. This marked an important shift in the perception of universality of international law rather than defending it on the basis of shared humanity and moral vision, as early European philosophers did, the emphasis shifted to universal consent, treaties, balance of power, and international tribunals.      

The only noticeable weakness of the text is that it makes several points which are not sufficiently integrated into the texts canvas. The discussion on Lord Macartneys mission which discovered that China was reluctant to open up to international trade  and therefore established the image of Chinese as sinocentric, traditionalist, backwards and uncooperative, the central image employed by the so-called colonial historiography  is an interesting point in itself yet does little to advance the authors argument. So is the discussion of the naturalization of the translating the word yi (originally meaning foreigner or stranger) as barbarian, deemed to be highly offensive by the British and banned from all Chinese official documents on these grounds.

Other than that, the argument of the author appears sound and complete. Using the example of a particular legal text, the author investigates how purely discursive events influence actual material reality. This text is extremely relevant nowadays, given the apprehensions that the recent rhetoric of universality of human rights and humanitarian interventions can be just a guise for neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism.                                  

0 comments:

Post a Comment