The Network hosts monthly work-in-progress meetings on all topics related to China and international justice. Meetings are pre-read, and take place online. If you are interested in presenting, or would like to attend one of the sessions, email chinainternationaljustice@gmail.com
Yong Li (Sun-Yat Sen University) – ‘Tianxia as an Alternative Theory of Global Justice’
Tuesday February 24th, 9am UK Time
This paper offers a new normative reading of the Chinese idea of Tianxia (天下) as a form of statist cosmopolitanism. After distinguishing historical and non‑historical approaches to Tianxia—one that emphasizes imperial practices and regional hierarchies and one that draws on Confucian moral texts and cosmopolitan ideals—I survey how each approach generates divergent normative models (Confucian nationalism, hierarchical tributary orders, and cosmopolitan interpretations). I then develop an alternative: Tianxia as statist cosmopolitanism, which preserves Confucian partial attachments to one’s polity while endorsing equality among states, a sufficientarian global distributive aim (securing basic conditions for moral cultivation), and the non‑instrumental value of political communities. The paper addresses six central objections—utopianism, motivational problems for benevolent states, the legacy of hierarchy and imperialism, fidelity to tradition, and differences from existing statist cosmopolitan theories—and offers provisional replies. The proposal seeks to reconcile key Confucian insights (Datong and Tianxia Weigong) with contemporary commitments to state equality and global justice, contributing a distinct alternative to dominant cosmopolitan and nationalist frameworks.
Zhichao Tong (Sun-Yat Sen University) and Daniel Hutton Ferris (Newcastle University) – ‘Democratic Minimalism and the Two Faces of Partisanship’
Thursday March 26th, 9am UK time
According to the minimalist definition widely employed in modern political science, representative democracy is just a regime where political officials are chosen by periodic
competitive elections and enjoy significant discretionary power between elections. In this article, we examine minimalists’ normative justifications of representative democracy parsimoniously defined and argue that they cannot succeed as their proponents envision. Drawing on empirical studies about the two faces of partisanship, we demonstrate that the kind of party system more conducive to minimalists’ social peace argument because of expressive partisanship will undermine their epistemic argument realized through instrumental partisanship. Ultimately, due to such tensions, representative democracy cannot be proved to be superior to at least some non-democratic and non-electoral regimes on minimalist grounds.
Tadhg Ó Laoghaire (Durham University) – ‘The Ethics of Superpower Competition’
Tuesday April 28th, 9am UK time
William Chan (Cambridge University) – Confucian and Liberal-Democratic Models of AI Governance
Tuesday May 26th, 9am UK time
China and International Justice Research Network (CIJRN) 