China has long been the object of several preconceived ideas in the eyes of the Western public, among which the image of a despotic régime without law has certainly been one of the most vivid and enduring. Li Chen's Chinese Law in Imperial Eyes is situated in the wake of recent studies that challenge traditional yet still current views on Chinese law shaped by a long history of “legal orientalism.”Footnote ¹ It investigates more specifically the origins of these standpoints in the context of Sino-Western encounters during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (p. 2). Chen refutes the clash-of-civilizations thesis that has often followed from the false assumption that Chinese and Western law are incommensurable. He argues that these misrepresentations contributed to the straining of Sino-Western relations during the nineteenth century, and cautions us against similar prejudices that have continued to shape our judgment on China over these past decades (p. 242).

Using Mary Louise Pratt's concept of a “colonial contact zone” as a theoretical underpinning, Chen persuasively argues that rather than merely being made of conflicts, Sino-Western relations were also the product of constant negotiations and mutual cultural transfers.Footnote ² Meanwhile, he rightly notes that views on Chinese law were often conflicting in Western discourses, varying upon time and the goals pursued. To carry out his investigation, Chen has conducted a sound study of a large range of materials reflecting Western opinions on Chinese law, often cross-examined together with their Chinese counterparts.

The first chapter, where Chen scrutinizes the Lady Hughes case and other similar criminal cases related to offenses committed by foreigners in China, is characteristic of this methodology. In his view, these cases exemplify how Westerners misconstrued Chinese law, more as a consequence of their insecure status in China than as a manifestation of a coherent colonial discourse. Chen investigates how these cases were transformed into the formative moment of extraterritoriality in China in Western historiography (p. 27). Relying on a legal analysis of these criminal cases, he challenges the conclusions traditionally taken for granted in Western documentation that the offenders had been unfairly sentenced to death. In his view, this misconstruction of the right punishment was crucial, since it bolstered later statements disparaging Chinese law as barbaric. However, had the offenders been Chinese, they almost certainly would not have been executed. During the Qing dynasty (1644–1911), cases of homicide during an affray usually resulted in suspended death sentences and, following the Autumn Assizes’ review process, the death sentence was usually suspended. Westerners were not aware of all these refinements in Chinese legal procedure, and they did not invoke any of these procedural safeguards in the system when they brought forward the argument that Westerners suffered unfair treatment under Chinese law. While this point does not call into question the Western misrepresentation of Chinese law Chen describes, it does highlight the fact that the Chinese government did not consider its institutions suitable for foreigners. The specificities of Chinese legal institutions necessarily raise questions about the context of the emergence of extraterritoriality in China.

Chen's survey of the intellectual genealogy of Western conceptions of Chinese law continues in chapter 2 with a study of how Staunton's translation of the Qing code influenced the emerging Western understanding of Chinese law. Chen believes that Staunton's work and legacy should be analyzed in the broader context of Sino-Western legal disputes.

In contrast with the focus in scholarship on the appropriation of Western culture during the colonial period, the third chapter analyzes the intertwined intellectual relations and their influence on the construction of modernity in the West. It is unfortunate that so little attention is devoted to Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz in this chapter. The potential relationship between Leibniz's interest in Chinese culture and his support for codification in Europe may deserve further inquiry. Furthermore, Chen's discussion of the influence of Chinese law on British legal reforms often lacks persuasive force. Facing the absence of tangible evidence, he incidentally acknowledges that it is difficult to “assess exactly how much direct influence Chinese law had on the actual legislative proposals” (p. 142).

Chapter 4 demonstrates how this narrative participated in the shaping of a “sentimental representation of Chinese judicial punishments” (p. 244), while the fifth chapter scrutinizes its influence on the foreign policy that led to the Opium War.

In total, Chinese Law in Imperial Eyes is based on a sound understanding of recent scholarship and on a thorough analysis of archives and historiography of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It constitutes an important contribution to the study of the Sino-Western encounter and is an expedient attempt to reconsider the place of law in the construction of their history.