The rise of China, as the world’s second-largest economy, is an ever-present reality in today’s world. China’s rising status is posing not only a significant challenge to, but also an impetus for, change in the world order economically, culturally, geopolitically, and legally.

Against this backdrop, a thought-provoking book on China and the international legal order was recently published by Phil C.W. Chan, a Hong Kong-born international lawyer, who was trained in Hong Kong, the UK (Durham), and Singapore. Chan’s own Chinese origins, together with his impressive international education and working experience, means that he is well placed to provide a thorough review of China’s interaction with international law, which extends beyond a solely Western-centric perspective. The publication includes an impressive interdisciplinarity between international law and international relations.

There are seven chapters. The introductory chapter provides research context, significance, and methodology. Chapter 2 is the theoretical backbone of the book. It critically discusses the interrelationship between international law and international relations, as well as liberal democracy. Chapter 3 turns to history, and assesses China’s engagement with international law since the first Opium War (1839–1842) between Great Britain and China (then the Qing Dynasty). The book subsequently examines Chinese practice in the fields of international human rights law (Chapter 4), democracy (Chapter 5), self-determination (Chapter 6), and international security (Chapter 7).

This book has no doubt made important academic contributions. However, there are a few issues that bear mentioning. First, the author states (p. 13) that “it is of pivotal importance to understand how China has engaged with international law and international organizations to justify and advance its exercise of State sovereignty, and how international law and international organizations may be transformed and perhaps improved in the process”. I wonder whether these should have been better placed as the research questions for the book. Indeed, Chan tends to answer these questions throughout the book.

Second, I was unable to find a clear methodology under section 1.3, titled “Research Framework and Methodology”. The book is mainly based on doctrinal research on English literature. Chan justifies this by saying that his “use of English-language research materials will enable the book to reach a wider audience unfamiliar with Chinese language”. I understand Chan’s concern to engage with Western scholars, but surely a study of Chinese practice under international law necessitates that legislation, policy papers, speeches by government officials, and publications in Chinese need to be frequently quoted.

My final criticism is that the author sets out to examine China’s exercise of sovereignty. He criticizes the Western idea that liberal democracy constitutes a requirement for a nation-state to possess legitimacy for exercising sovereignty, but neither defines the concept nor construes what sovereignty means through a Chinese lens.