China's rise has been a visible, yet somewhat puzzling, phenomenon to the world. During the ongoing global fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, China, with its more stringent national policies, has been relatively successful at virus containment compared to many Western counterparts. Moreover, the differences between the East and the West has been a persistent theme attracting great academic interest in many fields, but rarely has anyone been able to propose a balanced approach that can bridge the differences between the two to solve real-life issues. This book intends to address this gap, with a critical account of the current international law-making process. It ambitiously proposes a theory named the “Relational Normativity of International Law”, calling for a paradigm shift of international law from a mere rule-based system to a rule-based system complemented by relational thought.

The theory notes the difference between Western and Eastern epistemologies, whereby Western epistemology is more likely to use abstract logic to isolate attributes of objects and to formulate general laws which become universally applicable. Individual objects’ qualities and attributes are the foundation of this epistemology, being the virtue of dialectical reasoning. So too the development of international law, which is believed to be grounded on a universal view of legality and morality. However, Eastern epistemological thinking contextualizes an object within its surrounding environment as the starting point of analysis. The so-called Chinese “concrete cognition” means that one takes into account the environment in which an object is situated so as to define its features. The centrality of relationships become the cornerstone in this analysis. What captures Eastern philosophers is “relational thought” that sees the ever-changing and dynamic relationships between actors as the essence of society and acknowledges that their interests towards each other will influence their respective identities.

Drawing on this distinction, the author reveals an inherent conflict in the development of international law, which echoes similar critiques of Western centrism. By presuming countries as equal sovereign individuals, the norms of international law are developed upon states’ consensus, which was, in the first instance, mainly built upon the practice of Western countries. Normative rules are both the means and the end. When more actors, often by gaining independence, make their debut on the international plane, it becomes necessary for them to accede to the existing understanding of norms/principles which are perceived to be universally applicable. Here lies the conflict. For countries like China, its reaction towards the building of international legal norms cannot, at least not always, be interpreted through a Western epistemology which highlights individualism. The pursuit of collective interests will inevitably be present in China's behaviour relating to the development of international relationships. The decision-making process therefore is largely guided by evaluating the level of “mutual trust” which is believed to be appropriate to sustain a lasting and sustainable relationship with other countries. This approach calls for taking international/regional relationship building as the starting point in order to give effect to the normativity of international law. The dynamics of countries’ relationships should also influence the development of international legal norms, as well as their interpretation and application. In this regard, it is contended that modern China stands as a live example of two different converging epistemologies, Western and Eastern, into a country's practice of seeking economic growth without polarizing its society.

Overall, the book is rich in content and views, being both interpretative and constructive. There are, however, two minor drawbacks. First, the content, which is currently limited to China's presence on global conflict resolution, seems somewhat confined compared to the intended theoretical reach. It would have been more helpful if the author had extended his analysis to other areas of international law, for example global trade, investment, environment, etc., beyond the realm of conflicts, for better explication and proof of its theoretical significance. Second, the proposed theory seems to give noticeable credit to the work of Yaqing Qin, an international relationship scholar who developed the theory of relational governance, both in explaining the trajectory of China's shifting foreign policy since 1949 and in justifying the proposed theory. Here, perhaps, the difference and delineation between the two theoretical works could have been better clarified.