The Irony in the Lineage of Modern Chinese Constitutions and Constitutionalism

Q2 Social Sciences
David K.C. Huang, Nigel N.T. Li
{"title":"The Irony in the Lineage of Modern Chinese Constitutions and Constitutionalism","authors":"David K.C. Huang, Nigel N.T. Li","doi":"10.1163/2211906x-12030001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article juxtaposes modern Chinese constitutions and constitutionalism with constitutionalism chiefly developed in the West for clarity on the former’s lineage. As constitution is a concept foreign to China, there is no need for the country to enact any constitution unless it genuinely intends to embrace the true spirit of constitutionalism. A comparison of three signal Chinese constitutions yields an ironic, counterintuitive result, for the Constitution of the Republic of China is a refutation of the Nationalist Basic Law of the Political Tutelage Period (enacted in 1931), whereas the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, though enacted by the Communists, bears the legacy of the Nationalist Basic Law of the Political Tutelage.","PeriodicalId":38000,"journal":{"name":"Global Journal of Comparative Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2211906x-12030001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This article juxtaposes modern Chinese constitutions and constitutionalism with constitutionalism chiefly developed in the West for clarity on the former’s lineage. As constitution is a concept foreign to China, there is no need for the country to enact any constitution unless it genuinely intends to embrace the true spirit of constitutionalism. A comparison of three signal Chinese constitutions yields an ironic, counterintuitive result, for the Constitution of the Republic of China is a refutation of the Nationalist Basic Law of the Political Tutelage Period (enacted in 1931), whereas the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, though enacted by the Communists, bears the legacy of the Nationalist Basic Law of the Political Tutelage.
中国近代宪法与宪政谱系中的反讽
摘要本文将近代中国宪法和宪政与主要在西方发展的宪政并置,以厘清近代中国宪法和宪政的渊源。由于宪法对中国来说是一个陌生的概念,所以中国没有必要制定任何宪法,除非它真正打算拥抱真正的宪政精神。对中国三部标志性宪法的比较产生了一个讽刺的、违反直觉的结果,因为中华民国宪法是对1931年制定的《国民政治监护基本法》的反驳,而中华人民共和国宪法虽然是由共产党制定的,却继承了《国民政治监护基本法》的遗产。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Journal of Comparative Law
Global Journal of Comparative Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The Global Journal of Comparative Law is a peer reviewed periodical that provides a dynamic platform for the dissemination of ideas on comparative law and reports on developments in the field of comparative law from all parts of the world. In our contemporary globalized world, it is almost impossible to isolate developments in the law in one jurisdiction or society from another. At the same time, what is traditionally called comparative law is increasingly subsumed under aspects of International Law. The Global Journal of Comparative Law therefore aims to maintain the discipline of comparative legal studies as vigorous and dynamic by deepening the space for comparative work in its transnational context.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信