Between Human Rights and Sovereignty*—An Examination of EU–China Political Relations

• Date: 01 July 2011
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2011.00564.x
• Published date: 01 July 2011
• Author: Jing Men

eulj_564534..550

Between Human Rights and Sovereignty*

—An Examination of EU–China

Political Relations

Jing Men

Abstract: This paper will study the differences between the EU and China on the under-

standing of human rights and national sovereignty and their impact on EU-China political

relations. The paper will be divided into the following parts. The f‌irst part will give a

review of the concepts of both sovereignty and human rights and the rising concern of

human rights in the contemporary world. The second part will study the EU’s policy of

human rights to see why the EU adheres to its values. The third part will look at China’s

policy on sovereignty and human rights. The fourth part will examine EU-China political

relations and analyse the diff‌iculties in bilateral relations, due to differences in values

between the EU and China. The f‌ifth part will draw some tentative conclusion.

In the post-Cold War era, the EU is generally regarded as a normative power. All the

Member States have transferred part of their national sovereignty to this regional

organisation to make decisions for the common market at the European level. The

achievements realised in the construction of the internal market encouraged the Com-

munity to develop towards the direction of a Union where not only economic affairs

but also political and diplomatic affairs should be developed under the leadership of the

Union. Benef‌iting from the widened and deepened European integration, the EU

promotes liberal democratic values in its external relations. After the Tiananmen Event

in China in 1989, the EU Member States had, for eight consecutive years, tabled a

resolution at the United Nation’s (UN) Commission on Human Rights to criticise

China’s human rights record. Since 1997, the two sides have maintained a biannual

human rights dialogue to facilitate mutual understanding on the issue. Nevertheless,

the disagreement on human rights is much stronger than consensus between the two

sides. The EU is frustrated in its political relations with China because of limited

progress in the human rights dialogue.

This paper will study the differences between the EU and China on the understand-

ing of human rights and national sovereignty and their impact on EU–China political

relations. The paper will be divided into the following parts. The f‌irst part will give a

review of the concepts of both sovereignty and human rights and the rising concern of

human rights in the contemporary world. The second part will study the EU’s policy of

human rights to f‌ind out why the EU adheres to its values. The third part will look at

* The author would like to thank the peer reviewer for his comments.

European Law Journal, Vol. 17, No. 4, July 2011, pp. 534–550.

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK

and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

China’s policy on sovereignty and human rights. The fourth part will examine

EU–China political relations and analyse the diff‌iculties in bilateral relations because

of differences in values between the EU and China. The f‌ifth part will draw some

tentative conclusion.

I Sovereignty and Human Rights: Values in Conf‌lict?

The concept of sovereignty was developed in the 17th century as a consequence of the

emergence of modern states in Europe. Between 1648 when the Peace of Westphalia

was signed and 1948 when the Universal Declaration of Human rights was adopted, the

world experienced great changes. In 1648, the great powers in Europe reached the

agreement among themselves that sovereignty should be respected. Territorial integrity

and non-intervention have since then been maintained as the two basic norms of

sovereignty: ‘Existing states, as sovereign members of the decentralised, state-centric

international community, are entitled to recognition and respect and to the right of

political autonomy....’.

1Thanks to the Peace of Westphalia, states are understood in

principle as legally equal entities that work to maintain international peace via a range

of widely accepted treaties, agreements, conventions and declarations.

State sovereignty and human rights are two fundamental values in international

relations. Traditionally, the state is regarded as the basic unit of international relations.

Against the anarchical international system, the ‘def‌ining feature of the state is sover-

eignty, its absolute and unrestricted power’.2Anarchy obliges each state to take care of

its own national security and property. Without world government, it is diff‌icult for

states to give much concern to the rights of individuals when facing intense national

competition from others.3Imbued with high autonomy, states are supposed to respect

each other’s independence.4

While the Treaty of Westphalia set principles for states to act in international

relations, states have responsibilities to protect the basic rights of its people and to

allow individuals to enjoy freedom within legal boundaries. International relations are

ultimately relations between human beings. Human rights impose limitations on the

scope of authority a state can exercise over its citizens.5States, which are legitimate

internationally, may not necessarily be legitimate domestically. McMahan proposed

two criteria for domestic legitimacy: a state should be a representative of the political

community or communities within its territorial boundaries; it should enjoy the

support and approval of the mass of its citizens.6

In today’s world, the rights of human beings in each individual state are given

increasing concern as a result of globalisation and growing interdependence between

1M. R. Amstutz, International Ethic: Concepts, Theories, and Cases in Global Politics (Rowman & Little-

f‌ield Publishers, Inc., 2005), 129.

2Ibid., 76.

3See S. Hoffman, Duties Beyond Borders: On the Limits and Possibilities of Ethical International Politics

(Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1981).

4R. Jackson and G. Sorensen, Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches (New York:

Oxford University Press, 2006), 133.

5S. D. Krasner, ‘Sovereignty, Regimes, and Human Rights’, in V. Rittberger and P. Mayer (eds), Regime

Theory and International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 140.

6J. McMahan, ‘The Ethics of International Intervention’, in K. Kipnis and D. T. Meyers (eds), Political

Realism and International Morality: Ethics in the Nuclear Age (Boulder, Colo. Westview Press, 1987), 85.

July 2011 Between Human Rights and Sovereignty

535

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.