Skip to main content

A Short Response to a Reader

Liu Shaoqi
This post provides a short and simple response to a question I received about my short essay "民法的一般原则、党组以及“一带一路”  (available here for those who may like to read it in Chinese, and here for those who may like to read it in English). The question was received on the "法律与国际事务学会" Wechat group, following the circulation of this short essay on Chinese-language internet groups and websites. 


I am publishing my short and simple reply here because the question may be of interest to persons other than the reader who asked it (and whom shall remain anonymous). Also, my essay was written for the sole purpose of academic research and communication therefore, there is no reason why I should provide my answer within the 'four walls' of a social media group.

Question: In your commentary, you wrote “in 1957, Liu Shaoqi suggested to use the words ‘militant bastions’ in article 19 of the Constitution of the CPC to refer to the function of primary organizations, rather than to their identity or legal nature” 

Do you have a source to explain why it is Liu Shaoqi that made the suggestion? Thanks for your time.


Answer: Thanks for your question! Unfortunately, I must admit that no, I don't have an answer to the question of whether I have a source to explain why Liu Shaoqi chose those specific words in order to describe the function of primary organizations of the Communist Party of China in 1957. 

Or, I should rather say, my answer to the question is in the negative: I do not have a source explaining why Liu Shaoqi decided to make that suggestion.

In my essay, I explained how Liu Shaoqi used an allegorical language to describe the function of primary organizations.  I also explained the reason why those words should not be interpreted in their literal sense. According to the article I cited, it is a proven fact that the suggestion to use the words 'militant bastions' was made by Liu Shaoqi. 

The question of why Liu Shaoqi chose those specific words rather than any other words, or why Liu Shaoqi, rather than any other official of the Communist Party of China made that suggestion is extremely interesting. But, finding an answer to this question can take some time. 

I don't have the relevant primary sources handy but, a possible way to answer this question may involve:

1. Compiling a list of the names of all the high ranking officials who, in 1957, gave their input to the amendment of the Constitution of the CPC.
2. Locate the biographies, public speeches, and perhaps most importantly the 年谱 (for English speakers: their diaries), private letters, as well as other archival materials if accessible, for each one of these historical figures.
3. Acquire, if available in bookstores, libraries, or archives, the memoirs of their relatives, their secretaries and, generally speaking, persons who were close to them. 
4. Reading these materials character after character,  with the goal to find out any information that may relate to the point of why Liu Shaoqi chose the words 'militant bastions'.

This is not the only possible way to answer the question. There are other ways - the only limit being the competence, acumen and creativity of individual scholars. 

I might offer my hypothesis, but an hypothesis is not a factHere's what I personally thought as I was writing the commentary. 

As many of those who, in the first half of the 20th Century, were concerned about the future of China, Liu Shaoqi chose to take the road of revolution. He joined the Long March and - among others - in the early 1940s, he was a political commissar of the New Fourth Army. Even though his work took place in 'white areas' he had a direct experience of life in the army. 

Perhaps, he chose the words 'militant bastions' to remind future generations of the contribution of those who lost their lives in the 1930s and 1940s, to allow us all to live in peace.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Internship Opportunities at the Foundation for Law and International Affairs

I am delighted to share a call for internship issued by the Foundation for Law and International Affairs, an organization I am a proud member of.



FLIA Internship Opportunity

We are looking for interns from all over the world.

Who we are and what we do
FLIA is an independent nonprofit organization established in Washington, DC in 2015. As an educational and consultative think tank, FLIA is devoted to promoting global communication, cooperation, and education in the field of law and international affairs. The areas on which FLIA focuses include comparative law and culture, international crime and judicial assistance, courts and tribunals, social responsibility and sustainable development, global economics and world trade, international relations and multilateral diplomacy, global security and governance, and human rights. FLIA conducts various programs such as FLIA Conference, FLIA Dialogue, FLIA Insight, FLIA Youth, FLIA Publication, and FLIA Blog. 
Why be a FLIA intern
If you are seeking to…

A Question From Douglas Elmauer

This post has been written in response to a question Douglas Elmauer (Escola de Direito de São Paulo, Brazil) asked following the Rountable on The Implications of the 19th Communist Party Congress.
To what extent does Chinese openness to the global capitalist market help in the process of democratization and in strengthening the "rule of law" that provides legal security for foreign investors and companies? Perhaps the progressive economic opening may one day irritate politics to the point of a constitutional rupture in the future.

Dear Douglas,
thanks for this very thought-provoking question. A conventional response would rely on either of three contrasting approaches to the free market as an agent of democratization:
A first approach would confirm this nexus, and then proceed to look for the most appropriate locus of irritation in China’s political system, in the hope a constitutional rupture may lead to democratization and to stronger guarantees for multinational corporations…

UN Draft Guidelines on Human Rights and the Environment - Suggested Revisions

On October 10, 2017, Professor John Knox, the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment released a newsletter where  comments on the Draft Guidelines on Human Rights and the Environment were solicited
I was honored to produce and submit a commentary together with Professor Larry Catà Backer, under the auspices of the Coalition for Peace and Ethics. The executive summary of a much longer commentary on the Draft Guidelines on Human Rights and the Environment, and a table of our suggested revisions to the Draft Guidelines are reproduced below.

Executive Summary
The Draft Guidelines on Human Rights and the Environment are based on articles 4, 5, and 7 of Resolution 31/8, and articles 5, 6, and 7 of Resolution 34/20 (Human Rights and the Environment). They summarize the basic human rights obligations of States on environmental matters.
The adoption of the Draft Guidelines on Human Rights and the Environment will provide an important opportunity to seek to advance the conceptio…