Ho, Peter (2022) Debunking the Chinese unitary state via legal pluralism: historical, indigenous and customary rights in China (1949–present). World Development, 151. ISSN 0305-750X
Full text not available from this repository.Abstract
In the literature on legal pluralism, there is minimal attention paid to the state – apart from being generally conceptualized as a unitary entity vis-à-vis an otherwise legally pluralist society. However, this perspective has been critiqued by a modest, yet growing, group of scholars. In furthering the debate, this article postulates that states are constituted by competing semi-autonomous fields and are thus, to varying degrees, inherently inconsistent, contradictory, and pluralist in nature despite the superficial conveyed imagery of unity. To substantiate this thesis, the article: 1) equally applies the concepts of legal pluralism as hitherto applied to issues such as historical rights, indigenous peoples, and customary law; 2) employs this exercise to deconstruct what is perhaps one of the world's most archetypal unitary states: the Peoples’ Republic of China. As a strongly, centralist state governing a substantially socio-culturally and ethnically diversified society, China provides a noteworthy case of the workings of what is termed “state legal pluralism”. To demonstrate this, the article examines a critical right (ownership) around an equally critical resource (land). This is achieved with reference to different, coexisting legal orders that are considered highly sensitive and potentially explosive in China: historical, indigenous, and customary rights. The analysis is based on a comprehensive review of laws and policies, National People's Congress reports, verdicts of the Supreme People's Court, (local) regulations, and court cases. It covers a period exceeding 70 years from 1949 to 2020. The data analysis ascertains that the different organs of the Chinese state constitute competing semi-autonomous fields that, at times, put forward rules in flagrant contradiction with state law up to the point of upholding pre-revolutionary, private land ownership.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Additional Information: | © 2021 Elsevier Ltd |
| Divisions: | International Development |
| Date Deposited: | 12 Dec 2023 15:48 |
| Last Modified: | 17 Apr 2024 18:15 |
| URI: | http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/121034 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
