LEADER 04098nam 2200661Ia 450 001 9910820492603321 005 20211028023403.0 010 $a0-674-07578-1 010 $a0-674-07576-5 024 7 $a10.4159/harvard.9780674075764 035 $a(CKB)2670000000367946 035 $a(EBL)3301302 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000886298 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11452387 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000886298 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10816991 035 $a(PQKB)10867477 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC3301302 035 $a(DE-B1597)209756 035 $a(OCoLC)843881805 035 $a(OCoLC)853261697 035 $a(OCoLC)999361765 035 $a(DE-B1597)9780674075764 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL3301302 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10713629 035 $a(EXLCZ)992670000000367946 100 $a20111102d2013 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurnn#---|u||u 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 10$aLegal orientalism$b[electronic resource] $eChina, the United States, and modern law /$fTeemu Ruskola 210 $aCambridge ;$aLondon $cHarvard University Press$d2013 215 $a1 online resource (352 p.) 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 0 $a0-674-07306-1 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $tFront matter --$tContents --$tCHAPTER ONE: Introduction: Legal Orientalism --$tCHAPTER TWO: Making Legal and Unlegal Subjects in History --$tCHAPTER THREE: Telling Stories about Corporations and Kinship --$tCHAPTER FOUR: Canton Is Not Boston --$tCHAPTER FIVE: The District of China Is Not the District of Columbia --$tCHAPTER SIX: Epilogue: Colonialism without Colonizers --$tNotes --$tComment on Chinese Sources --$tAcknowledgments --$tIndex 330 $aSince the Cold War ended, China has become a global symbol of disregard for human rights, while the United States has positioned itself as the world's chief exporter of the rule of law. How did lawlessness become an axiom about Chineseness rather than a fact needing to be verified empirically, and how did the United States assume the mantle of law's universal appeal? In a series of wide-ranging inquiries, Teemu Ruskola investigates the history of "legal Orientalism": a set of globally circulating narratives about what law is and who has it. For example, why is China said not to have a history of corporate law, as a way of explaining its "failure" to develop capitalism on its own? Ruskola shows how a European tradition of philosophical prejudices about Chinese law developed into a distinctively American ideology of empire, influential to this day. The first Sino-U.S. treaty in 1844 authorized the extraterritorial application of American law in a putatively lawless China. A kind of legal imperialism, this practice long predated U.S. territorial colonialism after the Spanish-American War in 1898, and found its fullest expression in an American district court's jurisdiction over the "District of China." With urgent contemporary implications, legal Orientalism lives on in the enduring damage wrought on the U.S. Constitution by late nineteenth-century anti-Chinese immigration laws, and in the self-Orientalizing reforms of Chinese law today. In the global politics of trade and human rights, legal Orientalism continues to shape modern subjectivities, institutions, and geopolitics in powerful and unacknowledged ways. 606 $aLaw$zChina$xPhilosophy$xHistory 606 $aRule of law$zChina$xHistory 606 $aLaw$zUnited States$xPhilosophy$xHistory 606 $aRule of law$zUnited States$xHistory 607 $aChina$xForeign public opinion, Western 615 0$aLaw$xPhilosophy$xHistory. 615 0$aRule of law$xHistory. 615 0$aLaw$xPhilosophy$xHistory. 615 0$aRule of law$xHistory. 676 $a340/.11 700 $aRuskola$b Teemu$01645763 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910820492603321 996 $aLegal orientalism$93992444 997 $aUNINA