Legal, constitutional and cosmopolitan pluralism: A paradox? A short reply to my Chinese critics

Abstract

In their recent article titled Pluralism or Cosmopolitanism? Reflections on Petersmanns International Economic Law Constitutionalism in the Context of China, Tao Li and Zuoli Jiang have criticized the alleged paradox that my publications stress legal pluralism on the one hand, while calling for a cosmopolitan conception of IEL on the other hand. This short comment aims not only at clarifying conceptual misunderstandings due to our different constitutional law perspectives, but also explaining why China should embrace a dialogical rather than exclusive legal perspectivism by continuing to implement its international legal obligations (e.g., under the UN/WTO law) in good faith and assuming more leadership for the global public good of the rules-based world trading system, with due respect for its underlying legal pluralism and often indeterminate basic principles. My Chinese critics emphasis on the reality of authoritarian Chinese top-down conceptions of law and governance neglects Chinas obligations under international law and Chinas compliance with the WTO, investment and commercial adjudication.