Li Shouping and Liu Caikuan: Original Contributions of Xi Jinping’s Important Expositions on the International Rule of Law to the Reform of the International Rule of Law
Abstract: The world today is undergoing "changes unseen in a century" [1], with global crises emerging incessantly. Meanwhile, international rule of law, as a tool for global governance, is failing at the global level. The international community urgently needs new proposals to break the deadlock of global governance. Xi Jinping's important expositions on the international rule of law developed against the backdrop of the current global governance system's failure to realize the common interests of all humanity and respond to global crises; they advocate for the reform of the international rule of law to innovate the global governance system. These expositions advocate for the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity to lead the reform of international rule of law, take persisting in the coordinated promotion of domestic rule of law and foreign-related rule of law [2] as the path for reform, employ the principle that international rules should be written jointly by all countries as the principle for international law-making, and use the practice of the purposes and principles of the UN Charter as the fundamental rule for the implementation of international law. The reform of the international rule of law does not mean "starting a new kitchen" [3] outside of the existing framework; rather, it takes the international system with the United Nations at its core and the international order based on international law as the starting point to promote a higher level of democratization and rule of law in international relations and affairs, constructing a global governance system that is just, reasonable, and orderly, and which promotes the common values of all humanity. Xi Jinping's important expositions on the international rule of law are an important original contribution by the Communist Party of China (CPC) to the reform of the international rule of law. They provide a Chinese solution for the struggle over international rules, offer conceptual guidance and clarification of rules for the international community to promote reform, and provide path guidance for international law-making.
Keywords: international rule of law; global governance; original contribution; community with a shared future for humanity; UN Charter
I. Introduction The report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC not only mapped out a new blueprint for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation but also provided a new direction for China’s active participation in the reform and construction of the global governance system. In the report, General Secretary Xi Jinping proposed that the "essential requirements of Chinese-path modernization" include "promoting the building of a community with a shared future for humanity and creating a new form of human civilization." Based on the complex situation where "changes in the world, in our times, and in history are unfolding in unprecedented ways, and human society faces unprecedented challenges," the report calls for "all countries to promote the common values of all humanity—peace, development, equity, justice, democracy, and freedom," and to "advance the democratization of international relations and promote global governance toward a more just and reasonable direction." As a tool for global governance, international rule of law is the optimal choice for responding to global crises and realizing the common values of all humanity. International rule of law means that good legal norms are well observed and implemented in international affairs. Generally speaking, the rule of law in the international community is divided into two categories: "international rule of law" and "global rule of law." International rule of law means that states, as the basic members of the international community, voluntarily observe and implement international law, handle their relations based on international law, and maintain the state of international order. International rule of law emphasizes the maintenance of national sovereignty and equality, while global rule of law is guided by globally shared values, concepts, and common interests, oriented toward the realization of global justice. Although the two are rooted in different foundations, both point toward "good law and good governance" [4]. In summary, the current reform of the international rule of law is intended to solve problems such as the failure and malfunction of global governance mechanisms. Starting from the concepts, principles, and goals of the rule of law and basing itself on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, it aims to change the global governance system established and dominated by Europe and the United States by elevating the guiding ideology of the international rule of law, reforming the methods of international rule-making, promoting compliance with international rules, and improving the implementation of international rules. This serves to further safeguard national sovereignty and equality, maintain the international system with the UN at its core and the international order based on international law, promote good law and good governance in international affairs and exchanges, respond to global crises and challenges, and promote the common values of all humanity. Reform of the international rule of law does not mean "starting a new kitchen" outside of existing frameworks; rather, it takes the international system with the UN at its core and the international order based on international law as the starting point to promote a higher level of democratization and rule of law in international relations and affairs, constructing a more just, reasonable, and orderly global governance system that promotes the common values of all humanity.
Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, facing the changes unseen in a century and responding to the "question of the times"—"What is wrong with the world, and what should we do?"—General Secretary Xi Jinping has put forward a series of propositions and expositions on the international rule of law. These expositions are complete in content and rigorous in logic. Their core essence primarily includes six aspects: keeping "the two overall situations" [5] in mind and coordinately promoting domestic rule of law and foreign-related rule of law; making good use of the weapon of the rule of law to resolutely safeguard national core interests; upholding the rule of law to provide a safeguard for building a community with a shared future for humanity; persisting in equity and justice to promote the democratization of international relations; promoting the spirit of the rule of law to advance the legalization of international relations; and persisting in extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits to promote cooperation in the international rule of law. From this core essence, one can clearly see the logic of the era in which Xi Jinping’s important expositions on the international rule of law emerged, its basic starting and ending points, as well as the overall goals, directions of effort, basic principles, and realization paths for constructing the international rule of law.
At the current stage, academic analysis, discussion, and research on Xi Jinping’s important expositions on the international rule of law have accumulated substantial results centered on the interpretation and construction of the connotations and significance of concepts such as a community with a shared future for humanity, international rule of law, and foreign-related rule of law. Research results concerning the coordinated promotion of domestic and foreign-related rule of law, and connecting Xi Jinping’s important expositions to the reform of international rule of law, have also begun to appear sporadically. Facing the changes unseen in a century, and under the historical background where the reform of international rule of law has become an inevitable trend, it is necessary to explore the original contribution of Xi Jinping’s important expositions to this reform. This is essentially a prerequisite for revealing the core essence of these expositions and discussing whether and how they can guide the reform of the international rule of law.
This article intends to examine and analyze the historical background and social foundation of Xi Jinping's important expositions on the international rule of law. By combining the current status and reform trends of the international rule of law, it will explore the original contribution to the reform of the international rule of law from the aspects of guiding value goals, providing realistic paths, and clarifying the rules for law-making and law enforcement.
II. The Logic of the Era for Xi Jinping’s Important Expositions on the International Rule of Law Guiding Its Reform Xi Jinping’s important expositions on the international rule of law were formed during the era of "changes unseen in a century." As early as the Central Conference on Work Relating to Foreign Affairs in June 2018, General Secretary Xi Jinping made a scientific summary of the current international situation: China is currently in its best period of development since modern times, while the world is undergoing changes unseen in a century; the two are intertwined and resonating with each other. There has been much academic research on this judgment, mainly focusing on three important issues: the start and end points of the "great changes," their main characteristics, and their impact on China. Regarding the timeframe, an influential view suggests that "changes unseen in a century" does not refer to a specific point in time but is a general reference to a gradual historical process. Its main characteristics are expressed as significant historical changes in the world strategic landscape, the world economic pattern, the international order, the global governance system and its rules, as well as human civilization and modes of interaction. Its core is the reshaping of the world order and the perfection of global governance mechanisms, emphasizing that on the basis of maintaining and consolidating the existing international order, the global governance system should be promoted toward a just and reasonable direction. Regarding the relationship between the great changes and China, representative views include: "the decades-long Western dominance of world affairs is coming to an end"; "Eastern civilization is returning to the center of the global stage after 500 years, and China is playing the role of the leader"; and "the landscape and order are undergoing fundamental changes," with "China becoming the key variable influencing this fundamental change—world history has entered the 'China moment.'" In the report to the 20th National Congress, General Secretary Xi Jinping again summarized the current international situation: "Currently, changes in the world, in our times, and in history are unfolding in unprecedented ways," and "human society faces unprecedented challenges." Against the backdrop of profound changes in the international power structure, the diversification of actors in the international community, increasingly close links between international actors, and fundamental changes in the nature of international security threats, Xi Jinping’s important expositions on the international rule of law have been continuously improved and developed. The overlap of various non-traditional security issues—a series of global crises such as terrorism, fatal infectious diseases, climate change, and environmental pollution—has further accelerated the changes unseen in a century. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019 spread globally, posing a huge threat to the common security of humanity. Some developed countries had neither the strength nor the will to actively respond to the pandemic crisis, which exacerbated the overlapping impact of COVID-19 and intensified the turbulence in the international order.
The prevalence of unilateralism has made the already complex international relations situation even more uncertain and unstable. Instances of some Western powers unilaterally interfering with and inhibiting multilateral organizations from performing their statutory functions have occurred frequently, making it increasingly difficult for international multilateral mechanisms with the UN at their core to realize their purposes and goals of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation and development. In recent years, the United States has insisted on obstructing the selection process for members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body, directly leading to the paralysis of the Appellate Body of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), causing the former "jewel in the crown" of the WTO to lose its luster. The U.S. even announced the suspension of its dues to the World Health Organization (WHO) during the most difficult period of the global fight against the pandemic, negatively impacting international anti-pandemic cooperation. These facts have highlighted the powerlessness of the existing international rule system in handling global affairs and responding to global security threats and challenges. This has led to the continuous emergence and accumulation of various interconnected and mutually penetrating global problems in fields such as international trade, public health, and human rights protection. The resulting vicious cycle of economic, health, and even political problems has in turn exacerbated the disorder of the world order, which has then evolved into "global governance failure." Its essence is the failure of the international rule of law as a governance tool at the global level.
Against the backdrop where the global governance system established and dominated by major Western powers is experiencing failure, the international community urgently needs new solutions to break through the governance dilemma. The collective rise of emerging market countries and developing countries has enabled billions of people to achieve leapfrog development. This has profoundly changed the map of world economy and international politics in terms of volume, number, and quality, exerting a far-reaching influence on the development and progress of all humanity. As a permanent member of the Security Council, the world's second-largest economy, and the country with the world's largest industrial scale, China is continuously practicing economic globalization through "Belt and Road" international cooperation and is increasingly moving toward the center of the world stage. As a major political and economic power, China should and can play a leading role in global governance. This article argues that China possesses the foundation and conditions to become a "major power in the rule of law" or even a "strong power in the rule of law," standing at the human heights of law and morality to provide reform proposals for the international rule of law.
In the face of severe challenges to the international rule of law, since the 18th National Congress of the CPC in 2012—which explicitly proposed to "promote a sense of a community with a shared future for humanity, and while pursuing one's own national interests, take into account the legitimate concerns of other countries... and advance the common interests of humanity"—General Secretary Xi Jinping has, on multiple important occasions, proposed a series of new propositions on how China should deeply advance the construction of the international rule of law. On September 28, 2015, at the 70th Session of the UN General Assembly, General Secretary Xi Jinping proposed: "We should inherit and promote the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, build a new type of international relations centered on win-win cooperation, and create a community with a shared future for humanity." On January 18, 2017, in a speech at the United Nations Office at Geneva, General Secretary Xi Jinping again called out: Throughout modern history, the establishment of a just and reasonable international order has been the goal pursued tirelessly by humanity. ... From the four purposes and seven principles defined by the UN Charter more than 70 years ago, to the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence [6] advocated by the Bandung Conference more than 60 years ago, the evolution of international relations has accumulated a series of universally recognized principles. These principles should become the basic observance for building a community with a shared future for humanity. General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized: "International rules should be written jointly by all countries, global affairs should be governed jointly by all countries, and the fruits of development should be shared jointly by all countries." Subsequently, at the Central Conference on Work Related to Overall Law-based Governance held from November 16 to 17, 2020, General Secretary Xi Jinping again proposed: We must persist in the coordinated promotion of domestic law-based governance and foreign-related law-based governance. We must accelerate the strategic deployment of foreign-related law-based governance work, coordinate the promotion of domestic governance and international governance, and better safeguard national sovereignty, security, and development interests. We must strengthen law-based thinking, apply legal methods, effectively respond to challenges and prevent risks, and comprehensively utilize means such as legislation, law enforcement, and the judiciary to carry out struggle, resolutely safeguarding national sovereignty, dignity, and core interests. We must promote the reform of global governance and promote the building of a community with a shared future for humanity. In the Report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC, General Secretary Xi Jinping explicitly proposed "to promote the building of a community with a shared future for humanity, firmly safeguard international fairness and justice, advocate for and practice true multilateralism, take a clear stand against all forms of hegemonism and power politics, and unswervingly oppose any form of unilateralism, protectionism, and bullying," providing a target for the reform of the international rule of law. General Secretary Xi Jinping proposed "safeguarding the basic norms of international relations and safeguarding international fairness and justice," "upholding the principles of sincerity, real results, amity, and good faith, and the correct conception of righteousness and profit [7]," and "promoting the common values of humanity—peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom," providing path guidance for the reform of the international rule of law.
It can be seen that Xi Jinping’s series of discourses on the international rule of law are based on profound changes in the international landscape and the needs of international legal reform. Built upon the absorption of the international system centered on the UN and based on international law, they constitute a systematic scientific theory answering major questions regarding the reform of the international rule of law. These discourses not only serve as advanced theoretical guidance for China’s participation in the innovative development of the international order and system but also align with the logic of the times for making original contributions to the reform of the international rule of law.
III. Advocating the Concept of a Community with a Shared Future for Humanity to Provide Value Guidance for the Reform of the International Rule of Law
The core goal of the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity is to realize the common interests of humanity, and its path is to promote the reform of the international rule of law to respond to global crises. In 2012, when the 18th National Congress of the CPC first explicitly proposed "advocating a sense of a community with a shared future for humanity," it clarified its connotation of "advancing the common interests of humanity." In 2020, at the Central Conference on Work Related to Overall Law-based Governance, General Secretary Xi Jinping systematically proposed "promoting global governance reform and promoting the building of a community with a shared future for humanity." In the Report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC, General Secretary Xi Jinping once again took a clear stand in proposing the mission and task of "promoting the building of a community with a shared future for humanity and creating a new form of human civilization," providing a value goal for the reform of the international rule of law. Academic research suggests that the reason the community with a shared future for humanity can provide guidance for international legal reform is its consensus-building nature in the international community and the advanced nature of its value goals. The advanced nature of these value goals is primarily manifested in the evolution of the "standard" (benwei) [8] of international law: the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity implies the Chinese government's judgment on the direction of global governance and the international rule of law. While the members of the community with a shared future for humanity remain states, and the "state-centered" characteristic of international law will not undergo a fundamental change, the consciousness of shared security and woe will guide international law toward the direction of being "international community-centered."
Regarding the limitations of the value goals of the "state-centered" international legal system, we can catch a glimpse through an understanding of the essence of the realist view of power. In human history, the traditional realist view of power has long occupied a mainstream position in the theory and practice of international relations and international politics. This view of power emphasizes that "power" and "interest" are the primary goals for which states compete, regarding the pursuit of national interests as the core of international relations, where states are free to pursue their own goals without any moral or legal restrictions. Since national interests are mutually exclusive, handling global affairs with the concept of inter-state relations in the international rule of law—viewing national interests and the common interests of the international community as conflicting and opposite—will inevitably fail to provide global governance solutions for today’s international society, leading to the failure of the current international rule of law as a tool for global governance. Because in today’s globalization, the common problems faced by all countries—such as food, environment, climate, health, cyber, and outer space—are constantly increasing, and the common interests of the international community are gradually becoming part of various national interests; national interests and the common interests of the international community are not in opposition. The reason the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity can become an advanced concept guiding the reform of the international rule of law is, on the one hand, that the international and domestic social background of its emergence provides its logic-of-the-times basis, and on the other hand, its advanced nature displayed in the evolutionary process of international legal concepts and its consensus-building nature in the international community.
From the perspective of the history and trends of international legal concepts, the advanced nature of the community with a shared future for humanity lies in the fact that its established value goals can guide the reform of the international rule of law, breaking through the "rules-based" order imagination of Western countries.
Since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, human society has formed different concepts regarding the international rule of law in different historical periods. Modern international law primarily focused on how sovereign states coexist peacefully, with the independence and coexistence of states as its fundamental demand; thus, it is also called the international law of "coexistence." Typical rules of "coexistence" international law include the principle of sovereign equality and the principle of non-interference in internal affairs. The existence of such rules, reflecting the most fundamental interests of states, is the basis upon which the international legal system is recognized by all countries. With the development of globalization and the deepening of international exchanges in the second half of the 20th century, the importance of international cooperation in economic, social, and environmental fields became increasingly prominent, and the international law of "cooperation" emerged. The goals of "cooperation" international law are higher than or transcend the purpose of "coexistence." After World War II, "cooperation" international law, centered on the UN Charter, became the cornerstone of the contemporary international legal system. "Cooperation" international law is the inheritance and development of "coexistence" international law; it both ensures a state's right to exist as an independent entity and, combining the characteristics of the times, has directionally developed the system of international cooperation. For example, the UN collective security system and the "network of international organizations" under the UN framework are models of how countries jointly safeguard international peace and security through international cooperation. Indisputably, the systems built on the concept of "cooperation" international law have effectively guaranteed the efficacy of global governance and promoted the orderly development of human society.
However, in today’s world facing changes unseen in a century, the rules of coexistence and cooperation have become difficult to manage in the face of escalating global challenges. An international legal outlook merely satisfied with "coexistence" and "cooperation" cannot lead the international rule of law to break through the predicament of the "rules-based" order. The reason remains the realist power-politics view, which one-sidedly emphasizes power and national interest. Theoretically speaking, although the degree of international legalization has strengthened since the establishment of the UN in 1945—with the UN Charter establishing "achieving international cooperation" as one of its purposes and granting the principle of international cooperation the status of a basic principle of international law, thereby enhancing the willingness and practice of states to carry out international cooperation and curbing the realist view of power to some extent—with the constant emergence of global problems in recent years and the relative decline of Western hegemony, Western countries led by the United States have, when dominating global governance, one-sidedly turned to the persistent pursuit of their own interests. They ignore the common interests between states and even global interests. When formulating and interpreting international rules, they adhere to a "rules-based" order view as a guide, in order to suppress and contain developing countries through rules. This has led to a trend in the international community of ignoring and distorting the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. During the COVID-19 crisis, Western countries' willingness and ability to provide public health goods declined significantly. Not only was there a lack of effective compliance and fulfillment of international cooperation principles in the global anti-epidemic effort, but "it was difficult to see anything else besides the reinforcement of trends such as nationalism, great-power confrontation, and strategic decoupling." The United States' arbitrary use of the veto led the "rule-following" WTO Appellate Body to fall into paralysis in December 2019, seriously damaging the international rule of law under the multilateral trading system. Such situations have caused international cooperation between states to fall far short of its original intention to "achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character" (see Article 1 of the UN Charter). Instead, it often degenerates into a tool for zero-sum games. The predicament encountered by the international legal system centered on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter illustrates that the two concepts of "coexistence" and "cooperation" have still not broken through the shackles of the realist view of power politics. Countries narrowly view international cooperation as a means to maximize national interests, conducting international cooperation one-sidedly for the sake of their own interests or the interests of specific groups of states, rather than based on considerations of the common interests of all humanity. Consequently, in global crises concerning the universal security of humanity, zero-sum international cooperation remains common, and cooperation yields little fruit. The "rules-based" order imagination is the direct cause of the inability to effectively fulfill international legal principles and rules. Therefore, on the basis of the "coexistence" and "cooperation" views of international law, the international community urgently needs a new international legal concept to break through the "rules-based" order imagination, respond to global challenges, and realize common interests. Only by constructing an international legal outlook guided by advancing the common interests of all humanity and promoting the common values of humanity can we powerfully drive the development of the international rule of law.
The concept of a community with a shared future for humanity promotes the common values of humanity: peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom. The common values of humanity represent a breakthrough and transcendence of Western "universal values." The common values of humanity are open and inclusive; they are the "greatest common denominator" formed between different cultures and their values on the basis of recognizing complex cultural diversity. Their essence is "harmony in diversity, seeking common ground while reserving differences" [9]. Conversely, "universal values" are abstract, exclusive, and closed, emphasizing the supra-class and supra-social nature of democracy, freedom, and equality, using an abstract "common human nature" as a standard to deny the class and historical nature of human beings.
The current framework of international rule of law is heavily colored by Western culture. The codification and development of international law are inevitably influenced by "universal values," the consequence of which is that non-Western values and moral concepts struggle to be reflected in the formulation of international rules and are even suppressed. The Western imaginary of a "rules-based order" is closely related to this. For example, during the process of codifying the system of countermeasures in the law of state responsibility, Professor James Crawford, the Special Rapporteur on State Responsibility for the International Law Commission, frankly stated that the practice of countermeasures was "dominated by Western States." (August 4, 2000, paragraph 395). Furthermore, in the codification of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, it was precisely because the U.S. delegation and some Western members insisted on the "interventionist" position that "non-injured states may take countermeasures based on justifiable grounds" that the position advocated by China and the majority of developing countries—that "non-injured states shall not take countermeasures"—consistently failed to be confirmed in the articles.
In the context of globalization, if one blindly follows the universal value theory put forward by the constructivist school and applies institutional designs embodying Western values to solve legal issues in areas such as poverty governance, domestic violence, infectious disease prevention, and environmental degradation in underdeveloped countries, the interests of developing countries will be difficult to effectively safeguard, and the aforementioned problems cannot be correctly understood or resolved at their root. During the severe avian influenza outbreak in 2004, because "Indonesia’s claimed sovereign rights over biological viruses and its right to be informed in the virus sample sharing mechanism were not properly safeguarded or respected by developed countries," Indonesia refused to transfer influenza virus strains to the WHO. Instead, it worked directly with pharmaceutical companies to develop vaccines, bypassing the WHO and bringing the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005) to the brink of collapse. The "Western-centric" international legal system cannot satisfy the diverse needs of the international community, nor can it solve the problems prevalent therein; its limitations are clear. Therefore, only by respecting the common values of humanity and safeguarding the common interests of humanity can we consolidate a universal consensus on international law, strengthen and expand the national-cultural and geopolitical foundations of the universality of international law, and enhance its universal persuasiveness. Given the shifts in the international landscape, changes in the human environment, transformations in the nature of security, and the continuous accumulation of non-traditional security threats, security threats are no longer merely mutual military threats between states, but rather security threats faced by groups of states and even humanity as a whole. The advanced nature of the common interests or values of all humanity advocated by the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity is naturally contained therein.
From a conceptual level, the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity embodies an advanced set of value goals capable of leading the reform of the international rule of law, while the construction of the international rule of law also needs the guidance of this international legal outlook. If conceptual guidance is the "top-level design" [10] for promoting the reform of the international rule of law, then articulating the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity and promoting the innovation and development of international legal systems in various fields—under the goal of promoting the common values of humanity established by this concept—constitutes the "infrastructure construction" of that reform.
At the same time, the current international legal system has been continuously formed and developed under the leadership of the United Nations. Based on the Charter of the United Nations, and through the network of international organizations within the UN framework, countries have reached a series of international conventions and legal documents in fields such as economy, society, culture, education, health, security, and development. As the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity is gradually accepted by the international community, integrating it into the formulation of international legal documents helps transform rules embodying the "common values of humanity" into international law. In recent years, the trend of integrating this concept into international documents has become apparent. For example, on February 10, 2017, the 55th session of the UN Commission for Social Development adopted by consensus the resolution "Social Dimensions of the New Partnership for Africa's Development," which called on the international community to strengthen support for Africa's economic and social development in the spirit of win-win cooperation and building a community with a shared future for humanity. This marked the first time the concept of "building a community with a shared future for humanity" was written into a UN resolution. On March 17, 2017, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution on the issue of Afghanistan emphasizing the building of a community with a shared future for humanity; on March 23, 2017, the 34th session of the UN Human Rights Council adopted two resolutions on "economic, social, and cultural rights" and the "right to food," explicitly stating the need to "build a community with a shared future for humanity"; the outcome document adopted by the high-level meeting commemorating the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space on June 20, 2018, also explicitly called for "strengthening international cooperation in the peaceful use of outer space to realize the vision of a community with a shared future, seeking welfare and interests for all humanity." This series of resolutions under the UN framework indicates that the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity has evolved from China’s national will into a political concept of the contemporary international community.
Of course, from the perspective of specific legal texts, the expressions surrounding a community with a shared future remain limited. International law-making in some key areas involving global interests has not yet embodied the "common interests or values of humanity" of this concept, and many international rules remain at the narrow levels of "coexistence" and limited "cooperation." For example, in the field of outer space, although Article 1 of the Outer Space Treaty stipulates that "the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind," the content of paragraph 5 of the Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of All States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1996 suggests that space-faring nations have no obligation to cooperate or share benefits with non-space-faring nations. This expression clearly fails to embody the common values of all humanity "based on the common values of humanity, with the promotion of the common well-being of humanity as its core, and the objective of addressing common challenges of humanity," resulting in difficulty for countries lacking the capacity to conduct outer space activities to enjoy the benefits brought by human activities in space. Naturally, the aforementioned statements, declarations, communiqués, strategies, resolutions, and outcome documents are not laws in the strict sense. The process of developing Chinese initiatives into international consensus, integrating them into international legal documents, and turning them into global action will be as long and complex as the process of upgrading and iterating international law itself. In this process, attention must be paid to the popularization of discourse, the transformation of domestic legislation, the utilization of international law-making functions, and the exertion of the functions of non-governmental organizations.
IV. Persisting in the coordinated promotion of domestic rule of law and foreign-related rule of law to provide a path for the reform of the international rule of law
The reason why persisting in the coordinated promotion of domestic rule of law and foreign-related rule of law can provide a path for the reform of the international rule of law is that, in addition to the aforementioned foundation of the logic of the times, it possesses jurisprudential logic as internal theoretical support and conforms to the historical facts, realistic experiences, and future trends of the reform of the international rule of law.
Rule of law is not only the most mainstream mode of national governance in fact, but also a mode of national governance that represents civilization and progress in terms of values. Therefore, people hope to extend the concepts and practices of domestic rule of law to the international order. A 2010 report by The Brandeis Institute for International Judges argued that the concept of the international rule of law was originally proposed as a counterpart to the domestic rule of law; thus, international and domestic rule of law are connected in certain aspects, including equality before the law, procedural fairness, judicial independence, and the absence of authority above the law. These views indicate that domestic and international rule of law, as tools of governance, have an innate compatibility and interconnectivity.
In an egalitarian international society, no law enforcement agency exists above the state. International legal rules are usually implemented autonomously by sovereign states, and each state has the right to choose its own domestic mechanism for implementing international legal rules. Therefore, the phenomenon of a country incorporating certain principles and rules from international treaty law into its domestic legal system through incorporation or transformation—thereby implementing international law through domestic legal systems—is not uncommon in practice. The Chinese delegation once publicly stated at a UN meeting: "According to China's legal system, international treaties concluded or acceded to by China must undergo the procedure of approval by the legislature or verification by the State Council. Once the treaty enters into force for China, it has legal effect in China, and our country assumes corresponding obligations according to the convention." This is actually a demonstration of China's inclusion of international legal rules into its domestic foreign-related legal system through a method similar to "incorporation." Some scholars believe that this practice of transforming and absorbing international legal principles and rules reflects the interaction between domestic and international rule of law, and the bridge for this interaction is precisely foreign-related rule of law.
Foreign-related rule of law is both an important component of domestic rule of law and a link between domestic and international rule of law, playing a role in interaction and integration between the two. With the continuous deepening of global governance, the interdependence between domestic and international rule of law has increased. The state of interaction—characterized by mutual connection, penetration, and influence—has become increasingly apparent. The forms of interaction between the foreign-related rule of law system within domestic governance and the international rule of law system have also become increasingly diverse, including both the legal transplanting between international law and domestic foreign-related laws, and the absorption of domestic foreign-related rule of law concepts by international law-making. For example, countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada once integrated the concepts of restrictive sovereign immunity from their domestic foreign-related laws into the international law-making process for sovereign immunity, eventually prompting the UN General Assembly to adopt the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property in December 2004. It can be seen that the development of the international rule of law has already transcended the purely international level, showing a trend of promoting the construction of the international rule of law through the development of foreign-related rule of law.
General Secretary Xi Jinping has a clear judgment on this trend. In October 2014, the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee deliberated and adopted the Decision of the CPC Central Committee on Several Major Issues Concerning Comprehensively Advancing the Governance of the Country According to Law, which defined the general goal of comprehensively advancing the law-based governance of the country as building a system of socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics and building a socialist country under the rule of law, and explicitly proposed to "strengthen foreign-related legal work." At the Central Conference on Work Concerning Comprehensively Governing the Country according to Law in November 2020, General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized: "We must persist in the coordinated promotion of domestic rule of law and foreign-related rule of law; we must accelerate the strategic layout of foreign-related rule of law work, coordinate the promotion of domestic governance and global governance, and better safeguard national sovereignty, security, and development interests." The academic community believes that the context in which this view was proposed is reform and opening up and the law-based governance of the country. Driven by the trend of opening up to the outside world, the great development of the construction of a "Rule of Law China" [11] is connected with the patterns and changes in global affairs, creating the requirement for the legalization of foreign-related work. The many achievements in the horizontal coordination between foreign-related laws and domestic laws, as well as the alignment of foreign-related laws with international economic and trade rules in China's various Free Trade Zones, are powerful evidence of this.
The international rule of law does not develop in isolation. Although the international community is in a state of anarchy, the development of the international rule of law undoubtedly depends on various governments contributing to it by improving their domestic rule of law environments. Taking China as an example, as the concept of "building a community with a shared future for humanity" was written into the Chinese Constitution on March 11, 2018, the concept has been legalized at the domestic level. The status of the Constitution as the fundamental law of the state and the core of the legal system determines that promoting the construction of a community with a shared future for humanity has become the legal standard for China in handling foreign relations and participating in global governance amidst "great changes unseen in a century" [12]. From an international perspective, as the international community accepts this concept, it is being incorporated into a series of UN resolutions and legal documents of other international organizations, becoming part of international law. This is a vivid case of China's coordinated promotion of domestic and foreign-related rule of law, thereby achieving a benign interaction between domestic and international rule of law.
From the perspective of international reality, the only way to safeguard national interests while simultaneously accounting for the interests of other nations and the common interests of all humanity is to coalesce the combined forces of all countries. This requires the international community to jointly promote a benign interaction between domestic and international rule of law, ensuring that international rule of law can effectively respond to global problems and manage global affairs. Looking at the legislative practices of various countries in dealing with unlawful international sanctions within the field of foreign-related legislation, anti-sanction legislation within a single state or international organization is often limited by its spatial jurisdiction, making it difficult to effectively counter unlawful unilateral sanctions. For example, the European Union's "Protection against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom" (EC Regulation No 2271/96, hereinafter referred to as the "EU Blocking Statute") can only exclude the extraterritorial effects of U.S. secondary sanctions within EU territory. It cannot guarantee that rulings made by the EU based on the "EU Blocking Statute" will be enforced in third countries, and thus cannot prevent European enterprises or individuals from being subject to secondary sanctions abroad. Such limitations demonstrate that without conducting cooperation in foreign-related legislation, it is difficult to block sanctions imposed by states in a position of relative dominance through multilateral channels. From the perspective of the international situation, although the relative decline of Western powers is becoming increasingly evident, their dominant position in the international order persists. Even if a single country or international organization introduces an anti-sanction law, it remains limited by its own strength and finds it difficult to confront the secondary sanctions implemented by these powers. Taking the "Law on Measures to Influence (Counter) Unfriendly Actions of the United States of America and Other Cold States," passed by the Russian State Duma in 2018, as an example: although the act authorized the Russian government to take countermeasures against political and economic sanctions from "unfriendly states" like the U.S., the effects of the countermeasures implemented by Russia based on such acts have been very limited, failing to fundamentally eliminate the negative economic impacts of the sanctions. Only when more countries join hands in cooperation and move forward in an integrated and synchronized manner can there be hope of offsetting the power gap between states to a greater extent and diversifying the resolution of sanction impacts. Only by strengthening international cooperation and encouraging countries to use domestic legislation to block the abuse of the extraterritorial application of specific foreign laws within their own borders can collective strength be relied upon to respond to sanctions. In the fields of foreign-related law enforcement and justice, it is similarly necessary for all countries to "actively participate in international cooperation on law enforcement and security, and jointly combat violent terrorist forces, ethnic separatist forces, religious extremist forces, drug trafficking, smuggling, and transnational organized crime"; "strengthen international anti-corruption cooperation, and increase the intensity of overseas flight-and-recovery, repatriation, and extradition"; and advocate for all nations to jointly maintain the authority of international rule of law, to "ensure the equal and uniform application of international law, and not engage in double standards, much less adopt what is useful and discard what is not." These are all inherent requirements of persisting in the interaction between domestic and international rule of law, innovating rule-of-law win-win cooperation, and joining hands to carry out global governance.
V. Advocating that international rules be jointly written by all countries, providing principles for the democratization of international law-making
"International law-making" (国际造法), also known as "international legislation," refers to the activities by which states formulate, recognize, modify, and abolish international legal norms through treaties or customs. As a legal system, international law must answer the fundamental questions of law-making and law-finding, which concern the legitimacy of the entire international legal system. Research in international legal circles regarding "international law-making" is generally discussed under the issue of the sources of international law. Regarding international law-making, General Secretary Xi Jinping has clearly pointed out: "Global affairs should be jointly governed by all countries, and international rules should be jointly written by all countries." General Secretary Xi Jinping’s proposition that international rules be jointly written by all countries not only conforms to the inherent requirements of the essential characteristics of international law-making and the basic principles of democratic law-making, but also tallies with the epochal demand for the reform of international legislative mechanisms in an era of great transformation in the international structure, thereby providing principles for the democratization of international law-making.
(1) The proposition that international rules be jointly written by all countries conforms to the inherent requirements of the democratic principle of international law-making
The basic principles of international law-making are the principle of objectivity, the principle of international democracy, the principle of international cooperation, and the principle of the international rule of law. The history of the emergence and development of international law has proven, and will continue to prove, that in international law-making, only by persisting in the unity of the principles of international democracy and international cooperation can international law play its true legal role in the international community. The core of the principle of international democracy is the recognition and respect for the equal right of every state to participate in international law-making, protecting and realizing the independence and freedom of all states to express their will, such that the international law binding upon states truly becomes a conscious expression of the state's will. Its primary function is to prevent and restrain power politics and hegemonism in the international community. Domestic legislation has specialized organs, whereas the international community in a state of equalitarian anarchy lacks a unified and authoritative legislative body; sovereign states are both the subjects of international law and the subjects of international law-making. Within the framework advocated by Xi Jinping for building a community with a shared future for humanity, the proposition that international rules should be jointly written by all countries emphasizes universality in terms of the scope of the law-making subjects. From the perspective of legislative procedure, "jointly writing" also signifies equal consultation, where all states hold equal status and exercise autonomous will. Since international law has no clear legislative organ, the legislative procedure is particularly vital; only when international rules are jointly written can the universality, effectiveness, and legitimacy of international law as a legal system be realized. International law-making is a comprehensive, multi-dimensional process involving complex games of international relations and politics. In international law-making, the historical accumulation of legal culture in developed countries is significantly superior to that of developing countries; there is a large gap between developing and developed countries in terms of theoretical preparation, practical intervention, political decision-making, choice of rules, as well as their own role positioning and influence in international law-making. Only when all countries jointly participate in international law-making is it possible for international law to be truly applied.
It can be said that advocating for international rules to be jointly written by all countries is to grasp the role and function of the state in the law-making process from the very source. Viewed in the context of the era of transformation in global governance tools within the "Changes Unseen in a Century" [13], it is a New Era interpretation of the persistence of the unity between the principle of international democracy and the principle of international rule of law in international law-making, and a new exploration of how to make international law play its true role in the international community.
(2) Jointly writing international rules is an epochal demand for the reform of international law-making mechanisms
Historically, during the Westphalian era, the subjects of international law-making were once limited to "civilized" Christian states, while the remaining "barbaric" states were unable to participate in the creation of international law. However, with the establishment of the United Nations and the conclusion of modern international legal documents such as the UN Charter, this "monopoly" over rule-making power has long lost its necessary social foundation and legal basis. In today's world, where "every state possesses the capacity to conclude treaties," only by upholding a global governance outlook based on extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits, respecting the right of every state to participate equally in international law-making, formulated based on the consensus between states, and allowing all states to jointly enjoy the fruits of international law-making, can the democratization of international law-making be truly promoted. In the midst of the Great Changes where the awareness and capacity of various sovereign states as subjects of international law and law-making are continuously strengthening, international law can only play a real role in the international community and address the predicament where international law, as the primary tool of global governance, loses its efficacy at certain levels if the democratic principle is followed. Adhering to the principle that international rules should be jointly written by all countries is undoubtedly an important path to realizing the principle of international democracy in international law-making.
The history of the development of international law shows that the process of international law-making is a process of continuously satisfying the needs of the international community. Today, the scope of international law-making has expanded from matters governed by "general international law" to specialized fields such as space law, polar law, and atomic energy law, and from economy and diplomacy to themes concerning the common interests of all humanity, such as cyberspace, outer space, fatal infectious diseases, and lethal weapons. Naturally, relevant international rules urgently need to be jointly written by all countries. However, given that international law-making involves complex factors of international relations, politics, and cultural accumulation, it is common for international law-making to lack the participation of developing countries on a large number of global issues requiring urgent resolution. Conversely, the "selective participation" of developed countries constitutes another major phenomenon hindering international law-making. For example, in the process of formulating codes of conduct for cyberspace, the "controlling the net through force" pushed by Western countries—this generally refers to upgrading the degree of militarization in cyberspace, strengthening internal cybersecurity construction, and enhancing external deterrence in hopes of obtaining powerful military-level force to manipulate cyberspace. A similar situation occurs in outer space security governance. Although China clearly proposed building a community with a shared future in the field of outer space in the white paper China’s Space Program: A 2021 Perspective, and the outcome document of the High-level Meeting to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNISPACE+50) also explicitly called for strengthening international cooperation in the peaceful use of outer space "and to contribute to realizing a shared vision for the future in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes and for the benefit and in the interest of all humankind," even these initiatives, which embody the principle of international cooperation and conform to the common interests of all humanity, have still met with evasion from a minority of countries. For instance, the United States has turned to seek the establishment of a new "international rule on responsible outer space behavior," calling on other countries to jointly promote the formulation of related international rules, while remaining silent on the application of basic principles of international law, such as the principle of international cooperation, in the field of outer space, and refusing to participate in related international cooperation. This phenomenon, where international law-making concerning the common interests of humanity and following basic principles such as state sovereignty and international cooperation is often "selectively ignored" by a few countries, clearly deviates from the track of international rule of law and is a manifestation of hegemonism and power politics. This is also a problem to be faced in focusing on resolving the deficiencies in justice, democracy, and inclusiveness in the current global governance system, supporting developing countries in having a greater voice in global governance, and injecting more elements of fairness and justice into the existing international legal order. This situation, as the academic community has long maintained, means that procedural and substantive judgments regarding the interpretation and application of rules can easily alienate into a single country's "talking to itself," lacking legitimacy. Regarding the predicament of international law-making caused by the lack of the principle of international democracy, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out straightforwardly: "We must adhere to the global governance outlook of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits, persist in having global affairs handled through consultation by the people of all countries, and actively promote the democratization of global governance rules." It is evident that the democratization of international law-making advocated by General Secretary Xi Jinping hinges on the right of all countries to jointly participate in the formulation of international legal rules. The basis of the validity of international law is the agreement between the national wills of various countries. If the subjects of international law-making are limited to specific countries, allowing only a minority of countries to express their own will while ignoring the "common will" or the compromise of wills among all countries, it will easily lead to the weakening of the authority and universality of international law.
In short, the profound changes in the international power structure, the continuous strengthening of the influence of emerging countries and non-governmental international organizations, and the development of diverse actors in the international community have made the principle of international democracy in international law-making especially important. The joint writing of international rules proposed by General Secretary Xi Jinping both follows this internal requirement of international law-making and reflects China's own spiritual character as a subject participating in international law-making. It conforms both to the trend of the continuous enrichment of the subjects of international law and the dynamic development of international law-making, and to the realistic demands and future direction of the vast number of developing countries striving for a voice in the formulation of international rules. It is the guiding principle for the democratization of international law-making.
VI. Persisting in following international rules based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, clarifying rules for the implementation of international law
Clarifying what is meant by international rules constitutes the foundation for the implementation of international law. There is currently no consensus definition in academia regarding what international rules are. Hedley Bull, a representative figure of the English School of international relations, believes that international rules are a set of rules capable of functioning to maintain international order: first, fundamental normative principles in world politics, or basic principles of international order; second, "rules of coexistence," which prescribe the minimum conditions for members of the international community to achieve coexistence; and third, rules used to regulate cooperation between states, which can be termed "rules of cooperation." In Bull's view, international law is "a body of rules which binds states and other agents in world politics in their relations with one another." Concerning the international rule of law discussed in this article, in an anarchic international society, countries inevitably diverge on the conception of the international rule of law and on how to formulate "this set of rules" due to geography and sovereignty. Some scholars refer to this divergence as the "struggle over international rules." This struggle is a major issue facing the entire world. Tracing it to its source, this problem is caused by the differing positions held by Western developed countries, such as the United States, and developing countries, such as China, regarding the international order—the so-called fundamental normative principles. On the question of how to essentially view the institutionalized international order, two different perspectives have formed: the "rules-based" [14] approach advocated by certain Western countries and the "international law-based" approach maintained by China. At the G7 summit held in June 2021, the United States emphasized maintaining a "rules-based international system" while avoiding any mention of the international system with the United Nations at its core. Both the joint communiqué issued by the G7 Foreign Ministers' Meeting on May 5, 2021, and "The New Atlantic Charter" signed by the United States and the United Kingdom on June 10, 2021, repeatedly used the concept of a "rules-based" international order or system. Since President Joe Biden took office, he has emphasized that the United States must return to a "rules-based" international order and focus on "international rules." In reality, the so-called rules of the "rules-based international system" proposed by the Western bloc led by the United States refer to rules dominated, formulated, and recognized by that bloc based on its own interests. Some Western scholars have bluntly pointed out: "The concept of a rules-based global order, ostensibly raised by the West against China, is an attempt to provide a normative concept for the suppression of China." The position of China and the majority of other countries is the opposite. China firmly believes that "for all countries to remain true to their original aspirations [15], work together in cooperation, and maintain the international system with the United Nations at its core and the international order based on international law is the only correct path in the common interest of humanity." China has clearly stated that the so-called "rules-based international order" mentioned by a few countries has an ambiguous meaning; it reflects the rules of a minority of countries and does not represent the will of the international community. What we must safeguard is the international law universally recognized by the international community, the international system with the United Nations at its core, and the international order based on international law. In the report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC, General Secretary Xi Jinping proposed "upholding the basic norms governing international relations" and provided an interpretation of these basic norms. The rules for maintaining international relations should be rules that "uphold international equity and justice" based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence [16], rules that uphold the "concepts of sincerity, real results, amity, and good faith, and the right approach to friendship and interests" [17], and rules that "oppose all forms of hegemonism and power politics, oppose the Cold War mentality, oppose interference in other countries' internal affairs, and oppose the use of double standards."
Nearly 70 years ago, the international community reshaped the world order based on the Charter of the United Nations and established an international legal system with the UN Charter at its core. Since then, the United Nations has not only become the world's most important and authoritative intergovernmental organization but is also regarded as "the most authoritative universal international organization upon which the formation and implementation of international law can depend," making positive and significant contributions to the construction of the international rule of law. In recent years, the international order with the UN at its core and the international legal system with the UN Charter as its cornerstone have been constantly threatened and challenged by the "rules-based" order imaginary. General Secretary Xi Jinping has firmly "maintained the international order and international system with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter at its core," noting that "the various confrontations and injustices occurring in the world today are not because the purposes and principles of the UN Charter are reaching obsolescence, but precisely because these purposes and principles have not been effectively implemented." Maintaining the international order with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter at its core is an important discourse by General Secretary Xi Jinping on how to promote the construction of the international rule of law. The proposal of this discourse is based on his profound understanding of the historical evolution of the international rule of law and his clear perception of its current status.
Historically, the purposes and principles of the UN Charter laid the foundation for the system of basic principles of modern international law and played an important role in promoting the legalization of international relations. The basic principles of international law are regarded by some scholars as the guiding concepts running through the international legal system; they include those legal principles in the international legal system that are universally recognized by the international community, possess universal binding force, apply to all fields of international law, and constitute the foundation of international law. In modern times, the international community has seen the birth of a series of fundamental principles guiding international relations, such as the principle of national sovereignty, the principle of non-interference in internal affairs, the principle of sovereign equality, and the principle of peaceful settlement of international disputes. This series of basic principles were confirmed by early international conventions such as the Covenant of the League of Nations (1919) and the Pact of Paris (1928). For example, Article 15, paragraph 8 of the 1919 Covenant of the League of Nations provided a preliminary expression of the principle of non-interference in internal affairs, stipulating: "If the dispute between the parties is claimed by one of them, and is found by the Council, to arise out of a matter which by international law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of that party, the Council shall so report, and shall make no recommendation as to its settlement." As another example, Article 1 of the Pact of Paris stipulates that the high contracting parties solemnly declare that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another; Article 2 reaffirms that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means. This effectively confirmed the principle of peaceful settlement of international disputes. However, the actual role of both the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Pact of Paris was limited. The League of Nations had at most 60-odd member states, and even the United States, which contributed much to the birth of the League, never joined. The number of countries that signed the Pact of Paris was also very small. This indicates that the codification of the basic principles of international law at that time had not yet received broad participation from all countries, nor had it been confirmed by universal and authoritative international legal documents. The UN Charter, born out of the trauma of human war, was the first to comprehensively and systematically confirm and develop the basic principles of international law in its purposes and principles. Judging from the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1970, the UN Charter clarified seven basic principles of international law: sovereign equality of states, fulfillment in good faith of international obligations, peaceful settlement of international disputes, prohibition of the threat or use of force, international cooperation, non-intervention in internal affairs, and equal rights and self-determination of peoples. Only then was the system of basic principles of modern international law established. Today, the fact that these basic principles are well-known is inseparable from the major contribution made by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
From a realistic perspective, maintaining the purposes and principles of the UN Charter is the inevitable choice for solving the difficult problem of the "struggle over international rules." For a rule to be sufficient to be called an "international rule," it must not merely be a "product of intellectual constructs" by certain countries; rather, it should have actual effect at the international level. International rules must possess legitimacy and legality so that states or international organizations will recognize their efficacy or accept the values they contain. From this perspective, and in conjunction with the aforementioned cases, compared to the "rules-based" order construction imagined by certain countries, the international order established on the international legal system with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter at its core contains the basic principles of international law and universally recognized basic norms of international relations. It is the cornerstone of the international rule of law, and its legitimacy and legality are beyond doubt. As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "We should jointly promote the legalization of international relations. We should urge all parties to abide by international law and universally recognized basic principles of international relations in their international dealings, and use uniformly applicable rules to distinguish right from wrong, promote peace, and seek development." In contrast, influenced by the "rules-based" view of order, Western countries often ignore the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and instead deliberately "weigh every word" of specific rules, hoping to use legal techniques to conceal the underlying interest inclinations. This actually reflects the pragmatic attitude of certain countries towards international law—"using it when it suits them and discarding it when it does not." On the one hand, regarding certain rules and systems that favor themselves, even if their provisions and traditional understanding have failed to keep pace with the times and there is room for improvement, these countries still "cling to the old and broken" [18] in the name of "maintaining rules." On the other hand, they evade basic norms such as the purposes and principles of the UN Charter that meet the common interests of humanity, and even deliberately hollow out or distort them in the interpretation of international law. For example, the United States' one-sided promotion of human rights while ignoring the principle of sovereign equality stipulated in Article 2, paragraph 1 of the UN Charter has directly led to the rise of fallacies that deliberately misinterpret the principle of national sovereignty, such as "limited sovereignty," "sovereignty is obsolete," "human rights are above sovereignty," and "human rights have no borders." These fallacies deliberately place the concepts of "human rights" and "sovereignty" in opposition, causing negative effects on the international rule of law.
It is precisely based on these historical and realistic reasons that Xi Jinping’s important discourse on the international rule of law regards the purposes and principles of the UN Charter as the foundational rules for the implementation of international law. Upholding this concept, General Secretary Xi Jinping actively promotes the establishment of good laws and the implementation of good governance in various governance fields. For instance, in the field of counter-terrorism, he called on "the international community to join hands and further strengthen counter-terrorism cooperation in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and other universally recognized basic norms of international relations." On the issue of sovereignty, he emphasized: Sovereign equality is the most important norm regulating relations between countries for hundreds of years, and it is the primary principle followed by the United Nations and all its agencies and organizations. The true essence of sovereign equality is that regardless of a country's size, strength, or wealth, its sovereignty and dignity must be respected, its internal affairs must not be interfered with, and all have the right to independently choose social systems and development paths. In the governance of new frontiers of international law, such as cyberspace, he actively advocates for international cooperation, emphasizing "building a peaceful, secure, open, and cooperative cyberspace and establishing a multilateral, democratic, and transparent international internet governance system through active and effective international cooperation." This series of propositions shows that China is continuously strengthening the status of the purposes and principles of the UN Charter as the foundational principles for the implementation of international law, and promoting their deep integration into the current construction of the international rule of law, making it develop in a more just and reasonable direction.
VII. Conclusion The international rule of law means that good legal norms are well-observed and implemented in international affairs; it means that countries, as basic members of the international community, handle their relations and maintain international order in accordance with international law. As a tool for global governance, the international rule of law is the optimal choice for responding to global crises and realizing the common values of all humanity.
The report of the 20th CPC National Congress once again manifested the profound breadth and depth of Xi Jinping's important expositions on the international rule of law. His original contributions to the transformation of the international rule of law possess a solid foundation in the logic of the times and constitute an essential component of the Communist Party of China’s contribution to the international rule of law. Amidst "changes unseen in a century" [19], global governance is facing failure, and today's world is filled with uncertain factors. To realize the common values of humanity—peace, development, equity, justice, democracy, and freedom—and to respond to global challenges brought about by changes in the world, the times, and history, the international community urgently requires new programs for the reform of international governance. The starting point and foundation for the transformation of the international rule of law are the international system with the United Nations at its core and the international order based on international law. The objectives of this transformation are a higher level of democratization and rule of law in international relations and affairs, as well as global governance that is just, reasonable, and orderly, promoting the common values of humanity. General Secretary Xi Jinping’s proposals to "build a community with a shared future for humanity," "coordinate the promotion of domestic rule of law and foreign-related rule of law," ensure "international rules should be written jointly by all countries," and "firmly uphold the international system with the United Nations at its core, the international order based on international law, and the basic norms governing international relations based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter" provide guidance for the transformation of the international rule of law and innovation in global governance.
First, the core idea of Xi Jinping’s important expositions on the international rule of law is the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity. This concept transcends the one-sided emphasis on power and national interest found in the Realist view of power politics. It has become a consensus within the international community, possessing the advanced nature of social consensus and value objectives; it can provide value guidance for the transformation of the international rule of law to break through the predicament of the "rules-based order" [20].
Second, the original contribution of Xi Jinping’s important expositions on the international rule of law is reflected in his proposal to coordinate the promotion of domestic rule of law and foreign-related rule of law. This points out the path for the transformation of the international rule of law, emphasizing that only under the integration provided by the link of "foreign-related rule of law," and through the benign interaction between domestic and international rule of law, can the international rule of law effectively respond to global problems, manage global affairs, and take into account the interests of other countries—and even the common interests of all humanity—while safeguarding one's own national interests.
Third, the original contribution of Xi Jinping’s important expositions also manifests in "clearing the source" [21] regarding the "dispute over international rules." He advocates that international rules based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter are the cornerstone of the international rule of law and the inevitable choice for solving the difficult problem of the "dispute over international rules." Only by regarding the purposes and principles of the UN Charter as the foundational rules for the implementation of international law can the international order based on international law be maintained, thereby achieving the goals of formulating "good laws" and promoting "good governance."
Fourth, the original contribution of Xi Jinping’s important expositions is further demonstrated by the proposition that international rules should be written jointly by all countries. This not only accords with the principles of objectivity in international law-making, international democracy, and the international rule of law, but also conforms to the realistic demands and future direction of the vast number of developing countries striving for a discourse power [22] in the formulation of international rules, providing principled guidance for international law-making.
Xi Jinping’s important expositions on the international rule of law promote the transformation of the international rule of law from the dual perspectives of creating "good laws" and implementing "good governance." The idea that international rules are written jointly by all countries reflects the transformation in creating good laws; coordinating the promotion of domestic and foreign-related rule of law, while taking the rules of the UN Charter as the cornerstone, reflects the transformation in implementing good governance. The core idea—the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity—runs through both the creation of good laws and the implementation of good governance, serving as the value and ideological guide for the transformation of the international rule of law.