Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implications of Han Fei’s Philosophy for China’s Legal and Institutional Reforms

  • RESEARCH ARTICLE
  • Published:
Journal of Chinese Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In his treatise Han Fei Zi, the Chinese ancient thinker Han Fei proposes a governance structure that emphasizes the institutionalization of legal norms, judicious sovereign intervention, and ministerial obligations. These three core concepts of Han’s legal thinking are informed by both the Taoist law of Nature and the Confucian philosophy as is expounded by Xun Zi. Recognition of the Taoist and Confucian influences brings to light the ethical and normative dimensions of Han’s legal thought, dimensions that, I propose, provide new insights into China’s legal and institutional reforms today.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Buckley, Chris. (2014) “Leader Taps into Chinese Classics in Seeking to Cement Power,” New York Times, Asia Pacific, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/world/leader-taps-into-chinese-classics-in-seeking-to-cement-power.html . (Accessed 2 November 2015).

  2. This essay refers to two versions of Han Fei Zi. One is from Han Fei Zi, ed. Bingcai Chen, 16th edn. (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2015); and the other is from http://www.gushiwen.org/guwen/hanfei.aspx. (Accessed 1 November 2015). There is some slight difference in the spelling and word order in these two versions. I use modern spelling where there is conflict. Unless specially noted, all the translations in the essay are my own. .

  3. Gady, Frabz-Stefan. (2015) “Why We should Study China’s Machiavelli,” The Diplomat. http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/why-we-should-study-chinas-machiavelli/; Gady’s article responds to Mitchell, Ryan. (2015) “Is ‘China’s Machiavelli’ Now Its Most Important Political Philosopher?” The Diplomat, http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/is-chinas-machiavelli-now-its-most-important-political-philosopher/ (Accessed 1 November 2015)

  4. Xi’s announcements should not be seen as personal initiatives; they are the outcome of the grand national strategies fashioned by collective decision-making in Beijing.

  5. Baogang Guo well observes that “Unlike the modern Western legal positivism which does not recognize an inherent connection between law and morality, Chinese traditional laws codify many Confucian norms because of the dominant influence of Confucianism.” Guo (2014), p, 274.

  6. “守始知万物之源泉,治纪以善败之端。故虚静以待令…使万物知其处.” (Han Fei Zi, Chap. 5) That the Dao is critical to sovereign rule because it “encompasses the principles of all things.” [道尽稽万物之理] (Han Fei Zi, Chap 20)

  7. See Chap 8, yangquan [扬权] or “Promoting Power.”

  8. Sleznick (1996), p.271.

  9. Sleznick (1996), p. 271.

  10. Sleznick (1992), p. 232.

  11. Checkel (1998), pp.327-28.

  12. Finnemore (1996); Katzenstein (1996); and Acharya (2004).

  13. Hui (2012), p.125. On this “return to China traditions” also see Qin (2007); Yu (2008); Li (2009); Xiao (2010); Li and Worm (2011); Yan (2011); Rozman (2012); and Wan (2012). For a summary of these various approaches, see Hui (2012), p.126. It is a pity that Hui seems prone to the same methodological flaw she charges against Yan Xuetong, that is, the conflation of thought with history. (p.128) Hui confuses Chinese cultural traditions with historical events, especially the civil strife involved in dynastic transitions. Battles and civil wars mark the evolution of almost all civilizations. But Chinese cultural tradition as represented by its literary, philosophical, or historical discourse is unique in that it offers a distinctive way to conceptualize the human condition and structure our sense of reality. Historical events are one thing, and how a people use their cultural resources to make sense of those occurrences is another. This essay focuses on the distinctive ways ancient and modern Chinese thinkers negotiate and conceptualize the legal, ethical, and institutional dimensions of state governance.

  14. For a detailed study of this multi-state system see Yan (2011).

  15. For Shang and Shen Dao’s legal thoughts and their influences on Han see Yuri Pines (2013), in Goldin ed., pp.25-46; and Yang (2013), in Goldin ed., pp.47-66. For Han’s notions of shu and shi see Chapter 14 “On Ingratiating, Usurping, and Regicide Ministers” (jianjie shichen 奸劫弒臣).

  16. The authorship of certain chapters in Han Fei Zi as claimed by Ban Gu is still in dispute, and in accepting Ban’s interpretive authority, this essay follows the mainstream institutional and scholarly traditions in China.

  17. Creel (1970), pp.79–91.

  18. Goldin (2011), p.92.

  19. Harris (2014), p.156.

  20. Sima Tan’s classification might represent only a particular interpretive angle, but the categories it provides afford useful frameworks to conceptualize the various intellectual trends flourishing in the pre-Qin period.

  21. Peerenboom (2002), p.34.

  22. Chan (1973), p.251.

  23. Han’s commentaries on Taoism in chapters 20 and 21 are the earliest known on any Chinese classics.

  24. For a synthesis of the Daoist approach see the collection of essays in Chang and Wang (1986) and Goldin ed. (2013).

  25. Moody (2011).

  26. Harris (2014), p.158.

  27. Harris (2014), p.158.

  28. Moody (2011), p.21. For similar claims also se Moody (2008), p.104, note 28.

  29. Laozi, ed. Rao Shangkuang (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2013), Chap 1. 

  30. Zhuangzi, ed. Fang Yong. 2nd edn. (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2015), Chap 12 tiandi [天地] or “Heaven and Earth.”

  31. Harris (2011), p.76.

  32. Laozi, Chap 25.

  33. Watson (2003), p.7.

  34. Waley (1982), p.151.

  35. Ip (2009), p.4.

  36. For suspicion of the Sima’s claim that Sunzi was Han’s teacher also see Hutton (2008), p.423, note1, 424.

  37. “天下皆以孝悌忠順之道为是也, 而莫知察孝悌忠順之道而审行之, 是以天下乱.” (Han Fei Zi, Chap 51)

  38. “且夫世之愚学, 皆不知治乱之情, 讘唊多诵先古之书, 以乱当世之治....听其言者危, 用其計者乱, 此亦愚之至大而患之至甚者也.” (Han Fei Zi, Chap 14)

  39. “惠之为政, 无功者受赏,而有罪者免, 此法之所以败也. 法败而 [政] 乱, 以乱政治败民, 未见 其可也.” (Han Fei Zi, Chap 38)

  40. “然则古之无变, 常之毋易, 在常古之可与不可.” (Han Fei Zi, Chap 28)

  41. “子曰: 道之以政, 齐之以刑, 民免而无耻; 道之以德, 齐之以礼,有耻且格.” In Exegesis of Confucius, ed. Yang bojun (Beijing, Zhonghua shuju, 2014), 2.3.

  42. “明主之所道制其臣者, 二柄而已矣. 二柄者, 刑德也. 何谓刑德? 曰: 杀戮之谓刑, 庆赏之谓德.” (Han Fei Zi, Chap 7)

  43. “凡治天下,必因人情。人情者有好恶,故赏罚可用;赏罚可用,则禁令可立。君执柄以处势,故令行禁止。柄者,杀生之制也;势者,胜众之资也”.(Han Fei Zi, chap 48)

  44. Xunzi, ed. An Xiaolan (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2013), “Filial Norms.”

  45. Xun Zi, “Man’s Nature is Evil” [xing’e 性恶].

  46. “朝廷必将隆礼仪而审贵贱, 若是、则士大夫莫不敬, 节死制者矣. 百官则将齐其制度, 重其官秩, 若是、则百吏莫不畏法而遵绳矣.” Xun Zi, “Kingship and Hegemon” (Wang Ba 王霸)

  47. Moody (2011), p.19.

  48. Ip (2009), p.1.

  49. Bárcenas (2013), p.236.

  50. For these various ideas see Chapter 48 and Chapter 20, especially Han’s idea of “治大国如烹饪小鲜”—just as one cannot stir much when frying fresh fishes, the law of the state should not be constantly changed.

  51. Keck, Zachary. (2014) “4th Plenum: Rule of Law with Chinese Characteristics

    The CCP is focusing on the rule of law because it wants to reign in local officials,” Diplomat, http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/4th-plenum-rule-of-law-with-chinese-characteristics/ (Accessed 1 November 2015)

  52. Tiezzi, Shannon. (2014) “Could China’s ‘Rule of Law’ Lead to Constitutionalism? Official proclamations about the Fourth Plenum include intriguing references to limiting political power.” Diplomat, http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/could-chinas-rule-of-law-lead-to-constitutionalism/ (Accessed 1 November 2015)

  53. “Xi Jinping pledges to implement rule of law.” (2014) http://english.sina.com/china/p/2012/1204/534056.html (Accessed 1 November 2015)

  54. Yang Guangbin. (2015) “Xi’s got the power to guide the CCP to 2049,” East Asia Forum March 1; http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/03/01/xis-got-the-power-to-guide-the-ccp-to-2049/. (Accessed 1 November 2015)

  55. Tiezzi, “Could China’s ‘Rule of Law’ Lead to Constitutionalism?”

  56. “今人臣多立其私智以法為非者, 是邪以智, 過法立智。如是者禁, 主之道也.” (Han Fei Zi, Chap 14) For ministerial rule as a most salient feature of state governance in the Warring States period see Fulin (2013), p.27.

  57. Yang, “Xi’s got the power.”

  58. Yang, “Xi’s got the power.”

  59. For an informative explication of the term non-action see Slingerland (2000), “Effortless Action,” pp. 295, 296.

  60. Pine (2013), in Goldin ed., pp.67-86. Pine views Han’s idea of governance structure as a machinery of statecraft, I regard it as normalized institution. For a study of the ruler’s more active role see Schneider (2013).

  61. For such a Dao-orientated sovereign governance also see Chapter 8 and Chapter 20 of Han Fei Zi.

References

  • Acharya, Amitav. 2004. How ideas spread: whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International Organization 58: 239–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bárcenas, Alejandro. 2013. Han Fei’s enlightened ruler. Asian Philosophy 23(3): 236–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, Wing-Tsit. 1973. A source book in Chinese philosophy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Leo, and Hsiao-po Wang (eds.). 1986. The philosophical foundations of Han Fei’s political theory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, Jeffrey T. 1998. The constructivist turn in international relations theory. World Politics 50(2): 324–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creel, Herrlee G. 1970. What is Taoism? And other studies in Chinese cultural history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Exegesis of Confucius. (2014) ed. Yang bojun. Beijing, Zhonghua shuju.

  • Finnemore, Martha. 1996. National interests in international society. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulin, Chao. 2013. Ministerial power in the warring states period. Chinese Studies in History 46(4): 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin, Paul R. 2011. Persistent misconceptions about Chinese ‘legalism,’. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 38(1): 88–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin, Paul R. (ed.). 2013. Dao companion to the philosophy of Han Fei. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, Baogang. 2014. Virtue, Law, and Chinese political tradition: Can the past predict the future?” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 19(3): 267–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han Fei Tzu: Basic Writings. (2003) trans. Burton Watson. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Han Fei Zi. (2015). ed. Bingcai Chen. 16th edn. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.

  • Harris, Eirik Lang. 2011. Is the law in the way? On the source of Han Fei's laws. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 38(1): 73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, Eirik Lang. 2014. Legalism: introducing a concept and analyzing aspects of Han Fei’s political philosophy. Philosophy Compass 9(3): 155–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hui, Victoria Tin-bor. 2012. History and thought in China’s traditions. Journal of Chinese Political Science 17(2): 125–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, Eric L. 2008. Han Feizi's criticism of Confucianism and its complications for virtue ethics. Journal of Moral Philosophy 5: 423–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ip, Eric C. 2009. The idea of law in classical Chinese legalist jurisprudence. Global Jurist 9(4): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzenstein, Peter (ed.) 1996. The culture of national security: norms and identity in world politics. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laozi. (2013) ed. Rao Shangkuang. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.

  • Li, Bin. 2009. Insights into the mozi and their implications for the study of contemporary international relations. Chinese Journal of International Politics 2(3): 421–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Xin, and Verner Worm. 2011. Building China’s soft power for a peaceful rise. Journal of Chinese Political Science 16(1): 69–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody, Peter R. 2008. Han Fei in his context”, 21. For similar claim also see moody, “rational choice analysis in classical Chinese political thought: the ‘Han Feizi’.” Polity 40(1): 95–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody, Peter R. 2011. Han Fei in his context: legalism on the eve of the Qin conquest. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 38(1): 14–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peerenboom, Randall. 2002. China’s long march toward rule of law. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pines, Yuri. (2013) “From historical evolution to the end of history: past, present and future from Shang Yang to the first emperor.” In Goldin ed., Dao Companion, 25–46.

  • Qin, Yaqing. 2007. Why is there no Chinese international relations theory? International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7(3): 313–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozman, Gilbert. 2012. Invocations of Chinese traditions in international relations. Journal of Chinese Political Science 17(2): 111–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, Henrique. 2013. Han Fei, De, welfare. Asian Philosophy 23(3): 260–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sleznick, Philip. 1992. The moral commonwealth: social theory and the promise of community. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sleznick, Philip. 1996. Institutionalism ‘old’ and ‘new’. Administrative Science Quarterly 41(2): 271–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slingerland, Edward. 2000. Effortless action, the Chinese spiritual ideal of Wu-wei. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 68(2): 293–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waley, Arthur. 1982. Three ways of thought in ancient China. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wan, Ming. 2012. Introduciton: Chinese traditions in international relations. Journal of Chinese Political Science 17(2): 105–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao, Ren. 2010. The international relations theoretical discourse in China: One world, different explanations. Journal of Chinese Political Science 15(1): 99–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xunzi. (2013) ed. An Xiaolan. Beijing, Zhonghua shuju, 2013.

  • Yan, Xuetong. (2011) Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power. ed. Dainile A. Bell and Sun Zhe. trans. Edmund Ryden. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Yang, Soon-jia. (2013) “Shen Dao's theory of fa and his influence on Han Fei.” In Goldin ed., Dao Companion, 47–66.

  • Yu, Bin. 2008. China’s harmonious world: beyond cultural interpretations. Journal of Chinese Political Science 13(2): 119–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhuangzi. (2015). ed. Fang Yong. 2nd edn. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Independent Scholar, 1404-35 Charles St. West, Toronto, ON, M4Y 1R6, Canada

    Mingjun Lu

Authors
  1. Mingjun Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mingjun Lu.

Additional information

I am indebted to Professor Alan Alexandroff at the University of Toronto’s Munk School for first proposing this topic and for sharing his insights with me. I’m also grateful to Professor David Porter in the English Department of the University of Michigan for his insightful input and pertinent critique of my argument.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lu, M. Implications of Han Fei’s Philosophy for China’s Legal and Institutional Reforms. J OF CHIN POLIT SCI 21, 339–356 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-016-9388-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-016-9388-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation