000			04425nam a22006495i 4500
001			190458
003			IT-RoAPU
005			20221214232520.0
006			m|||||o||d||||||||
007			cr || ||||||||
008			210830t20132013mau fo d z eng d
019			_a(OCoLC)853261697
019			_a(OCoLC)999361765
020			_a9780674073067 _qprint
020			_a9780674075764 _qPDF
024	7		_a10.4159/harvard.9780674075764 _2doi
035			_a(DE-B1597)9780674075764
035			_a(DE-B1597)209756
035			_a(OCoLC)843881805
040			_aDE-B1597 _beng _cDE-B1597 _erda
050		4	_aK237 _b.R87 2013eb
072		7	_aLAW016000 _2bisacsh
082	0	4	_a340/.11 _223
084			_aonline - DeGruyter
100	1		_aRuskola, Teemu _eautore
245	1	0	_aLegal Orientalism : _bChina, the United States, and Modern Law / _cTeemu Ruskola.
264		1	_aCambridge, MA : _bHarvard University Press, _c[2013]
264		4	_c©2013
300			_a1 online resource (338 p.) : _b4 halftones
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia
338			_aonline resource _bcr _2rdacarrier
347			_atext file _bPDF _2rda
505	0	0	_tFrontmatter -- _tContents -- _tCHAPTER ONE: Introduction: Legal Orientalism -- _tCHAPTER TWO: Making Legal and Unlegal Subjects in History -- _tCHAPTER THREE: Telling Stories about Corporations and Kinship -- _tCHAPTER FOUR: Canton Is Not Boston -- _tCHAPTER FIVE: The District of China Is Not the District of Columbia -- _tCHAPTER SIX: Epilogue: Colonialism without Colonizers -- _tNotes -- _tComment on Chinese Sources -- _tAcknowledgments -- _tIndex
506	0		_arestricted access _uhttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_16ec _fonline access with authorization _2star
520			_aSince the Cold War ended, China has become a global symbol of disregard for human rights, while the United States has positioned itself as the world's chief exporter of the rule of law. How did lawlessness become an axiom about Chineseness rather than a fact needing to be verified empirically, and how did the United States assume the mantle of law's universal appeal? In a series of wide-ranging inquiries, Teemu Ruskola investigates the history of "legal Orientalism": a set of globally circulating narratives about what law is and who has it. For example, why is China said not to have a history of corporate law, as a way of explaining its "failure" to develop capitalism on its own? Ruskola shows how a European tradition of philosophical prejudices about Chinese law developed into a distinctively American ideology of empire, influential to this day. The first Sino-U.S. treaty in 1844 authorized the extraterritorial application of American law in a putatively lawless China. A kind of legal imperialism, this practice long predated U.S. territorial colonialism after the Spanish-American War in 1898, and found its fullest expression in an American district court's jurisdiction over the "District of China." With urgent contemporary implications, legal Orientalism lives on in the enduring damage wrought on the U.S. Constitution by late nineteenth-century anti-Chinese immigration laws, and in the self-Orientalizing reforms of Chinese law today. In the global politics of trade and human rights, legal Orientalism continues to shape modern subjectivities, institutions, and geopolitics in powerful and unacknowledged ways.
530			_aIssued also in print.
538			_aMode of access: Internet via World Wide Web.
546			_aIn English.
588	0		_aDescription based on online resource; title from PDF title page (publisher's Web site, viewed 30. Aug 2021)
650		0	_aLaw _zChina _xPhilosophy _xHistory.
650		0	_aLaw _zUnited States _xPhilosophy _xHistory.
650		0	_aOrientalism.
650		0	_aRule of law _zChina _xHistory.
650		0	_aRule of law _zChina _xPublic opinion.
650		0	_aRule of law _zUnited States _xHistory.
650		0	_aRule of law _zUnited States _xPublic opinion.
650		0	_aSociological jurisprudence _zChina.
650		4	_aHISTORY / Asia / China.
650		4	_aHISTORY / United States / 20th Century.
650		7	_aLAW / Comparative. _2bisacsh
850			_aIT-RoAPU
856	4	0	_uhttps://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674075764
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.degruyter.com/isbn/9780674075764
856	4	2	_3Cover _uhttps://www.degruyter.com/cover/covers/9780674075764.jpg
942			_cEB
999			_c190458 _d190458