Public Legal Provision of State Sovereignty: Experience of the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of India
https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2025-12-3-59-80
Abstract
This article examines the conceptual foundations and peculiarities of public legal provision of state sovereignty in the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of India. It analyses the basic theoretical principles of the legal systems of China and India, the concepts of state sovereignty, and the legal design of state sovereignty of China and India. In China, the public legal provision of state sovereignty at the doctrinal level is based on the doctrine of Legism, which emphasises the idea of creating a strong state, the establishment of uniform laws and administrative orders that are binding on all members of the population, and the establishment of severe penalties for offences. In practice, this is reflected in the legislative framework, which is characterised by a relatively small number of acts as well as severe sanctions for crimes that infringe state sovereignty. In India, public legal provision of state sovereignty is based on the preservation of its centuries-old ancient culture and traditions, observance of the balance of legally enshrined rights and freedoms, and a respect for spiritual values. The pacifism of Buddhism and the tolerance, as well as the high degree of universality of the core values of Hinduism, formed the basis of the concept of state sovereignty, as enshrined in the Constitution of 1950, which prioritises the fundamental rights of citizens. It is important to note, however, that there are not many normative prescriptions on state sovereignty in Indian law. Nevertheless, the Indian state, in response to new challenges, not only maintains its independence and autonomy at the national and international levels but also pays great attention to the protection of human rights as a foundation of state sovereignty.
Keywords
public legal provision,
state sovereignty,
public law,
legal systems,
People’s Republic of China,
Republic of India
Supporting agencies: This study was supported by the Russian Science Foundation under Grant No. 24- 18-00764, https://rscf.ru/project/24-18-00764/.
About the Authors
V. Belousova
Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Violetta Belousova – Assistant, Department of Administrative Law and Procedure
9 Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya St., Moscow, 125993
D. Zaytsev
Kutafin Moscow State Law University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Dmitry Zaytsev – Assistant, Department of Administrative Law and Procedure
9 Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya St., Moscow, 125993
S. Zubarev
Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)
India
India
Sergey Zubarev – Professor, Head, Department of Administrative Law and Procedure
9 Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya St., Moscow, 125993
References
1. Amogolonova, D. D. (2018). Buddhism and politicisation of religion in India: Bhimrao Ambedkar’s Navayana. Oriental Studies, 38(4), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.22162/2619-0990-2018-38-4-2-10
2. Bogaturov, A. D. (Ed.). (2010). Contemporary world politics. Applied analysis (2nd ed.). Aspect-Press. (In Russian).
3. Borodina, S., & Kovalev, S. K. (Eds.). (2010). Investments in the BRIC countries: Risk assessment and corporate governance in Brazil, Russia, India and China. Alpina. (In Russian).
4. Carrai, M. A. (2019). Sovereignty in China: A genealogy of a concept since 1840. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108564861
5. Fokeev, G. V. (Ed.). (1987). History of international relations and foreign policy of the USSR. 1917–1987. Vol. 2: 1945–1970. International Relations. (In Russian).
6. Gavrilenko, V., & Shenshin, V. (2023). Control and supervisory activities as an institute of administrative law. BRICS Law Journal, 10(2), 156–183. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2023-10-2-156-183
7. Gordon, A. V. (2020). The doctrine of Xi Jinping’s rule. Social and Humanities. Domestic and Foreign Literature, 9(2), 158–193.
8. Grachikov, E. N., & Xu, X. (2022). PRC and the international system: The formation of its own model of world order. Bulletin of International Organizations, 17(1), 7–24.
9. Jacques, M. (2009). When China rules the world: The end of the western world and the birth of a new global order. Penguin Press.
10. Kaur, R. (2013). Sovereignty without hegemony, the nuclear state and a ‘secret public hearing’ in India. Theory, Culture & Society, 30(3), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276412474325
11. Kim, S. S. (1994). China’s international organizational behaviour. In T. W. Robinson & D. Shambaugh (Eds.), Chinese foreign policy: Theory and practice (pp. 401–434). Oxford University Press.
12. Krivokhizh, S. V. (2019). Correlation of the categories ‘sovereignty’ and ‘human rights’: Beijing’s position. Problems of the Far East, 4, 77–84. https://doi.org/10.31857/s013128120006098-8. (In Russian).
13. Leist, O. E. (2006). History of political and legal doctrines: Textbook. Zertsalo. (In Russian).
14. Oldenburg, S. F. (2017). Confucius. Life, activity, thoughts. Tsentrpoligraf. (In Russian).
15. Perlingeiro, R. (2022). Rethinking due process of law in the administrative sphere. BRICS Law Journal, 9(3), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2022-9-3-39-52
16. Qiucen, L. (2019). Specifics of the law of the People’s Republic of China and features of its modern development. Jurisprudence, 63(2), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu25.2019.208. (In Russian).
17. Sellmann, D. D. (2017). Constitution of the People’s Republic of China: A critical assessment. Russian Political Science, 4, 73–79. (In Russian).
18. Shen, H. (2021). Xi Jinping and the policy of reform and openness. Chance. (In Russian).
19. Sitnik, A. A., & Polyakov, M. M. (2024). System and structure of public-law provision of internal state sovereignty. Vestnik of St. Petersburg University. Law, 15(4), 949–963. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2024.402. (In Russian).
20. Wang, S., Jia, X., & Mishchuk, S. (2023). Changes in China’s demographic policy in 2010–2021. Population, 26(3), 66–76. https://doi.org/10.19181/population.2023.26.3.6
21. Yan, L. M. (2012). Theories of public administration in the legal doctrines of China. Vestnik of Omsk University. Series ‘Law’, 1(30), 26–30. (In Russian).
22. Zaitsev, D. I. (2023). Genealogy of administrative discretion. Siberian Legal Review, 20(3), 272–284. (In Russian).
23. Zinovieva, E. S. (2024). BRICS on the way to acquire digital sovereignty? Problems of National Strategy, 2(83), 144–163. (In Russian).
24. Zubarev, S. M., & Troshev, D. B. (2024). The concept and essence of public law enforcement of state sovereignty. Kutafin Law Review, 11(3), 569–594. https://doi.org/10.17803/2713-0533.2024.3.29.569-594. (In Russian).
25. Zubarev, S. M., Kosyrev, E. V., & Krylova, M. S. (2024). Public law enforcement of state sovereignty in the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany. Bulletin of Tomsk State University. Law, 53, 45–65. https://doi.org/10.17223/22253513/53/4. (In Russian).
Review
For citations:
Belousova V., Zaytsev D., Zubarev S. Public Legal Provision of State Sovereignty: Experience of the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of India. BRICS Law Journal. 2025;12(3):59-80. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2025-12-3-59-80
Views:
9
Email this article 