Tibet Lost in Translation

Sovereignty, Suzerainty and International Order Transformation, 1904–1906

Bibliographic Data

ID12422945
AuthorsAmanda J Cheney (Cornell University, corresponding author), Amanda Cheney (0009-0000-8391-9220, Cornell University, corresponding author)
Year2017
Volume26
Issue107
Pages769-783
Publication date2017-04-10
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Contemporary China (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1067-0564 • E-ISSN: 1469-9400
PublisherRoutledge (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/10670564.2017.1305490
OpenAlexW2607431778
LanguageEN
Citations received10

How did Tibet become part of the modern Chinese state? Even today, as Tibet is an internationally recognized part of the People’s Republic of China, the evasive meaning of ‘Chinese suzerainty over Tibet’ is a reverberant point of contention in nationalist debates. The question of whether ‘suzerainty’ more strongly implicates Tibetan independence or Chinese sovereignty is a false controversy that has impeded progress in understanding China’s transition from empire to nation-state. This article examines Anglo–Chinese diplomatic negotiations following the 1904 British invasion of Tibet using newly uncovered Chinese archival documents to demonstrate the central role played by the appropriation and manipulation of international legal discourse in determining Tibet’s status in the international system and offers a generalizable theory of the mechanics of international order transformation

Appropriation · China · Empire · Independence (probability theory · Linguistics · Nationalism · Negotiation · Order (exchange · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Sovereignty · State (computer science · Asian Geopolitics and Ethnography · Chinese history and philosophy · Law · Philosophy · Vietnamese History and Culture Studies

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub