Eva Pils’ important new book, Human Rights in China: A Social Practice in the Shadows of Authoritarianism, is a welcome contribution to scholarship on China. Pils asserts that, despite the oppressive nature of the Chinese Party-State, considerable civil society resistance still exists. Given the wide-ranging nature of her arguments, her book should attract readers from a variety of disciplines such as law, politics, and sociology, among others, and also be of interest to a broader, non-academic audience of China-watchers from all backgrounds. The complexity of human rights discourse, law, and social practice in the Chinese context requires a multidimensional analysis and Pils’ book meets the challenge. She presents a nuanced study of the Chinese human rights landscape based on years of experience and solid research including exchanges with lawyers, journalists, and other human rights defenders. The book goes beyond a straightforward examination of existing norms, counter-norms, and institutional mechanisms to stress the importance of the practice of human rights advocacy and persistent civil society responses in the face of intensifying repression in the Xi Jinping era. This approach produces valuable conclusions that challenge some commonly held assumptions. For example, the government frequently contends that new legal protections of rights and/or the rapid growth of the Chinese economy—which has “lifted millions out of poverty” (at 100)—will ultimately result in China’s full transition to a rule-of-law society. Instead, Pils presents a richer, compelling story of a “bottom-up dynamic of human rights” (at 3) in contrast to narratives about pure authoritarian control or top-down “incremental reform” (at 2). Such an account is both long overdue and especially timely as Chinese human rights advocates operate in an increasingly difficult domestic environment and as global trends reduce civil society space even in traditionally more open societies. The book is well organized. It starts with an assessment of the complex historical and philosophical foundations of contemporary human rights discourse in China. It also presents counterarguments, increasingly used by the Party-State, to refute human rights in the name of sovereignty, harmony, security, and welfare. Such an overview provides a critical reference point for the book’s subsequent discussion of law, institutions, substantive rights, and advocacy. In Chapter 1, Pils argues that current human rights discourse is grounded in “indigenous resources of political reform advocacy” (at 18). Liberal “Western” traditions of rights have become internalized in Chinese political thought and reform movements since the nineteenth century. She also highlights the ongoing influence of the centuries-old yuan tradition of righting wrongs, including a “letters and visits” procedure that allows petitioners to seek redress outside the formal justice system. To some extent this tradition is consistent with liberal human rights values but also contains more paternalistic elements. For example, petitioners are frequently depicted as supplicants who can only find relief through the assistance of a morally upright official. The chapter concludes with an account of competing counter-discourses: the Party-State’s arguments that human rights have only a limited—if any —role to play in Chinese governance. Official rhetoric and justifications for repression have persisted and gained force in recent years and the book explores key questions about the extent to which these arguments have taken hold. Chapter 2 explores the international and domestic rights-protective norms and counter-norms that apply in China and relevant institutional mechanisms. In many ways China has actively engaged with the global human rights system. It has ratified most core United Nations human rights treaties and it regularly takes part in international human rights monitoring procedures, including the Human Right’s Council’s Universal Periodic Review and human rights treaty body reporting exercises. At the domestic level, China has added more concrete references to human rights in the constitution, legislation, and other rules and regulations that govern state policy. It has also drafted two national human rights action plans. Nevertheless, Pils illustrates, in devastating detail, the wide gap between China’s legal and procedural commitments to human rights and the reality of serious human rights violations on the ground. She points out the limits of a simple legal analysis: that “the textual basis for a human rights argument may in fact be thin or contradictory; it may consist in no more than a sentence in the Constitution, or a clause in a treaty that is routinely ignored . . . ” (at 5). Indeed, rights-protective norms often conflict with other written and unwritten (or “hidden”) rules and counter-norms that may directly infringe on rights, or at least facilitate their violation, creating “confusion and inconsistency” (at 34). In addition, courts and other institutions do not have adequate enforcement powers. Constitutional rights are not justiciable and, in any event, various systems of control limit judicial independence. Some earlier signs of movement toward stronger institutional protection—such as a 2001 decision by the Supreme Peoples’ Court that applied the constitutional right to education—have been short-lived. Pils also notes that various constraints have rendered the “letters and visits” system largely ineffective as an alternative to adjudication. Existing normative and institutional frameworks for rights protection clearly remain relatively weak, especially in the most sensitive cases. Pils observes, however, that advocates are increasingly adopting creative strategies outside the system utilizing social media and other available channels. Party-State responses, such as the infamous Great Fire Wall that limits access to the Internet, and civil society’s resistance and counter-responses, expose a dynamic interplay full of tensions and ambiguities that belies a one-dimensional description of repression. Pils argues that systemic persecution has actually fueled ongoing resistance. The next three chapters on substantive rights further illustrate this “spectacle of contention between citizens and the Party-State” (at 57). Pils divides her discussion of particular rights into distinct sections and concludes by challenging the Party-State’s classification and prioritization of economic and social rights over civil and political rights. Her empirically sound analysis demonstrates the causal links between the suppression of expression, systemic torture, arbitrary detention, inequality, and the denial of economic and social rights. She characterizes these rights as “central nodes in a web of interconnected human rights principles” (at 3) and persuasively debunks official counter-discourse that economic rights (measured, incorrectly, as GDP growth) must be addressed before contemplating political reform. Chapter 3 details the range of formal and informal detention facilities in China and continuing arbitrary detention, despite relevant constitutional protections. International and domestic norms have similarly had little impact on the widespread practice of torture or rights violations related to the death penalty. Pils notes the connection between torture and freedom of expression: that torture is frequently aimed at “educating,” “brainwashing” (at 65), or extracting affirmations of guilt to support predetermined judgments. She reflects that the authorities’ “tone of educational superiority” and their obsession with securing statements of culpability are part of broader efforts to assert power through “thought reformation” (at 68). Chapter 4’s examination of the right to freedom of expression further exposes tendencies toward increased Party-State control. At the same time, however, Pils highlights the tenacity of civil society resistance and questions the effectiveness of the Party-State’s ultimate aim to control “thought,” even beyond expression or speech. She observes that “[e]ven as they face blocks and risks of ‘legal’ sanctions, many keep exercising their free speech rights” and “[n]either criminalization and regulation, nor technology-based control appear to have inculcated genuine social acceptance of these curbs” (at 92). Chapter 5 exposes the flaws in official claims that economic growth positively correlates with the increasing enjoyment of economic and social rights. Pils details how state development priorities frequently result in the systematic infringement of a variety of rights (despite the existence of relevant, applicable legal norms)—the expropriation of land and mass evictions affecting the right to housing and an adequate standard of living; violence and intimidation, including torture, associated with land takings; discriminatory effects of the household registration system on rural residents and urban migrants from rural areas; environmental degradation such as toxic waste dumped in “cancer villages” and air pollution that affects the right to health; and the suppression of expression that attempts to expose and seek redress for these violations. As one lawyer explains, protests against the denial of socio-economic rights “do not merely concern [economic] interests, they do not merely have to do with money. They directly concern the right to speak” (at 119). Pils also contends that such protests signal resistance to the “sacrifice theory that subordinates individual socio-economic rights to larger goals” (at 120). In other words, official utilitarian arguments—that development’s benefits outweigh any negative effects on individuals; that those who oppose it are selfish and unwilling to make sacrifices for the community—have not fully taken root. This supports broader conclusions that attempts to control thought, not merely expression, have met with limited success. Chapter 6 further contextualizes the complex interactions among various state, non-state, and transnational actors that make up the social practice of human rights in China. Pils traces the development of human rights advocacy in the post-Mao era which has “evolved from the acts of a daring few to more coordinated actions making use of technologies to associate, communicate, and express rights-based demands” (at 134). She notes that advocates have more recently moved outside the confines of organizational structures, creating networks and movements to coordinate activities. She details the increasingly repressive environment under Xi Jinping: the detention of the “Feminist Five” in March 2015 and hundreds of human rights lawyers in July 2015; new restrictions limiting advocate’s ability to represent their clients in court; regulation of the activities of domestic and foreign NGOs; and efforts to coopt lawyers to suppress petitions. At the same time, even in the face of such repression, advocates’ “work has effected a broad shift towards more vocal, more fluid and diverse expressions of human rights claims and widening variety of strategies” (at 144). Despite the book’s account of systematic breaches of human rights, Pils leaves us with some reason for hope. In the face of increasing persecution, human rights defenders continue to resist; as repression intensifies, advocates find new ways to raise their voices; and the Party-State’s attempts to control thought, not just speech, seem to have thus far failed. Pils also maintains that a shift back to twentieth century, authoritarian-style governance is unlikely—if not impossible—in light of current global communication systems and transnational human rights networks. Pils’ portrayal of human rights in China—how rights are understood, practiced, and denied—reveals a complex dynamic: a multifaceted interaction of diverse arguments, norms, institutions, actors, and strategies. Such diversity and range of voices suggests room for change and marks a significant achievement of China’s indigenous human rights movement. Pils asserts that partial success can be measured “in ordinary people’s ready ability to use human rights language when complaining about injustices [and] . . . the vast amount of information they have been able to collect and disseminate (in China and abroad).” She quotes one oft-repeated phrase among human rights defenders: [h]ai you kong jian (“there is still some space”) (at 135).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kelley Loper (2018) studied this question.