Editor's note

• Author: Thomas Buoye
• Position: Thomas Buoye, Ph.D. in History, Department of History, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; Associate Professor of History, College of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104, USA. Contact: thomas-buoye@utulsa.edu
• Pages: 1-3

FRONTIERS OF LAW IN CHINA

VOL. 15 MARCH 2020 NO. 1

DOI 10.3868/s050-009-020-0001-1

FOCUS

TRADITION AND TRANSFORMATION: LAW I N LATE IMPERIAL AND

MODERN CHINA

EDITOR’S NOTE

Thomas Buoye∗

Fueled by access to the First Historical Archives of China in Beijing, the first wave of

American scholars of Chinese legal history cut their teeth on Qing legal documents in the

1980s. Subsequently, Chinese legal studies in the United States were transformed

overnight and have been growing steadily since. American scholars combined access to

archival sources with theoretical insights from the social sciences to breach the

fissiparous barrier between historical research and legal studies. The result has been the

development of what some have called a “new legal history” of China.1 In recent years,

the inauguration of the international collaborative project “Legalizing Space in China”

(2011–2015) endowed by the French National Research Agency (ANR) and the

establishment of the International Society for Chinese Law and History (ISCLH) in 2014

have marked an international renaissance in Chinese legal history. Given the ongoing

digitization of central and local legal archives, we can safely anticipate more in-depth and

wide-ranging studies of Chinese legal, social, and economic history in the years to come

as the new legal history goes global.

To varying degrees, each of the articles in this Focus has embraced the elements of

the “new legal history.” HU Xiangyu examines amnesty policies and the punishment of

fugitive slaves and criminals found guilty of harboring them. As HU deftly illustrates,

because the loss of fugitive slaves directly impinged on the economic interests of the

Manchu bannermen, decisions regarding amnesty policies entailed political and economic

issues. These issues were particularly salient before the Kangxi when the Qing dynasty

was in transition from military conquest to political consolidation. The dynasts needed to

balance their economic interests with the need to adhere to Han legal norms. As HU notes,

the Qing court adjusted the laws on fugitives in the face of social realities.

∗ Thomas Buoye, Ph.D. in History, Department of History, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan,

USA; Associate Professor of History, College of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma

74104, USA. Contact: thomas-buoye@utulsa.edu

1 YOU Chenjun, How a “New Legal History” Might Be Possible: Recent Trends in Chinese Legal

History Studies in the United States and Their Implications, 39(2) Modern China, 165–202 (2013).