The five principles of peaceful coexistence initiated by China, along with India and Myanmar, were accepted as a part of international law since 1954.

1. 1.

   Jasjit Singh (ed.),India, China and Panchsheel (New Delhi: Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, 1995).

2. 2.

   It has been suggested that the five principles had partly originated as the five principles of the Indonesian state. In June 1945 Sukarno, the Indonesian nationalist leader, had proclaimed five general principles, or pancasila, on which future institutions were to be founded. Indonesia became independent in 1949. See Henri Grimal,Decolonization: The British, French, Dutch and Belgian Empires, 1919–1963, trans. Stephan de Vos, (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978), pp. 190, 209–12. My view is that, the statement of peaceful coexistence or five principles may be traced back to an early stage, like the 1920 suggested by Soviet scholars, or 1940s by Indonesia, but we must find the direct and primary link between the proposal and claim of the principles and the acceptance of them.

3. 3.

   http://wiki.china.org.cn/wiki/index.php/Five_Principles_of_Peaceful_Coexistence.

4. 4.

   The term “peaceful coexistence” used here is to describe the relations among states and other actors in international issues, but not the relations between or among norms. For the latter meaning, see Jan Klabbers & Silke Trommer, “Peaceful coexistence: normative pluralism in international law”, In Jan Klabbers & Touko Piiparinen (eds.),Normative Pluralism and International Law: Exploring Global Governance (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 67–93.

5. 5.

   Eleanor H. Finch, “The Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence”, 52American Journal of International Law 504 (1958); Ian Brownlie,International Law and the Use of Force by the States(Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 119.

6. 6.

   For the reasons that western states were reluctant to accept these principles at the time of their adoption, the history of their steady steps into the corpus of international law by the International Law Association and the United Nations, see Edward McWhinney, “The renewed vitality of the International Law Principles of Peaceful Coexistence in the post-Iraq invasion era: The 50th Anniversary of the China/IndiaPanchaShila Agreement of 1954”, 3Chinese Journal of International Law 379 (2004).

7. 7.

   http://www.mofa.gov.mm/foreignpolicy/fiveprinciples.html.

8. 8.

   Victor P. Karpov, “The Soviet Concept of Peaceful Coexistence and Its Implications for International Law”, 29Law and Contemporary Problems 858 (1964); Louis Kos-Rabcewicz-Zubkowski, “International Justice and Peaceful Coexistence”,biblio.juridicas.unam.mx/revista/pdf/derechocomparado/1/art/art11.pdf, p. 198. For the foreign policy of USSR in general, see Geoffrey Roberts,The Soviet Union in World Politics (Routledge, 1999).

9. 9.

   After 1954, mainly in the 1960s, the soviet delegates in the UN endeavored to make coexistence as one principle in international law as a whole. Among them the most figure worth noting is Prof. Gregory Tunkin. He said in 1958, “A new page in the development of international law constitutes the principle of peaceful coexistence,” and, in 1963, “There is every ground to call present-day international law the law of peaceful coexistence.” The Committee on Peaceful Coexistence of the Soviet Association of International Law declared in 1962, “The principle of peaceful coexistence is a universally recognized principle of modern international law; … whereas international law of the past was a law of war and peace, it has today become a law of peace and peaceful coexistence.” The draft declaration of principles of peaceful coexistence submitted by the Association proposed that the United Nations proclaim that the principle of peaceful coexistence is a fundamental principle of modern international law.

10. 10.

    Preamble of the 1975, 1978, and 1982 versions ofConstitution of the People’s Republic of China.

11. 11.

    Article 51 ofThe Constitution of India, under the title “Directive Principles of State Policy”, reads Promotion of international peace and security:

    The State shall endeavour to—(a) promote international peace and security; (b) maintain just and honourable relations between nations; (c) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another; and (d) encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.”

    We can see that peaceful coexistence is not implicit mentioned.

12. 12.

    http://english.people.com.cn/92824/92845/92870/6441502.html.

13. 13.

    The Institute of Contemporary China Studies (当代中国研究所),The History of the People’s Republic of China (中华人民共和国史稿), (Beijing: Renmin Press, 2012), vol. I, pp. 311–317; vol. II, pp. 317–344; vol. III, pp. 171–209; vol. IV, pp. 29–35, 325–352.

14. 14.

    Peter Lyon,Neutralism (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1963), p. 66. Similar view, see Lazar Focsaneanu, “Les ‘cinq principes’ de coexistence pacifique et le droit international”,Annuaire français de droit international, 1956, pp. 150–180.

15. 15.

    See, e.g., Wolfgang Friedman,The Changing Structure of International Law (New York: Columbia University Press, 1964); Georg Schwarzenberger,The Frontiers of International Law, London: Stevens, 1962, and a review of the two books, Richard J. Barnet, “Coexistence and Cooperation in International Law”, 18World Politics 82 (1965).

16. 16.

    Holger P. Hestermeyer, Doris König, NeleMatz-Lück, Volker Röben, Anja Seibert-Fohr, Peter-Tobias Stoll and SiljaVöneky (eds.),Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity (2 vols.) (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012).

17. 17.

    Pierre-Marie Dupuy, “International Law: Torn between Coexistence, Cooperation and Globalization. General Conclusions,” 9European Journal of International Law 278 (1998).

18. 18.

    Christian J. Tams,Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnesin International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2010).

19. 19.

    Rose McDermott,Political Psychology in International Relations (The University of Michigan Press, 2004); Jonathan Renshon,Why Leaders Choose War: The Psychology of Prevention (Praeger Security International, 2006); Glenda Sluga,The Nation, Psychology, and International Politics, 1870–1919 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006).

20. 20.

    A. H. Maslow, “A theory of human motivation”, 50Psychological Review 370 (1943); Maslow, “A Theory of Metamotivation: The Biological Rooting of the Value-Life”, 7Journal of Humanistic Psychology 93 (1967); Maslow,Motivation and Personality (Harper & Row, Publishers, 1954), pp. 105–115.

21. 21.

    The pyramid was never shown in Maslow’s work. It may be only found in psychology textbooks. See, e.g., David G. Myers,Psychology, 10th ed. (Worth, 2013), p. 406.

22. 22.

    Some authors have already employed Maslow’s theory in the analysis of nation need, e.g., Stephen D. Krasner,Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investments and U.S. Foreign Policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978), p. 341; Timothy P. Olwell,Foreign Policy and a State's Hierarchy of Needs: DoD and the New Security Strategy, Research report of Air War College, Air University, 1995; reprinted by BiblioScholar, 2012; Erwin von den Steinen,National Interest and International Aviation (Alphen aan de Rihn: Kluwer Law International, 2006), p. 16 (n. 17).

23. 23.

    The U.S. categorized her interest in levels of “vital,” “important,” and “humanitarian and other”. SeeA National Security Strategy for a New Century (Washington, DC: The White House, December 1999), pp. 1–2. Other documents defined the hierarchies of interest in different ways, such as “vital, extremely important, important, and less important or secondary”, The Commission on America’s National Interests,America’s National Interests (Washington, DC: July 2000), pp. 5–8; “survival, critical, and significant”, see The U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century,Seeking a National Strategy: A Concert for Preserving Security and Promoting Freedom (Washington, DC: April 15, 2000), pp. 7–8. Further discussions, see Michele A Flournoy (ed.),QDR 2001: Strategy-Driven Choices for America's Security (Washington DC: National Defense University Press, 2001), pp. 10, 23.

24. 24.

    Timothy P. Olwell made a pyramid illustrating the need of state in the following way: (1) Security and peace as a state’s first and most critical concerns, mean to guarantee the borders and existence of the government. (2) Prosperity or quality of life/standard of living, including economic development, education, infrastructure, trade agreements, standard of living, and health care. These may enhance internal security by meeting expectation. (3) Ideological goals including universal suffrage, equal access for the handicapped, and civil rights. They provide a cognitive structure, a prescription for collective actions and judgments, as well as a sense of purpose and commitment to action. They also provide an aid in conflict management, and to self-identification. (4) Leadership, either global or regional. (5) Human sovereignty, or other terms for human rights such as inalienable rights, natural rights, as the supra national interest of states to address and protect all the people for their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Timothy P. Olwell,Foreign Policy and a State's Hierarchy of Needs: DoD and the New Security Strategy (Research report of Air War College, Air University, 1995), pp. 3–10. I partly agree with his idea but take the view that: (1) Survival of a state may be separated from security. A civil war may occur in a state but not endangering the existence of a state. (2) Not all states need to be leader, but all states need participation in international affairs at an upper level.

25. 25.

    Hans Morgenthau,The Impasse of American Foreign Policy (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 191.

26. 26.

    Stephen D. Krasner,Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investments and U.S. Foreign Policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978), p. 341.

27. 27.

    Leon Lipson, “Peaceful Coexistence”, 29Law and Contemporary Problems 871 (1964).

Authors and Affiliations

1. Research Center of Legal Theory, School of Law, Collaborative Innovation Center of Judicial Civilization, Jilin University, Changchun, China

   Zhipeng He

2. Jilin Academy of Social Sciences, Changchun, China

   Lu Sun

Corresponding author

Correspondence toZhipeng He.

Reprints and permissions

© 2020 Law Press China and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

Policies and ethics