{"title":"从《福国京平》到《福国强兵》:中国与日本帝国的比较分析","authors":"David K. C. Huang, Nigel N. T. Li","doi":"10.1080/2049677X.2020.1768238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Japan’s Meiji Restoration was a modernisation reform Imperial China aimed to transplant. However, China failed in applying Japan’s (Meiji) constitutionalism of Fukoku Kyohei and the institution thereof. This article examines the then social-political grounds of both China and Japan through a comparative approach to explore why China floundered whilst Japan succeeded from the perspective of institutes of constitution. The conclusion of this article is that the differences between China and Japan were underestimated, that the Imperial Court of China neglected the difficulties of the transplantation because they saw only the fruits of Fukoku Kyohei (Fu-Guo-Qiang-Bing).","PeriodicalId":53815,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Legal History","volume":"8 1","pages":"27 - 51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2049677X.2020.1768238","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From Fukoku Kyohei to Fu-Guo-Qiang-Bing: a comparative analysis of Imperial China and Japan\",\"authors\":\"David K. C. Huang, Nigel N. T. Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/2049677X.2020.1768238\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Japan’s Meiji Restoration was a modernisation reform Imperial China aimed to transplant. However, China failed in applying Japan’s (Meiji) constitutionalism of Fukoku Kyohei and the institution thereof. This article examines the then social-political grounds of both China and Japan through a comparative approach to explore why China floundered whilst Japan succeeded from the perspective of institutes of constitution. The conclusion of this article is that the differences between China and Japan were underestimated, that the Imperial Court of China neglected the difficulties of the transplantation because they saw only the fruits of Fukoku Kyohei (Fu-Guo-Qiang-Bing).\",\"PeriodicalId\":53815,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comparative Legal History\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"27 - 51\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2049677X.2020.1768238\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comparative Legal History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/2049677X.2020.1768238\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Legal History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2049677X.2020.1768238","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
From Fukoku Kyohei to Fu-Guo-Qiang-Bing: a comparative analysis of Imperial China and Japan
Japan’s Meiji Restoration was a modernisation reform Imperial China aimed to transplant. However, China failed in applying Japan’s (Meiji) constitutionalism of Fukoku Kyohei and the institution thereof. This article examines the then social-political grounds of both China and Japan through a comparative approach to explore why China floundered whilst Japan succeeded from the perspective of institutes of constitution. The conclusion of this article is that the differences between China and Japan were underestimated, that the Imperial Court of China neglected the difficulties of the transplantation because they saw only the fruits of Fukoku Kyohei (Fu-Guo-Qiang-Bing).
期刊介绍:
Comparative Legal History is an international and comparative review of law and history. Articles will explore both ''internal'' legal history (doctrinal and disciplinary developments in the law) and ''external'' legal history (legal ideas and institutions in wider contexts). Rooted in the complexity of the various Western legal traditions worldwide, the journal will also investigate other laws and customs from around the globe. Comparisons may be either temporal or geographical and both legal and other law-like normative traditions will be considered. Scholarship on comparative and trans-national historiography, including trans-disciplinary approaches, is particularly welcome.