The interaction between might and right is an important topic throughout the development of international relations. Various ideologies and corresponding practices have been put forward by realism, liberalism, constructivism, and international socialism under both Western international relations theories and China’s traditional Wang Dao (王道, “the kingly way” or “benevolent government”), and Ba Dao (霸道, “the hegemonic way” or “rule by force”). In international relations, the rule of law - a phenomenon that has emerged and is continuously developing - is conducive to restraining power politics and promoting right, which is one of the goals of international relations development. China has always opposed hegemony and power politics; it firmly supports a modern system of international law based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and aims to build a new international political and economic order with peace, justice, and stability.

From the perspective of ‘Archangelos Gabriel’ salvage case, this article probes into the application of party autonomy by Chinese courts in cases with foreign elements. The case, finally decided by the SPC, shows many judicial innovations and draw great concerns in both the Chinese judicial community and academia. However, it also shows a common judicial phenomenon that the improper timing of choice by parties and wrong choice-of-law rule invoked by the courts lead to the uncertainty of the applicable law and the judges could not deal with the implied choice cases properly. This gives rise to an urgent choice-of-law problem that the principle of party autonomy just empowers parties to choose the state of applicable law but not a particular law of a state. It is inconsistent with the nature of party autonomy and may further turn the party autonomy to a rule with the same nature of “choice of jurisdiction.”