In their recent article titled Pluralism or Cosmopolitanism? Reflections on Petersmann’s International Economic Law Constitutionalism in the Context of China, Tao Li and Zuoli Jiang have criticized the alleged ‘paradox’ that my publications “stress ‘legal pluralism’ on the one hand, while calling for a cosmopolitan conception of IEL on the other hand.” This short comment aims not only at clarifying conceptual misunderstandings due to our different “constitutional law perspectives,” but also explaining why China should embrace a ‘dialogical’ rather than “exclusive legal perspectivism” by continuing to implement its international legal obligations (e.g., under the UN/WTO law) in good faith and assuming more leadership for the global public good of the rules-based world trading system, with due respect for its underlying ‘legal pluralism’ and often indeterminate ‘basic principles.’ My Chinese critics’ emphasis on the reality of authoritarian Chinese “top-down conceptions” of law and governance neglects China’s obligations under international law and China’s compliance with the WTO, investment and commercial adjudication.