Abstract: In “The Notion and Self Empowerment of the State in Ancient China”, LI Lei states that it is necessary to make a distinction among the significance of the “state” endowed by researchers, the self statement of the ancient state and the actual structure of the state. The notion of the state in the Western political context cannot express the self statement of the ancient Chinese state, which has had profound impact on the construction of China and its dynamic change. The “politics” of the “state” in ancient China need be justified with the notion of tianxia. In “The Entanglement of Cultivating tianxia and Competing in the World: An Element of Intellectuals’ Cognition of the State in the Transitional Age”, QU Jun argues that in regards to the intellectuals’ cognition of the state in the transitional age (1895-1925), the academic circle is mainly concerned about “how tianxia shrank into a state”; however, if probe into the intellectuals’ understanding, we will more easily find a process transforming from tianxia to the “world”. Therefore, this provides another dimension to examine how the intellectuals molded China with the discovery of the “world” and how cultivating tianxia and competing in the world entangled with each other. In “The ‘State’ in German History”, MENG Zhong-jie argues that Germany is one of few countries that embrace all types of state. By discussing this, we can understand: What are the self proofs of the power in the formation of different types of state? How does each of them construct an effective governance structure? What is the motivation for the state transformation? The combination of these three questions leads to reflection on how the legitimacy of the “state” formed. In “Historical Resources and Legitimacy Construction”, QIU Li-bo states that the transcendence of Chinese history and the historical types of state in China can hardly be realized within China’s historical state, or by simply adding up Chinese historical and political resources. In other words, the transcendence of China’s historical state can hardly be realized in the way of looking back at history. Instead, it should be realized by looking into the future. We should let the future emancipate the past rather than let the past enclose the future. In “Towards a Rational State: On KONG Fei-li’s View on the State”, LIU Yong-hua states that KONG Fei-li concludes that China’s national construction shall be founded on rather China’s own conditions than others. The key to understand this conclusion lies in the fact that people are capable and wise enough to realize the “fundamental task” that they should accomplish. What we should do is to let people participate in politics and political competition. Through the free participation in politics, people will reach common views on the basic principles that we should hold in the political system in public domain. These common views are stable and constitute “an invisible constitution”. In “The National Situations in American Politics”, WANG Xiang-min claims that the notion of state refers to many forms and meanings from the perspective of different stages in American politics. Therefore, methodologically speaking, we must take the particular historical context and theoretical direction into account in using the notions such as state, civil society and benign governance. In “The State and Tianxia: How a Political Organization above the State Is Possible?”, MOU Fa-Song discusses the relationship between tianxia and the state, which seem to be separated from each other at the first glance. If there is or there will be a political organization above the state, it must emerge in a contradictory and dialectical process. On the one hand, there is the integration process of the world; on the other hand, there is a tendency of separation, polarization and even violent division. These two trends existed in China’s history and exist in her reality. In terms of Chinese history, at least before the Song Dynasty, tianxia had been a big state. Only in the Song Dynasty, the demonstration of the legitimacy of the state became especially necessary. After the Song Dynasty, whenever a political entity as a state appears in China, it has to prove its legitimacy or the rationality of its existence. In “The State and Authority”, LIU Qing points out that the notion of the “state” is varied and complicated. It has three important correlative dimensions, that is, the origin of legitimacy, the governance capacity, and transformation ability. The legitimacy in ancient time is founded on authority rather than rational argumentations. Nevertheless, with the decline of hereditary authority, it is hard for us to imagine a modern Chinese or Western state of paternity In “The State Identity and Family-State-Tianxia”, XU Ji-lin argues that in the ancient Chinese notion of “family-state-tianxia”, tianxia represents universal civilization. As the soul, civilization needs a structural body, that is, “state”. The “state” is “China” as a political entity, which overlaps “China” as a civilization entity. However, “China” as a political entity in this sense is not a modern nation-state with its definite sovereignty, territory and people; instead, it is comprised of successive dynasties featured by disruption and unification from time to time. The identity of abstract “China” in ancient China was manifested through the identity of some orthodox dynasties that represented “China” concretely. The nation identity in modern sense is the identity of Chinese nation. Chinese nation is an imaginary “empty body of nation” that has been constructed since the late Qing Dynasty rather than a “national entity” with empirical evidences and self-consciousness. Although Chinese nation regards Huaxia-Han people as its main body, Huaxia-Han people is not equal to Chinese nation.

Key words: ancient state, family-state-tianxia, the notion of the state, transitional age, cognition of the state, historical resources, legitimacy construction, China&rsquo, s national construction