At the turn of the 20th century, the Russian Empire was one of the leading proponents of the development of the international law of war, according to Peter Holquist, associate professor of history, University of Pennsylvania; founder and editor, Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History; and former Title VIII-supported research scholar, Kennan Institute. Speaking at a Kennan Institute seminar, Holquist presented what he saw as a conundrum: while Russia did not commit to the rule of law at home, it played a precocious role in pushing for the development of international law abroad. He then analyzed Russia's participation in the suppression of the Boxer rebellion in China in 1900–01, comparing it with the actions of other occupying powers, and with Russia's position on international law.

Holquist first presented an overview of the development of international law from 1864 to 1915, focusing on the development of the laws of war. Since the 1864 convention in Geneva, several international conferences took place with the active participation of Russia, including four that were held on Russia's initiative. He argued that the two most common explanations for this—that Russia wanted to relieve its treasury of the pressures of an arms race, and that the peace ideals of Tsar Nicholas II inclined Russia toward active participation in these conferences—are insufficient to explain this long-term program.

During the Boxer rebellion, which developed as a Chinese popular uprising against the presence of Christian missionaries and foreign influence in Chinese affairs, Russia occupied the northern part of China with a force of approximately 200,000 troops. This force was 10 times larger than any other European occupying army, Holquist noted. This rebellion occurred less than a year after the closing of the Hague conference. The Russian army was under specific orders not to live off the land through requisitions, and only to use force when necessary. The Russian Foreign Ministry issued an explicit order declaring that it was not Russia's aim to annex Chinese territory or profit financially from its occupation, Holquist explained. According to the government, Russia was simply in China to defend the legitimate government against rebels. The Russian occupation regime stood in especially stark contrast to the German occupation policies, which were especially brutal, he said.

One explanation for Russia's unusual position on international law was that Russia was concerned about its perception by Western powers, and Russian elites thought they could bind the European powers to an agreement on liberal rules of war, according to Holquist. He also suggested that Russia's behavior in China could be explained by its historical tradition of treating non-European countries as protégés. The example of Russia's participation in the conferences on human rights, and its actions during the Boxer rebellion are part of a larger story about the development of the concepts of the rules of war, he concluded.