Countries always act in what they perceive to be their best interests.
Ergo, there will always be tension over rules that further those interests and rules that act counter to them.
Pharma patents have historically been a major example. Disempowering smaller countries in their negotiations with pharmaceutical companies (via mandatory IP enforcement) tilts the playing field in favor of corporations headquartered in first world countries.
So, even in the most lawful of times (2000s?), it's a constantly shifting landscape.
While China may have ignored more rules than most, the existing rules certainly didn't favor them, and they believed they had the power to ignore them.
We'll see where that ends up.
Yet all of this seems completely unknown in the West, outside of the legal/business community that actually engages with the Chinese IP system. The same comments about there being no IP enforcement in China are made over and over again, completely disregarding the massive changes that have occurred.
Imaginary property only worked when all jurisdictions agreed to follow the same rules, and could enforce these rules onto individual actors. Obviously China isn't playing by these rules and has no desire to play by these rules, regardless of any lip service paid. So we can either adjust our own philosophies to better match how the real world operates. Or we can continue trying to force our rules on everyone else, which will end catastrophically when reality finally does catch up.