This article reviews the US Supreme Court cases regarding detention of alleged terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and examines the interplay between international human rights law and the American Constitution with respect to the executive policies of the Bush Administration to detain terror suspects. The article first references the international human rights legal framework regarding detainees, specifically the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and then analyzes seminal cases brought before the Supreme Court by detainees, specifically how the Supreme Court interprets the US Constitution and international law in reaching its decisions regarding detainees at Guantanamo. While the Supreme Court provided detainees the right to challenge the legality of their detentions through habeas corpus petitions, limitations still exist as to the lack of extraterritorial application of rights protections as well as the domestic judicial failure to redress detainees’ subjection to torture and other abusive treatment.
‘Chinese threat’ is highly controversial in international academia. This article attempts to expose the China threat and provide a comprehensive analysis as to the extent of the so - called threat. The essence of the ‘Chinese threat’ is based on misunderstandings concerning Chinese culture, on ill - reasoned historical experiences of rising powers and conflict, on the great gap between Christian and Chinese culture, and on the inherent nature of expansiveness of the former. In contrast, the Bush Doctrine (including the preemptive strike theory) poses an actual threat to China, as does the US protection of Japan unconditioned on Japanese admission and repentance for heinous war crimes committed during World War II. Treating China as an equal is the best policy that could be employed by the West. China’s unification and domestic stability would greatly contribute to world peace, while supporting the China threat ideology would have the opposite effect.
There are calls for biofuel imports from developing countries to be restricted. The imports which are either in the form of end-product (bioethanol or biodiesel) or feedstock (oil palm, sugar cane molasses, etc) are allegedly produced in ways which can threaten the environment and violate human rights. This article finds that there is no specific regime for trade in biofuels within the WTO system. Hence any restriction on such trade is governed by the existing trade regimes including tariffs and nontariff measures. However, the existing WTO tariff and non-tariff (TBT, anti-dumping and anti-subsidy) regimes are still inadequate in ensuring that measures are taken against biofuel feedstock and products that were produced in unsustainable ways. The use of these measures without being subject to clear defining rules will create a danger that they serve a protectionist rather than social or environmental objectives.
This paper critically examines the normal value determination of NME and its implications for the purpose of contributing to Doha antidumping reform deliberation. From domestic to international arenas, antidumping development sees the significant growth of government paternalistic discretion turning antidumping into a distributive instrument challenging constitutionalism. Deeply rooted in the ideological divide of the 1950s, NME methodology’s obsession with national divide turns free trade from traders’ commutative exchange to nations’ distributive predation. NME distributive discretion, though against the free market principle, is ironically used to accuse foreign economies of not being free-market enough. When products and producers are given certain status via nationality instead of treated individually, antidumping development has been a process “from Status to Contract” and back. Therefore, it is time to de-legitimize the NME methodology, and the success of antidumping reform lies in limiting rather than deferring to governments’ paternalistic discretion, thus strengthening the international rule of law in the context of WTO.
Although relationships among the former belligerent parties of the Korean War have changed drastically over the decades, the parties still remain under the armistice system because the Korean War is not over legally. The primary purpose of this research is to analyze questions related to the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army in the Korean War from an international legal perspective. As a new topic, this is intended to be a precautionary examination of an issue that could haunt the eventual process of peacemaking on the Korean peninsula. The main text of this article consists of three parts. The first examines whether the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army’s entering the Yalu River was self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. The second part covers various legal questions relating to armed hostilities in the Korean War under international law. The third part discusses the legal questions around an armistice negotiation.
The Syrian conflict consists of political and legal components that can be managed under the UN Charter by both political and legal measures. As a result of Russian and Chinese vetoes, the UN Security Council has failed to resolve the conflict by forcible measures, although the Council was able to convene the Geneva II peace talks between the Syrian government and the Syrian opposition on January 24, 2014. The legal aspect of this conflict has been referred to in numerous reports from UN bodies that have emphasized that war crimes have been committed by the Syrian government. Thus, we believe that the UNSC has an obligation to submit this case to a court with appropriate international jurisdiction for its legal resolution. This legal solution should be part of a compromise that satisfies Russia and China pursuant to a Security Council resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter that accompanies the peace talks.
This paper provides detailed analysis of the so-called ‘Rusk Letter’ which has been generally referred to as an evidence of Japan’s territorial claim to Dokdo island. The Rusk Letter is a diplomatic epistle which was drafted by Dean Rusk, the US Assistant Secretary of State and sent to the Korean Embassy in the US on August 10, 1951. This letter considers Dokdo as Japan’s territory. However, the Rusk Letter has been legally and historically criticized from mainly two aspects. First, the Rusk Letter referred to the ownership of Dokdo only considering the Japanese position which was not true. Second, this letter was a confidential and unofficial document which was sent only to Korea; Japan and even the US Embassy to Korea did not know the Rusk Letter. It did not influence on the decision of Peace Treaty. Therefore, the Rusk Letter cannot be a critical evidence of Japan’s territorial claim over Dokdo.
During the past few years, the Bank of Japan has injected billions of yen into the economy and pursued a monetary easing policy. Japan has plausible arguments, namely that its current policies are needed to support the growth of the economy and to spur inflation. However, these measures result in a weakened yen and increase trade imbalances between Japan and other Asian countries, particularly China. This article argues that Japan’s practice is rooted in protectionism and examines such actions under the IMF Agreement and the WTO system. It is suggested that the Chinese government should adopt diplomatic and judicial approaches to urge Japan to return to normal monetary policies.
In response to the 2008 global financial crisis, many of the world’s largest central banks initiated unconventional monetary policies such as quantitative easing when standard open market operations became ineffective. The Bank of Japan, the US Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and the European Community Bank were among those that aggressively increased their respective monetary bases to purchase specified financial assets from commercial banks and financial institutions in order to lower interest rates interest rates for specific debt securities and stimulate their economies. Japan, which has long suffered from years of debilitating deflationary cycles, has targeted and committed to open-ended purchases until a stable two percent rate of consumer price inflation is achieved. Several of Japan’s chief exporting rivals, in particular China, have publicly criticized the Bank of Japan for using its current monetary policy to intentionally devalue its currency and thereby benefit from an unfair trade practice. This criticism is unwarranted and Japan’s policy complies with international law.
Over the last decade, 350,000 people have moved from Mongolia’s countryside to the suburbs of its capital, Ulaanbaatar, where they live in abject poverty despite the rapid economic development of the country. This article proposes three complementary international legal analyses of this internal migration. First, because this migration is partly and indirectly induced by the adverse impacts of climate change, States have a common but differentiated responsibility to assist the Mongolian government to address climate migration. Second, Mongolia should bear its own responsibilities to take steps to realize the social and economic rights of its population without discrimination. Third, Mongolia’s commercial partners should be warned against any control or influence that would cause harm to Mongolia, in application to public international law on State responsibility and to States’ extraterritorial human rights obligations. While each narrative reveals an important dimension of a complex phenomenon, this article argues that all policy levers must urgently be pulled to guarantee the rights of Mongolia’s internal migrants.