The Chinese employment-stream migration law regime recently underwent fundamental reformation. The introduction of a unified work permit for foreign nationals issued by the local bureaus of the State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs constitutes a significant institutional and procedural change that trims procedures and clarifies competences. Further, the new classification scheme divides foreign nationals into three categories according to their academic qualifications, professional experience, and income, and is supplemented by a points system. The main objective of the scheme is to establish a modern migration law and policy system that will attract highly skilled global talent. Applying a doctrinal approach, this study analyzes the most recent policies and legal reform measures pertaining to the employment-related migration system. It discusses changes to that system against the backdrop of other factors affecting the legal status of foreign nationals in China such as the resident permit system, naturalization, labor standards, social insurance, legal remedies, the legalization of illegal labor migration, and the legal framework for integrating foreign employees into society.

Genetically modified food gave rise to several controversies since it came into being. The clash of international GMF legislation is rooted in the divergence of the EU and the US legislation, which leads to the divergence of the WTO and Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and indirectly influences the legislative choice of developing countries. Like other developing countries, China also faces lots of challenges including lag in genetically modified organism technology, disadvantage caused by invisible private standard, technical control of GMO companies in developed countries and low level of involvement of the public. In recent years, China adopts its own policy on GMO by developing GM technology cautiously. The legislative situation in China fall far behind domestic research and commercial production necessity. China has revised several existing legislations. Although there is far from perfect, it makes great progress. In the future, China is expected to be more active, positive and open towards GMO.

The US has invoked Article XXI of the GATT 1994 to justify its tariff measures on imports of steel and aluminum. However, the US’ tariff measures are not imposed for the protection of the US “essential security interests” but for economic and trade reasons. They do not satisfy the conditions listed under Article XXI (b) (i) to (iii) and should not be justified by them. They should not be considered as either national security measures or safeguard measures, but as ordinary trade restriction measures that are inconsistent with the WTO rules and the US obligations. A panel or the Appellate Body not only has the jurisdiction to review this dispute, but is also capable of making findings and providing a recommendation. Even if the US has the discretion to impose tariff measures under Article XXI (b), whether it has been acted in good faith, is still subject to the WTO review. As regards the tariff measures, the US has not acted in good faith.

From the perspective of ‘Archangelos Gabriel’ salvage case, this article probes into the application of party autonomy by Chinese courts in cases with foreign elements. The case, finally decided by the SPC, shows many judicial innovations and draw great concerns in both the Chinese judicial community and academia. However, it also shows a common judicial phenomenon that the improper timing of choice by parties and wrong choice-of-law rule invoked by the courts lead to the uncertainty of the applicable law and the judges could not deal with the implied choice cases properly. This gives rise to an urgent choice-of-law problem that the principle of party autonomy just empowers parties to choose the state of applicable law but not a particular law of a state. It is inconsistent with the nature of party autonomy and may further turn the party autonomy to a rule with the same nature of “choice of jurisdiction.”

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.

In recent years, the Chinese government has been investing an enormous amount of money in infrastructure development across many of the island states in the area of the South Pacific. This essay will review such investments in Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Timor, Samoa, and Vanuatu and further analyze the underlying rationale. China seems to be interested in developing tourism in these islands, as well as building a close relationship with them in a geopolitical viewpoint. These cover the areas of agriculture, fishing, infrastructure, roads, bridges, ports, airports, highways, agricultural technologies, hydropower, stations, and sewage pipelines. Chinese overseas investments is more likely to be accelerated in this region.

With President Trump’s recent imposition of USD 34 billion in new tariffs on imports from China and China’s prompt retaliation, the US is now in its biggest trade war with China and other countries since the 1930s. President Trump’s policies focusing on threats, trade deficits and bilateral trade, as well as the movement away from the postwar international system, have been historical aberrations since 1945. The US trade diplomacy ought to concentrate on building coalitions and viable proposals for addressing trade issues, including those concerning the World Trade Organization rule-making and dispute resolution. This would help to ensure a rules-based trading system.