The judicial protection of IP is the most important and fundamental guarantee for the protection of IP in China. The judicial protection system of IP in China has experienced the development procedure of setting up a special pilot tribunal, "three-hearing-in-one" and a special court. The establishment and operation of IP courts in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou marks the establishment of the new hearing system for IP dispute in China. The founding and operation of IP courts have an in-depth background. With the rapid development of the economy in China, especially since the entrance of the WTO, there have been more IP cases and they constitute huge challenges for adjudication of IP disputes in China. In this regard, the IP courts is a good way to cope with. The establishment of IP courts will undoubtedly has deeper influence and significance in the judicial

China’s sole nationality principle was formulated at the beginning of the People’s Republic of China. However, it was not officially adopted as a legal standard until 1980 when New China promulgated its first nationality act. Sole nationality, initiated as an expedient for foreign policy, was originally designed to help with neighbourliness. However, not only did it fail to achieve this goal, but it even resulted in more domestic institutional discrimination among Chinese people. Nowadays, in such a globalization and ‘humanrightization’ era, international law and domestic nationality laws in most countries throughout the world recognize an individual’s right to a nationality, and accept dual nationality so as to facilitate migrants’ returning to their homelands and help them reintegrate into local communities. Contemporary theory and practice of international law support the legitimacy of dual nationality. Also, China has experience in dealing with dual nationality. It would therefore be legitimate, beneficial and practical for China to restore dual nationality.

The current scale of the import trade of the US with China is significant and has the potential to be more in near future. However, patent-based disputes, especially in terms of Section 337 investigation, have also been increased in recent years. In the context of parallel development of national innovation strategies of China’s “Made in China 2025 Plan” and the American “Advanced Manufacturing Partnership,” along with the latest expanded “Information Technology Agreement” in the WTO trading system, the implications for optimally resolving patent-based disputes in the US import trade with China is highly significant for two countries. These disputes may even impact the world trade, since bilateral trade between China and the US accounts for a considerable proportion. Thus, both China and the US should take precautions and appropriate measures to guard against such potential frictions in order to attain mutually beneficial outcomes in resolving such disputes.

To promote global trade governance, both central and peripheral reforms occur in multilateral and regional trade agreements. The central reforms are suggested to enhance the WTO’s efficiency in trade negotiations by engaging in ‘mini-multilateral’ negotiations and soft law-making or to expand its current advantage in dispute settlement by extending its dispute jurisdiction to investor-state disputes or trade disputes arising from PTAs. The peripheral reforms develop in two different routes; one is rule-based and is carried out by high-standard PTAs, and the other is relation-based and is exemplified by “the Belt and Road” Initiative proposed by China. While peripheral reform fragments international law, various methods of multilateralizing regionalism are suggested, such as the incorporation of the third-party most-favoured-nation clause, the simplification of the rules of origin, and the construction of multilateral agreements through the ‘building blocs’ of PTAs. Most of these reforms make achievements to some extent, although they also have deficiencies.

The Protocol for China’s accession into the WTO stipulated certain differential treatment for China, including the determination of normal value in anti-dumping investigations for the transitional period of 15 years. This treatment was authorized by the Protocol in response to concerns raised by other WTO Members at the time of China’s entry into the WTO. Since the transitional period is over in November 2016, there is an argument supporting the grant of market economy status to China, although the Protocol does not require the automatic grant of market economy after the passage of the transitional period. However, China’s recent trade measures, which have been adopted to press another WTO Member to meet its political objective, raise a question as to whether China is indeed ready for market economy status. This article analyzes such case and offers a view on the grant of market economy status to China.

This article explores whether China is ready to comply with its international obligations to recognize and enforce investment arbitral awards, and if not, what remains to be done. First, for ICSID awards, China has neither enacted any implementing legislation, nor designated courts or authorities are competent at recognizing and enforcing ICSID awards. Second, it is more ambiguous and complicated to seek recognition and enforcement of non-ICSID awards, due to China’s commercial reservation to New York Convention. It is uncertain whether the current provisions in national law on the recognition and enforcement of foreign commercial arbitral awards would also apply to the recognition and enforcement of non-ICSID awards. Moreover, statutes on State immunity, the common issue while enforcing both ICSID and non-ICSID awards, are quite insufficient. Finally, beyond satisfying its international obligations, investment arbitral awards issued by Chinese arbitration institutions also face obstacles of recognition and enforcement.

Every year, China’s air quality is reaching hazardous level. Accordingly, China is adapting stringent environmental regulations under the new 13th Five Year Plan. The noticeable developments in the new air pollution regulations include: (1) mandatory air pollutant disclosure requirement; (2) shift towards non-compliance liability rule; and (3) increased penalty for transgression against wider range of industries. This paper first explains that these developments will induce American investments in China to carefully draft investment contracts, particularly confidentiality and limited liability clauses to minimize the risk of harsher penalties. The paper then argues that China’s stringent pollution regulations will not negatively affect American investment trend in China, mainly because most American investments already adhere to the OECD standard, and disclosing environmental information will enhance entity’s good reputation and attract investors.