During the last quarter-century, globalisation processes affected changes in the world economy in the form of intensifying competition in the international and internal markets. The result is the creation of a global marketplace that is mostly indifferent to national borders and governmental influences. This development has generated widespread interest in competitiveness. Competitiveness affects international relations, especially nowadays, given the changing position of the global leaders and the growth of new economic powers such as China. China has come a long way and has the opportunity to be a global leader in several required fields that will be the cornerstones of global growth in the next decades. Led by China, emerging economies are increasing their share in the worldwide economy and intensifying competition in nearly all sectors. It creates new threats and challenges for players in the global economy, and growing competitiveness must be efficient. The article evaluates the Chinese competitiveness in comparison with the World Trade Organization members by the Data Envelopment Analysis in the pre-in-post crisis period and considering the Fourth Industrial Revolution shifting humanity into a new phase.

In order to facilitate its Belt and Road Initiative, China has issued dozens of policy documents and detailed guidelines, improved its legal and supervisory systems, and taken full advantage of all existing cooperation mechanisms at the bilateral, regional, sub-regional and multilateral levels. The current cooperation mechanism is characterized by non-systemicity, which makes it dependent upon other existing regional cooperation mechanisms. In fact, it has no uniform institutional structure, nor any dispute settlement mechanism. Although this non-systematic approach is based in China’s successful experience in opening up to outside influence and in the flexibility that enabled its rise to global prominence, this very flexibility also poses challenges to the implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative by leaving it open to conflict with existing regional cooperation mechanisms. Therefore, to ensure the success of the Belt and Road Initiative, China should undertake a systematic plan for implementation by establishing a comprehensive legal framework; streamlining paths to economic cooperation; and institutionalizing the cooperation mechanism with a formal dispute settlement mechanism at its core.

Chinese courts’ attitudes toward domestic surrogacy have appeared to soften and are inclined to protect the best interests of children and the legal rights of intended parents. However, many problems remain unsolved in transnational surrogacy cases, including the validity of a contract, parentage or guardianship determination, citizen conferral, and household registration. In this article, transnational surrogacy is analyzed from the perspective of private international law, particularly jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition of foreign judgment on parental relationships and foreign public documents. In addition, some specific cases, such as transnational surrogacy for same-sex partners and transnational surrogacy without the consent of intended parents, are discussed and analyzed in detail.

With the growing concern of the international community about the negative spillover effects of SOEs on trade, reaching a consensus among different stakeholders has become increasingly urgent. This paper argues that strengthening a redefined competition policy is a feasible alternative, or at least a complementary option to the existing trade framework. The reasons are as follows: (a) surrounding SOEs is not only trade-related, but also competition-related; (b) the existing SOE disciplines have defects when it comes to dealing with competition distortion effects; and (c) characteristics of competition policy make it easier to reach a “maximum common divisor” among all parties. Accordingly, competition policy needs to be redefined and pursued from an international and domestic level. It is necessary to strengthen the fundamental position of competition policy in China by integrating it into SOE reform measures, advancing the implementation of the Fair Competition Review System, and promoting the construction of the competitive neutrality system.

Before the Republican era, the Qing dynasty had taken on initiatives to interact with the international governmental system imposed by Europeans. In particular, at the 1907 Hague Peace Conference, Chinese diplomats took on singular approaches to defend China’s interests within the international legal framework of the time. Their actions demonstrate increased understanding of the Western international legal understanding, as well as clarity over the limits to the integration to the “civilised class of nations.” Chinese diplomats’ interactions demonstrate the hybrid intellectual space, which was emerging, integrating traditional Chinese understanding of its cosmology with European-inherited concepts of universality and civilisation. Their actions also demonstrate the country’s volition to engage and interact with a non-Chinese universal system, as opposed to their more passive participation at the 1899 Hague Conference. As such, the Qing had already laid the foundations for a modern dialogue between the West and the Chinese in international diplomacy, prior to the Versailles Treaty in 1919.

Since its accession to the WTO in 2001, China has been involved in 21 cases as complainant, 44 as respondent, and 179 as a third party. However, China-related cases have not overburdened the WTO dispute settlement system. Instead, China has assisted in the development of international trade law through the creative interpretations of different provisions achieved in the WTO dispute settlement proceedings. This article seeks to provide an overview of China’s participation in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism and contribution to the rules over the past decade. In doing so, the article not only highlights the jurisprudential and doctrinal contributions of some of the critical disputes, but also examines the role of various interest groups and stakeholders in shaping China’s dispute settlement activity. Overall, the article provides an overview of China’s WTO dispute settlement activities and its role in assisting the development of international trade law.

The recent fentanyl dispute between China and the US adds the academic value to the efforts to examine the respective legal regime of public international law and the WTO law on narcotics trafficking. On the one hand, public international law offers a comprehensive framework to address narcotics trafficking but as demonstrated by Chinese proofs, its function is undermined by weak enforcement. On the other hand, there exist some useful mechanisms in the WTO law to combat narcotics trafficking but their weaknesses can also be easily spotted. More importantly, the alarm of the global threat of illicit trade is ringing, which requires our raising awareness to it. Recently, the UNCTAD and the OECD have already taken the initiative to discuss the collective actions, by means of conferences or reports, to deal with illicit trade. In the long run, it will be indispensable to establish an operational governance framework on the international level to effectively curb illicit trade.

Donald Trump’s methods of operating and conducting national security and foreign policy are exactly the same as they would be if he was engaged in real estate transactions and deals. To Donald Trump, trade policy, foreign policy, and national security policy are transactions and zero-sum games. My thesis is straightforward: One can draw a straight line from Donald Trump’s ruthless mode of operating in the contentious world of New York real estate to his operations on the world stage today. From Queens to the world stage, there is a straight line from using threats and litigation to avoid commercial and contractual obligations to using threats and litigation in conducting the US foreign and trade policy. Especially as to policies pertaining to the World Trade Organization and the US–China trade relations. His weaponization of tariffs and economic sanctions is now being wielded as a principal tool of the US foreign policy for the first time since the early 1930s.