The calls for reform of investment treaty regime are neither novel nor entirely unexpected. And the need for that reform has recently reached its pitiful nadir where the UNCITRAL Working Group III gathered for its first meeting in Vienna back in November-December 2017 to discuss states’ concerns about investor-state dispute settlement. States’ concerns about the reform have been repeatedly referred to in recent publications, but international scholars have not yet discussed Russia's stance in detail. In the following an attempt has been made to fill the gap in literature by introducing the Russian position which contrasts nicely with Canada or the EU. Why is this important? Russia is a significant state in the UNCITRAL Working Group III and any slight shifts in its approach in the UNCITRAL reforms are closely watched. It is the right time to provide an analytical framework for understanding the Russian position in these reform dynamics.

This article focuses on China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as a potential cause of trade, investment, financial, maritime, energy trade and intellectual property disputes. In so doing this contribution discusses the increasing “systemic rivalry” among authoritarian, neoliberal and ordo-liberal conceptions of international economic law and the resulting legal problems in the settlement of BRI disputes inside the EU countries, whose courts may not recognize arbitration awards by Chinese arbitration institutions and may hold Chinese investors accountable for disregard for human and labor rights in their BRI investment inside the EU countries.

The extension of MFN clauses to dispute settlement under BITs is one of the most controversial areas in investment treaty law. Currently, the area is divided into two streams of case law. The award in Tze Yap Shum v Peru and other recent Chinese investment arbitral awards did not side the Maffezini stream. The question on which stream works the best for China is complicated and essentially a balancing exercise. This article examines the question from a Chinese perspective and adopts the analytical framework of the New Haven School. It identifies the issue of comparability of more preferential treatment as the key criterion in determining the question. It reviews the previous case law and assesses the economic, social and cultural factors shaping the Chinese investment policy. From there, the article seeks to discover if the current law helps fulfil China’s policy goals and proposes recommendations accordingly.

This article explores the territorial extension of the EU environmental law and how the EU uses its market powers to become global regulatory initiatives in the context of environmental protection. The legitimacy and practical influence of the global reach of the EU environmental law is first to be discussed. Taiwan, as a significant trade partner to the EU and also a critical exporting-oriented industrial entity in the world, has been heavily influenced by the EU environmental law development for the sake of gaining market access to the EU. In this regard, this article provides an overview of the EU environmental law. This article will provide a case study on the territorial effects of the EU environmental law on Taiwan and the responsive actions taken by the government and industries in Taiwan. This article recognizes the importance of the EU to achieve legitimate global values in the context of global environmental protection.

The article provides a general description of liability for administrative offenses under the PRC legislation. It considers general principles of responsibility for administrative offenses, the system of bodies that impose administrative penalties, the system of administrative penalties and the procedures for imposing them. The authors determine how well it is possible to strike a balance between public and private interests in the legislation on administrative penalties. “Legality” is declared as a basic principle of administrative liability in the PRC. In this article, the authors have concluded that the principle of legality has a rather specific content. Administrative offenses and penalties are not codified in China but are dispersed in a significant amount of laws and regulations. This approach ensures the existence of a fairly dynamic system of administrative measures which guarantee a proper order in the rapidly developing Chinese economy. At the same time, this approach carries a risk of abuse of power by public bodies and excessive state intervention in the life of individuals.

The rule of law principle has been established in modern society as a core value in domestic political governance. It evolves from social contract theory and is meant to rein in the almighty and powers from its beginning and later applies to all. In general, international law has become an essential pillar of the present international order. The recent rise of unilateral actions has posed threat to the international rule of law tradition. Equality in international relations, Pacta Sunt Servanda, and good faith implementation of treaty obligations are the essentials of the international rule of law, which provides predictability and stability to the stake holders in the international community. It also represents the fundamental common values of thousands of years of human civilization. Upholding the principle of international rule of law goes to the fundamentals and natures of human beings. Thus, maintaining international rule of law is a guarantee for a better world for all.

In this essay, the author will discuss recent United States Supreme Court cases as well as international trade cases decided this year by the specialized international trade courts in the United States. Let me then discuss recent U.S. trade action concerning China and put this in the context of President Trump’s generalized approach to China and international trade. This article will conclude with a few observations pertaining to the upcoming presidential election in the United States. The. Supreme Court recently ruled on two highly politicized and historic cases on executive power. What has been almost totally overlooked is an international trade decision by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of International Trade. That case and earlier trade cases indicate the start of a multifaceted attempt to restrict the president’s trade policies. Either the 2020 presidential election will put a stop to President Trump’s reliance on national security to establish disastrous trade policies, or the country will be in this mess for years to come.