The sudden escalation of the US-China trade war has negatively impacted global trade and the WTO, and its effects will last for a long time. This article centres on the US anti-dumping measures against Chinese exports within the trade war. The article attempts to explain the failure of the US trade policies in terms of anti-dumping measures; policies which were found to be inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA). Rather than complying with the Appellate Body Reports, the US insisted on using procedures inconsistent with the ADA, such as the zeroing methodology to overprotect the US industries. The US even blocked the appointment of Appellate Body Members and paralysed the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Mechanism. Apart from political and economic reasons, one of the underlying reasons for the US to trigger a trade war with China would be anti-dumping measures. Antidumping measures are designed to balance unfair pricing strategies; however, the US is misusing the measures in order to avoid a trade deficit with China.

When confronted with the host states’ increasing enthusiasm of invoking the corruption defense as an arbitral strategy to frustrate foreign investors’ claims, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunals encounter realistic difficulties in arbitration. The inherent insufficiency of anti-corruption investigative powers bestowed to ICSID tribunals highlights the importance of constructing a coordinative mechanism between the ICSID and any domestic enforcement authorities enlisted to repudiate corruption. The enacted International Criminal Judicial Assistance Law of the People’s Republic of China provides the domestic legal basis for establishing a coordinative international criminal judicial assistance mechanism between such international organizations as ICSID and China’s domestic anti-corruption enforcement authorities. Eventually, the proposed ICSID-China’s anti-corruption mechanism will help the global community fight against international investment corruption in a coordinated way, substantially enhancing any host state’s ability to confront the on-going difficulties also experienced by investment arbitral tribunals.

The Dispute Settlement Mechanism of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is facing serious crisis, which has impeded its normal function. To address this impasse, this article suggests a reform of the WTO’s dispute-settlement mechanism: the establishment of a new megamultilateral court to substitute for the Appellate Body. The first part of this paper addresses the reasons for considering this approach. The second part identifies how to establish a new mega-multilateral court within the WTO. The third part puts forward an idea of the function of the Dispute Settlement Body, which would serve as a forum for adjudicators and State Parties of the mega-multilateral court, in order to balance judicial independence, judicial accountability, and consistency. In discussing the reason for this reform, approaches to implementing it, and other examples of what form it might take, this article concludes that it is appropriate to establish a new mega-multilateral court within the WTO.

This study describes and analyses the recently adopted foreign investment law (the Law) of China. First, this paper presents reasons for the adoption of the Law. For example, we focus on the trade war between the US and China, which has greatly affected the adoption of the Law. The political background that influenced the adoption of the law is revealed. Of note, legal techniques used by the Chinese legislators in the Law are evaluated. For example, a list system for investment sectors is used, which divides all industries into categories with a special regime. This system divides all industries into four categories: (1) encouraged, (2) permitted, (3) restricted, and (4) prohibited. In conclusion, this study emphasizes that changes achieved by the Law are not revolutionary. Some of the consequences that the adoption of the law entails is analyzed. Thus, the Law represents a gradual evolution in how foreign investors access the Chinese economy.

The 2020 US Presidential election is now over. After listening to the essence of Mr. Biden’s inauguration speech, “America is Back!,” people around the world are cautiously expecting the revival of multilateralism. This research is to tackle a fundamental question of: “Is America Back to Multilateralism?,” by focusing on the US’s China trade policy under the Biden presidency. This essay consists of five parts including Introduction and Conclusion. Part two will review the development of postwar multilateralism which constructed the rulebased trade governance. Part three will analyze the challenge and crisis of contemporary multilateralism under former President Trump and the possibility of its resurrection under Biden administration. The author will review the origin and evolution of the US-China trade war. Part four will look into the possibility of reconstructing multilateral world for sustainable development. Part five will conclude the essay predicting the US’s China trade policy under the Biden administration.

There is no single approach in the world regarding the legal regulation of cryptocurrency. Most countries are wary of legalizing this payment instrument, fearing problems associated with tax evasion, terrorist financing, fraud and other illegal transactions. Nevertheless, the issue of legalization of cryptocurrencies has recently moved to a different level as the market capitalization of cryptocurrencies grew to over USD 237 billion 2020, with several leading cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin skyrocketing in value in 2021. The explosive growth has been lead in no small part by China, the world’s largest and most important market for cryptocurrency in terms of mining, investing and research. This article reviews the current trends in cryptocurrency regulation with a particular focus on China, including an analysis of current cryptocurrency laws in China, as well as the new Chinese Cryptography Law. Also, it explains recent developments in Chinese regulation and policy will continue to shape the development of the global cryptocurrency markets.

The primary purpose of this research is to propose the solution to the current crisis of the WTO dispute settlement system focusing on Article 25 of the WTO Agreement. The Dispute Settlement Understanding is one of the significant successes of the WTO. Recent years, however, have witnessed the difficulties and challenges facing the multilateral trading system along with rising anti-globalization and trade protectionism. The Appellate Body (AB) has been experiencing an unprecedented crisis of dysfunction mainly due to the US’s boycott of appointing the new members. The WTO Members, including China, have thus proposed various reforms in response to the crisis. However, they have not touched the core demands of the US. Because of the imminent crisis that the AB is about to stop operating, China should take urgent action with other WTO members, consider launching a majority voting program, design and use alternative appeal arbitration, and combine international rules with domestic deepening reforms.

Today, as fragmentation of international law has become a reality, the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO, being one the most essential adjudicatory bodies, has often been criticized for its overly-textualist approach to interpretation and use of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). This commentary analyses the decision rendered by the Dispute Settlement Body in the China-Rare Earths Case. It explains how the textualist reading given by the Appellate Body could not look into the corresponding GATT regulation, while interpreting the Accession Protocol of China. It argues that this erroneous decision is a result of the DSB’s reliance on textualism through the use of Article 31 of the VCLT. It looks into the travaux préparatoires of Article 31 of the VCLT to argue that the concerns raised during the Vienna Conference are still relevant and get reflected even today in the decisionmaking in the China-Rare Earths case.

The US has entered a new era of crisis. President Biden has just been inaugurated. He faces historical challenges to return the US to global leadership. The primacy purpose of this article is to discuss national security and trade policy in the new Biden administration. First, I look at the historic and dubious claims made by the Trump administration in utilizing national security as a cover for protectionist trade actions, as well as at the federal court cases addressing these claims. I then assess the cases that have come before the WTO over the last two years, raising for first time the issue of the national security exception under GATT Article XXI. Finally, I conclude that President Biden’s overwhelming priority is to resurrect American democracy and alliances. But he will also need to address a broad range of trade issues and to restrict reliance on national security as a cover for populist and protectionist policies.

In 2019, two court rulings in China on the issue of copyrightability of AI creations received international attention. It was reported that in Feilin v. Baidu, known as the first AI case, the Beijing Internet Court denied copyright of AI creations, whereas the Shenzhen Nanshan District People’s Court acknowledged copyright of AI creations in the Tencent Dreamwriter case. The two cases, however, were quite similar, as they acknowledged copyright of AIassisted, not AI-generated, written works and recognized these works as a work of a legal entity. The difference between the two judgments is that the Beijing Internet Court regarded originality as an independent requirement and judged it according to the objective standard, whereas the Shenzhen Nanshan District People’s Court regarded human creation as part of the requirement of originality. In this sense, it was the Beijing Internet Court that actually made the more favorable judgment on an AI-generated work.