Since 2015 China has been actively developing the cross-border e-commerce comprehensive pilot areas. They are one of the mechanisms that the PRC has been promoting international trade in the digital era. Enterprises registered in the cross-border e-commerce comprehensive pilot areas enjoy preferential tax policies and may draw upon the support measures delivered by provinces and municipalities. The State Council also introduced the “Six Systems and Two Platforms” principle which revolutionized the sphere of public administration of crossborder e-commerce trade. This helps to solve many the problems concerning taxation, customs clearance and logistics. Analysis of Chinese legislation and local regulations illustrates that the PRC elaborated a new type of economic zone integrating small and medium sized enterprises into the global trade market. A comparison of Chinese policy with a Russian initiative to introduce new experimental regimes for foreign online trade shows that both states could cooperate by establishing a joint mechanism for cross-border e-commerce promotion. Russia also could use China’s experience in order to launch its own system of cross-border e-commerce support.

In China, all dispute resolution mechanisms have introduced online dispute resolution (ODR) system into their operations. To address this situation, this article suggests the principle of due process should include the limitations of Internet-based dispute resolution attempts and the impact of technologies should be taken seriously. The first part of this paper introduces the development of ODR in China. The second part identifies the major areas in which the due process should be secured. The third part focuses on new technologies and its relationship with ODR and among others, electronic evidence and artificial intelligence are discussed. This article concludes that we first need to consider the rapid development of ODR, while the settled procedural principles regarding due process and neutrality should still be the primary task of civil justice and Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Information on the Covid-19 situation in North Korea and the country’s policy response to the pandemic has been fragmented and incomplete. To better understand North Korea’s Covid- 19-related policies, this article assesses the legal measures that have been implemented by this isolated, totalitarian country to counter the pandemic, including the Emergency Law on the Prevention of Epidemics (ELPE), which was enacted in August 2020. Compared to related laws prior to the outbreak of Covid-19, North Korea’s legal measures implemented in the face of the current pandemic have distinct characteristics. The measures, which appear to supersede other laws, prescribe draconian punishments for violations and expedite criminal sanction. This article concludes that stringent measures have been implemented in North Korea to prevent the spread of Covid-19, to protect Kim Jong-un, and to reinforce the regime’s stability. These measures are likely to be repeated in future epidemics, as they have achieved the status of law.

Renewable energy is frequently seen as one of the world’s most promising industries, as it promises a sustainable future in the surge of climate change. Nevertheless, several trade disputes emerge as nations implement policies to boost the domestic green energy industry, putting current trade laws to the test and leaving the detrimental effects on the development of renewable energy technologies. As a result, trade tensions have risen, particularly in bilateral relations between the United States and China. It is impossible to deny that current trade disputes over renewable energy products have practical consequences for governments, institutions, and enterprises. Rising trade protectionism in the energy industry may endanger the fulfillment of specific sustainable development targets. Keeping that in mind, this study aims to examine the recent trade disputes over China’s renewable energy products at the multilateral forum of the WTO, while analyzing protectionism in the context of international trade and practices.

By the time the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) entered into force, there had been numerous bilateral and multilateral agreements between the parties regarding its rules on dispute settlement. However, the WTO dispute settlement system currently remains the most requested. The present article provides a comparative analysis of the procedures of dispute settlement under the CPTPP, the WTO DSU, and some RTAs. Among the novelties of the CPTPP mechanism compared to the WTO DSU are that it extends its scope to measures not yet introduced, offers more transparency, including the use of electronic means of communication, simplifies access for third parties, and provides financial compensation as a temporary remedy. Although the authors conclude that many of the CPTPP provisions repeat those of the WTO DSU and other RTAs between the CPTPP partners, there may be a desire to test the CPTPP mechanism in practice due to crises of the WTO Appellate Body.

The interaction between might and right is an important topic throughout the development of international relations. Various ideologies and corresponding practices have been put forward by realism, liberalism, constructivism, and international socialism under both Western international relations theories and China’s traditional Wang Dao (王道, “the kingly way” or “benevolent government”), and Ba Dao (霸道, “the hegemonic way” or “rule by force”). In international relations, the rule of law - a phenomenon that has emerged and is continuously developing - is conducive to restraining power politics and promoting right, which is one of the goals of international relations development. China has always opposed hegemony and power politics; it firmly supports a modern system of international law based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and aims to build a new international political and economic order with peace, justice, and stability.

After President Biden’s first year in office, one big question is whether the Biden trade policy differs from the Trump chaos. My answer is no. I consider Biden’s trade policy to be Trump without the tweets. They both relied on unilateral measures and broadened protectionist ones. In fact, Biden not only relies upon Trump’s actions but also has expanded them. Trade policies have not changed much between Presidents Trump and Biden. In fact, Biden, relying upon Trump’s actions, has kept them in place. There has been a slight change in tune: a little more reconciliation with Europe and the OECD. However, it is extremely difficult to identify any significant difference concerning China, Russia, and Iran. Has Trump’s America First policy morphed into Biden’s America First or worker-centric trade policy? It looks that way. Let’s look at what Trump did, what Biden has done so far, and the challenges ahead.

Professor Shen Wei’s new book-Decoding Chinese Bilateral Investment Treaties-has vividly depicted a vibrant China in bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and BIT arbitrations. The observations, analyses and findings in his book are supported with abundant empirical evidence and critical theoretical explorations. The ground-breaking contribution made by this book lies in demystifying the patterns inherent in China’s BIT law and practice and adopting versatile methodology to address the literature gap identified by the author. This book not only explores the symbiotic relationship between China’s domestic governance and global BIT networks, but also coherently addresses four inter-connected puzzles relating to Chinese BITs. Professor Shen’s study shows that China and its investors will be proactive rule-makers and active rule-users in the arena of international investment law and investorstate arbitration. This new book will surely be an invaluable inspiration for practitioners, scholars and other persons who have interest in this field.