Following its jurisdictional decision in October 2015, the arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the UNCLOS issued its final award on July 12, 2016 in the South China Sea Arbitration case. It found overwhelmingly in favor of the Philippines. This article comments on two of the flaws regarding the issue of jurisdiction arising from both preliminary and final awards of the case. It firstly calls into question the inconsistent standard adopted in identifying jurisdictional obstacles, and finds a projurisdictional bias in the Tribunal’s awards. It further analyses the fallacious approach of fragmenting the maritime delimitation disputes, and suggests the legal conundrum of status and entitlement of maritime features related to Sino-Philippine sea boundary delimitation should not constitute a separate dispute subject to legal proceedings. By purposefully downplaying jurisdictional obstacles and exercising powers on false disputes, the tribunal raises doubts to its legitimacy.

The Chinese toxic milk scandal raised tremendous global concerns about food safety in China. To repair the tarnished reputation of domestic food production, Chinese authorities focused on compulsory food safety liability insurance. Unfortunately, the introduction of compulsory food safety liability insurance in the Food Safety Law of the PRC has been delayed by the disagreements of Chinese legal scholars. Chinese legal scholars have examined the legitimacy of compulsory food safety liability insurance in China mainly from the standpoint of domestic laws. The valuable insight of international laws has been ignored by them. This article attempts to fill this research gap by scrutinizing the Chinese endeavor of launching compulsory food safety liability insurance through the joint perspective of public and private international law. It further demonstrates that the ideology of human rights of public international law has already penetrated into the body of broadly-interpreted private international law.

이 논문은 남중국해의 바위섬들에 관한 상설중재재판소가 내린 판결에서 남 중국해에 산재해 있는 암석들은 해양법 협약 제121조 제3항의 내용을 갖춘 주 민이 거주하며 독자적 경제생활을 유지시켜나갈 수 있는 지형적 능력을 가지지 못하고 있다고 판단한 것을 보고 독도가 이러한 섬으로서 요건을 갖추지 못하 고 있다는 점에서 향후 이에 대한 입장을 살펴본 것이다. 중재재판소는 이 조 항에 관한 해석기준으로 각 국가들이 일관성 있는 기준의 관행이 성립하지 아 니한 상태에서 향후 국가관행은 이 상설중재재판소의 기준에 따르는 새로운 추세가 나올 것으로 생각하고 있다. 이러한 판례의 입장에서 살펴보면 독도와 그 인접 바위섬은 독자적인 경제생활을 유지시켜나갈 수 있거나 인간이 거주할 수 있는 생활터전으로서 주거가 가능하다고 단정할 역사적 증거도 쉽지 않은 점은 솔직히 인정할 수밖에 없을 것이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 독도에 대한 기존 의 인식을 쉽게 바꾸기는 더욱더 어려운 실정임도 사실이다. 기존의 일관된 독 도에 대한 인식은 역사적으로 일관되게 우리나라의 울릉도 제도의 일부를 구성 하고 있고 역사적으로도 우리나라의 고유영토이며 국가권력의 행사로서 실효 적으로 지배하고 있는 우리영토에 속한다는 것이다. 이러한 기존의 입장을 고 수해 나가기 위해서는 독도가 해양법협약 제121조 제3항의 내용을 충족하도록 인간이 거주할 수 있는 암석 또는 독자적인 경제생활을 유지할 수 있는 바위섬 이라는 입증을 해 나가야 한다. 이 사건을 통해서 본 결론은 역사적 증거(historic evidence)로써 독도 지형에 서 농경이 가능하고 식량과 자연적 식수원이 있어 사람이 거주할 수 있다는 거 주시설이 갖추어졌을 때 독도를 기점으로 한 해양수역을 가질 수 있다는 방향 을 제시하고 있다고 생각한다.

집나방과의 상제집나방(신칭, Saridoscelis kodamai Moriuti)을 한국과 중국에서 처음으로 기록한다. 또한, 상제집나방아과(신칭, Saridoscelinae)를 한국에서 처음으로 보고한다. 상제집나방의 성충 외형과 생식기의 사진을 제공한다. 국내에서 상제집나방의 발생에 관해 채집 기기 및 기존의 기주식물 기록과 비교해 논의한다

China’s economic success and trade expansion since the 1980s is one of the most important economic achievements, which lifted more populations out of extreme poverty than any other time and place in history. This achievement has been made possible by trade-led development policies successfully adopted by China. China also joined the WTO in 2001, after fifteen years of negotiations with its trade partners, and is subject to WTO legal disciplines requiring the transparency of its trade-related decisions and procedures. This article examines China’s economic reform, which led to its accession into the WTO, and reviews China’s trade and development policies under the WTO. In addition, this article discusses China’s participation in the WTO Dispute Settlement Procedure. There has been a concern as to whether China will be compliant with the requirements under the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). The article shows that China has become an active participant and has maintained well under the terms of the DSU.

On January 16, 2016, AIIB declared its opening for business. Ever since its announcement by Chinese leaders in 2013, AIIB has been warmly embraced by most countries of the world. But still, neither the US nor Japan have become the AIIB members. Both of them take a rather cautious approach, viewing AIIB more as a challenge to the existing international financial order. By comparison, this paper finds that each country casts similar doubts. The US places its focal point more on ‘China-led’ rather than ‘new MDB.’ Japan focuses more on ‘new MDB’ instead of ‘China-led,’ meanwhile considering how to cope with the dilemma between the US and China. Orienting itself towards a more balanced international economic order, this paper attempts to seek a kind of positive cooperation based on the coordination of tri-lateral interests, thus suggesting the US and Japan to join AIIB as an external supervisor and internal member respectively.

The practice of International Investment Agreements (IIAs) has developed immensly during the past 15 years. In particular, China has gained significant experience in concluding IIAs, adapting to concerns raised following an overflow of investor state disputes. This article analyzes an interesting case-study: an investment promotion agreement signed and negotiated between China and Israel (CIBIT) during the 1990s, however ratified more than a decade later, in 2009, without modifying or updating its contents. This commentary identifies major gaps in the CIBIT, including those concerning its preamble, key definitions of ‘Investment’ and ‘Investor’, standard of protection: FET, MFN, NT, and ISDS provisions, vis-à-vis the wider transformation of international investment law. Special emphasis is given to China’s change in approach to investment and IIAs. The growing economic ties between China and Israel, including recent discussions about a free trade agreement, requires a thorough understanding of the risks and benefits of the CIBIT. Therefore, the commentary concludes with an outline of a strategic roadmap for the future revision of the CIBIT.