The obligation to exchange views within the UNCLOS did not play its systematic role. The disputing parties are uncertain about the scope, mode, and standard of the obligation to exchange views, with adjudicators demonstrating their subjective tendencies. The low threshold of the provisional jurisdiction of maritime disputes, the emergence of jurisdiction over hybrid disputes, and the congenital deficiency of the dispute settlement mechanism of the UNCLOS address the obligation to exchange views which has not fully reflected the initial legislative intention and aim of the UNCLOS. The South China Sea Arbitration initiated by the Philippines demonstrates that the obligation to exchange views may be perfected and improved, to some extent, by enhancing the parties’ obligation of disclosure and the tribunal’s obligation of review. Where relevant unilateral or bilateral agreements exist regulating such type of disputes before the disputing parties initiate the compulsory arbitration procedure of the UNCLOS, the obligation to exchange views should be conducted with sufficient regard for the existence of such agreement.

Since the political and legal systems are different between mainland China and Taiwan, conflict of laws issues arose in both public and private air transport laws after the launch of direct routes. Three models can be used as solutions to these issues: uniform substantive law, conflict of laws, and agreements by private institutions. The uniform substantive law model is ideal but not feasible; the conflict of laws model is possible but not realistic. The agreements by private institutions model respects private autonomy, which seems to be a supplementary yet feasible option with fragmented and conservative characteristics. Based on the characteristics of each model, the ideal way to solve this issue is to prioritise the model of agreements by carriers at this early stage and, finally, to consider uniform conflict of laws rules or substantive law when the opportunity is mature or the ultimate reunification is realised.

Space debris is a global mounting ultimatum to the enduring maintainability of outer space activities. It ought to be managed from the very beginning. For the last couple of years, collisions have enhanced space debris accumulation, and the rate at which space activities have resulted in the production of debris is at a threshold position in a linear fashion. Ultimately, space has become the rendezvous of space debris. Considering the growing accumulation of debris and the emerging apprehension regarding a horrible strike and collapse of whole space programs, this paper focuses on the legal and administrative challenges. Both developing and developed countries realize the value of a competent regime that could administer, supervise, finance, and promote the research, examination, and development of outer space. Thus, this research suggests an autonomous, competent international space authority be established by a treaty or international agreement following the model of the deep seabed authority because it has similar natural resources but a geographically different location.

The UN member states have been consulting on the establishment of high seas MPAs under the BBNJ Agreement since December 2017.This issue brings about the potential conflicts between the jurisdiction of the high seas MPAs and the traditional freedom of the high seas. Although it is generally accepted that the freedom of the high seas can be reasonably restricted, it is acknowledged that there are great controversies among States on the specific forms, approaches and applicable scopes of the restrictions of the high seas freedoms by the high seas MPAs. At present, there are four recognized high seas MPAs in the world. The practice of these four MPAs contributes positively to the interpretation of the reasonable restrictions on the freedom of the high seas. Accordingly, this paper concludes that the international community should gradually carry forward future restrictions on the freedom of the high seas with some suggestions.

President Trump has, for the first time in the US trade history, aggressively redefined the US trade policy as a supporting actor in the US national security policy. His presidential actions have involved a broad array of legislation, such as trade sanctions and export controls. Most astonishing is that President Trump has imposed trade restrictions by relying upon unilateral findings of national security risks or the existence of national emergencies. We are now at a point where federal courts in the US have been asked to review the validity of presidential trade actions, specifically the central legality of the broad delegation of congressional trade authority over the last 75 years. I predict that the federal courts will uphold the separation of powers in the face of the outrageous and unprecedented onslaught of presidential tariff and trade actions by a president relying upon dubious claims of national security and national emergency.

This article analyzes the Sino-US Summit in Osaka in 2019 and its influence on trade negotiations between China and the US in the near future. By a look at the reports from China’s side and the US’ side, the article figures out what has been agreed and what are the most controversial issues on table. Having an observation of the new development after the Summit, the article tries to analyze the direction and ways forwards for the Sino-US trade talks, and make predictions based on a certain of factors including challenges faced by the US, the need of China as well as the attitude of the world. It is easy to figure out that agricultural products and the supply of equipment relating to Huawei were the key points at issue in the Sino-US Summit as well as in the future. The exchange and compromises are necessary between China and the US regardless of whether they are happy to admit it or not.

In 2013, China unveiled its dream of retrieving the ancient Silk Road by undertaking massive infrastructure projects and adding value to ports around the Silk Road. The Belt and Road Initiative (“BRI”) refers to China’s proposed Silk Road Economic Belt and Maritime Silk Road This big project has recently been accepted by Nepal. Nepal has its own foreign direct investment (“FDI”) laws and policies. This paper aims to analyze these laws and policies from the perspective of China’s BRI. The specific objective is to explore the importance of BRI in Nepal and the major challenges for its implementation in reference to Nepalese FDI laws and policies. The essence of BRI is to promote regional and crosscontinental connectivity between China and other countries along the Belt and Road. The BRI is relevant to social, cultural, and economic development of its associated countries. Trans-Himalayan connectivity, political transition of Nepal and property right of Nepal is the leading challenges for BRI implementation in Nepal.

The Foreign Investment Law of the People’s Republic of China has attracted great attention worldwide since its adoption on March 15, 2019, and will come into force on January 1, 2020. This law can be regarded as the most important law of China in the field of foreign investment since China’s accession to the World Trade Organization. The legislation process of the foreign investment law of the People’s Republic of China has expressed the strong will of the Chinese legislature in amending and perfecting the legal system. The implementation of this law will positively impact the future investment environment of China. This article analyses the background and evolution of the legislation procedure, the highlights and features of the law compared with earlier related laws in the field of foreign investment of China, and the impact and insufficiency of the law, together with the issues following the implementation of the law.

China’s Supervision Law is the legislation that governs China’s leading and fundamental approach to anti-corruption. Its main content includes the objective, guiding ideology, principle and leadership system of supervision work, the authority, formation and duties of the supervision committee, the supervision procedures, and the supervision of the supervisory organizations and supervisors. The Supervision Law embodies the characteristics of a combination of party rules and national laws. This power structure is completely different from the separation of powers in Western countries: it does not control power by checks and balances and civil rights. This raises concerns about “who will supervise the power of the Commission or a higher level of power,” “human rights protection” and “procedural issues.” The Supervision Law not only means significant changes in China’s anti-corruption legislation, but also those in China’s governance style, which will have a profound impact on China’s future political and legal aspects.

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a new model of international cooperation and new platform for global governance under contemporary international law. The Initiative will promote basic principles of international law, playing the mediating role of preventing disputes and resolving various risks in the process of establishing a new pattern of global governance. The Initiative is in line with the new trend of international cooperation and development in the 21st century, representing a new round of the process of reforming international political economy. It is a useful attempt to enhance China’s contribution to economic co-prosperity and political stability among the countries along the Belt and Road. This paper tries to understand the BRI under contemporary international law. Part two will discuss the status of the BRI. Part three will investigate the influence of the BRI. Part four will analyze the function of contemporary international law for co-building the Belt and Road.

Over the past decade, the backlash against investment arbitration has become worldwide and correspondingly the investment treaty reform has been undertaken at multiple levels. In this context, a multilateral investment agreement (“MIA”) has been called for as a global effort to address the global backlash. Arguably, the current condition for a MIA might be more favorable than before, as the interests of developed countries and developing countries have changed. After examining the need of a MIA for the global backlash, this paper attempts to explore China’s recent practice in this aspect, including that (1) China’s changing interest in outward foreign direct investment and investment treaty practice reflect the changing landscape of international investment law; (2) the 2016 G20 under China’s presidency achieved the Guiding Principles for Global Investment Policymaking; and (3) China has joined to work on a multilateral framework on investment facilitation at the WTO.

As the most important dispute resolution mechanism in international investment, the ICSID system is valued for the efficiency of its proceedings and the finality of its awards. Due to the significance of ICSID to international investment laws, the international arbitration community has been calling for a high degree of substantive fairness in ICSID awards. However, based on past decisions, ICSID has not been able to strike a balance between procedural justice and substantive fairness. The drafters of the ICSID Convention intended the ICSID internal annulment system to be an error correction mechanism or a remedy for the parties to a ruling, when an arbitral tribunal or an arbitration report seriously violated the provisions. The ICSID annulment procedure is different from the appeal mechanism, and its review is based on extremely limited reasons and does not include a review of legal errors. Currently, the third working group of UNCITRAL is reforming the ISDS system, and the revision of the ICSID arbitration rules is also underway. This article discusses how to develop the current ICSID annulment system to promote greater substantive fairness in ICSID decisions.

The arrest of Meng Wanzhou, CFO of international telecom giant Huawei Technologies, have fired up political and diplomatic commotions around the world. Meng’s arrest in Vancouver based on several indictment charges accused by the US government against Meng particularly situated Canada in a precarious position of standing strong as an ally of the US, but also avoiding needless enragement of China. Because the US filed a formal extradition request to Canada, Canada’s federal Minister of Justice has to determine whether Meng’s extradition hearing will take place, by examining legal prongs under the US-Canada Extradition Treaty. The international communities will be watching closely of this contentious extradition case that will certainly have huge implications on diplomatic, economic and political relationships between the Western world and China.

On January 28, 2019, the US Department of Justice announced criminal charges against Huawei. A pair of indictments accusing Huawei of violating the US sanctions as well as stealing trade secrets was unsealed in two separate cases. In fact, as a technology-intensive enterprise, Huawei has always been under close scrutiny from the US government for ‘national security’ concerns, and both the criminal allegations have existed for years. The Chinese side questioned the American motives, accusing that the US is actually using law enforcement as one tool among many to achieve its policy objectives in the Huawei case. The article presents the Chinese side of the case as well as the grounds for its position.

The investment-related initiatives have been included in the FOCAC since its beginning. The investment promotion initiative is consistent, mutually sustainable, and goal-clear; the investment protection initiative relies on the protection from domestic and international law; the investment facilitation initiative becomes more important; the investment dispute resolution initiative proposes a creative new choice. Due to investment-related initiatives, the FDI between China and Africa is growing, the bilateral investment treaties are in progress, the investment facilitation situation is improved, and a new dispute resolution institution appears. The investment-related initiatives of FOCAC achieves great success to date.

This article discusses American Institute for International Steel v. the United States, which is pending in the little-known United States Court of International Trade in New York. It involves an attempt to declare that the US legislation delegating authority to the president to impose trade restrictions is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. A loss would legally curtail the president’s discretionary power to use national security as a reason to impose punitive measures against trading partners. The article identifies legal trends, where this case fits into the trade policy debates, and why it is so important. The article concludes that domestic US litigation in 2019 may well have a tremendous impact on US law and the global trading system. Many in the domestic and international trading communities (as well as those in the foreign policy and national security communities) are waiting for the results of this little-known steel litigation.

The PCA’s decision refusing historic rights concerning the 9-DL cannot be enforced because the decision advantaging the Philippines has already been rejected by China. It, however, may be as a reference for some states to negotiate, since an optimistic atmosphere emerges among the disputing parties. The readiness for negotiation among them clearly requires that parties should not have rigid attitudes but should show flexibility based on the reciprocity principle. On one side, the PRC should set aside its typical intention to dominate most parts of the South China Sea as its traditional fishing ground based on historic rights concerning the 9-DL. On the other side, the Philippines should guarantee the regional stability and peace without questioning the real sovereignty of the PRC over several natural features, possibly related to the 9-DL claimed as its historic rights. The 9-DL is incompatible with the UNCLOS.

Kazakhstan is one of the few countries worldwide endowed with a wealth of diverse natural resources. However, the country has yet to fully exploit these resources, for a variety of reasons, including high levels of corruption, ambiguous laws that cause confusion to the judiciary and consumers. The aim of this paper is to explore the exploitation of natural resource in the country from an international legal perspective. The article demonstrates how corruption hinders the exploitation of natural resources in Kazakhstan. It also describes how the current law seeks to address the issue of natural resource exploitation, noting its ambiguities. The paper concludes by highlighting the provisions made in the UN Declaration concerning Rights to Exploit Natural Resources, and makes recommendations concerning how Kazakhstan’s government can promote the rights of citizens to enjoy access to the land and natural resources.