Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing may occur on the high seas or within a national jurisdiction. Several factors were identified as contributing to the occurrence of IUU fishing activities, among which is poor governance marked by limited and overlapping enforcement by related authorities. With very limited regional enforcement bodies and the absence of a regional multilateral agreement, IUU fishing is difficult to overcome. It means that issues relating to overfishing and other fishing conflicts like foreign vessels intrusions and use of illegal fishing methods will continue to be a problem. This paper identifies the Malaysia’s legal framework governing IUU fishing, as well as relevant international and regional laws and policies. The paper also discusses the devastating effects of IUU fishing to the global fish stocks and national economy. Although the existing framework is considered comprehensive, it recommends further stringent and fair law enforcement to combat IUU fishing in Malaysia’s waters.

Transnational money laundering is a global issue that requires international solutions. This paper examines the concept of Free Movement of Judgments which should be realized in the legal integration process of the ASEAN in order to overcome the negative impacts of money laundering. This research will analyze the regulation for criminalizing money laundering in the ASEAN and compare it with the criminal cooperation in the European Union. The ASEAN Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (MLAT 2004) is expected to be an alternative to an extradition treaty. If adopting the Free Movement of Judgements, judicial decisions of an ASEAN member country regarding transnational crimes of money laundering would be recognized and implemented in other member’s jurisdiction reciprocally. This adoption is expected to be an effective solution to overcome impunity in cross-border money laundering actors.

Tensions are high between Korea and Japan as a result of Japan’s export restrictions on three essential semiconductor materials exported to Korea and the removal of South Korea from their White List of countries. The Abe Administration announced that these measures were necessary to “ensure non-proliferation of weapons-related materials.” However, it is widely suspected that these measures were adopted as a retaliation against the Korean Supreme Court’s decision recognizing compensation for the forced labor victims during the Japanese occupation period. The Korean government filed a complaint concerning these measures at the WTO DSB for resolution under international law. In this research, the authors will critically analyze Japan’s export restrictions under international law to facilitate a peaceful resolution to the current conflict. This paper will tackle the relevant issues under the WTO/GATT regulations and the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement to address the issue of who violated international law.

Japan has argued that its recently introduced export control measures toward the Republic of Korea (ROK) are consistent with relevant international guidelines. The ROK has rejected this view and claims that Japan’s measures are inconsistent with World Trade Organization (WTO) law. If a WTO Panel is established to adjudicate this matter, the national security exception clause, specifically Article XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), is likely to be invoked. Russia–Measures concerning Traffic in Transit is one of the few cases in which a WTO Panel has rendered a decision on this article. In general, the doctrine of precedents does not strictly apply; however, it hints that the Panel may require objective arguments to be provided despite the clause’s “self-judging” nature. On its face, Japan appears to have a stronger case, but the Panel would nonetheless be required to make a difficult decision.

The resolution process of PPI scandal was led and driven by the UK’s FCA- financial regulator based on powers stipulated in Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. FCA made rules requiring financial institutions concerned to assess mis-selling claims of PPI holders and pay redress to them if mis-selling was found. The opt-out class action, in contrast, is not likely to handle finance mis-selling collectively because commonality requirement is not easily satisfied. The PPI resolution process overcame this problem by assigning the investigation and assessment of individual aspects of the disputes to the financial institutions concerned. This approach is equitable in that financial institutions which are liable to the scandal bears the time and pecuniary cost instead of relying on public resources of courts as in the litigation. The regulator-led resolution can be helpful in designing collective resolution system of finance mis-selling which is characterized as mass victims with small damages.

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.