Many Chinese scholars advocate transplanting the American Gideon to improve the quality of criminal defense and legal aid in China. Nowadays, less than thirty percent of criminal defendants in China have counsels to represent them, and this has worsened since the year of 2012, because laws and policies have expanded the legal aid to more candidates, while the appropriations cannot keep pace with the explosive caseload. Institutional impediments also frustrate lawyers’ efforts in providing effective representation, and there is no remedy for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. This paper calls for a fuller understanding of the Gideon’s broken promise in the US, and argues that the forces most essential to the support of the Chinese Gideon can only come from China’s practice and experience.

The new Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (“TPNW”) opened for signature on September 20, 2017. It will enter into force in 90 days after getting 50 instruments of ratification. This fact shows that Asia-Pacific is in the forward position to totally eliminate nuclear weapons in the world for the peace, security and human well-being. How to move forward the process of ratifying the TPNW? In order to clarify this question, the author will focus on the following three parts: 1) Asia-Pacific and International Humanitarian Law; 2) Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons - a step towards the nuclear disarmament; and 3) Ratification of TPNW.

The increasing use of ballistic missiles as a means of delivering weapons of mass destruction in the course of military activities constitutes a new threat to civil aviation safety. Ballistic missiles are considered as a new form of offense and defense. These challenges may come in the form of warheads, carried by the missiles, with the possibility to explode at any time in air, or the long ranges of the missiles that bring them close to flight routes, which may endanger civil passengers. The multilateral treaty on ballistic missile prohibition is nonbinding in nature, voluntary and has a limited duration puts civil aviation safety at risk. Therefore, regulating ballistic missile in a binding manner are urgently needed to ensure civil aviation safety.

The legacies of Tokyo Trial have been overlooked and questioned partly because prosecuting aggression was allegedly a violation of the principle of legality. This essay argues that the trial should not be overlooked for this reason because the legality debate at the trial provides insights into the interplay between the principle of legality and sources of international criminal law. Besides the majority judgment, some minority opinions could shed light on the nature of the Tokyo Charter by distinguishing between jurisdiction and applicable law and link the issue to the legality challenge. Although the Tokyo Charter was formally different from the Nuremberg Charter, both of them are substantive in nature so that the tribunals were allowed not to address the legality challenge. In addition, prosecuting aggression was arguably not a violation of the principle of legality because this principle, at that time, did not bind ex post facto legislation against international crimes committed during World War II.

The US initiated a Section 301 investigation against China in 2017. Such a unilateral investigation has run counter to the explicit commitments in the Statement of Administrative Action. Even the basically reasonable ‘four corners’ defense can neither apply nor justify this investigation. Consequently, especially based on the Panel’s additional emphasis, the conditional international legality confirmed by the Panel of DS152 case in the WTO should be untenable in this latest specific context. By reutilizing this globally aversive tool, the United States could possibly prove itself to be an unreliable partner and this would unavoidably incur severe reputational costs and other potential harms to itself. Furthermore, this might, to some degree, undermine or even undo the advances achieved in more than twenty years of international rule of law in world trade after the establishment of the WTO. All in all, only mutually beneficial solutions are most desirable, effective and sustainable for both China and the US.

The trade war between the US and China in the Trump era has become a momentous event in the world economy. It is necessary to see how trade relations between them have played out within the WTO from a historical perspective. Since the Opium Wars, both economic and political concerns have changed the relationship between these two countries. The escalation from a trade conflict to trade war shows the rivalry between the US and China for hegemony in the twenty-first century’s regional and world politics. The economic, technological, and manufacturing competition that is a part of hegemonic rivalry is not totally new; this is borne out by the history of the US-China economic relations. The escalation of this ‘trade war’ now has spill-over effects on other countries, being beyond the normative framework of the WTO. There is an impasse in this ongoing saga, but the silver lining is that there will be a re-construction of the multilateral trading system.

The 19th century’s international law distinguished civilized from non-civilized States resulting in any country desiring equal treatment was required to obtain recognition from those already deemed civilized. Japan was able to join the civilized world by presenting a civilized image of itself in the First Sino-Japanese War, which was depicted by Western legal scholars as a clash between barbarism and civilization. Neither Japanese nor Western scholars of international law, however, have touched on the issue of the Triple Intervention. This incident serves as a case study for re-evaluating the operation of Western countries’ international legal standards. The argument is, that these countries cloak their motives in legal language for self-aggrandizement, thereby demonstrating the ahistorical nature of the West’s rhetoric of civilization. Further, this incident taught Japan the lesson that international law is concerned not with morality but with power.

Labour migration is an important global issue that largely affects the labour market. Malaysia is among the popular destination countries for labour migration in Asia. The number of migrant workers that consist of documented and undocumented workers is increasing every year due to rapid economic development that captivates job seekers from undeveloped countries. In this regard, migrant workers frequently fall into the trap of unscrupulous employers who exploit them for their own interests. These employers do not pay their wages as promised and deny them their employment rights. This case is basically treated as ‘forced labour’ or ‘human trafficking’ by the Malaysian authority. This paper identifies the Malaysia’s legal framework of the employment of migrant workers. In addition, how to address the infringed rights of migrant workers is discussed in this paper. Although the framework deems comprehensive, it further recommends a stringent and fair law enforcement to combat exploitation towards migrant workers.

Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUUF) is a complex problem because IUUF perpetrators not only have fisheries management issues, but also commit other crimes. This phenomenon raises further academic analysis of crime in fisheries at domestic and international levels. Indonesia has experienced different events leading to addressing crimes related to fisheries, which initially came from IUUF practices. To achieve legal certainty, crimes in fisheries issues must be separated from IUUF because IUUF is a matter under the mandate of FAO and crime in fishery is under the mandate of UNODC. Many have mixed IUUF and crimes in fishery in one basket, making the matter confusing from legal and practical point of view. At the domestic level, there must be a regulatory framework recognizing the linkage between fisheries and criminal activities At the international level, meanwhile, there must be an international cooperation through existing frameworks such as Mutual Legal Assistance.

Global ocean governance is a historical product. In the course of development, the UNCLOS has established the contemporary global ocean governance system. The current system, however, has many defects, including ambiguity in rules and fragmentation in structure. Furthermore, some new challenges are ever-emerging in the system. But all these could be improved through the establishment of a UNCLOS review agency and an enactment of supplementary agreements. China has taken lessons from its participation in the development and reform of the system. This includes the creation of the identity of a developing country, being an active participant and promoter of change as opposed to being a passive recipient and follower inside the system. In its push for reforming global ocean governance, China should not only initiate the establishment of a “World Ocean Organization,” but also enhance its agenda setting, drafting and contracting capabilities of international legislation.

This paper explores Thailand’s partial liberalization of the electricity industry and to what extent is a Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) allowed in the electricity sector. As Thailand is an ASEAN Member State, the paper aims to review whether the partial liberalization under the ESB model is consistent with the commitments of the ASEAN. The paper examines both the ACIA and the AFAS, and it finds that Thailand has no commitment under both agreements relevant to entry of a FDI in its electricity sector. However, Thailand already allows the entry of a FDI in the power generation business which is aligned with the principles of market access and National Treatment that fulfill the obligations under the ACIA and the AFAS in case Thailand will make any commitments in the future. It is noted that electricity transmissions and the distribution and supply businesses are still prohibited for both Thai and foreign investors.

The so-called Iran nuclear agreement, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive plan of Action, is an agreement between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council as well as Germany and the EU to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful. Praised as an historic diplomatic achievement that resolved a decade-long crisis, the 2015 agreement is distinctive in its comprehensive provisions and innovative solutions to various legal and technical issues. However, US President Donald Trump’s controversial decision to withdraw the US from the agreement in May 2018 has put its future in peril. This paper attempts to analyze the legal aspects of the US’ decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement with special reference to the currently on-going US-North Korea deal for the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. In the course of this study, special attention is given to the lessons learned from the Iran nuclear agreement.

With President Trump’s recent imposition of USD 34 billion in new tariffs on imports from China and China’s prompt retaliation, the US is now in its biggest trade war with China and other countries since the 1930s. President Trump’s policies focusing on threats, trade deficits and bilateral trade, as well as the movement away from the postwar international system, have been historical aberrations since 1945. The US trade diplomacy ought to concentrate on building coalitions and viable proposals for addressing trade issues, including those concerning the World Trade Organization rule-making and dispute resolution. This would help to ensure a rules-based trading system.

In recent years, the Chinese government has been investing an enormous amount of money in infrastructure development across many of the island states in the area of the South Pacific. This essay will review such investments in Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Timor, Samoa, and Vanuatu and further analyze the underlying rationale. China seems to be interested in developing tourism in these islands, as well as building a close relationship with them in a geopolitical viewpoint. These cover the areas of agriculture, fishing, infrastructure, roads, bridges, ports, airports, highways, agricultural technologies, hydropower, stations, and sewage pipelines. Chinese overseas investments is more likely to be accelerated in this region.

In their recent article titled Pluralism or Cosmopolitanism? Reflections on Petersmann’s International Economic Law Constitutionalism in the Context of China, Tao Li and Zuoli Jiang have criticized the alleged ‘paradox’ that my publications “stress ‘legal pluralism’ on the one hand, while calling for a cosmopolitan conception of IEL on the other hand.” This short comment aims not only at clarifying conceptual misunderstandings due to our different “constitutional law perspectives,” but also explaining why China should embrace a ‘dialogical’ rather than “exclusive legal perspectivism” by continuing to implement its international legal obligations (e.g., under the UN/WTO law) in good faith and assuming more leadership for the global public good of the rules-based world trading system, with due respect for its underlying ‘legal pluralism’ and often indeterminate ‘basic principles.’ My Chinese critics’ emphasis on the reality of authoritarian Chinese “top-down conceptions” of law and governance neglects China’s obligations under international law and China’s compliance with the WTO, investment and commercial adjudication.

From the perspective of ‘Archangelos Gabriel’ salvage case, this article probes into the application of party autonomy by Chinese courts in cases with foreign elements. The case, finally decided by the SPC, shows many judicial innovations and draw great concerns in both the Chinese judicial community and academia. However, it also shows a common judicial phenomenon that the improper timing of choice by parties and wrong choice-of-law rule invoked by the courts lead to the uncertainty of the applicable law and the judges could not deal with the implied choice cases properly. This gives rise to an urgent choice-of-law problem that the principle of party autonomy just empowers parties to choose the state of applicable law but not a particular law of a state. It is inconsistent with the nature of party autonomy and may further turn the party autonomy to a rule with the same nature of “choice of jurisdiction.”

The US has invoked Article XXI of the GATT 1994 to justify its tariff measures on imports of steel and aluminum. However, the US’ tariff measures are not imposed for the protection of the US “essential security interests” but for economic and trade reasons. They do not satisfy the conditions listed under Article XXI (b) (i) to (iii) and should not be justified by them. They should not be considered as either national security measures or safeguard measures, but as ordinary trade restriction measures that are inconsistent with the WTO rules and the US obligations. A panel or the Appellate Body not only has the jurisdiction to review this dispute, but is also capable of making findings and providing a recommendation. Even if the US has the discretion to impose tariff measures under Article XXI (b), whether it has been acted in good faith, is still subject to the WTO review. As regards the tariff measures, the US has not acted in good faith.

Genetically modified food gave rise to several controversies since it came into being. The clash of international GMF legislation is rooted in the divergence of the EU and the US legislation, which leads to the divergence of the WTO and Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and indirectly influences the legislative choice of developing countries. Like other developing countries, China also faces lots of challenges including lag in genetically modified organism technology, disadvantage caused by invisible private standard, technical control of GMO companies in developed countries and low level of involvement of the public. In recent years, China adopts its own policy on GMO by developing GM technology cautiously. The legislative situation in China fall far behind domestic research and commercial production necessity. China has revised several existing legislations. Although there is far from perfect, it makes great progress. In the future, China is expected to be more active, positive and open towards GMO.