The Chinese employment-stream migration law regime recently underwent fundamental reformation. The introduction of a unified work permit for foreign nationals issued by the local bureaus of the State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs constitutes a significant institutional and procedural change that trims procedures and clarifies competences. Further, the new classification scheme divides foreign nationals into three categories according to their academic qualifications, professional experience, and income, and is supplemented by a points system. The main objective of the scheme is to establish a modern migration law and policy system that will attract highly skilled global talent. Applying a doctrinal approach, this study analyzes the most recent policies and legal reform measures pertaining to the employment-related migration system. It discusses changes to that system against the backdrop of other factors affecting the legal status of foreign nationals in China such as the resident permit system, naturalization, labor standards, social insurance, legal remedies, the legalization of illegal labor migration, and the legal framework for integrating foreign employees into society.

Many are crying foul over the Trump Administration’s use of steel and aluminum tariffs, claiming that imports are not a threat to the US national security. Rather, it has been argued that the tariffs are a pretext to gain strategic advantage in unrelated trade negotiations. Members of the Trump administration have hailed subsequent trade concessions as proof that the tariffs have been successful, which, if proven, could raise a credible question as to whether the President exceeded the scope of his authority. Domestic and international challenges have already begun with the US courts being a more effective forum to the challenge the legality of the tariffs than the WTO.

An offshore installation is built or installed for the purposes of exploration and exploitation in any part of the sea. The offshore installations that are presently in existence reflect great scientific progress in the field of marine resources. However, they become a source of concern when they are no longer in use. Due to the potential to disrupt activities conducted around their location, they interfere with navigational safety. Therefore, it is important to remove such installations. Their removal should be based on the provisions of the IMO Guidelines and Standards. Indonesia is a coastal State and should adhere to the above mentioned guidelines and standard in designing policies and regulations.

The nexus between science and human rights are intertwined in many ways. Though the acknowledgment in international law have been available for decades, the right to savor the fruits of scientific advancement and its applicability has gained just small recognition of the human rights from the international community. A human rightsbased approach to science, technology, and development endeavors a concern for human rights at the heart of the international community facing with critical global challenges. Thus, the paper initially discusses the relevant international human rights instruments including laws, regulations, declarations, conventions and provides a thorough analysis. The doctrinal and qualitative study of the paper presents human rights approaches in order to show insight on the ethical implications of new technologies and investigate how policy can compete with briskly advancing science. The paper also recommends the international community to promote regulatory processes that can help in blocking the disputes by securing an equilibrium between human rights and science.

On February 26, 2016, PRC Law on the Exploration and Development of Resources in Deep Seabed Areas was adopted. As a landmark marine legislation, this law was formulated in line with the UNCLOS, the Rules of the International Seabed Authority, and the PRC Constitution. It opened a brand new era of marine development and utilization for China under the strategic background of maritime power. Facing the limitation and challenges about the ecosystem and risk prevention brought about by the UNCLOS and the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992, the maritime powers around the world, including China, have been making domestic legislation on the exploitation and protection of seabed resources beyond national jurisdiction. This paper introduces China’s policy for the exploitation and development of the ‘Areas’ in accordance with the UNCLOS, and makes a further interpretation on China’s related domestic legislations and practice.

The Prep Com recommended in July that the UNGA initiate a negotiating conference on areas beyond national jurisdiction. It is widely expected to make such a decision. Then, the long haul negotiation will begin. The 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea does not regulate marine genetic resources in areas beyond the national jurisdiction of States (BBNJ). Part XIII of the Convention could accommodate BBNJ research, but not its governance. The triangulation of three factors-the interim absence of an international framework for governance of BBNJ research, an indirect reference to this issue in the on-going BBNJ deliberations on access and benefit sharing and an interim laissez-faire attitude in BBNJ exploration and exploitation-leads to a need for transparency in governance of BBNJ research activities. To address this lacuna, a United Nations Register on BBNJ Research Activities is recommended, encouraging scientists from all regions including Asia to engage in BBNJ research.

The status of maritime features is one of the core issues in the South China Sea Arbitration. The essence of this issue is territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation disputes between China and the Philippines. Based on the interception of certain facts and evidence, the Tribunal did not interpret the China’s diplomatic position as it wanted, and it had an intensely subjective interpretation of Article 121(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982. Combined with the Chinese government’s positions before and after the publicity surrounding the Award, this paper, which takes the logical approaches of the Award as the main line, focuses on chapter 6 of the Award, raising questions about disputes on the status of maritime features, analyzing the treaty interpretations related to the status of maritime features, and clarifying the defections.

Most of the literature on modern-day slavery focuses on women and children as victims of the sex industry. This disproportionate emphasis on sexual exploitation has resulted in conflation of the term trafficking with prostitution, which has led to an understanding of human trafficking issues as separate from other workplace abuses that amount to slavery. By exploring modern-day slavery in the Southeast Asian fishing industry, this paper may fill a research gap within the study of human trafficking as well as sharpen our awareness of slavery practices, not only in the sex industry, but also in workplaces like fishing vessels and seafood processing factories. This paper will argue that the proximity of modern slavery to sexual exploitation and the lack of differentiation between smuggling and trafficking crime has led to the ignorance of contemporary slavery practices in other sectors.

In the South China Sea Arbitration, the Chinese term-“li shi xing quan li” was mistranslated into “historic rights short of title,” regardless of the official English translation provided by Chinese government and preserved by international organizations. ‘quan li’ connotes a categorical meaning covering sovereignty and non-sovereignty rights, while “li shi xing” relates to claims and conduct historically before 1982. China’s “li shi xing quan li” in the SCS developed with the history of the general category of historic rights-an umbrella concept connoting both exclusive historic title and non-exclusive historic sovereign rights. It included China’s exclusive sovereignty over nansha qundao in the SCS and its non-exclusive sovereign rights in part of SCS. The Arbitral Tribunal’s negligence of the conceptual difference led to uncertainty in China’s maximum maritime entitlements in the SCS and reasonable doubt about its decision on the Philippines’ Submissions 1 and 2.

Space law is normally referred to international space law. As national space activities develop, however, national space laws have been legislated in many countries for the development of space resources. These are used to present conflicting cases between national and international space law (corpus juris spatialis internationalis) on the interpretation of space resource exploitation. This study is devoted to bridging the gap between these two legal systems. In this paper, the author will critically review the fundamental principles of space resource exploitation under international law and suggest a direction for setting up national space laws for future space resources. This paper is composed of seven parts, including a short Introduction and Conclusion. Part two will discuss acts pertaining to asteroid resources. Part three will deal with res extra commercium. Part four will analyze the non-appropriation principle. Part five will look into the common heritage of mankind. Part six will investigate res nullius humanitatus.

The US Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act 2015 aroused heated discussions. The international community has not yet reached consensus on the application of the concept of “common heritage of mankind” in the Moon Agreement. In accordance with the non-appropriation principle in the Outer Space Treaty, outer space is not subject to national appropriation. However, there is a need to balance the common interests of the international society and the interests of the States and private entities which invest heavily in the space resource exploration. The unilateral approach of the US by adopting a national law is not an ideal way to deal with space resource exploration. As a major space-faring nation, China should take a proactive approach in both national legislation and international cooperation in this field. At the international level, China should consider establishing an appropriate international regime for space resource management.

This paper reviews presents the advantages and disadvantages of mediation in Chinese commercial arbitration process to resolve disputes. Mediation can be considered as a principal means for resolution of commercial disputes, both domestically and internationally. Simply, to mediate means to act as a peacemaker between dispute parties. Basically, mediation is an informal mechanism in which the disputants are assisted by a neutral third party toward settlement. The mediators are appointed in a voluntary base to help disputants manage the resolution process. They should have no direct interest in the conflict and its outcome, and no power to render a decision, but just can control the process. Meanwhile, parties are entitled to accept or reject the outcome. Mediation shares the advantages of confidentiality, flexibility, and simplicity. Dispute of disadvantages still remaining, China’s mediation system has century’s history so far. Currently, China has used mediation method in arbitral proceedings so as to improve the efficiency of dispute resolution.

Professor Petersmann has developed a constitutionalization theory for IEL based on Western constitutionalism theory in conjunction with human rights law. However, there is a paradox in his theory considering that he stresses ‘legal pluralism’ on the one hand, while calling for a cosmopolitan conception of IEL on the other hand. The hypothesis of this paper is that there are no ‘universalizable’ principles and common constitutional principles that can guarantee the compatibility between the two. Petersmann’s three often-used keywords, ‘human rights,’ “principles of justice,” and “judicial protection of individual rights,” are clarified in the context of Chinese thought and China’s progressive integration into the world economy. This paper finds that Petersmann’s theory focuses on bottom-up individual struggles, whereas Chinese thought is characterized by top-down overall consideration. The value divergence between the goodness of human nature in Chinese thought and the evil of human nature in Western thought makes ‘legal pluralism’ an insurmountable obstacle to a cosmopolitan conception of IEL.

In recent years, China initiated Big Data strategies and put forward a series of legislative proposals with regard to the regulation and utilization of Big Data technology. However, academics have not reached consensus to fundamental questions such as data ownership and protection approaches yet. The intrinsic contradiction lies in the difference of values between Big Data which emphasizes “open and sharing” and intellectual property law that protects monopoly interests. This article seeks to conceptualize Big Data in a dynamic approach with an aim to frame the dialogue for further discussion. Through analyzing whether current intellectual property laws in China serve a solid base for promoting the development of big data technology, it proposes that, in order to address regulatory impracticality of Big Data, certain statutory amendments are necessary. However, regarding the revolutionized proposition of creating a “database right” or alleging “Big Data as an object of intellectual property law,” this research recommends a modest and restrained approach.