As China’s 12-year experience in the WTO has induced an ambitious global vision so-called “New Silk Road Strategy,” its global status has leveled up to ‘G2’ of the world. In terms of global trade, consumers all over the world have gained much from cheap Chinese goods, and Chinese growth has provided a huge market for other countries’ exports. This paper briefly analyzes traditional issues concerning China’s cases in the WTO in such areas as goods and services, intellectual property, dispute settlement, multilateral and regional trade agreements. It also tackles China-related issues in the WTO including investment, competition, government procurement, trade finance, and labor and human rights. This paper concludes that China needs to be equipped with better enforcement of domestic rule of law and greater room for trade liberalization. Moreover, the WTO is expected to encourage and boost China’s economic growth and institutional development, while China will continue to pose both new opportunities and threats to the multilateral trading system.

On June 18, 2014, the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body adopted the Panel report on China – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Automobiles from the United States case. There are questions that are still left open or ambiguous, and some notable findings have been introduced. For the procedure, the major issues are whether the non-confidential summaries of data were sufficient to reasonably understand the information, the admissibility of the delayed letter from parties and whether the notice and registration of Investigation Authorities could justify the facts available for determination of Residual rates. As regards the substantive issues, the discussion focuses on whether there is a self-selection process to distort the domestic industry definition and the price comparability between subject imports and the domestic like product. By analyzing the arguments, evidences and reasoning in these regards, this review points out questions that still need future clarification.

Treaty interpretation is one of the most crucial roles of international dispute settlement bodies. They can decide the case in the most reasonable way by legally justified interpretation of treaty. In some cases of the WTO and the ICJ, there exist certain types of facts which closely relate to the evolution of the meaning of a term. This research compares the four ICJ cases to the two WTO cases in order to ascertain both similarities and dissimilarities of those cases. Significant is the dissimilarities concerning the related principle on the economic or environmental aspect enshrined in certain agreement. In the context of the WTO dispute settlement, the contemporary meaning could only be adoptable after adequately justifying treaty interpretation by means of the two-step semantic generic-related interpretative approach. Without the second step of principle-related analysis, problems may arise especially from the economic perspective.

From the twentieth century on, legalization process has been evident in international relations. As a core issue of international law and relation, dispute settlement between States has been evolving from its tit-for-tat strategy to diplomatic and then legal control. Based on the GATT DSP, the WTO DSM has achieved significant progress in legalization. In particular, as more DSM decision have been complied by member States, legalization process of trade dispute resolution via WTO is regarded promising. From the viewpoint of the legalization theory, in comparison to the GATT, the compliance of the WTO DSM’s decisions have become more precise. The WTO members have granted more authorities to its panel of the AB or DSB. It means that in the aspect of compliance of the WTO DSM’s decisions, the degree of delegation to the DSB has been lifted to a higher level.

The 47th Session of the UNCITRAL finalized the draft Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration. It aims to provide a mechanism to allow the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency to be applied to investment dispute arbitrations mandated by investment treaties concluded before April 1, 2014. This paper intends to examine these UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency and the draft Convention on Transparency. It is particularly in contrast with the relevant rules in the NAFTA, the U.S. Model BIT 2012 and the ICSID Rules 2006, to see if transparency can be enhanced in treaty-based investor-State arbitrations and to extrapolate the implications of the Rules on Transparency and the draft Convention for China’s strategy in BIT or FTA negotiations amid the trendy advancement of transparency standards.

To address greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping, the International Maritime Organization has adopted technical and operational measures, and discussed the possibility of adopting market-based measures. China, Japan and South Korea are major shipbuilding nations in the world, and have differing responses towards the IMO’s regulatory initiatives. This paper conducts a comparative assessment of these three countries’ positions on regulatory principles of the greenhouse gas issue, and concludes that their differentiated perspectives on this matter reflect their different regulatory interests. It is significant to take their differentiated interests into account in the developing regulatory regime to avoid disproportionate burdens being placed on certain countries, in particular developing countries.

In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was established as the first global treaty imposing legallybinding targets on the developed countries, imploring countries to curb greenhouse gases emissions from 2008 to 2012. In 2012, the Doha Amendment was agreed upon to extend KP for seven more years, from 2013 to 2020. However, it is not yet in force due to lack of ratification. The UN is trying to build a new international climate change system to succeed KP, which will encompass both the developing countries and the developed countries after 2020. The US, China, the EU and Japan are the four largest GHG emitters. Through the first period of KP, the international climate change system became an international political and economic network, creating new paradigms for energy resources, ways of life, carbon market, and economic development, et cetera. This article will show some of the underlying political and economic dynamics and responses of those four countries and Korea around the Post- KP negotiations.

Although in 2011 Japan finally decided not to participate in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, under the principles of sustainable development and common but differentiated responsibilities, it has probed the ways in which the ‘ultimate objective’ of the UNFCCC will be realized in the international community. With regard to socalled ‘emissions trading,’ since the middle of the 2000s, Japan has continuously adopted various methods and approaches for domestic emissions trading at local and central government levels. This article analyzes Japan’s recent efforts in introducing emissions trading schemes and finally refers to the Joint Crediting Mechanism, which covers the period until a future new agreement under the UNFCCC comes into effect.

The Doha Climate Gateway launched the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and restated the vision of a new global agreement binding all countries. To reach the goal of the new agreement and further to save the Earth, the principles regarding CBDR of UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol may need a reflection and reinterpretation. The common responsibility would be emphasized more than before, and the differentiated responsibility might improve the feasibility to be operated considering the principles of equity and respective capabilities. In climate change conferences, China has shown its flexibility on the issue of a new agreement. As a developing responsible power, China should contribute to addressing climate change upon the call of common responsibility, but it also needs an appropriate differentiated treatment according to its capability.

International arbitration, as a neutral, flexible, efficient and binding legal means of dispute resolution, has been effective in settling maritime delimitation disputes, especially in recent years since the UNCLOS came into force. There are a number of reasons (i.e. advantages) for its increased popularity. Reasonable expectations thus arise as to its applicability onto similar maritime delimitation disputes of the East Asian countries whose diplomatic efforts have mostly failed to address these matters. This article examines this practical issue primarily from the legal perspective by reviewing relevant international rules including the UNCLOS provisions on compulsory dispute resolution and cases such as the ongoing Philippines-China arbitration over the South China Sea. Observations are also made from the political and cultural perspectives as well. It concludes that, though multiple dispute settlement means are still encouraged, international arbitration could be an important alternative for East Asian countries seeking a peaceful solution to their maritime delimitation disputes.

The scope of the maintenance of international peace and security has been increasingly widened by the United Nations Security Council in response to actions taken not only by the Member States but also in some cases by the individuals. In fact, a range of actions and decisions were taken by the Security Council, approximately in the late 1990s and after the so-called 9/11 attacks in the context of combating terrorism, as well as in other contexts against the member States. In consequence, the affected States and individuals had to seek redress from international or national courts on different grounds such as violations of human rights. This has led the domestic courts to develop novel jurisprudence. Thus, it is necessary to pay due attention to the jurisprudence created by these courts. This paper is devoted to analysis an interpretation by the High Court of Singapore in relation to sanctions resolutions of the Security Council against Iran.

Although China has been an active ‘treaty-maker’ in the realm of international investment arbitration as evidenced by its more than 120 bilateral investment treaties, the utility of these BITs has been very limited. Substantive standards such as expropriation and compensation have never been comprehensively tested with respect to these BITs. This article scrutinizes the concept of expropriation by reference to Chinese investment treaty jurisprudence, in particular, the final award of Tza Yap Shum v. The Republic of Peru and China’s free trade agreement with Peru, the only Chinese BIT-related ICSID case. This article critically examines, in a comparative context, the treaty interpretation methodologies employed by the tribunal in interpreting expropriation under the China-Peru BIT, which is one of the earlier Chinese BITs. A thorough study of this subject is of great significance to interpreting the terms of indirect expropriation and compensation in Chinese BITs, thereby offering more concrete foreign investment protections based on investment treaties.

IP litigations over mobile digital devices are soaring in many jurisdictions. Based on the observation that the same or closely related infringement claims over the IP rights embedded in a single digital product have been raised in multiple jurisdictions, some literature and legislative proposals suggest that an international jurisdiction over such litigations are necessary. This article aims to explore practical roadmaps to establish public international “conflict of laws” that can serve administering IP dispute resolution among MNCs. The author will start by reviewing both public international laws on IPRs including the Paris Convention, PCT, the Geneva Convention, the TRIPs, and their private counterparts. Institutional aspects of the WTO and the WIPO administering such as public international IP laws will also be examined. Agreeing with the proposed idea of establishing ‘public’ private international IP laws, this article will propose a more practical roadmap to establish time and cost efficient IP dispute resolution mechanism: the IP5 Collaboration Model.

As maritime criminal activities are increasingly committed across the borders, States have come to establish mechanisms of international cooperation to be implemented in territorial seas. This article examines such mechanisms with regards to the crime of piracy and armed robbery at sea from the perspective of public international law. This article tackles the significance of the mechanisms imposed on the zonal approach, particularly paying attention to the nature of these crimes. It concludes that under the frameworks, States are allowed to pursue various objectives such as securing the safety of navigation, maintaining security, or protecting the local economy. They do not, however, fundamentally alter the nature of the zonal approach. Nonetheless, by setting up a forum of dialogue between the coastal States and the user States, it promotes maritime governance of territorial seas.

China has recently established a strategic goal of building herself into a maritime power. China’s pursuit of this goal is interconnected with the UNCLOS. However, China faces increasingly serious challenges resulting from the application of the UNCLOS, especially the provisions in relation to the EEZ and the new continental shelf, which were strongly supported by China herself at the UNCLOS III. Drawing lessons from the participation in the UNCLOS III, this article argues that the only option for China in response to the challenges is to transform her traditional position of a coastal State into that of a maritime power by actively applying and defending the relevant UNCLOS regimes as well as taking future law-making seriously on marine biodiversity, including the marine genetic resources, beyond national jurisdiction. At the same time, China should hold an open attitude in the revision of national laws which are arguably incompatible with the UNCLOS.

Over the last decade, 350,000 people have moved from Mongolia’s countryside to the suburbs of its capital, Ulaanbaatar, where they live in abject poverty despite the rapid economic development of the country. This article proposes three complementary international legal analyses of this internal migration. First, because this migration is partly and indirectly induced by the adverse impacts of climate change, States have a common but differentiated responsibility to assist the Mongolian government to address climate migration. Second, Mongolia should bear its own responsibilities to take steps to realize the social and economic rights of its population without discrimination. Third, Mongolia’s commercial partners should be warned against any control or influence that would cause harm to Mongolia, in application to public international law on State responsibility and to States’ extraterritorial human rights obligations. While each narrative reveals an important dimension of a complex phenomenon, this article argues that all policy levers must urgently be pulled to guarantee the rights of Mongolia’s internal migrants.

In response to the 2008 global financial crisis, many of the world’s largest central banks initiated unconventional monetary policies such as quantitative easing when standard open market operations became ineffective. The Bank of Japan, the US Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and the European Community Bank were among those that aggressively increased their respective monetary bases to purchase specified financial assets from commercial banks and financial institutions in order to lower interest rates interest rates for specific debt securities and stimulate their economies. Japan, which has long suffered from years of debilitating deflationary cycles, has targeted and committed to open-ended purchases until a stable two percent rate of consumer price inflation is achieved. Several of Japan’s chief exporting rivals, in particular China, have publicly criticized the Bank of Japan for using its current monetary policy to intentionally devalue its currency and thereby benefit from an unfair trade practice. This criticism is unwarranted and Japan’s policy complies with international law.

During the past few years, the Bank of Japan has injected billions of yen into the economy and pursued a monetary easing policy. Japan has plausible arguments, namely that its current policies are needed to support the growth of the economy and to spur inflation. However, these measures result in a weakened yen and increase trade imbalances between Japan and other Asian countries, particularly China. This article argues that Japan’s practice is rooted in protectionism and examines such actions under the IMF Agreement and the WTO system. It is suggested that the Chinese government should adopt diplomatic and judicial approaches to urge Japan to return to normal monetary policies.

This paper provides detailed analysis of the so-called ‘Rusk Letter’ which has been generally referred to as an evidence of Japan’s territorial claim to Dokdo island. The Rusk Letter is a diplomatic epistle which was drafted by Dean Rusk, the US Assistant Secretary of State and sent to the Korean Embassy in the US on August 10, 1951. This letter considers Dokdo as Japan’s territory. However, the Rusk Letter has been legally and historically criticized from mainly two aspects. First, the Rusk Letter referred to the ownership of Dokdo only considering the Japanese position which was not true. Second, this letter was a confidential and unofficial document which was sent only to Korea; Japan and even the US Embassy to Korea did not know the Rusk Letter. It did not influence on the decision of Peace Treaty. Therefore, the Rusk Letter cannot be a critical evidence of Japan’s territorial claim over Dokdo.

The Syrian conflict consists of political and legal components that can be managed under the UN Charter by both political and legal measures. As a result of Russian and Chinese vetoes, the UN Security Council has failed to resolve the conflict by forcible measures, although the Council was able to convene the Geneva II peace talks between the Syrian government and the Syrian opposition on January 24, 2014. The legal aspect of this conflict has been referred to in numerous reports from UN bodies that have emphasized that war crimes have been committed by the Syrian government. Thus, we believe that the UNSC has an obligation to submit this case to a court with appropriate international jurisdiction for its legal resolution. This legal solution should be part of a compromise that satisfies Russia and China pursuant to a Security Council resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter that accompanies the peace talks.