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.

Although relationships among the former belligerent parties of the Korean War have changed drastically over the decades, the parties still remain under the armistice system because the Korean War is not over legally. The primary purpose of this research is to analyze questions related to the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army in the Korean War from an international legal perspective. As a new topic, this is intended to be a precautionary examination of an issue that could haunt the eventual process of peacemaking on the Korean peninsula. The main text of this article consists of three parts. The first examines whether the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army’s entering the Yalu River was self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. The second part covers various legal questions relating to armed hostilities in the Korean War under international law. The third part discusses the legal questions around an armistice negotiation.

This paper critically examines the normal value determination of NME and its implications for the purpose of contributing to Doha antidumping reform deliberation. From domestic to international arenas, antidumping development sees the significant growth of government paternalistic discretion turning antidumping into a distributive instrument challenging constitutionalism. Deeply rooted in the ideological divide of the 1950s, NME methodology’s obsession with national divide turns free trade from traders’ commutative exchange to nations’ distributive predation. NME distributive discretion, though against the free market principle, is ironically used to accuse foreign economies of not being free-market enough. When products and producers are given certain status via nationality instead of treated individually, antidumping development has been a process “from Status to Contract” and back. Therefore, it is time to de-legitimize the NME methodology, and the success of antidumping reform lies in limiting rather than deferring to governments’ paternalistic discretion, thus strengthening the international rule of law in the context of WTO.

There are calls for biofuel imports from developing countries to be restricted. The imports which are either in the form of end-product (bioethanol or biodiesel) or feedstock (oil palm, sugar cane molasses, etc) are allegedly produced in ways which can threaten the environment and violate human rights. This article finds that there is no specific regime for trade in biofuels within the WTO system. Hence any restriction on such trade is governed by the existing trade regimes including tariffs and nontariff measures. However, the existing WTO tariff and non-tariff (TBT, anti-dumping and anti-subsidy) regimes are still inadequate in ensuring that measures are taken against biofuel feedstock and products that were produced in unsustainable ways. The use of these measures without being subject to clear defining rules will create a danger that they serve a protectionist rather than social or environmental objectives.

‘Chinese threat’ is highly controversial in international academia. This article attempts to expose the China threat and provide a comprehensive analysis as to the extent of the so - called threat. The essence of the ‘Chinese threat’ is based on misunderstandings concerning Chinese culture, on ill - reasoned historical experiences of rising powers and conflict, on the great gap between Christian and Chinese culture, and on the inherent nature of expansiveness of the former. In contrast, the Bush Doctrine (including the preemptive strike theory) poses an actual threat to China, as does the US protection of Japan unconditioned on Japanese admission and repentance for heinous war crimes committed during World War II. Treating China as an equal is the best policy that could be employed by the West. China’s unification and domestic stability would greatly contribute to world peace, while supporting the China threat ideology would have the opposite effect.

This article reviews the US Supreme Court cases regarding detention of alleged terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and examines the interplay between international human rights law and the American Constitution with respect to the executive policies of the Bush Administration to detain terror suspects. The article first references the international human rights legal framework regarding detainees, specifically the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and then analyzes seminal cases brought before the Supreme Court by detainees, specifically how the Supreme Court interprets the US Constitution and international law in reaching its decisions regarding detainees at Guantanamo. While the Supreme Court provided detainees the right to challenge the legality of their detentions through habeas corpus petitions, limitations still exist as to the lack of extraterritorial application of rights protections as well as the domestic judicial failure to redress detainees’ subjection to torture and other abusive treatment.

Official Announcements of China and the Philippines have clarified their claims over the Huangyan Island, which has compartmentalized its history into three periods. Period I: Before 1946. China had acquired its title by discovery of terra nullius, and consolidated into a full title with the historical consolidation process. The Philippines made no claims in this period; instead its laws confirmed the Island lies out of its territory. Period II: 1946–1997. The Philippine evidences are private in nature, or contradictory to its laws and governmental position, thus making its claims vulnerable. China had exercised an open and peaceful effective occupation over the Island with superior evidences. Period III: After 1997. According to the ICJ judgment, April 30, 1997 was tentatively determined the critical date. Since China acquired its territorial sovereignty over the Island before the critical date, the Philippines’ acts cannot alter China’s ownership of the Island.

The Philippine claim to Bajo de Masinloc, otherwise referred to as Scarborough Shoal, finds solid basis in international law. The territorial claim of the Philippines over Bajo de Masinloc is strong relative to the claim of China as well as with respect to the principles on the acquisition of territory in international law, in particular, on the basis of effective occupation. The sovereign rights and jurisdiction asserted by the Philippines over the maritime entitlements of the features in Bajo de Masinloc are founded on principles of international law and consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which both the Philippines and China have signed and ratified. This paper aims to examine the Philippine claim over Bajo de Masinloc particularly focusing on the 2012 standoff between the Philippines and China and the arbitration case filed by the Philippines against China over the West Philippine Sea.

On December 29, 2011, the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea passed the Law on the Status and Treatment of Refugees, which went into effect on July 1, 2013. The law was the culmination of years of effort by the government, NGOs, UNHCR and the lawmakers. It has been widely praised by civil society groups in Korea. However, there has been little critical analysis of its provisions whether it will truly be a successful legislation. This research critically evaluates whether the new law is likely to promote Korean compliance with international legal standards, namely, the 1951 Refugee Convention and major human rights treaties. It finds that while the law represents a significant improvement over current practices, it possesses problematic provisions related to detention, refugee determination, economic and social rights of asylum-seekers, and the treatment of recognized refugees. This essay will conclude by highlighting four outstanding implementation questions that could impact compliance with international standards.

Cyber attacks have become a grave threat to international peace and security. Northeast Asia is a critical point of many of these cyber operations. First, South Korea has been the target of cyber attacks from North Korea. Second, there are harsh debates on this matter between the US and China. While the United States have expressed their concerns about the growing threat of cyber intrusions from China, the People’s Republic of China has blamed the US for attacks against their respective computer networks. From the perspective of the jus ad bellum, potential cyber attacks raise a number of difficult and complex issues. The following article examines which cyber operations amount to the use of force as stipulated in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and discusses the conditions under which type of cyber attacks could trigger the right to self-defense. In addition, other available remedies outside the framework of Article 51 of the UN Charter will be discussed.

The right to freedom of religion is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed in many international and regional human rights instruments. Several international documents safeguard freedom of religion including the right to convert from one faith to another. In Malaysia, the safeguard of this fundamental right is provided under Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution with some limitations. The right to convert out of one’ s faith is not mentioned explicitly. However, for the non- Muslims, this right to opt out of one’ s faith and choose another has been regarded as an implicit part of religious liberty guaranteed by Article 11. In relation to the Muslims, the issue of apostasy is regarded as a taboo as well as a politically explosive proposition. This paper aims to examine the concept of freedom of religion under international law focusing mainly on the issue of apostasy in the context of the Malaysian Federal Constitution. The paper concludes that the position of Muslims especially in the context of embracing a new religion remains unsettled.

It is conceivable that the construction of a convention is in question in a case brought before ICJ and a State that is a party to the convention but not to the case has legal interests which may be affected by the construction given by the judgment in the case. As hinted at in the Whaling in the Antarctic case and the Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case, such a third State might intervene in the proceedings under Article 62 as well as Article 63 of the Statute unless it should be interpreted otherwise. In light of relevant provisions of the Statute and jurisprudence of the Court, this paper explores the question whether such a State has the choice, to submit an application to intervene under Article 62 or to make a declaration of intervention under Article 63.

The multilateralization of international investment law has witnessed repeated disappointments over the past six decades. Current negotiations regarding the Investment Chapter within the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement may bring about a new promise for this process. It is necessary for the TPP negotiating parties to have a proper understanding of this recent history. Circumstances under which the TPP negotiations are conducted are quite different from those of the past. Thus, it can be assumed that TPP negotiations will be concluded successfully and may have profound implications on the multilateralization of international investment law. Since TPP negotiations have multilateral consequences, several new initiatives have been proposed amongst the TPP negotiating parties, which may help alleviate the ‘legitimacy crisis’ of the past two decades. These initiatives include a new principle of Special and Differential treatment, operative provisions on investment promotion, a Side Agreement on code of conduct of transnational corporations, and an appellate mechanism for reviewing arbitral awards.

This article primarily assesses feminism’s achievements and challenges, particularly within the framework of the UN gender mainstreaming policy. The first part of the article explored different feminist inquiries into general law to question whether such inquiries have been successfully or properly reflected in the UN gender mainstream process. The second part focused on the progress made by the UN Security Council through its series of resolutions on Women, Peace and Security to examine the ways in which international institutions and international legal categories tend to exclude women and the issues of most concern to women. This analysis, owing much to the extensive literatures on female analyses on international law in the last two decades, led to the conclusion that despite the significant progress that has been made by feminist international lawyers, there remain many ongoing challenges before international law may fully embrace and reflect ‘true’ feminist values.

Upon Japan’s ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women in 1985, certain law reforms for gender equality were realized. However, international human rights law has impacted limitedly on the Japanese judiciary. The Women’s Convention has been invoked by parties in a number of cases, but so far has never been positively quoted by the courts. On the other hand, the jurisprudence of individual complaints under the Optional Protocol of the Women’s Convention has developed significantly. This paper introduces the case law of the individual complaint procedure of the Women’s Convention, and identifies its significance in comparison with Japanese jurisprudence. As the jurisprudence of individual complaints under the Women’s Convention is still in the law-making stage, the author encourages the Japanese government to ratify the Optional Protocol so that it can participate in the process of developing this jurisprudence.

The main purpose of this short essay is to mitigate harsh debate about ‘comfort women.’ Although it is not expected to be resolved in the foreseeable future, understanding the structure of the problem based on the fact-finding and legal analysis would enable the two peoples to seek a better solution. The author claims that: (1) although some of the historical facts remain unclear, and some people tend to focus too much attention on fact-finding, from the viewpoint of international law, sufficient evidence has been revealed to confirm Japan’s responsibility for its conduct in the Second World War, and Japan does not and should not deny the relevant historical facts; (2) Japan was absolved of its responsibility by the 1965 Agreement in a legal sense; and (3) having said that, this case reveals the limits of the positivistic legal approach, and the Asian Women’s Fund can be one legitimate way of dealing with this problem.