The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea admitted legislation and enforcement jurisdiction carried out by the flag state. However, the emergence of substandard ships and the growing number of ship accidents at sea indicate that flag state jurisdiction is far from effective. Four aspects of these failures are examined in this paper. Confronted with the failure of flag state jurisdiction, port states have devised a subsidiary remedy to ensure their national interests and restore the effectiveness of flag state jurisdiction. A problem hereunder arises because non-explicit permission was given to port states to prosecute substandard ships. Thus, this paper further analyses four aspects of port state jurisdiction. The authors aim to analyse the failures and remedies associated with state jurisdiction over ships. It reviews the scope and deficiency of state jurisdiction in combatting substandard ships and illicit activities at sea. This paper also addresses the importance of port state control, regional memorandums of understanding and international conventions.

In 2019, two court rulings in China on the issue of copyrightability of AI creations received international attention. It was reported that in Feilin v. Baidu, known as the first AI case, the Beijing Internet Court denied copyright of AI creations, whereas the Shenzhen Nanshan District People’s Court acknowledged copyright of AI creations in the Tencent Dreamwriter case. The two cases, however, were quite similar, as they acknowledged copyright of AIassisted, not AI-generated, written works and recognized these works as a work of a legal entity. The difference between the two judgments is that the Beijing Internet Court regarded originality as an independent requirement and judged it according to the objective standard, whereas the Shenzhen Nanshan District People’s Court regarded human creation as part of the requirement of originality. In this sense, it was the Beijing Internet Court that actually made the more favorable judgment on an AI-generated work.

The US has entered a new era of crisis. President Biden has just been inaugurated. He faces historical challenges to return the US to global leadership. The primacy purpose of this article is to discuss national security and trade policy in the new Biden administration. First, I look at the historic and dubious claims made by the Trump administration in utilizing national security as a cover for protectionist trade actions, as well as at the federal court cases addressing these claims. I then assess the cases that have come before the WTO over the last two years, raising for first time the issue of the national security exception under GATT Article XXI. Finally, I conclude that President Biden’s overwhelming priority is to resurrect American democracy and alliances. But he will also need to address a broad range of trade issues and to restrict reliance on national security as a cover for populist and protectionist policies.

Today, as fragmentation of international law has become a reality, the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO, being one the most essential adjudicatory bodies, has often been criticized for its overly-textualist approach to interpretation and use of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). This commentary analyses the decision rendered by the Dispute Settlement Body in the China-Rare Earths Case. It explains how the textualist reading given by the Appellate Body could not look into the corresponding GATT regulation, while interpreting the Accession Protocol of China. It argues that this erroneous decision is a result of the DSB’s reliance on textualism through the use of Article 31 of the VCLT. It looks into the travaux préparatoires of Article 31 of the VCLT to argue that the concerns raised during the Vienna Conference are still relevant and get reflected even today in the decisionmaking in the China-Rare Earths case.

The primary purpose of this research is to propose the solution to the current crisis of the WTO dispute settlement system focusing on Article 25 of the WTO Agreement. The Dispute Settlement Understanding is one of the significant successes of the WTO. Recent years, however, have witnessed the difficulties and challenges facing the multilateral trading system along with rising anti-globalization and trade protectionism. The Appellate Body (AB) has been experiencing an unprecedented crisis of dysfunction mainly due to the US’s boycott of appointing the new members. The WTO Members, including China, have thus proposed various reforms in response to the crisis. However, they have not touched the core demands of the US. Because of the imminent crisis that the AB is about to stop operating, China should take urgent action with other WTO members, consider launching a majority voting program, design and use alternative appeal arbitration, and combine international rules with domestic deepening reforms.

There is no single approach in the world regarding the legal regulation of cryptocurrency. Most countries are wary of legalizing this payment instrument, fearing problems associated with tax evasion, terrorist financing, fraud and other illegal transactions. Nevertheless, the issue of legalization of cryptocurrencies has recently moved to a different level as the market capitalization of cryptocurrencies grew to over USD 237 billion 2020, with several leading cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin skyrocketing in value in 2021. The explosive growth has been lead in no small part by China, the world’s largest and most important market for cryptocurrency in terms of mining, investing and research. This article reviews the current trends in cryptocurrency regulation with a particular focus on China, including an analysis of current cryptocurrency laws in China, as well as the new Chinese Cryptography Law. Also, it explains recent developments in Chinese regulation and policy will continue to shape the development of the global cryptocurrency markets.

The 2020 US Presidential election is now over. After listening to the essence of Mr. Biden’s inauguration speech, “America is Back!,” people around the world are cautiously expecting the revival of multilateralism. This research is to tackle a fundamental question of: “Is America Back to Multilateralism?,” by focusing on the US’s China trade policy under the Biden presidency. This essay consists of five parts including Introduction and Conclusion. Part two will review the development of postwar multilateralism which constructed the rulebased trade governance. Part three will analyze the challenge and crisis of contemporary multilateralism under former President Trump and the possibility of its resurrection under Biden administration. The author will review the origin and evolution of the US-China trade war. Part four will look into the possibility of reconstructing multilateral world for sustainable development. Part five will conclude the essay predicting the US’s China trade policy under the Biden administration.

This study describes and analyses the recently adopted foreign investment law (the Law) of China. First, this paper presents reasons for the adoption of the Law. For example, we focus on the trade war between the US and China, which has greatly affected the adoption of the Law. The political background that influenced the adoption of the law is revealed. Of note, legal techniques used by the Chinese legislators in the Law are evaluated. For example, a list system for investment sectors is used, which divides all industries into categories with a special regime. This system divides all industries into four categories: (1) encouraged, (2) permitted, (3) restricted, and (4) prohibited. In conclusion, this study emphasizes that changes achieved by the Law are not revolutionary. Some of the consequences that the adoption of the law entails is analyzed. Thus, the Law represents a gradual evolution in how foreign investors access the Chinese economy.

The Dispute Settlement Mechanism of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is facing serious crisis, which has impeded its normal function. To address this impasse, this article suggests a reform of the WTO’s dispute-settlement mechanism: the establishment of a new megamultilateral court to substitute for the Appellate Body. The first part of this paper addresses the reasons for considering this approach. The second part identifies how to establish a new mega-multilateral court within the WTO. The third part puts forward an idea of the function of the Dispute Settlement Body, which would serve as a forum for adjudicators and State Parties of the mega-multilateral court, in order to balance judicial independence, judicial accountability, and consistency. In discussing the reason for this reform, approaches to implementing it, and other examples of what form it might take, this article concludes that it is appropriate to establish a new mega-multilateral court within the WTO.

When confronted with the host states’ increasing enthusiasm of invoking the corruption defense as an arbitral strategy to frustrate foreign investors’ claims, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunals encounter realistic difficulties in arbitration. The inherent insufficiency of anti-corruption investigative powers bestowed to ICSID tribunals highlights the importance of constructing a coordinative mechanism between the ICSID and any domestic enforcement authorities enlisted to repudiate corruption. The enacted International Criminal Judicial Assistance Law of the People’s Republic of China provides the domestic legal basis for establishing a coordinative international criminal judicial assistance mechanism between such international organizations as ICSID and China’s domestic anti-corruption enforcement authorities. Eventually, the proposed ICSID-China’s anti-corruption mechanism will help the global community fight against international investment corruption in a coordinated way, substantially enhancing any host state’s ability to confront the on-going difficulties also experienced by investment arbitral tribunals.

The sudden escalation of the US-China trade war has negatively impacted global trade and the WTO, and its effects will last for a long time. This article centres on the US anti-dumping measures against Chinese exports within the trade war. The article attempts to explain the failure of the US trade policies in terms of anti-dumping measures; policies which were found to be inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA). Rather than complying with the Appellate Body Reports, the US insisted on using procedures inconsistent with the ADA, such as the zeroing methodology to overprotect the US industries. The US even blocked the appointment of Appellate Body Members and paralysed the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Mechanism. Apart from political and economic reasons, one of the underlying reasons for the US to trigger a trade war with China would be anti-dumping measures. Antidumping measures are designed to balance unfair pricing strategies; however, the US is misusing the measures in order to avoid a trade deficit with China.

While inspecting the Natanz Nuclear Site (Iran) on October 6, 2019, an inspector of the IAEA was found to carry suspicious materials. She was prevented from entering the site by the Iranian authorities and was shortly returned to the Agency’s headquarters. Iran could not prosecute her, because of the inspector’s immunity by the Agency. However, in addition to exhaustion of the dispute settlement mechanisms predicted in the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA which has also provided the recourse to the ICJ, Iran may prosecute the Agency by attributing the conduct of the inspector to the Agency in the national courts of non-member States of the Agency that has not accepted the immunity of international organizations as customary international law. This article deals with the immunity of international organizations and its agents, as well as examining the Agency inspector’s fault in inspecting the Natanz Nuclear Site and the Judicial Mechanisms for follow-ups.

On January 3, 2020, the Trump administration killed General Quassem Soleimani by a drone strike. Soleimani had been widely considered the second most powerful leader in Iran. President Trump and his administration have provided different justifications for the drone attack. The assassination of Quassem Soleimani has been met with criticism in many parts of the world. Legal scholars have extensively debated the lawfulness of the drone strike. They discussed, inter alia, whether the killing of the Iranian general was a violation of international law regulating the use of force (jus ad bellum), international humanitarian law (jus in bello) and international human rights law. The following article examines the legality of the killing of the Iranian general, from the jus ad bellum by focusing on the accumulation of events theory. Furthermore, the article addresses the policy implications that the killing of Soleimani might have on other countries such as North Korea.

Today’s technological developments have resulted in the emergence of various new crimes threatening the international community. In recent decades, there have been various forms of cybercrimes targeted at the communication networks and defense systems of countries by other countries, known as cyber warfare. Unfortunately, international law has not specified this as a crime, but its impact has caused violations of sovereignty and disruption of national security, resulting in material loss, breakdown of communication networks and obstruction of social and public services based on the internet, such as what happened in Estonia in 2007. This article is a normative study that analyzes the elements of cybercrime relating to threats to a country’s security. The modification of the cybercrime concept is necessary to designate cybercrimes as crimes of aggression amid technological development to maintain stability in the international community.

Differences between the littoral states regarding the status of the Malacca Strait result in disharmony and inconsistencies in handling spatial planning and preventing marine pollution in the strait. International cooperation with user countries carried out so far is also not optimal due to conflict of interests. Using a normative juridical approach and secondary data of the provisions of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982 and the Declaration of the Three Strait States, the Malacca Strait is under the sovereignty of the littoral states and used for international navigation with transiting passage. Spatial planning in the Malacca Strait, which results in overlapping uses for cross-fishing vessels, conservation, and traditional fishing, cannot be performed because the problem of maritime boundary determination has not been resolved by the littoral states. Tripartite cooperation needs to continue to be built through agreements that not only bind the littoral states but also the user states.

The Indonesian Ocean Policy (IOP) is a new milestone in managing its oceans since Indonesia ratified the UNCLOS 35 years ago. Indonesia underwent several paradigm shifts in strengthening ocean governance from 1957 to 2014. This research aims to analyse three paradigm shifts in strengthening ocean governance in Indonesia. The research revealed that the milestone of the first shift was the 1957 Djuanda Declaration, recognised by the UNCLOS in 1982, regarding the concept of an archipelago state, called the ‘ocean space paradigm.’ The second, which occurred in the Reformation period (1998-2014) was called the Ocean Development paradigm, while the third paradigm shift was after President Jokowi launched Indonesia’s vision as a Global Maritime Fulcrum. This third paradigm shift was also associated with the emergence of the IOP, which contributes to national development and pays comprehensive attention to the constellation of relations between the countries in Asia and various initiatives in the region.

The development of Chinese international jurisprudence over the past 70 years can be divided into three stages: fledging; recovery and development; and flourishing. During the period, Chinese international lawyers have made great contributions to the development of international law through, inter alia, the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence, recognition and succession, the peaceful settlement of international disputes, the Belt and Road Initiative, the Shared Future for Mankind, and so forth. However, participation in international legislation and international judicial activities needs to be further improved, because the theoretical ground for China’s foreign policy and diplomatic practice is still insufficient and academic works with global influence are not enough yet. The development of Chinese international law follows such trends: more valuable interpretation and application of international law; the theoretical innovation of international law; and the improvement of China’s discourse power. These are important missions for Chinese international lawyers.