Although the key purpose of international investment law is to promote foreign investor protection by offering both substantive and procedural standards, the international investment governance regime needs to strike a balance between foreign investor rights protection and the host state’s right to regulate. The changing balance of this dichotomy shapes a leaving-and-return-of-the-state paradigm which explains and rationalizes an evolutionary development of both substantive and procedural norms and the changing status of sovereignty in international investment law. The “leaving” or “return” of the state paradigm informs us of the role of the state in the context of international investment law. This article makes a normative case for reframing investment and national security within what we call the investment rule of law. Both push for and pull from a liberalization movement are in an attempt to reshape this investment rule of law surrounding the concept of sovereignty, the core of international law.

Lawyers express their opinions mainly by writing. In particular, legal scholars are obliged to write scholarly papers and publish them. A good lawyer also includes being a good writer. However, it is not easy for young lawyers or law students to write a good, scholarly paper. To be a good writer, they should possess discipline. Nonetheless, there are a few practical guidelines for young lawyers or law students to refer to when they begin writing scholarly articles. The primary purpose of this research is to present the core guidelines of scholarly legal writing-what to consider and what to avoid - for beginners; following the author’s experience of editing globally recognized journals in international law as well as writing and publishing scholarly papers at leading academic law magazines in the world. This research paper contains the meaning of good scholarly legal paper, topic and title, research methodology, writing, referencing, research ethics and publication.

This paper focuses on critical anti-corruption measures taken by the State of Kuwait and the international community, specifically as they relate to the implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). Specific provisions of Nazaha Law, particularly those related to crimes and persons under its jurisdiction, are compared to the UNCAC, shedding light on the inherent advantages and disadvantages of the Law and whether the law constitutes a sufficient domestic anticorruption measure. By focusing on specific statutes and related jurisdictional matters, significant discrepancies between Nazaha Law and the UNCAC are noted. Kuwaiti legislators should immediately consider these discrepancies to ensure a more effective domestic policy in the global campaign against corruption. This paper comprises five parts including the Introduction and Conclusion. Part two will detail the various types of corruption covered by the Nazaha Law. Part three will focus on the persons covered under Nazaha jurisdiction. Part four will expound the issues of legal jurisdiction.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presents varieties of questions concerning not only international law, but also the domestic laws of states affected by this global pandemic. One of legal issues amid COVID-19 pandemic is the state immunity principle. There have been many lawsuits against foreign state challenging the state immunity principle amid the COVID-19 pandemic. In Thailand, the Chiangmai Provincial Court (court) addressed in its judgment that it did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the compensation for COVID-19 pandemic’s damages dispute between Thai restaurant owner and the United States (US). Notwithstanding surrounding controversies over COVID-19 pandemic, the court considered the motion denied. The main implication of the judgment is that Thailand accepted state immunity principle under customary international law. This research briefly explains the sovereign immunity doctrine relating to this case, summarizes the facts and analyses the potential ramifications of this judgement under international law.

In this essay, the author will discuss recent United States Supreme Court cases as well as international trade cases decided this year by the specialized international trade courts in the United States. Let me then discuss recent U.S. trade action concerning China and put this in the context of President Trump’s generalized approach to China and international trade. This article will conclude with a few observations pertaining to the upcoming presidential election in the United States. The. Supreme Court recently ruled on two highly politicized and historic cases on executive power. What has been almost totally overlooked is an international trade decision by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of International Trade. That case and earlier trade cases indicate the start of a multifaceted attempt to restrict the president’s trade policies. Either the 2020 presidential election will put a stop to President Trump’s reliance on national security to establish disastrous trade policies, or the country will be in this mess for years to come.

The rule of law principle has been established in modern society as a core value in domestic political governance. It evolves from social contract theory and is meant to rein in the almighty and powers from its beginning and later applies to all. In general, international law has become an essential pillar of the present international order. The recent rise of unilateral actions has posed threat to the international rule of law tradition. Equality in international relations, Pacta Sunt Servanda, and good faith implementation of treaty obligations are the essentials of the international rule of law, which provides predictability and stability to the stake holders in the international community. It also represents the fundamental common values of thousands of years of human civilization. Upholding the principle of international rule of law goes to the fundamentals and natures of human beings. Thus, maintaining international rule of law is a guarantee for a better world for all.

The article provides a general description of liability for administrative offenses under the PRC legislation. It considers general principles of responsibility for administrative offenses, the system of bodies that impose administrative penalties, the system of administrative penalties and the procedures for imposing them. The authors determine how well it is possible to strike a balance between public and private interests in the legislation on administrative penalties. “Legality” is declared as a basic principle of administrative liability in the PRC. In this article, the authors have concluded that the principle of legality has a rather specific content. Administrative offenses and penalties are not codified in China but are dispersed in a significant amount of laws and regulations. This approach ensures the existence of a fairly dynamic system of administrative measures which guarantee a proper order in the rapidly developing Chinese economy. At the same time, this approach carries a risk of abuse of power by public bodies and excessive state intervention in the life of individuals.

This article explores the territorial extension of the EU environmental law and how the EU uses its market powers to become global regulatory initiatives in the context of environmental protection. The legitimacy and practical influence of the global reach of the EU environmental law is first to be discussed. Taiwan, as a significant trade partner to the EU and also a critical exporting-oriented industrial entity in the world, has been heavily influenced by the EU environmental law development for the sake of gaining market access to the EU. In this regard, this article provides an overview of the EU environmental law. This article will provide a case study on the territorial effects of the EU environmental law on Taiwan and the responsive actions taken by the government and industries in Taiwan. This article recognizes the importance of the EU to achieve legitimate global values in the context of global environmental protection.

The extension of MFN clauses to dispute settlement under BITs is one of the most controversial areas in investment treaty law. Currently, the area is divided into two streams of case law. The award in Tze Yap Shum v Peru and other recent Chinese investment arbitral awards did not side the Maffezini stream. The question on which stream works the best for China is complicated and essentially a balancing exercise. This article examines the question from a Chinese perspective and adopts the analytical framework of the New Haven School. It identifies the issue of comparability of more preferential treatment as the key criterion in determining the question. It reviews the previous case law and assesses the economic, social and cultural factors shaping the Chinese investment policy. From there, the article seeks to discover if the current law helps fulfil China’s policy goals and proposes recommendations accordingly.

This article focuses on China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as a potential cause of trade, investment, financial, maritime, energy trade and intellectual property disputes. In so doing this contribution discusses the increasing “systemic rivalry” among authoritarian, neoliberal and ordo-liberal conceptions of international economic law and the resulting legal problems in the settlement of BRI disputes inside the EU countries, whose courts may not recognize arbitration awards by Chinese arbitration institutions and may hold Chinese investors accountable for disregard for human and labor rights in their BRI investment inside the EU countries.

The calls for reform of investment treaty regime are neither novel nor entirely unexpected. And the need for that reform has recently reached its pitiful nadir where the UNCITRAL Working Group III gathered for its first meeting in Vienna back in November-December 2017 to discuss states’ concerns about investor-state dispute settlement. States’ concerns about the reform have been repeatedly referred to in recent publications, but international scholars have not yet discussed Russia's stance in detail. In the following an attempt has been made to fill the gap in literature by introducing the Russian position which contrasts nicely with Canada or the EU. Why is this important? Russia is a significant state in the UNCITRAL Working Group III and any slight shifts in its approach in the UNCITRAL reforms are closely watched. It is the right time to provide an analytical framework for understanding the Russian position in these reform dynamics.

The Salvage Convention 1989 establishes the main international legal framework dealing with salvage operations and environmental protection. It is the result of many years of drafting and diplomatic efforts where the treaty was negotiated and concluded. It is undeniable that the Salvage Convention 1989 has encouraged private sector and public authorities to establish and maintain the resources needed to contain ecological damage. This was an important accomplishment. Providing adequate incentives for rapid salvage operation adds to the traditional rewards. Nevertheless, the problems of updating the provisions of the Salvage Convention 1989 need to be addressed and the path ahead is still long and winding. In particular, the importance of environmental considerations is increasingly significant. As a result, modern salvage operations must also take into account measures to prevent damage to the environment. Today’s international community is searching for a new salvage regime and law. This paper examines the possibility of building the new salvage regime and its implementation in Thailand.

The UNCLOS regulates complex balance of rights and duties among State parties. Its text was deliberately left vague as a result of compromise between the negotiating parties. To develop the legal norms, judges and arbitrators have referred to other rules of international law through systematic integration, rules of reference, and broad applicable law. However, judicial practice has expanded subject-matter jurisdiction beyond the UNCLOS, causing antinomy between Articles 288, on jurisdiction, and 293 of UNCLOS, on applicable law. Part XV of the UNCLOS has created an invisible community that would ideally lead the UNCLOS Tribunals to develop and follow a pragmatic approach as to the limits of their subject-matter jurisdiction in order to provide for judicial coherence. When interpreting the treaty, the establishment of genuine links between disputes and substantive rules under the UNCLOS is necessary, by which other rules of international law are firmly anchored to the interpreted texts under the UNCLOS.

Global warming, or climate change, could be the main reason why small islands in many areas of the Earth, including those in Indonesian territory, are sinking. Many small Indonesian islands are between 1 and 3 metres under the surface of the sea because of raised sea levels caused by climate change. If this situation continues, it would affect many of the outermost islands of Indonesia, so that we should anticipate the danger that the outermost islands would be submerged. The basepoints and archipelagic baselines would then be replaced, among other serious consequences for Indonesia. The Paris Climate Agreement, signed by almost 200 states in 2015, is the main instrument for mitigating global warming through reducing the emission of greenhouse gases. Indonesia ratified the Paris Climate Agreement, because it has a great interest in mitigating the phenomenon that is causing the sea level to rise, which is having a serious impact on its islands.

Sea-level rise (SLR) is considered one of the most serious consequences of climate change. The risk of SLR compels legal consideration of this phenomenon related to many interrelated domains including the Law of the Sea. The Western Pacific region contains the most low-lying coastal countries and small island States seriously affected by SLR in the world. This research has been carried out as a contribution paper on the State practice in the Western Pacific region to the topic of “Sea-level rise in relation to international law” conducted by the Study Group of the United Nations International Law Commission in the period of 2020-2021. It aims to summarize the consequences of SLR for the Western Pacific States and outline their legal positions in relation to the sea-level rise. It also discusses specific issues, challenges and opportunities facing the Western Pacific States in supporting the maintenance of maritime baselines and limits notwithstanding physical changes caused by SLR.