On March 18, 2020, Malaysian Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin declared the nationwide enforcement of the Movement Control Order to curb the spread of COVID-19. In September 2020, Malaysia entered the third wave of the outbreak. Active cases rose from 60 to more than 13,000. The government’s Ops Benteng stops illegal migrants, who are at high risk of bringing COVID-19 into Malaysia. This includes illegal Rohingya migrants, who enter Malaysia to flee persecution in their home country, Myanmar. There are approximately 150,000 Rohingya migrants in Malaysia and more are expected. This article examines the main reason behind the influx of Rohingya illegal migrants and discusses whether the Malaysian government should tighten its borders to safeguard against COVID-19. The government must prioritise its own citizens over the Rohingyas; the responsibility of managing this humanitarian disaster should be shared with other nations, particularly those party to the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951.

This short article examines whether China has incurred responsibility for violating a general due diligence obligation in customary international law or specific obligations under the WHO’s International Health Regulations and the WHO Constitution in a context of Covid-19. It is submitted that due diligence is merely a notion to describe a primary obligation, or a standard by which a particular primary obligation is assessed. It cannot serve as the basis for holding a State responsible. Regarding the WHO regime, actions taken by China after December 2019 neatly fit into the staggered requirements of Articles 6 and 7 of the International Health Regulations, which do not set out clear standards for the evaluation of a health emergency. On a more general level, we reflect upon the role of international law in global pandemic control and caution against the politicization of international health law.

The primary purpose of this paper is to know which formulation of FET standard among the diverse drafting approaches best serves the interests of both States and investors. In this respect, the paper first will have a review of general categorization of FET in a number of IIAs. Subsequently, it will focus on the two most controversial formulations of FET: (1) as a standalone clause and (2) with reference to the minimum standard of treatment under customary international law. In light of this, it will discuss the impact of the various FET drafts on the decisions of arbitral tribunals dealing with this standard. Lastly, the paper will also explore the most recent approaches to the formulation of FET to see if they are capable of brining clarity in the overall discussion of FET’s formulation as well as interpretation. In short, these recent constructions of FET clauses may best serve these interests as they bring clarity.

Recent incidents of state terrorism, including the assassination of Kim Jong-Nam, the murder (and attempted murder) of persons with strong ties to Russia, and the Jamal Khashoggi assassination, demonstrate cruelty while implying the involvement of the state, unlike other acts of terrorism since the Second World War. This trend denies the efforts of the international community, which has suppressed physical punishment including the death penalty in modern times and has achieved advances in human rights and humanitarianism under contemporary international law. Accordingly, this paper utilizes Michel Foucault’s indications regarding prison to reconsider recent cases of state terrorism from a broader perspective while taking into consideration the historical background of conventional terrorism and the development of international terrorism-related treaties.

Hybrid dispute settlement mechanism is one of the characteristics of the UNCLOS. It is the combination of diplomatic measures and judicial proceedings. Among them, the ITLOS established in accordance with Annex VI, and two types of arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annexes VII and VIII are means for the disputes settlement firstly regulated in the UNCLOS. Especially, according to Article 287, an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII has default jurisdiction in case one or both parties to a dispute are not covered by a declaration in force, or the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute. These means of dispute settlement have supplemented and enhanced the source of law for international dispute resolution more diversified. This paper clarifies some aspects of compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions under the UNCLOS, evaluates the applicability of these procedures to the case of Vietnam in the disputes settlement on interpretation or application of the UNCLOS raising among countries in the South China Sea.

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.