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.

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.