Search

Professor Sienho Yee has recently published a paper in Chinese Journal of International Law, entitled, “Unilateral Sanctions: Kind and Degree; Long-arm and Strong Arm Jurisdiction; Real Intent and ‘Could-be’ Intent.” Yee has ably elaborated that to assess the conduct of unilateral sanctions, there is a need to consider a question of “kind” so as to a question of “degree.” Further, the so-called “long-arm jurisdiction” should be better phrased as “strong-arm jurisdiction” since sometimes long-arm jurisdiction may be lawful, whereas the current version of the long-arm jurisdiction asserted by the United States is so extreme that it is no longer lawful. To this end, attention should be paid to the level of scrutiny or standard of review that a decision-maker would apply to the assessment of intent. Following from Yee’s thoughts, this note would like to elaborate further on another aspect, namely, the proportionality and necessity of unilateral sanctions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States’ Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) introduces new eligibility requirements for existing USD 7,500 tax-credit provided to electric vehicles. The new requirements condition the credit upon North American final assembly and North American-sourced materials and components. As tensions flare between the US and China, these new local content requirements reflect the US’s effort to establish a supply chain for electric vehicles that circumvents China. The blow, however, is felt elsewhere, namely by South Korean auto makers whose electric vehicle models are no longer eligible for the significant tax-credit necessary to compete in the American market. As South Korea considers submitting a complaint to relevant international bodies, this paper dissects the IRA’s relevant provisions and analyzes the applicability of international trade law rules of the WTO and the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement to the new local content requirements of the IRA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since its founding in 1949, the People's Republic of China has acceded to more than 300 multilateral treaties. Among them, China made reservations to 83 treaties, accounting for nearly 27.7 percent of the total. Evidently, for China, formulating reservations to multilateral treaties is an issue of vital importance in the process of concluding and executing multilateral treaties. This paper examines the three main reasons why China inclines to formulate reservations to the treaties, then argues that the reservations formulated by China, whether in procedure or in substance, are not only in full conformity with the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, but also full of Chinese characteristics. This paper also analyzes several specific reservations that China shall withdraw, and addresses the limitations of China's existing treaty reservation system. Accordingly, this paper concludes that the Chinese government should improve and perfect its treaty reservation system with some suggestions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rapid developments of research and teaching of international law in China have attracted the attention of international law academics of the world, who have looked over the landscape of international law in China with great interest. Unfortunately, existing literature has yet to completely satisfy their interests in this aspect. This article is intended to compensate for this gap by introducing representative international lawyers, publications, academic associations and research funding schemes on international law in China. More concretely, this paper will show the mainstream research sources of their Chinese counterparts as well as embrace teaching as part of the research system of international law in China. It is expected that, with their more attention into the holistic research methodology and the “One Belt, One Road" strategy, the Chinese academia of international law will contribute more to the international rule of law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]