Search

This article analyses the tax agreement network of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the backdrop of the changing landscape of international taxation. It aims to assess the consistency of the region's tax agreement practice and its adequacy to meet future needs of the economy. Owing to its normative roots, the article meticulously reviews all tax agreements concluded over the years to analyse major deviations, dynamics and rationales. This is done in light of the imminent need to maintain the region's leadership through policy in a bid to remain attractive in the Greater China region and beyond. Due to the premise that taxation is the third pillar of international economic law, the article will also touch upon the region's mtemational tax law practice. It concludes by proposing that the region must adopt a more sophisticated and proactive intemational tax policy regime to embrace changes in the international set-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The decision of a country to join regional trade agreements (RTAs) is guided by its expected welfare gains, though potentials of both trade creation and trade diversion cannot be ruled out through such arrangements. The slow progress of the World Trade Organization negotiations has created a demand for mega-regional trade agreements in the last decade, but the recent US and Indian pullout from Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), respectively, raised a question on their attraction. One of the major underlying objectives of RTAs is to deepen intra-bloc participation in regional value chains (RVCs) and International Production Networks (IPNs), through adoption of reformed rules of origin (ROO) provisions and mutual recognition agreements (MRA) for standard harmonization. This article, through an analysis of the RVC–IPN participation of the RCEP countries, attempts to understand to what extent the Indian pullout from RCEP can be linked to its unfulfilled expectations. The observations indicate that, relatively modest participation in the RVCs, declining domestic value added content of exports and the associated adverse trade balance scenario have critically shaped the Indian standpoint. The evolving Indian orientation towards trade remedy mechanism can be viewed in this backdrop. The analysis concludes that in the post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) period, the Indian decision to consolidate domestic manufacturing sector needs to acknowledge the reality rather than being guided by the rhetoric. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The growing usage of the trade remedial measures has become a major bone of contention among nations. The Member countries, characterized by declining tariff barriers, often tend to protect their domestic interests against unfair trade practices (e.g., dumping) through the "contingency" measures, as permitted under World Trade Organization (hereinafter "WTO"). The Article analyses India's growing association with contingency measures and its implications for the global trade governance, as the country has emerged as a major user of the contingency measures, namely Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA) and Safeguard (hereinafter "SFG") instruments. Meanwhile, Indian exports have also faced several Anti-Dumping (hereinafter "AD") and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (hereinafter "ASCM") in partner countries. India's growing participation in the contingency universe is imperative, given the country's recent inclination to join regional trade agreements (hereinafter "RTAs"). The Article shows that India's tryst with the contingency instruments involves both RTA partners and other WTO Member countries. While the concerns over growing imports have guided the activism on AD and SFG front, the urge to boost competitiveness through export schemes brought Indian interventions under ASCM lenses. Given the continuing competitiveness-related challenges, as evident from India's Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) negotiating experience, the interventions by the policymakers both on export and import fronts are expected in the coming future as well. The evolving dynamics further increase India's ever-growing association with contingency measures which, in turn, would remain a major issue within the WTO governance framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

If the Internet were a national economy, it would rank in the world's top five. In the coming years, online economies will play an even larger role in the economies of both developed and developing countries. In this booming economy, Internet domain names play an important role as they reflect the business and activities of all companies. Domain names are assets that belong to economic actors and for which they fight. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Article 18.28 imposes certain requirements on each Party with respect to the management of its country- code top level domain (ccTLD) names which will be analyzed in this Article. These requirements include ensuring there is available a low cost, fair and equitable, and not overly burdensome dispute settlement procedure that does not preclude resort to court litigation. The Article also requires each Party to provide, in connection with a Party's system for the management of ccTLD names, appropriate remedies when a person registers or holds a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark with bad faith intent to profit. There is already a great number of disputes which can only increase in number and magnitude. For a decade, the ICANN has adopted administrative proceedings for resolving domain name disputes outside of the court system-the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy. This Article also reviews recent development of the case-law, in respect to cases that involve a party from a developing country, with regard to three elements: (1) the domain name registered is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark; (2) rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International investment has become one of the most dynamic and debated areas of international law in the last decade. The proliferation of treaties and multiplication of disputes are largely responsible fo r bringing cases that relate to intellectual property rights (IPR) to international investment arbitration, contributing to blurring the lines between IPR and investment. The Article demonstrates that this convergence is not the result of creative interpretations, but, instead, the result of normative evolution that has led governments to incorporate IPR into the concept of investment. The Article first retraces the foundations of international investment law, narrating the history of the protection of foreign investment throughout the centuries. The birth of the Treaties of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation marks the beginning of the era of reciprocity between stales in the concessions to foreign merchants and investors. In the early stages, disputes between investors and the host country were solved through diplomacy, with the active engagement of the home country of the investor. The development of Hull Formula and Calvo doctrine allowed the evolution of the concepts of compensated expropriation and national treatments, which were thereafter included in great part in treaties. The Article further digs into the development of investment arbitration from state-state to investor-state, as we know it today; unveils the reasons of its expansion in use; and outlines the differences with its sibling, commercial arbitration. Finally, the Article focuses on the development of the protection of IPR under Investment Law, examining how IPR is included in the scope of International Investment Agreements throughout history: from the first bilateral investment treaty between Germany and Pakistan until more recent treaties. The Article also provides a comprehensive review of investor-state cases that tackled IPR and discusses whether investment tribunals are an appropriate forum to judge these intangible property rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article focuses on the rise of state capitalism and its consequences on the international law of foreign investment and transnational arbitration which were both historically designed to regulate foreign private investments. The increasingly free movement of capital and the dominance of multinational corporations in cross-border trade and investment have brought with them increased suspicion about the motives of statecontrolled entities (SCEs) when they invest, allocate scarce resources, procure goods and services, and move goods and services across national borders. When state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) become involved in transnational economic activities, either as the perceived "transgressor" or as the "defender" in the face of rules or administrative actions targeted towards such entities, the debate becomes increasingly tense. The increased suspicion includes concerns by countries about threats to their national security and to the competitive interests of producers and consumers based in their respective territories, among other concerns. This Article revisits the concept of state capitalism as it has developed in three key jurisdictions (China, France and the United States). It then presents the key legal international instruments granting rights to SCEs and obligations upon host States by looking at the litigation forum SCEs can access. By looking at the litigation options available to SCEs, this Article clarifies and evaluates the progressive adaptation of economic rules to State capitalism and demonstrate the gradual inclusion of SCEs in the world economy and its rules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced that he wanted to resurrect the legendary Silk Road; he proposed a titanic project to build hundreds of roads, bridges, and railroads to connect China and Europe. In China, the government also speaks of the 'Belt and Road initiative' (One Belt, One Road - abbreviated OBOR) to describe the project that will span more than 50 years. OBOR is President Xi Jinping's most important project and it marks a radical change in China's foreign policy as it constitutes a new economic model that also aims to strengthen China's position as an economic superpower. Despite its major impact on international trade and investment, OBOR does not belong to present-day categories of international pacts and treaties. For the first time in its modern history, China is attempting to export its development model, that is, China is relying on massive investment in infrastructure, roads, ports, and railways, at home and abroad, to accelerate industrial development throughout the region. At a time when the globalization of the economy is tilting the balance towards the East, OBOR will redistribute the maps of trade and investment to an extent which this Article assesses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A legitimate expectation is said to arise as a result of a promise, a representation, a practice or a policy made, adopted or announced by or on behalf of a government or a public authority. Even in the absence of a contractual or substantive right, a legitimate expectation may enable an individual to seek legal redress which makes the legitimate expectation a key principle in a number of domestic and international legal orders. First, this article presents the concept of legitimate expectations in its broader context with the objective to define in different (and sometimes overlapping) legal orders. The source of the concept in each legal order shall be briefly discussed. Second, this article focuses on invoking the concept of legitimate expectations in bringing judicial review proceedings before a Hong Kong court and an investment arbitration dispute before an international arbitral tribunal. Great effort was made to identify and compare the discrepancies of the concept in the two legal orders. In particular, the analysis seeks to conclude whether international investment law or domestic public law provides a broader notion of the concept in favour of the suing party. Third, in light of the contexts, it was concluded to which the concept applies. Finally, the article demonstrates that the concept of legitimate expectations under international law applies a wider notion of that than in the domestic judicial review proceedings. However, having acknowledged the wide and divergent socio-legal considerations of domestic public law and international investment law, this article concludes that whether an applicant is more strategic to launch a judicial review proceeding or an international investment arbitration is based on the facts of each particular case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasingly robust protection of Intellectual Property Rights ("IPRs") worldwide stems from the ever-increasing importance of IPintensive industries in international environments. However, IPR protection and enforcement are bound both by national and international IPR-related laws, policies, and practices. Since the development of the United States' IPR system, there has been a dramatic transformation of IPR-protection modalities, from a soft one based on "monopoly phobia" to a strong one in the absolute sense. The United States has made it its aim to strong-arm the negotiations of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS") provisions to obtain strong IPR protection. As for many other World Trade Organization ("WTO") Members, attending the multilateral IPR negotiations and then accepting the negotiating results have seemingly become a strategic choice to circumvent the United States' unilateral actions against IPR violations. Considering the onerousness of the Doha Round Agenda, it will be significant if future TRIPS reforms will avoid the dilemma caused by focusing obsessively on strong IPR protection and enforcement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]