试论中国区域贸易安排战略

Regional Trade Arrangements (RTAs) have proliferated after the birth of the World Trade Organization (WTO). In these years, as the members of RTAs increased considerably, the instruments and formalities of RTAs have been varied, and the scope of RTAs has been expanded. With regards to China, it has changed its traditional view and has been engaged positively in the building its own RTAs. Facing the competition from neighboring countries, China should construct an appropriate strategy on RTAs as soon as possible. Without the derogation of multilateral trade agreement, the RTA strategy should be led by national strategic interest, contain the involvement of various levels of trade agreements, enlarge the scope of regional trade agreements, and expand the potential realm of partners for cooperation, etc. Chen Bin was a joint doctoral student of Wuhan University (China) and l’Université Paul Cézanne Aix-Marseille III (France). Now, he is an editor of International Law Review of Wuhan University, a visiting scholar under the scholarship programme of UK foundation for Uniform Law of l’Institut International pour l’Unification du Droit Privé (Unidroit), a researcher under the doctoral scholarship programme of the Hague Academy of International Law, a research fellow of Heidelberg Max Plank Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, a research fellow under the Asser Research Fellowships Programme of T.M.C. Asser Instituut, a visiting fellow under the scholarship program for visiting fellows of Hamburg Max Plank Institute for Comparative and International Private Law. Mr. Chen is a member of the Society of International Economic Law (SIEL), the Association for International Arbitration (AIA) and the Asian Competition Forum (ACF), and a researcher of the Arbitration Institute of Guangzhou Arbitration Court. Currently, his research interests focus on international trade law and public international law.     

中美知识产权"刑事门槛"争端的法律问题

In April 2007, the United States filed an application with the DSB of WTO with respect to the issue of criminal law protection mechanism of intellectual property rights in China, which was the first dispute accepted by the DSB arising out of the issue of criminal law protection mechanism of intellectual property rights. The core of the dispute of the case is how to interpret the “commercial scale” under Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement as the “criminal threshold”. It can be seen from the practice of the interpretation of the DSB that while each WTO member is entitled to interpret the term “commercial scale”, the boundary of interpretation is subject to Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement. It is unnecessary for China to lower her “criminal threshold”, since China’s criminal law protection in intellectual property policy is in compliance with the TRIPS Agreement. In fact, the United States should change from lowering the criminal threshold to how to strengthen the criminal crackdown on piracy under the circumstance of lowering the price of genuine works when imposing pressure on China in the protection of intellectual property rights. He Xiaoyong, Ph.D, is presently a professor in the Faculty of International Law in the University of East China University of Political Science and Law. He studied as a visiting scholar at the University of San Francisco (2001). He was awarded a Chevening Scholarship in 2002 sponsored by British Council and Shanghai Outstanding Teacher Award in 2004. He has released more than 80 academic articles on WTO issues and international financial law, and his monographs include Legal Aspects on Supervision under Financial Globalization (2002), International Trade Dispute Settlement and China’s Perspective: Under the WTO framework (2006) and new issues under the WTO (2008).     

中国行政执法困境的个案解读

Due to lack of effective, and adequate communication on the standpoint of the government and the attitudes of civil society in legislative process, this has led to tension between the government and the general public. Within the context of law enforcement, the government sticks to “problem-based strategies” and “campaign-based enforcement”, who believe in the power of coercive force. As a way out of the dilemma in law enforcement, it is required that in the process of rule-making, the government should communicate effectively with the civil society in the institutionalized system, focusing on learning, reflection, and strategic adjustment. Wang Xixin, Professor at Law School of Peking University. Since 1999, Prof. Wang is a working member of China Administrative Legislative Research Group an academic team advising China’s Legal Affairs Working Commission on administrative law reforms. Since 2001, he is a major drafter for China’s Administrative Procedure Act. Since 2002, he is a research consultant for the NPC Standing Committee General Office. Since 2003, he is a research fellow of the China Law Center of Yale Law School. Since 2005, he is a Vice-chairman of Beijing Administrative Law Society. In academia, Prof. Wang is focused on administrative procedure, public participation, rulemaking and comparative administrative studies, whose publications include books, such as “Administrative Procedure: A Theoretic and Institutional Inquiry” (Beijing, 2007) and “Public Participation and Administrative Process” (Beijing, 2007) and some 30 articles for journals published in China and America. Moreover, Prof. Wang often submits papers and gives lectures in academic forums, including Columbia Law School, Yale Law School, the Woodrow Wilson Center for Int’l Scholarship, and Carnige Endowment for Int’l Peace.     

论中国和平发展与国际法的交互影响和作用

A peaceful and harmonious world is an important social basis for China’s peaceful development, and international law lays a legal foundation and guarantee for building such a world. In the “village of globe” with co-existence and economic globalization, international law provides China a peaceful development with legal certainty in external environment of peace and security, fair and equal international competitive order, and international cooperation; and on the other hand, it puts on an increasing legal restraint on the internal and external strategies of China’s peaceful development. At the same time, the peaceful development of China deems to make a great contribution to the world, which are the main subject of international law in peace and development, as well as to human rights, rule of law and democracy, which are the universal values pursued by international law. Zeng Lingliang, Ph.D of law, is presently a dean and professor in the Faculty of Law in University of Macau. He is an awardee of the Cheung Kong Scholars Award Program and Jean Monnet Chair of European Union Law in Wuhan University, and one of the first three individuals nominated by the China government on the list of panelists in the WTO. He has published many articles on WTO issues, EU law and international law, and his influenced monographs are European Communities and Modern International Law (1992) and its revised edition—European Union and Modern International Law (1994), Law of World Trade Organization (1996), International Law and China in the Early 21 ^st Century (2005) and the Essentials of EU Law—in the New Perspective of the Treaty on the Constitution for Europe (2007).     

INCORPORATION OF UNCITRAL MODEL LAW ON INTERNATIONAL

Globalization has enabled China to rationalize and institutionalize its economic and political system. China has been quite successful in accommodating globalization in its legal reform. As China becomes one of the important trade players in the international market, the commercial disputes between Chinese companies and foreign trade-partners to be resolved through the arbitration are arising substantially. To an extent, China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) has sped up its legal reform in the past decades. However, there are some deficiencies with respect to the mechanism and legislation of China’s arbitration law that arguably is not responsive to the norms of the United Nations Commission on International Trade (UNCITRAL) Model Law (1985) and its Amendment (2006). This paper provides an overview of arbitration in China from the legislative and practical perspectives, covering the arbitration’s evolution history and problems before and after 1994. The paper focuses on some important issues in China’s Arbitration Law (“CAL”), evaluating its legislative defects which are inconsistent with the Model Law and its Amendment, clarifying how the Model Law was incorporated into China’s CAL. Some legislative amendments are recommended for CAL’s modernization and its practices, to align it with international arbitration norms in the future.     

现代国际法的人本化发展趋势

Humanization is not only a new concept and value-oriented, but also an ever-increasing positive phenomena in international law. Contemporary international law has been contributing to the establishment and improvement of global peace and development order for the co-existence among States on the one hand, and making endeavors to the formation and maintenance of humanizing order, which is both “individual-oriented” and “humankind-oriented”. Such a humanizing phenomenon undoubtedly represents the advanced trend of international law, enriches its contents, updates some of its classic branches and impacts on the basic principle of reciprocity on which it is created and developed. However, the humanization of international law could not have taken shape without common accords among States by means of either treaties or customary rules; and without cooperation among States, the humanistic value of international law can never become true no matter how sublime it is. Zeng Lingliang, Ph.D, is presently a dean and professor in Faculty of Law of the University of Macau, a Cheung Kong awardee and Jean Monnet Chair of European Union Law in Wuhan University, and one of the first three individuals nominated by the Chinese government on the list of panelists in the WTO. Prof. Zeng has a lot of articles published on the WTO issues, EU law and international law, and his representative monographs, for instance, European Communities and Modern International Law (Wuhan University Press, 1992) and its revised edition European Union and Modern International Law (Zhiyi Press, 1994), Law of World Trade Organization (Wuhan University Press, 1996), International Law and China in the Early 21st Century (Wuhan University Press, 2005) and Essentials of EU Law—In the new perspective of the treaty on a Constitution for Europe (Wuhan University Press, 2007).     

论法律意义上的仲裁地点及其确定

The paper studies the concept of the place of arbitration in comparing with the legislation and practices of international commercial arbitration. It also stresses on the connection and distinction between the place of arbitration, the place of hearing, and the place where the arbitration tribunal deliberates the case, as well as the method of deciding the place of arbitration. The author also analyzes the current legislation and practices of the determination on the place of arbitration in China. The paper pointed out that it is important in both theory and practice to promote international arbitration in China and amend domestic arbitration legislation in determing place of arbitration properly. Zhao Xiuwen, professor, has been teaching international business law in the law school of Renmin University of China since 1984. She used to be a Fulbright research scholar in Georgetown Law Center of George Washington University and other universities (USA), and as a visiting professor in universities and research institutes (UK, Germany, Italy, Austria and Australia). She also works in the panel of China International Economic & Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb), Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC) and some local arbitration commissions in China. She is the author of several books and dozens of articles in the field of international business law and commercial arbitration, i.e. arbitration system in Hong Kong, international economic law, private international law, copyright, international commercial arbitration, international economic and trade arbitration law, etc.     

文化产品、版权保护与贸易规则

Cultural products are commodities with cultural contents, which are neither equivalent to cultural relics nor ordinary articles. Such dual natures bring forth divergences in trade policy, mandating the generality and particularity of trade rules. The WTO rules lay more emphases on free trade while the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization put more stress on the free exchange and diversity of cultures. Nations enjoy cultural sovereignty over their cultural policies and administrative measures. The rules of intellectual property rights also influence trade in cultural products. To develop trade in cultural products, science and technologies shall be employed to create diversified and competitive products of distinct cultural values. Han Liyu, Ph.D, is an associate professor of law, and director of International Law Teaching and Research at Renmin University of China, Vice Secretary-General of WTO Section in China Law Society, and member of China’s International Economic Law Society. Mr. Han teaches and does research on international economic law and WTO law, publishing several monographs and articles on the US trade law and the WTO law. For many times, Mr. Han did research as visiting scholar in American universities and UNIDROIT. Mr. Han got a post-graduate diploma in Common Law from Hong Kong University.     

The perspective of “justice” of international law in the global context

After the Cold War and the quick development of globalization, non-state acts by international organizations, transnational corporations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), etc., are becoming more active. Global issues with regard to, inter alia, environment, human rights, terrorism are constantly emerging, which bring great challenge to the Westphalia System that is based on state sovereignty and centered on the national state. At the same time, the values, which include “individualism” and “global justice,” are constantly casting impact on international legal system. Doubtlessly, in the current context of international relations, “justice among states” is still the reasonable positioning of the value of modern international law. However, making “individualism” and “global justice” compatible and modifying “justice among states” is an inevitable trend. At the same time, the rule brought about by the modification on the value of justice must be handled properly.     

《内地与香港关于建立更紧密经贸关系的安排》的法律地位

The nature of the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA) is a free trade agreement under the framework of the WTO. For the purpose of clarifying the legal status of the CEPA and the future agreements between the Mainland and other separate customs territories of China, four options are brought forward: (1) To revise the PRC Foreign Trade Law, (2) to make amendment to the Basic Law of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China, (3) to have a special law on the conclusion of the interregional agreements, or (4) to amend the PRC Constitution. Wang Wei, Ph.D, is an associate professor at School of Law, Fudan University, China. Before, he was a research fellow at the Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong. He holds an LL.B. from the East China University of Political Science and Law, an LL.M. from Fudan University in international law, an LL.M. from Southern Methodist University in comparative and international law (Sohmen Scholar), a Ph.D from the University of London in law (the John and Joan Jackson Scholar). Dr. Wang wrote a number of articles on WTO law, financial law and commercial law, such as Historical Evolution of National Treatment in China (39 International Lawyer 759–779, Fall Issue, 2005). He has spoken and chaired conferences and seminars in London, Hong Kong and Mainland of China. Recently he acts as consultant in banking law projects, including the Asian Development Bank.