析《不扩散核武器条约》

1968年1月，英国、美国和苏联等59个国家签署了《不扩散核武器条约》，并于1970年3月正式生效。国际核不扩散体制主要以《不扩散核武器条约》为基石。虽然该条约只有11个条文，但是它在实现全面彻底核裁军、维护世界和平与安全的国际法制进程中具有划时代的意义。同时条约也存在某些概念模糊不清、对非核武器缔约国的歧视、退出条款限制不够、国际原子能机构的核查权限等问题。要真正实现全面彻底防核扩散的目标，国际社会需要努力地对条约作出合理的修订和完善，倡导以条约为基础的多边合作。     

伊朗制裁相关法律对航运业的影响及对策

伊朗是中东地区主要的贸易国之一,也是中国在中东重要贸易伙伴之一.然而由于伊朗违反联合国有关不扩散核武器的有关公约之规定,联合国、中国两岸四地、欧盟、美国都在不同程度上通过立法对伊朗实施制裁.在研究伊朗制裁相关法律的基础上,从法律分析和实务的角度,对一些与伊朗贸易有关的实际问题加以探讨.     

Chinese Practice in Public International Law: 2006 (III)

Continued from Part II published last year, this part of theSurvey covers materials reflecting Chinese practice in 2006relating to: XI. Outer Space Law (Definition and Delimitationof Outer Space; Draft Protocol on Matters Specific to SpaceAssets to the Convention on International Interests in MobileEquipment; The Status and Application of Five UN Treaties onOuter Space; Practice of States and International Organizationsin Registering Space Objects; The Establishment of the DisasterManagement International Space Coordination Organization; ThePolicy of Peaceful Use of Outer Space; The Cooperative Approachto the Peaceful Use of Outer Space; The Convention of Asia-PacificSpace Cooperation Organization); XII. International Law on Diplomaticand Consular Relation (Preconditions for the Establishment ofDiplomatic Relation; Vienna Convention on the Consular Relations;Diplomatic Protection and Consular Assistance); XIII. InternationalCriminal Law (Universal Jurisdiction in Absentia; Treaty andJudicial Practice on Extradition and Criminal Judicial Assistance;The "East Turkistan" Terrorists in Guantanamo Bay; The LAI CheongSing (LAI Changxing) Case in Canada; The Position Towards TokyoTrial; Illegal Migrants; Trafficking of Persons; Anti-Corruption);XIV. International Law on Environment (Environment and Development;Climate Change; Dam-building on International Rivers; SonghuajiangRiver Pollution Accident; Tropical Rain Forest in SoutheastAsia; Animal Fur Trade; Auction of Dinosaur Egg); XV. InternationalOrganization (United Nations; World Health Organization; ShanghaiCooperation Organization); XVI. International Economic Law (InternationalTrade Law; International Protection of Intellectual PropertyRights; International Financial Law); XVII. International Lawon Energy (Energy and Development; Energy Policy); XVIII. InternationalLaw on Natural Disaster (Tsunami Warning System; InternationalHumanitarian Donation and Assistance); XIX. International Lawon Health (The Issue of SARS; the Issue of Avian and Human PandemicInfluenza).     

CONFLICTS AND HARMONIZATION ON GM FOOD LABELING IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

This article analyzes the conflicts of international law on genetically modified (GM) food labeling and explains possible methods to harmonize these conflicts. One way is to interpret the treaties of the World Trade Organization (WTO), Biodiversity Convention, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ); the other way is to enhance cooperation among international institutions and treaties, such as WTO, Biodiversity Convention, Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), International Law Commission (ILC), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). These methods cannot form an international standard on GM food labeling accepted by most countries. The difficulties with this issue concerned illustrate that GM food labeling shows off conflicts between trade law and environmental law, which lead to legal chaos that is faced with uncertainty of technology, fragmentation of international law and diversity of domestic law, and complexity of national interests on environmental labeling and process labeling.     

Consensus decision-making in CCAMLR: Achilles’ heel or fundamental to its success?

International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics - The Commission for the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources is the body responsible for the...     

我国刑事赔偿制度之改革

In reference to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter referred to “the Covenants”), the state compensation system of China in criminal justice shall be reformed as such: Compensation for a miscarriage of justice should not be determined by the results of first instance or second instance, but no guilty through retrial in the final trial upon finding of new evidences. If policemen, prosecutors and judiciaries take lawful measures, causing loss to the suspected due to arrest, detention or other enforcement in the criminal proceedings, the suspected should not get the state compensation for that even if he is decided no guilty in the final trial. If the suspected is cooped up illegally, he should get the state compensation even if being decided guilty finally. The measures of search and seizure should be included in coercive measures, hence differentiating the lawful search and seizure and the unlawful infringement of the property rights. Yang Yuguan, Professor of the Procedure Law Institute in China University of Political Science and Law, whose research mainly covers procedure law and human rights law. He wrote many books and essays, for instance, “Computer and Crime” (1986), “On Plea Bargaining” (1986), “Basic Education in Prisons in China” (1995), “The United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Policy” (1996), “On the Ratification and Implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” (2000), “On Hearsay” (2001), “On Exclusionary Rule” (2002), “Human Rights Law: Study On International Covenant on Civil and Political Right” (2003), “The International Criminal Court: Idea, reality and Prospective” (2007), “Death Penalty Control with Procedural Law” (2006), “On Due Process of Law and Human Rights Protection” (2005). He was once a researcher fellow of Ministry of Justice of China, a member of the Crime Prevention Branch of the United Nations Office at Vienna, and an editor-in-chief in some books, such as “The United Nations Criminal Justice Norms and Standards”, “The United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies and their Comments”, “A Study On UN Convention of Anti-corruption”.     

THE RESERVATION OF THE SEAS EXCLUSIVELY FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES

The general principle of the high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes is embodied in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and it is comprehensively in conformity with the principles and purposes of the UN Charter. It is also applicable to the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs). In exercising their rights and performing their duties under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the States Parties shall refrain from any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. It can only be said that “military activities” do not include “law enforcement activities.” Marine scientific research conducted for military purposes is, if contrary to the principles in article 301 of the Convention, forbidden in any part of the oceans.     

China in the Asia–Pacific Partnership: consequences for UN climate change mitigation efforts?

This article discusses China’s motives for participation in the Asia–Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP), and whether this has or will have consequences for its participation and efforts in the UN track of international climate governance. In order to discuss these issues, it also provides an outline of key national priorities and explains the nature of China’s involvement in both the UN track and the APP. It suggests that the APP is a complement to the UN process, not a competitor, in the case of China. APP participation represents a win–win situation in terms of the transfer of technology and know-how for solving challenges related to energy security and greenhouse gas emissions. For the Chinese leadership, this seems preferable to taking on UN commitments which it fears would impede economic development. The APP’s projects also seem to complement the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism project in China. This article argues that there is little indication that China would make less of an effort under the UN track.

E-confidence: Offer and acceptance in online contracting

Online contracting, as a focal point of electronic commercial transactions, has been developing since the 1990s. Recent international legislation, namely the 2005 United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts (the UN Convention) is a significant legal achievement. However, the validity and effectiveness of electronic offer and acceptance is still an issue for debate. This paper aims to seek answers to how law makers may meet the challenge of regulating electronic contracting, and what future improvements that the UN Convention may need to make to boost confidence of contracting online. The paper will introduce the concept and formation of electronic contracts; analyse the current legislative environment of electronic contacting in the international organisations, EU, US and China; discuss the obstacles that electronic contracting has faced; and propose a solution to remove its legal uncertainty.     

Book reviews

Status of pinnipeds relevant to the European Union. By P.J. H. Reijnders, G. Verriopoulos and S. M.J. M. Brasseur (eds.). DLO Institute for Forestry and Nature Research (IBN‐DLO), Wageningen. 195 pp. 1997.

Metapopulatlons and Wildlife Conservation. By D. R. McCullough (ed.). Island Press, Washington, DC. $29.95. 429 pp. 1996.

Biodiversity in the Seas: Implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity In Marine and Coastal Habitats. By A. C de Fontaubert, D. R. Downes, and T. S. Agardy. IUCN, Cambridge. $17.50. 92 pp. 1996.

The Marine Mammal Commission Compendium of Selected Treaties, International Agreements, and Other Relevant Documents on Marine Resources, Wildlife, and the Environment: First Update. Compiled by R L. Wallace. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1017 pp. 1997.

The Biology of Sea Turtles By Peter Lutz and John Musick (eds.). CRC Press. 432 pp. 1996.     

The Riddle of "Inalienable Right" in Article IV of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: Intentional Ambiguity

Traditional treaty interpretation is based on the propositionthat there exists a clear legislative intention and thus an"interpretable" treaty provision. Yet, revisiting the Treatyon the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons travaux préparatoiresof Article IV of the inalienable right reveals a strong intentionof the dominant negotiating States to advocate ambiguity. Asa result, even countries that made efforts to clarify the draftArticle IV, eventually found themselves satisfied, or compromisedwith the ambiguity of the text. An "interpretable" Article IVof the "inalienable right" is thus not achievable. It is maybethe time to rethink the "art" of treaty interpretation in resolvingthe riddle of the "inalienable right".     

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).     

简评《鹿特丹规则》对无单放货之规定

无单放货一直是航运实务操作上经常发生之问题,就承运人而言,其对无单放货究竟应当负担何种责任?实务上对于经常发生无单放货之类型又为何?经2008年12月联合国大会第六十三届大会第六十七次全体会议审议通过的《联合国全程或者部分国际海上货物运输公约》(又称《鹿特丹规则》),对无单放货作出了新的规定。在界定无单放货概念的基础上,归纳航运实践中无单放货的几种模式,分析无单放货的法律性质,认为将无单放货定性为侵权与违约责任之竞合,允许提单持有人择一行使权利,对请求者而言,保护较为周延,同时介绍《鹿特丹规则》关于无单放货的规定,对其允许在一定条件下按照一定程序可不凭提单放货这一创举性规定进行评析。     

The EU and Issues of Human Rights Protection: Same Solutions to More Acute Problems?

Academic literature repeatedly calls for the EU's accession to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (hereinafter Convention 1 ). Similarly, the Lisbon Treaty provides that the EU must accede to the Convention. [Correction made here after initial online publication.] This might seem odd as the European Court of Justice (hereinafter ECJ 1 ) has over the years developed abundant case‐law on human rights protection in the EU, and the EU has not so long ago adopted a, albeit non‐binding, catalogue of human rights (the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (hereinafter Charter)). But after all these years, cases, and Treaty amendments, the EU is in fact going back to the ECJ's 1996 landmark opinion which recommended the EU's formal accession to the Convention, 1 already proposed in 1979 by the Commission. 1 One reason for this might be that, in the meantime, human rights issues have multiplied in the application of EU law, especially in areas such as the Second and Third Pillars where—at least initially—fewer human rights protection guarantees were foreseen.     

JURISDICTION FRICTION AND THE FRUSTRATION OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION: WHY INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION CASES SHOULD BE HEARD EXCLUSIVELY BY FEDERAL COURTS

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction confronts the growing problem of international parental child abduction by providing for the prompt return of the child to their home country. However, the legislation that implements the Hague Convention in the United States confers concurrent state and federal court jurisdiction for cases brought under the Treaty. This vast jurisdictional grant has contributed to delay in case resolution, inconsistent interpretation, and unresolved cases and has frustrated the original intent of the Hague Convention which seeks to expedite the child's return. At their core, Hague Convention proceedings are choice of forum cases in an international context and the Convention depends on reciprocity and respect for the rule of law among Contracting States. Consolidating Hague Convention proceedings within the federal system would encourage uniform interpretation of Treaty provisions and allow expertise to develop among judges. This will promote the interests of parent and child victims by facilitating the prompt return and eventual resolution of the underlying custody controversy while strengthening the effectiveness of performance under the Hague Convention.     

Book Reviews

Books reviewed:
Laurence Boisson de Chazournes and Philippe Sands (eds), Reflections on International Law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons
Christopher C. Joyner, Governing the Frozen Commons – The Antarctic Regime and Environmental Protection
Ian H. Rowlands (ed), Climate Change Cooperation in Southern Africa
Theodore Panayotou, Instruments for Change, Motivating and Financing Sustainable Development
Jonathan Krueger, International Trade and the Basel Convention     

Divergent Approaches to Determining Responsibility for Genocide: The Darfur Commission of Inquiry and the ICJ's Judgment in the Genocide Case

Internationally sanctioned assessments of genocide are relativelyuncommon, and since genocide is usually assessed in the contextof an individual's criminal prosecution, assessments of stateresponsibility for genocide are even rarer. Yet two such analyseshave recently been completed: the International Commission ofInquiry on Darfur's Report and the International Court of Justice'sJudgment on genocide in Bosnia. On a key issue, the methodologyfor determining whether a state is responsible for genocide,they diverged. Whereas the Darfur Commission determined whetherthe ‘central government’ of Sudan pursued a statepolicy or plan for genocide in Darfur, the ICJ stressed thata state commits genocide through the acts of its officials,holding that if a state organ or a person or group whose actsare legally attributable to the state, engages in genocide,then the international responsibility of that state is incurred.This article critically examines the different methodologicalapproaches taken by these two bodies in light of internationaljurisprudence. It argues that the Darfur Commission erred infocusing its genocide inquiry on whether high-level officialsin Sudan's government possessed genocidal intent, rather thanon the perpetrators of the underlying criminal acts. In addition,it argues that, whether the Commission's goal was to determinestate responsibility or individual criminal responsibility,its approach was at variance with international law as elucidatedin the UN ad hoc tribunals and as subsequently confirmed bythe ICJ in the Genocide Case. In that regard, the ICJ Judgmentreestablishes two sound methodological principles: the existenceof a state plan or policy, although probative of intent, isnot an implicit element of genocide; and determining state intent(however that may be defined) is not a part of determining stateresponsibility for genocide.     

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).     

Asylum Claims and Drug Offences: the Seriousness Threshold of Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the UN Drug Conventions

Asylum claims lodged by individuals who were involved in drugactivities prior to their entry into the country of asylum raisecomplex questions as to whether they have committed a seriousnon-political crime under Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Conventionand thus shall be excluded from refugee protection. The 1988 UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugsand Psychotropic Substances (Trafficking Convention) —which is the relevant international framework for drugs in thefield of international criminal law — indiscriminatelyconsiders all forms of supply related drug offences as ‘seriouscriminal offences’, irrespective of individual criminalresponsibility. This conflicts with the complex nature of thedrug industry particularly in countries affected by armed conflictand proportionality considerations inherent to Article 1F(b). Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treatiesprovide a possibility to reconcile the ambiguous wording ofthe Trafficking convention with Article 1F(b) by means of interpretation.Offences for personal consumption as the least serious drugoffences do not reach the seriousness threshold of Article 1F(b).Trafficking offences in turn attain the seriousness thresholdonly if aggravating circumstances prevail over mitigating circumstances,and if there are no grounds for rejecting individual responsibilityor defenses to criminal liability. International, large-scaleactivities carried out by transnational organized criminal groupsare factors that make drug offences most serious.     

In what format and under what timeframe would China take on climate commitments? A roadmap to 2050

Balancing China’s energy needs to fuel its rapid economic growth with the resulting potential impacts of climate change presents an enormous climate policy dilemma, not simply for China but for the entire world. This is the major reason why the role of China is an issue of perennial concerns at international climate change negotiations. In response to these concerns and to put China in a positive position, this paper maps out a realistic roadmap for China’s specific climate commitments toward 2050. Taking many factors into consideration, the paper argues that China needs to take on absolute emissions caps around 2030. However, it is hard to imagine how China could apply the brakes so sharply as to switch from rapid emissions growth to immediate emissions cuts, without passing through several intermediate phases. To that end, the paper envisions that China needs the following three transitional periods of increasing climate obligations before taking on absolute emissions caps that will lead to the global convergence of per capita emissions by 2050: First, further credible energy conservation commitments starting in 2013 and aimed at cutting China’s carbon intensity by 46–50% by 2020; second, voluntary “no lose” emission targets starting in 2018; and third, binding carbon intensity targets as its international commitment starting in 2023. Overall, this proposal is a balanced reflection of respecting China’s rights to grow and recognizing China’s growing responsibility for increasing greenhouse gas emissions as China is on its way to becoming the world’s largest economy.