ABSTRACT China’s courts sit at the centre of how the Party-state turns political priorities into legal outcomes, yet their role in this process remains widely misunderstood. Existing scholarship assumes that Party control necessarily suppresses judicial autonomy. Drawing on original surveys and interviews with Chinese judges, this article uncovers a mechanism of autonomy via control, through which the judiciary leverages party control to assert professional authority. The key is that Party directives do not enter adjudication directly, they must first be filtered and processed within the courts, giving judges room to translate political commands into sources of judicial legitimacy and authority. Distinctly, ideological instructions are widely circulated to secure political loyalty and reinforce subordination, but remain legally non-binding and detached from adjudication. Directives regarding substantive judicial issues, by contrast, must undergo a legalisation process through which courts assert professional judgment by converting Party policies into binding judicial documents before they can guide and justify case outcomes. Through this dual-track mechanism, the judiciary reserves autonomy on professional issues and strengthens its authority in routine adjudication. Indeed, by implementing Party policies through judicial channels, courts leverage political resources as a source of legitimacy, thereby reducing the interference of peer entities and combating judicial corruption. These findings recast the Party-court relationship in China and provide an instructive case in non-democratic regimes where the judiciary fosters autonomy, capacity, and public credibility not by resisting political supremacy, but by working through it.

ABSTRACT After 80 years of development, the Chicago Convention legal framework has created a uniform and resilient safety net for international air transport through its safety-oriented legal spirit and technical-based instruments. This framework builds public trust in air travel and facilitates the sustainable prosperity of the airline industry. Local aviation authorities, such as the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC), proactively develop, update, and reform national aviation regulations to maintain a consistent safety level and ensure the stability and development of the air service trade both within and across borders. Airline workers, as key stakeholders in air transport, have received increased protection through this evolving legal framework. For example, the Safety Management System (SMS) and scientifically revised duty limitations for pilots have naturally diverged from those of general labour law, overriding the original mandates in local labour laws. Since these provisions are the byproducts of aviation law reform, the technical-centric approach to codification creates unique challenges when airline workers exercise their regular labour rights. This article reviews the last three years (2021.10–2024.10) of judicial decisions to explore the causes and impacts of this divergence in China’s aviation market – the world’s second largest – where scholars have noted an increasing gap between aviation and labour law. Our findings indicate that the divergence has significant impacts on airline workers, with the drawbacks of aviation law in labour matters outweighing its advantages. Despite making patches with supplementary instruments, China has seen limited improvement. This article proposes a standalone China’s aviation labour law to address loopholes and divergences.

ABSTRACT This study, framed by the institutional backdrop of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), systematically analyses the institutional innovations and practical challenges of the China-ASEAN Free Trade Area 3.0 (CAFTA 3.0) in the realms of goods trade, services trade, and investment rules. RCEP underpins CAFTA 3.0’ rule upgrades through its cumulation of rules of origin, negative-list approach, and investment facilitation provisions, while CAFTA 3.0 seeks to propel the digitalization and green transformation of regional cooperation by introducing dedicated chapters on the digital economy and the green economy. Despite breakthroughs in rule depth and inclusiveness, implementation of CAFTA 3.0 faces multiple challenges, including the digital divide within ASEAN, non-tariff barriers such as technical trade measures, and external institutional competition – exemplified by the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the US Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF). This paper proposes differentiated pathways for rule compatibility, comprising a ‘positive-list + modular’ mechanism for digital trade, a ‘mandatory emission reduction + fund linkage’ model for the green economy, and a multi-tiered dispute settlement framework, with the aim of offering legal solutions that balance efficiency and sustainability in Asia-Pacific economic integration.

ABSTRACT Standard-essential patents (SEPs) are specific types of patents that protect the technology incorporated in a standard. China has one of the world’s largest telecommunication markets, and its legal policies and practices regarding SEP protection profoundly influence the competitive environment of the Chinese telecommunication market, international economic and trade cooperation, and global telecommunication technology innovation. Recently, frequent disputes in the communication sector surrounding SEPs in China’s judicial practice revolved around the fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) principles, embodying three key issues: patent hold-up, licence fee rates, and anti-suit injunction. Regarding the patent hold-up and hold-out of SEPs in the telecommunication industry, a balance of interests between SEP holders and implementers in licence negotiations should be achieved under the guidance of the principles of FRAND from the perspective of legislation, administrative management, and the judiciary. Concerning licence fee rates, billing benchmarks should be judged based on individual cases, utilizing a comprehensive approach combining comparable licence agreement methods and top-down methods to determine a fair and reasonable licencing fee acceptable to all parties. In the conflict between anti-suit and anti–anti-suit injunctions, improving the anti-suit injunction rules and international cooperation mechanisms is necessary to achieve fair and non-discriminatory judicial processes and judgment results.

Extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction is a seemingly novel, arcane subject. Belgium's efforts in relatively recent years to try and punish persons accused of some of the most serious crimes may help create this impression. It is, however, only partially true. Jurisprudentially and academically the topic is arguably approaching its centenary, whereas the subject's practical importance and relevance have today never been greater. Together, these facts underlie Danielle Ireland-Piper's book on extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction in East Asia.

ABSTRACT Within the Hong Kong media context, Ladegaard (2013) has observed that: Employers’ crimes against FDHs are consistently mitigated and explained, whereas FDHs’ offences against their employers are characterised as evil actions committed by ‘aliens’ with a flawed character. Deploying a content analysis methodology, in this article we ask: does the discrimination and stereotyping which foreign domestic helpers (FDHs) suffer in Hong Kong society permeate into judicial sentencing remarks in serious criminal cases involving FDHs as either perpetrators or victims? Surprisingly, we answer this question negatively. Nonetheless, the language used by judges in a few decisions did betray ingrained social prejudice against FDHs. The findings also tend to counter our expectation that the decisions would be either explicitly partial to employers or portray individual employer-defendants as aberrant members of an otherwise upstanding social group. Several decisions under analysis identified the inherent potential for the victimization of both employers and FDHs and encouraged systemic reform. However, most judgments did not call attention to the social and legal context of FDHs’ employment.

ABSTRACT Indonesia and Singapore are neighbouring countries with vibrant economic relations. Despite the geographical proximity, the legal systems in both countries are strikingly different. The author suggests that the most influencing factor of a country’s legal system is often its former colonial master. Singapore (a former British colony) applies the common law legal system while Indonesia (a former Dutch colony) applies the civil law legal system. Chan and van Rhee suggest that the differences between the two legal systems are often exaggerated, but differences remain. This paper sets out these differences with a focus on the judges’ role in taking evidence in civil proceedings, given the inevitable fact that disputes would arise among the business players of the two countries and that taking of evidence is an essential part that may be decisive to the outcome of a dispute. Doctrinal and comparative methods will be used, namely through analysing various procedural laws as found in the statute, case laws, as well as commentaries. This paper contributes to the scant collection of comparative literature on the two legal systems and assists business players in understanding better the procedures of taking evidence applied by the relevant dispute resolution forum that they can choose to resolve their commercial disputes.

ABSTRACT In June 2019, the Shanghai Stock Exchange Sci-tech Innovation Board was established with the deployment of the registration-based system as a pilot test, opening the chapter of China’s initial public offering regulatory reform. Implemented for nearly four years under gradualism, the registration-based system was expanded to the whole Chinese stock market in February 2023, further catching the spotlight on its functioning and effectiveness in accommodating issuers while safeguarding investors to promote market development. This article conducts a close examination of the registration-based system, exploring its functioning in practice, canvassing its progress and problems in accommodating issuers and looking into the landscape and prospects of investor protection. This article argues that although the registration-based system does not eliminate regulatory uncertainty, it improves regulatory efficiency to attract issuers while relying on the close engagement of public regulators in the transition era and supporting mechanisms in the long run to ensure investor protection.

ABSTRACT In China, the dynamics of the central–local relations vary significantly within legislative, executive, and judicial branches. In the field of law enforcement oversight, signs of cooperative federalism have emerged, presenting a drastic contrast to the unitary system. The lacking of a legal basis to directly supervise local governments forces the National People’s Congress Standing Committee to actively seek cooperation from local governments. Three different approaches have been applied by the top legislature to achieve the goal. Easing the resistance from local governments through delegating the oversight power represents a move of compromise. Removing hurdles affecting law enforcement, reducing law enforcement cost, and soliciting suggestions on statutory revision from localities is a form of reciprocity. Eliminating local protectionism, enhancing cross-regional law enforcement, and sharing law enforcement experiences is an act of altruism.

ABSTRACT International investment law regionalism in the ASEAN region has been a spectacular success. It presents what can be described as ‘third regionalism’. This has prompted scholars to present the ASEAN success model representing the whole of Asia. But there are multiple ‘Asias’. Large swathes of Asia have reluctantly pursued regionalism. One such region is South Asia, whose experience is very different from that of the ASEAN region. The South Asian region has failed in achieving any significant economic integration including investment integration. The most prominent South Asian institution and vehicle for regionalism, SAARC, which was meant to facilitate investment integration, has miserably failed. There are hopes from another institution, BIMSTEC, to deliver on this front, but that would depend on whether South Asian countries value regionalism or not. There is much that South Asia can learn from ASEAN’s experience and imbibe the ‘ASEAN Consensus’ that marks the wave of ‘third regionalism’ based on incrementalism and flexibility.