One of the major changes that has taken place over the past twenty to thirty years has been the extension of the legal recognition and protections for same-sex relationships in a wide range of countries. A number of jurisdictions, including China, are considering the approach that they will adopt. This article seeks firstly to consider the justifications for the legal recognition of same-sex relationships by the state. Three main, compelling rationales are identified which are rooted in notions of the equality of all persons, the dignity and liberty of individuals to form close personal relationships, and the social benefits of recognizing close, personal relationships of same-sex couples. The second part of this article then turns to consider the manner in which same-sex relationships should be recognized. Four models are identified: a “Partial Rights” model; a “Civil Partnerships” model; a “Marriage Equality” model, and a “Diversity of Relationships” model. Reasons for and against these particular models will be examined. In the conclusion, it shall be argued that the choice of model that has been adopted can be seen to depend on a number of factors: the manner in which equality is conceived in that society; the understanding of same-sex relationships therein, and the religious and cultural opposition to same-sex relationships in that society. The models are also not states of affairs that are fixed for all time and many countries have progressed from less extensive forms of recognition to wider recognition over time. Ultimately, it shall be argued that the rationales underlying the recognition of close personal relationships in the law support the “Marriage Equality” model or the “Diversity of Relationships” model. This article thus seeks to provide an understanding of the rationales and models for recognizing same-sex relationships that have been adopted around the world: Its focus is thus comparative but may, in this way, be useful to lawmakers and advocates for legal reform in this area in China and other jurisdictions around the world.

In comparison to the arduous process of rights advocacy in Hong Kong, transsexuals in China’s mainland achieved their right to marry via some “silent changes”: there was no legal activism from transsexual communities, no debates or hearings in the legislature, and no landmark judgments made by the judiciary. From a perspective of comparative law, this article attempts to analyze the legal changes regarding transsexuals’ right to marry in China’s mainland in light of the struggles in Hong Kong. It endeavors to discuss to what extent the seemingly “smooth” and “unintended” way of opening up marriage to transsexuals in China’s mainland could be beneficial to trans rights and equality in general.

The article focuses on the difference between strategic rhetoric and philosophical conversation. It first tries to distinguish between sophistical manipulation and valid strategic argumentation. In order to do that, the author tries to give a new meaning to the old Aristotelian tripartition between logos, ethos, and pathos. Then, he uses Chaim Perelman’s theory of argumentation to show that the standard of rationality in practical reasoning is a specific one. After having clarified the very concept of strategic argumentation, the author distinguishes it from the notion of philosophical conversation. He tries to show that if the latter is completely replaced by the former, the danger exists that victimization and morals “a la carte” will generate a defeat of critical thought.

This article begins explaining the Aristotelian reduction of rhetoric to persuasion, which came to determine Western tradition until modern times. To understand Aristotle’s methodology the author then wants to discuss the concept of enthymeme, the “rhetorical syllogism,” in Aristotle’s own words. In order to try a realistic critique on the Aristotelian rhetoric, more adequate to a rhetoric of modern law, the author will suggest three epistemological points of departure, three theses, and the three levels of rhetoric that support them.

With its revival in recent years, rhetoric has provided a special perspective for modern people. If we take rhetoric as a framework to rethink democracy and rule of law, we may not only grasp a new understanding of them, but also gain more knowledge of the possible role of rhetoric in the contemporary world. We will find that rhetoric was closely related to democracy and rule of law, and is still fully accordant with ideas of democracy and rule of law in modern society. Moreover, rhetoric can provide intellectual support to these concepts.

By combining theories of education, human rights law, and political philosophy, the author provides lenses to understanding inclusive education, thereby establishing consensus on the new, cognitive grounds over the description of a better inclusive education system for all children. The investigation is guided by two research questions. The first question concerns what description we should hold for a better education system inclusive of disabled children. The second addresses how to arrive at a consensus over that better system among stakeholders and within the whole society. To answer these questions, the investigation is conducted through both transcendental and comparative routes. Firstly, to contextualize this research, a brief review of theoretical disagreements on inclusive education is provided, and a case study of China’s struggles towards inclusion is presented. The theoretical review and the case study provide concrete information for later assessment and comparison between reality and the ideal plan. Meanwhile, the author discusses ways to go beyond binary thoughts and disorganized practice. To achieve the goal, transcendental thought experiments are employed to generate new grounds for a more comprehensive, inclusive project; the idea of a right to inclusive education is elaborated.

Non-Practicing Entities (NPE), as a subject, is a neutral concept, but the derogatory sense of translation and understanding on this concept and the chaos of understanding make the legal regulation of NPE encounter more difficulties and challenges. In fact, NPE issues are concerned, discussed and researched in China within quite a long period, however, it would not become an outstanding legal issue nowadays. NPE as a market entity, its existence is legitimate per se, and what the law should focus on is the unfair conduct that NPE might be engaged in rather than the subject of NPE itself. It is not necessary to make specific articles and provisions on the subject of NPE at present in the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the PRC which are revised in China, and a serial of rules and guidelines for Anti-Monopoly Law of the PRC which are formulated in China. It proved that the unfair conducts of NPE should be regulated according to Patent law, Anti-Unfair Competition Law and Anti-Monopoly Law as well as, reconfirmed that the conclusion that the regulation of NPE in China laws focus on conducts rather than subject in a serial of cases such as the anti-monopoly investigation case against INTERDIGITAL Corporation initiated by the National Development and Reform Commission, the case that the Ministry of Commerce imposed restrictive conditions to approve that Microsoft acquired Nokia equipment and service business, and the commercial defamation case that Shenzhen Libang Precision Instrument Co., Ltd vs Shenzhen Mairui Biological Medical Electronic Co., Ltd which was reviewed by the Supreme People’s Court.

The principle of “equal shares, equal rights” was established by the Company Law of 1993 of the People’s Republic of China. At the initial stage only issuance of common stocks was allowed and the issuance of preferred stocks was interpreted as prohibited. The Company Law of 2006 has changed the rigidity of provisions of the Company Law of 1993 and laid down the legal foundation for issuance of preferred stock. The Rule for Administration of the Pilot Project for Preferred Stocks released on March 21, 2014 by the China Securities Regulatory Commission started the issuance of the preferred stocks in the Chinese capital market. The establishment of the legal system for issuance of preferred stock in China is not the symbol of overthrowing the principle of “equal shares, equal rights,” but the expansion and development of the principle of “equal shares, equal rights” in a new era.

In recent years, a growing number of foreign companies and individuals were involved in geodata violations in China. The Chinese government is facing greater pressure to protect confidential geodata within its territory. Geodata violations occurred in the course of illegal mapping and surveying, geographical and geological data collection and transactions. Although China has reformed laws and regulations to refine some aspects of confidential geodata management, existing rules remain ambiguous and controversial. This article aims to address the liability concerns raised among foreign companies from geodata violations. After defining the three most significant concepts, geological data, mapping and surveying, and state secrets, this article reviews the status quo, reasons for and impacts of geodata violations in China, to find out how big the problem is and why it matters. It then explores the legislative framework of state secrets protection in the context of geodata management; special focus is put on liability issues and problems of the current system. As a response to existing arguments, possible ways to improve confidential geodata protection and some practical tips for foreign businesses are offered.