The decision of the International Court of Justice in the case concerning the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (“Genocide Convention”) highlights states’ obligations under the Convention, especially the obligation to prevent. When it comes to the case concerning the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“Racial Discrimination Convention”), the decision of the Court indicating provisional measures seemingly purported to generalize its jurisprudence in the Genocide Case. By elaborating this kind of new jurisprudence, the Court echoed to the responsibility to protect, as well as to Article 48 and Article 54 of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (“Draft Articles of State Responsibility”). It appears that each State Party should have an obligation to intervene in the coming genocide incidence, perhaps as well as in the coming racial discrimination cases. Nevertheless it is unclear in what manner a state could implement it effectively.

For a long time there has been a contest between free trade and trade protection as the best strategy of promoting local and global economy. When the globe is again in the midst of economic recession, this contest intensifies. The current recession knocks out a severe blow to free trade as the “game rules” of world economy and aggravates the perplexities of free trade in certain aspects, which then arouses suspicion on the legitimacy of free trade. In order to address domestic economic and social problems, the “stimulus packages” of some countries offer much support to trade protection, further intensifying this contest. Confronted with the global economic disaster, trade protection can be helpful for alleviating the pressure in a given economy and thus mitigating domestic contradictions in a short period, but it may also complicate the legal order of trade and bring hindrance to domestic markets as well as international ones, and consequently, it will jeopardize the rights and interests of ordinary consumers and even stir up the grievance and resentment domestically or internationally. As the current economic recession has been a pressing issue for all the countries, there is a dire need for concerted efforts in the globe to stimulate the vigor of world economy and tide over the disaster.

Under the auspice of the GATT, the idea of “single undertaking” was introduced in the Uruguay Round to get rid of what is called “GATT à la carte” in the Tokyo Round and to strengthen the trading system. However, that approach, combined with other factors, in particular the consensus decision making rule, greatly increased the difficulties of decision making in the World Trade Organization (WTO). This article proposes a “WTO à la carte” approach for trade negotiations and discusses its implications for the future of trade multilateralism.

After comparing different procedures of evidence collection in the German, American and Chinese legal systems, the author analyzes the reasons behind the differences: Each system is determined by its specific social culture and is compatible with the construction of the civil procedures of its own. Based on China’s specific social culture and its system of civil procedure law, the German style of evidence collection is in a better position to provide guidance for China in pursuit of justice.

Hong Kong law is characterized by a mixture of legal sources and traditions, originating from the constitutional government-based structure in the mid-1800s to the new laws, which were promulgated at the beginning of the 20th century. Since Hong Kong’s return into the People’s Republic of China in 1997, the development and forms of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Laws have been influenced by the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China of 1982, the Sino-British Joint Declaration of Hong Kong issues of 1984 as well as the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of 1990. The government of China continues to undertake measures, promoting a high degree of autonomy within the Hong Kong as well as its political stability and economic prosperity. All these measures contribute to the promotion of the rule of law and unification of China.

In 2009 after a six-month investigation, the case regarding Coca-Cola Company’s acquisition of Huiyuan Juice Co., Ltd. (Huiyuan Juice) ended when the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (MOFCOM) rejected this acquisition. This is the first anti-monopoly case since the implementation of Anti-Monopoly Law of China (the “AML”). Foreign acquisitions introduce capital, technical and management experience into China, while they also impair competition in China and lead to the disappearance of some Chinese national brands. In recent years, a series of foreign acquisitions attract extensive attention and even controversies. This phenomenon should be addressed rationally. Following the case concerning Coca-Cola’s attempted acquisition of Huiyuan Juice, this article first assesses the pros and cons of foreign acquisitions, and then analyzes foreign acquisitions by the specific requirements of the AML, pointing out the rationalization, grounds and complexity of the law applicable to foreign acquisitions.

Thirty years have passed for foreign investment legislation in China since the promulgation of the first foreign investment law in 1979. The remarkable achievements in the past 30 years under the China’s reform and open policy have benefited from introduction of foreign investment to a large extent as the result of foreign investment legislation and its changes. This paper starts with a retrospection of foreign investment legislation in China since 1979, followed by a discussion on the features and motives of changes in such legislation, and makes conclusions on the experience and lessons from the legislation, which will be conducive to further improvement of foreign investment legislation in China.