Pub Date : 2024-07-13DOI: 10.1093/chinesejil/jmae023
Sienho Yee
{"title":"Beijing Workshop on ILC Draft Conclusions on General Principles of Law Adopted on First Reading: An Editorial Note","authors":"Sienho Yee","doi":"10.1093/chinesejil/jmae023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmae023","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":505405,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of International Law","volume":"55 25","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141651725","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-08DOI: 10.1093/chinesejil/jmae018
{"title":"Book Review of Sean D. Murphy, International Law Relating to Islands","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/chinesejil/jmae018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmae018","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":505405,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of International Law","volume":" 675","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141669532","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-04DOI: 10.1093/chinesejil/jmae021
Tiantian He
{"title":"How Simple Conclusions Carry Complex Issues: Some Thoughts on the Draft Conclusions on General Principles of Law","authors":"Tiantian He","doi":"10.1093/chinesejil/jmae021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmae021","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":505405,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of International Law","volume":" 17","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141679446","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-07DOI: 10.1093/chinesejil/jmae016
Abhishek Trivedi
{"title":"Monetary Gold Principle and the Case of Nicaragua v. Germany","authors":"Abhishek Trivedi","doi":"10.1093/chinesejil/jmae016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmae016","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":505405,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of International Law","volume":"21 20","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141004982","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-09DOI: 10.1093/chinesejil/jmae015
Wang Yong, Pan Xin
As an important principle of international environmental law, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (the CBDR principle) is being applied to various international environment protection regimes including environmental governance on the high seas as an important guiding principle in the law of the sea. This may be beneficial for engaging the international community to protect the high seas in solidarity. However, the application of the CBDR principle encounters difficulties, which include obstacles regarding cross-sector application, different understandings of the CBDR principle and difficulties in implementation of international instruments. This article argues that the differentiation should not depend exclusively on the traditional dichotomy of developing and developed countries but must be determined on a fluid and case-by-case basis. This suggests that the details of the differentiated responsibilities should also be context-specific rather than uniform for all States. Moreover, the implementation of the CBDR principle to address environmental problems on the high seas should be based on substantive fairness. Finally, this article makes several observations. First, the demands of developing countries in the field of maritime emission reduction should be considered. Second, obligation of capacity building and the transfer of marine technology prescribed in the BBNJ Agreement should be encouraged and implemented. Third, strengthening international cooperation in plastic pollution control on the high seas is expected. Fourth, the international community should provide developing countries with the financial support and technical assistance in persistent organic pollutants control. All of these may contribute to the protection of the high seas environment and the future realization of the sustainable development of the oceans.
{"title":"The Application of the Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities in Environmental Governance on the High Seas","authors":"Wang Yong, Pan Xin","doi":"10.1093/chinesejil/jmae015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmae015","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 As an important principle of international environmental law, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (the CBDR principle) is being applied to various international environment protection regimes including environmental governance on the high seas as an important guiding principle in the law of the sea. This may be beneficial for engaging the international community to protect the high seas in solidarity. However, the application of the CBDR principle encounters difficulties, which include obstacles regarding cross-sector application, different understandings of the CBDR principle and difficulties in implementation of international instruments. This article argues that the differentiation should not depend exclusively on the traditional dichotomy of developing and developed countries but must be determined on a fluid and case-by-case basis. This suggests that the details of the differentiated responsibilities should also be context-specific rather than uniform for all States. Moreover, the implementation of the CBDR principle to address environmental problems on the high seas should be based on substantive fairness. Finally, this article makes several observations. First, the demands of developing countries in the field of maritime emission reduction should be considered. Second, obligation of capacity building and the transfer of marine technology prescribed in the BBNJ Agreement should be encouraged and implemented. Third, strengthening international cooperation in plastic pollution control on the high seas is expected. Fourth, the international community should provide developing countries with the financial support and technical assistance in persistent organic pollutants control. All of these may contribute to the protection of the high seas environment and the future realization of the sustainable development of the oceans.","PeriodicalId":505405,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of International Law","volume":"57 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140723380","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-25DOI: 10.1093/chinesejil/jmae014
Seyfullah Hasar
This article examines the implications of the largely unexplored, yet very insightful, practice of a broad and divergent group of States concerning recognition of the Taliban, in order to contribute to the understanding of various aspects of the question of recognition of governments. Disregarding their long-standing policy of not making express statements on recognition of governments, many States put forward certain conditions for the Taliban to meet to gain recognition. Based on the arbitrary and idiosyncratic nature of these conditions, the article shows the difficulty of explaining recognition decisions by generally applicable criteria, and further establishes that the Taliban case constitutes another setback for the emerging doctrine of democratic legitimacy. Illustrating a wide range of possibilities of engagement with an unrecognised government, the article also shows that treatment, or acknowledgement, and recognition of an entity as government are two different phenomena, and demonstrates the possibility for “recognition” to be stripped of any legal or practical meaning in a given case. The article also shows that the claim that, regardless of being recognised, a general de facto government is entitled to exercise the State’s international rights and obligations does not seem well established in international law. Though some States accepted the Taliban as such, part of the international community rather alluded that the Taliban bore certain international obligations as a non-State actor, rather than on behalf of Afghanistan. The article also examines the status of unrecognised de facto governments before domestic laws, and demonstrates, among others, States’ flexibility towards such governments’ right to access State property abroad, despite the contrary national practices in the past.
{"title":"Recognition of Governments and the Case of the Taliban","authors":"Seyfullah Hasar","doi":"10.1093/chinesejil/jmae014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmae014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article examines the implications of the largely unexplored, yet very insightful, practice of a broad and divergent group of States concerning recognition of the Taliban, in order to contribute to the understanding of various aspects of the question of recognition of governments. Disregarding their long-standing policy of not making express statements on recognition of governments, many States put forward certain conditions for the Taliban to meet to gain recognition. Based on the arbitrary and idiosyncratic nature of these conditions, the article shows the difficulty of explaining recognition decisions by generally applicable criteria, and further establishes that the Taliban case constitutes another setback for the emerging doctrine of democratic legitimacy. Illustrating a wide range of possibilities of engagement with an unrecognised government, the article also shows that treatment, or acknowledgement, and recognition of an entity as government are two different phenomena, and demonstrates the possibility for “recognition” to be stripped of any legal or practical meaning in a given case. The article also shows that the claim that, regardless of being recognised, a general de facto government is entitled to exercise the State’s international rights and obligations does not seem well established in international law. Though some States accepted the Taliban as such, part of the international community rather alluded that the Taliban bore certain international obligations as a non-State actor, rather than on behalf of Afghanistan. The article also examines the status of unrecognised de facto governments before domestic laws, and demonstrates, among others, States’ flexibility towards such governments’ right to access State property abroad, despite the contrary national practices in the past.","PeriodicalId":505405,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of International Law","volume":" 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140382018","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-15DOI: 10.1093/chinesejil/jmae003
Rong Wen, Shisong Jiang
{"title":"Book Review of Matilda Arvidsson and Emily Jones (eds.), International Law and Posthuman Theory","authors":"Rong Wen, Shisong Jiang","doi":"10.1093/chinesejil/jmae003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmae003","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":505405,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of International Law","volume":"27 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139962270","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-08DOI: 10.1093/chinesejil/jmae002
Lucia Leontiev
{"title":"Book Review of Vesselin Popovski and Ankit Malhotra (eds.), Reimagining the International Legal Order","authors":"Lucia Leontiev","doi":"10.1093/chinesejil/jmae002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmae002","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":505405,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of International Law","volume":"16 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139850845","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-08DOI: 10.1093/chinesejil/jmae002
Lucia Leontiev
{"title":"Book Review of Vesselin Popovski and Ankit Malhotra (eds.), Reimagining the International Legal Order","authors":"Lucia Leontiev","doi":"10.1093/chinesejil/jmae002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmae002","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":505405,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of International Law","volume":" 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139790952","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：