There have been increasing and stronger calls for greater integration of many Asian economies, either within the confines of ASEAN or on a more geo-economically strategic scale that would include major Asian jurisdictions like China, Japan, and Korea. A number of key personalities within the regional legal fraternity have advanced views that such integration ought to occur through the harmonization of legal rules, arguing amongst others that in so doing uncertainty and other transaction costs would be reduced and commercial confidence within the region concomitantly increased. That commercial law has come under the lens as a particularly suitable candidate for harmonization is, in a sense, unsurprising. It is for one ostensibly seen as a technical and relatively uncontroversial area of law, as opposed, for instance, to public law. For another, or probably for that precise reason, this area has been the historical choice for attempts at harmonizing substantive law – think of the CISG, the UCC in the United States or the recently proposed CESL in the European Union. This edited volume brings together eminent and promising scholars and practitioners to investigate what convergence and divergence means in their respective fields and for Asia.

Criminal law and criminal justice are becoming increasingly globalised. In open societies, the era in which individual jurisdictions developed their own codes, statutes and systems of justice with no regard to other systems and countries is long over. There is a growing desire to develop common approaches to common problems and to learn from the diversity of current practice in different countries. This development has been reinforced by the internationalisation of criminal justice in international and mixed criminal tribunals. However, attempts at trans-jurisdictional discourse are often hampered by mutual misunderstandings. Some problems are linguistic: although English is the new lingua franca of international and comparative criminal law, not all foundational concepts of criminal law and justice originate in the English-speaking world; some of them are rooted in civil law jurisdictions, such as France, Germany and Italy. The translation of these concepts into English is subject to ambiguity and potential error: the same term may assume different meanings in different legal contexts.

This introductory chapter uses the framework of pedagogical choice to articulate and compare competing visions of how the field should be conceptualized and taught. Part 2 explicates the practical challenge that renders pedagogy in the field of comparative constitutional law unusually difficult – namely, the problem of capacity. Part 3 articulates and evaluates five competing models of pedagogy, which might be called instrumentalism, tourism, immersion, abstraction, and representation. Each model is defined by a distinctive set of pedagogical goals and a practical strategy for pursuing those goals in the face of the problem of capacity. Part 4 uses the contents of Constitutionalism in Context to illustrate how the representation model might be implemented in textbook form, and what intellectual and pedagogical benefits might result. Many of the representation model’s unique benefits stem from the fact that it invites and even demands that we explore what might be called boundary cases – namely, extreme, novel, or otherwise nonstandard cases that require us to test or apply familiar concepts and strategies in unfamiliar ways. Part 5 concludes by arguing that the challenges of teaching comparative constitutional law call for pedagogical pluralism.

This chapter introduces the jurisprudence of Ronald Dworkin. It outlines the various components of his liberal individualistic theory and how this conceptualises group phenomena including religion. It notes how English law is largely based on this model, highlights its deficiencies as regards the regulation of religion, and traces its declining influence from 2016. It argues that liberal individualism is a suboptimal model on which to base the law of religion because it takes insufficient account of groups and civil society.

In 1967, Roy Bates, a former major in the British Army, declared himself the ruler of a decommissioned offshore naval fort outside the United Kingdom’s territorial waters in an effort to bypass legal restrictions on radio broadcasting. In 1977, Leonard Casley of the Principality of Hutt River, a 75-square-kilometre wheat farm, cabled a telegram to the Governor-General of Australia declaring war in an attempt to force his larger neighbour to recognise the Principality’s sovereignty. In 1992, Dean Kamen, the inventor of the Segway and ruler of the Kingdom of North Dumpling, a three-acre island off the coast of Connecticut, convinced his friend, President George HW Bush, to sign a faux non-aggression pact between their two countries. Micronations challenge and seek to engage with recognised states in diverse ways. Although none of these micronations achieved legal recognition, they considered their efforts a success. In compelling the state to respond, they considered that the state treated them – if only for a moment – as an equal.

Much as different modes of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) have gained in popularity around the world, there has been growing global interest in the combined use of such modes, or hybrid modes of dispute resolution. This typically requires mediation, arbitration and other modes of ADR to be attempted in an agreed sequence. Such process is referred to as ‘multi-tier dispute resolution’ (MDR). Despite its widespread popularity, the development of MDR has followed different trajectories in different jurisdictions. This introductory chapter will provide a comparative survey of how MDR has been regulated and approached and its many pathways around the world.

The introductory chapter establishes the context of the discussion and introduces the reader to the requirement placed on States by Article 36 to review the legality of a new weapon, means or method of warfare. With significant funding flowing worldwide into the development of autonomous weapons systems and cyber capabilities, including capabilities underpinned by Artificial Intelligence, the chapter further explains the focus of this book on both types of technology. Being software driven, autonomous weapons systems and cyber capabilities pose a similar set of challenges for ‘traditional’ Article 36 review mechanisms, offering a valuable case study to examine where such mechanisms may need to be adapted in light of contemporary circumstances. The chapter concludes by illuminating doctrinal and empirical sources on which the analysis in the book is based. [129 words]

This chapter introduces the issue addressed in this study, that is the allocation of international responsibility in a multi-layered structures like the European Union. It discusses the key doctrine on the question of responsibility of international organisations and points to the different approaches that dominate the discourse. This chapter also addresses the scope of the study, noting that it is focused on the questions of international responsibility that arise in international economic law. The introductory chapter also notes the methods of research employed in this study.

China’s approach to innovation is unique. To analyse the main features of economic innovation and entrepreneurship in contemporary China, it is first necessary to dispel some common misconceptions. In addressing that topic, this chapter focuses on explaining: (1) technological innovation and how it has been conventionally understood in the literature; (2) China’s distinctive approach to technological innovation; (3) in particular, the complex role of the government, and regulation, in innovation in China; and (4) how China’s distinctive approach to innovation may actually be better at promoting innovation in AI technologies, and other rapidly developing technologies, than other approaches.

Legal enforcement of international obligations under domestic law is a contradiction in terms because the same state that has the conclusive obligation to protect human rights also has exclusive control of the means of legal enforcement under domestic law. The impulse for the state to obstruct or hinder the domestic enforcement of its international obligations under routine trade and international relations is effectively precluded by fear of retaliation by other states and/or international organizations that have the power and resources to secure their economic, trade, security, and other interests under international law. Unfortunately, human rights treaties are unlikely to have similar benefits for states when they implement or enforce the treaty or international custom on which a human rights claim is based.1

Existing scholarship has generally examined international law in public debates for how it helps to explain other phenomena, in particular decision-making by governments. This book gives a different account of international law in public debates by investigating the uses of that language for what it can tell us about the development of international law itself. I argue that there has been a move from the use of international legal language as part of collective justifications to the use of international law as an autonomous justification for state actions. This move is a central characteristic of a popular international law that I attempt to unravel in this book. This chapter presents the first step in that unravelling by describing two events that arose out of the 2003 Iraq War: the release of the Report of Iraq Inquiry in the UK and the outcomes of the World Tribunal on Iraq.

The premise of this book is that, like everything else in life and human experience since the beginning of time, evolution is the key for understanding how the world works. For me, as a Muslim, only God is the permanent reality, while everything else evolves with time and in response to changing circumstances. Since human rights are rendered in the service of human beings, they must evolve with the life experience of their subject, namely, human beings on the ground everywhere, for each person and community on their own terms. This is the true meaning of universal human rights which are worthy of global struggle for their realization and protection. By the principle of the concept itself, no other person, group, or entity can impose their view in defining, interpreting, or elaborating human rights norms and institutions for others. The way remains open for respectful debate, contestation, suggestions, and recommendations, but these should never violate the dignity and freedom of the human subject. This is what we all know as the Golden Rule, or the principle of reciprocity. If in doubt as to whether a debate or challenge is in violation of this fundamental principle, imagine the situation with you as the subject of violation of human dignity and freedom.1

After several years of hard-fought negotiations on a project co-founded and championed by it, the United States sent shockwaves through the international trade community by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This chapter seeks to discuss the political environment in Washington, DC during the TPP’s negotiation and the failed attempt at shepherding it through to final fruition, taking care to explain the seemingly arcane way that trade agreements are implemented in the U.S. system. The authors map out the shifts in trade politics leading up to completion of the TPP, highlight a few of the more contentious substantive issues that arose along the way, and deliver a kind of post- mortem for the United States’ participation in the TPP, commenting briefly on the likelihood of a resumption of interest in the project in Washington, DC.

Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea have the only courts in Asia that regularly use a structured four-stage Proportionality Analysis system to invalidate laws. They also have the only courts in Asia that routinely apply innovative constitutional remedies such as Suspension Orders and Remedial Interpretation to rectify constitutionally flawed legislation. This book explores the constitutional convergence in East Asia and explains its limits.

This chapter explores the origins and evolution of supranationality. It contrasts different conceptualizations across various (legal) disciplines by singling out four important contexts which have informed the notion: the turn to modern international law, the establishment of the European Communities, EU law scholarship and the law of IOs. The chapter demonstrates how supranationality is construed through both international law and EU law, which is one of the very reasons its meaning is difficult to pin down. Supranationality, as a doctrinal concept, appears to be trapped by the unresolved quandary of whether EU law is still to be conceived of as being part of international law.

The introductory chapter sets out how the right of access to environmental information was developed at the international level and its relevance to current environmental decision-making processes and environmental regulation. This chapter also introduces legal transplant theory and the Aarhus Convention, which provide the theoretical and legal framework, respectively, that acts as the text’s anchoring point. The chapter also sets out the three legal jurisdictions where the legislature’s efforts to guarantee the right will be analysed, providing the scope of the text.

About eight years after the passage of the Competition Ordinance1 (the Ordinance) and five years after it came into effect, it is easy to forget how remarkable the journey has been for the adoption of competition law in Hong Kong. Since the early 1990s, when the Consumer Council, a quasi-governmental consumer protection body, began advocating for a competition law in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong government had strenuously resisted calls for competition legislation on the ground that the city’s economy was already highly competitive due to its openness to external trade . The lack of trade barriers meant that any firm could enter the city’s markets easily and discipline the existing market players. The ease of market entry would keep the exercise of market power to a minimum. The fallacy of this argument is easy to see. While the lack of trade barriers may allow competition in the markets for tradeable goods, it has no bearing on the degree of competition for non-tradeable services. Openness to trade would not save the domestic market from a monopolistic retailer, for example.

This chapter explains the legal uncertainties arising in the continental shelf delimitation beyond 200 nautical miles. Given the special characters of the entitlement to the continental shelf beyond 200 nm in terms of its substantive, procedural, and institutional attributes, a great measure of uncertainty is introduced into the delimitation of the extended maritime areas, in particular with regard to the competence of international courts and tribunals and the applicable delimitation methodology. Clarification and refinement of these issues are vital for the pursuit of an equitable solution to maritime boundary-making and the stability of the law of maritime delimitation.

This Chapter includes a debate about the republican constitutionalism as an ideal type and tradition and its alternatives. A sample of different conceptions about Chilean constitutional law is also part of this chapter including several critical analysis of some of its main representatives. Among them, we explore the decadence of republicanism in the works of Alberto Edwards and Jaime Eyzaguirre. The anti-parliamentarian presidentialism of Fernando Campos Harriet. The liberal republicanism of Gabriel Amunategui, Ricardo Donoso and Federico Gil. The alternative, marginal, social and economic order of Gabriel Salazar. The great Latin American constitutional comparison of Roberto Gargarella. Last but not least, the idea of this book is exposed. This is the idea of the Five Republics and Chilean constitutional tradition.

This chapter outlines the significance and urgency of the current global water crisis and demonstrates that the existing international legal architecture for transboundary freshwater ecosystems requires significant improvement to meet current and predicted transboundary water challenges, resolve conflict and strengthen cooperation. The chapter sets out the three overarching objectives of the book. First, to understand the rising impact of regional approaches to international law on transboundary freshwater ecosystems. This includes identifying the contribution of the UNECE Water Convention and other relevant UNECE environmental instruments as a coherent legal regime. Second, to provide a more coherent understanding of the relationship between the UNECE environmental regime, international water law, international environmental law and general international law. This includes examining the contribution of the UNECE regime to cornerstone rules and principles of international water law and emerging or missing concepts such an ecosystem approach or public participation. Third, to understand how the UNECE regime adds to or interacts (on a normative and an institutional level) with river basin agreements, river basin commissions, European Union water law and national law. The introduction highlights the timely nature of the enquiry against the contemporary context and frames the book’s place against existing writing on this subject.