The scope of an arbitration agreement shapes and determines an arbitrator’s jurisdiction, making it a key issue in international arbitration theory and practice. Courts in pro-arbitration countries usually interpret the scope of an arbitration agreement broadly to cover all disputes related to the contract between the parties. This ensures that arbitration can function as an effective and efficient ‘one-stop’ forum for business entities. China is a crucial player in the international arbitration system. Despite having maintained an overall pro-arbitration stance, the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) misconceptualises the scope of an arbitration agreement by equating it with the boundaries of the contract between the parties. This misconception leads the SPC to adopt two problematic legal doctrines. First, it develops a literal approach to interpretation that focuses on an arbitration agreement’s exact wording. Second, it conflates the existence of an arbitration agreement with its scope. As a result, the SPC frequently interprets scope narrowly, and wrongly applies the New York Convention and the relevant Chinese law. These problematic approaches stand in stark contrast to the international trend to interpret scope broadly and the SPC’s otherwise consistent pro-arbitration stance. So far, this has not received the necessary attention from legal academics. This article identifies the SPC’s misconception and the problematic doctrines it has developed, and argues that the SPC should reconsider its case law. Only by doing so can the SPC bring its jurisprudence in line with international practice, strengthen its pro-arbitration stance, and further facilitate economic cooperation between China and other countries. In addition, by exposing the misconception of the SPC, this article will inform business entities around the world and enable them to avoid possible pitfalls when engaging in commercial dealings with China. At the same time, courts in countries striving to build a pro-arbitration reputation can learn from the mistakes of their Chinese counterparts and reflect on how best to interpret the scope of arbitration agreements.

One of the most pressing regulatory issues of our time is whether, when, and how short selling should be regulated. Short selling facilitates the dissemination of negative information that is otherwise not available to the marketplace, thereby improving market efficiency. However, it may also disrupt market stability, particularly during times of stress. Therefore, regulators seek to regulate this market practice in a balanced manner. This paper examines the Korean short selling regime, the world’s longest ban, instituted following the COVID-19 pandemic. It argues that the regulatory system is run on archaic methods. In particular, our analysis demonstrates that the rules are overly restrictive and complex compared to those in other major jurisdictions. Also, critical decisions are entirely at the government’s discretion, rendering it vulnerable to political interference. Stressing the need for a revamp of the current short selling system, we call for a thorough revision of law and regulations. Market authorities must set out clear standards for regulatory intervention to avoid arbitrary and capricious decisions. In doing so, they can enhance transparency and accountability in law enforcement. Regulators should be aware that it is the most effective way to protect themselves from undue political influences and to restore regulatory trust.

The right of the accused to a timely trial is a fundamental aspect of the right to a fair trial, regarded as a cornerstone of criminal justice systems worldwide. This article explores how this right can be enforced through writ jurisdiction, with a particular focus on Sri Lanka. By comparing writ jurisdiction in Sri Lanka with that of the United Kingdom and Australia, the article examines how developments in these jurisdictions have recognised delays in proceedings as a form of procedural unfairness, thereby establishing it as a valid ground for invoking writ jurisdiction. While the right to a timely trial is an implied fundamental right in Sri Lanka, the article highlights how the rich Indian jurisprudence on this matter could guide in more precisely defining its scope and developing a legal framework for its protection. Furthermore, the article discusses how the intersection of writ and fundamental rights jurisdictions in Sri Lanka has enabled judicial review of violations of the right to a timely trial by inferior courts. Overall, the article offers valuable insights into expanding writ jurisdiction to ensure the timely resolution of criminal trials in other Commonwealth jurisdictions that, like Sri Lanka, follow English legal principles in judicial review.

This article problematises traditionalist thinking in constitutional adjudication in relation to the rights of same-sex couples, especially those rights that are connected to family life. It identifies two approaches, represented respectively by the case law of the Italian Constitutional Court (ItCC) and the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) of the Hong Kong SAR of the People’s Republic of China. The ItCC has expressly stated that preserving traditional family forms is a reasonable objective per se for the legislature to pursue. The CFA, on the other hand, has challenged this approach to traditionalist thinking in relation to same-sex unions. Despite some contradictory signals within its case law, the CFA has stated that justifying differential treatment based on sexual orientation with reference to tradition is circular reasoning. Drawing on historical, anthropological, and philosophical sources, this article argues that invoking the preservation of tradition, despite its rhetorical force, is empirically and conceptually criticisable and, ultimately, unpersuasive.

The global proliferation of Chinese investments has raised national security concerns among many host States. Western economies such as the United States and Australia have strengthened their foreign investment screening (FIS) regimes partially in response to these concerns. Korea and Japan, as representative East Asian economies, have also joined the trend of strengthening FIS regimes to manage security risks associated with foreign investments. This article investigates whether national security has also emerged as a focal point of confrontation between developed East Asian countries and China in international investment landscape. It investigates China’s legal concept of national security and its growing importance in the country’s foreign investment policy. It then examines the FIS regimes in Korea and Japan as well as their practical operations in relation to Chinese investments, with a focus on how national security concerns have shaped their approaches to Chinese investments. This article argues that a national security-focused confrontation has emerged between developed East Asian countries and China in the international investment landscape as a result of their shared national security concerns. Korea and Japan should avoid politicising their FIS regimes in order to prevent potential violations of international investment law and contribute to East Asian economic harmony.