• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.38
• /
• pp.303-325
• /
• 2008

China's "Foreign Trade law" 16.4 revised in 2004 like "Foreign Trade law" 16.2 in 1994 is still stipulated resource restriction to protect domestic resources and it does not satisfy the introduction of article 20 and section (g) of GATT 1994. Through an interpretation of related regulations and China-EU cokes dispute, the paper points out that China's "Foreign Trade law" 16.4 has no validity of the introduction of article 20 and section (g) of GATT 1994. Comparing China's "Foreign Trade law" 16.4 to GATT 1994 20(g), China's "Foreign Trade law" 16.4 does not include important conditions of GATT 1994 20 introduction such as not being arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination and disguised restriction on international trade. For example, based upon China's "Foreign Trade law" , if she restricts or prohibits important natural resources that Korea mainly relies on China, it will effects not only trade between two countries but also our lives and securities. Hence, it is highly time to analyze China's the Validity of the China's Resource Export-Quota Restrictive Measures under the GATT/WTO. In the process of resolving China-EU cokes dispute in 2004, ministry of Commerce of China shows well its characteristics of dispute settlement and also we can find out EU's logical countermeasures. Therefore, because of the high possibility of disputes between Korea and China in the area of natural resources, Korea needs to pay attention to the China's resource protecting policies, and if it violates GATT 1994 20 introduction and (g), we should consider to sue China to WTO. The paper believes that it will play an important role as an aggressive demand and effect on amendment of China's "Foreign Trade law" in the long term.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.181-202
• /
• 2011

In the recent years, China's aviation industry has gained visible progress. Meanwhile, China's aviation law system has become more and more complete. However, in this system, many problems still exist, especially lacking a unified aviation law, which limits the development of China aviation industry, general aviation in particular, and hinders the economic growth. This article aims to raise the basic structure of China's unified aviation law system and proposals on the basis of analysis on the existing problems in our current aviation law system.

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.1-44
• /
• 2021

China's new Maritime Policy Law (MPL) purports to regulate the duties of China's maritime police agencies, including the China Coast Guard, and safeguard China's sovereignty, security, and rights and interest. The MPL has potentially far-reaching application, as China claims extensive maritime areas off its mainland and in the South China Sea. This expansive application of maritime law enforcement jurisdiction is problematic given that most of China's maritime claims are inconsistent with international law. To the extent that the MPL purports to assert jurisdiction over foreign flagged vessels in disputed areas or on the high seas, it contravenes international law. Numerous provisions of the MPL regarding the use of force are also inconsistent with international rules and standards governing the use of maritime law enforcement jurisdiction, as well as the UN Charter's prohibition on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. China could use the MPL as a subterfuge to advance its illegal territorial and maritime claims in the South and East China Seas and interfere with coastal State resource rights in their respective exclusive economic zone.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.33
• /
• pp.178-201
• /
• 2014

China National People's Congress has passed the bill to combine the Marine Law Enforcement into "State Oceanic Administration People's Republic of China". This bill was intended to resolve the overlapping jurisdiction and disputes caused in ocean territory in nearby countries. The purpose of reorganizing the administration was to combine the dispersed organization into one group. This new big administration was basically organized to increase the power of China marine state on the long-term. The reorganization plan is to group General Administration of Customs, China Marine Surveillance, Fisheries Law Enforcement Command, and Border Control Department into one State Oceanic Administration. The new state Oceanic Administration carries the authority to protect rights and enforce the marine law supported by Public Security Bureau. Korea Coast Guard has been cooperating with China Marine Surveillance since 1998 when the first pact was made. The next step expanded to General Administration of Customs. Currently working with Regional Maritime Law Enforcement organizations dealing mostly with illegal Chinese fishing boats and IEODO conflict. In order to solve the problems we face today is to observe the process of the New China Coast Guard administration, analysing the effects that could be caused by the change and to keep close cooperation between the new administrations.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.183-232
• /
• 1999

The legislative body of The People's Republic of China, the National People's Congress, enacted the first arbitration act in China's history on August 31st, 1994, which took effect on September 1, 1995. The problems revealed through a comparison of China's Arbitration Act with the UNCITRAL model arbitration law were studied as well as the enacting process, background, status and system, important contents, problems of Chaina's Arbitration Act, and the differences between the old arbitration regulations and the new arbitration act. These are all discussed in this paper. The Arbitration Act is the basic act ruling over china's arbitration system: it unified the previously confusing laws and regulations relevant to the arbitration system, and the act brings out fundamental changes in China's domestic arbitration to the level of international arbitration standards. It is possible to view this act as a cornerstone in China's arbitration system. But, as discussed in this paper, there are still a lot of problems with the new act and only a few of the merits which the UNCITRAL model arbitration law has. First, under China's Arbitration Act, parties enjoy autonomy to some degree, but the range of party autonomy, compared to that of the UNCITRAL model arbitration law, is too narrow. Second, because China's Arbitration Act didn't explicitly provide issues which can give rise to debate, a degree of confusion in its interpretation still remains. Third, China's Arbitration Act's treatment of some important principles was careless. Fourth, in some sections, China's Arbitration Act is less reasonable than the UNCITRAL model arbitration law. These problems must be resolved in order to develop China's arbitration system. The best way of resolving these problems for China is to adopt the UNCITRAL model arbitration law. But it is difficult to expect that China will accept this approach, because of the present arbitration circumstances in China. Although it is difficult to accept all the contents of the UNCITRAL model arbitration law, China's legislators and practitioners must consider the problems mentioned in this paper.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.50
• /
• pp.61-85
• /
• 2011

The agreement to arbitrate is a central feature of commercial arbitration and the lack of a valid arbitration agreement is recognised as a reason why any arbitral award may not be recognized as binding by the courts or may be set aside. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the China's present arbitration law and practice in respect of determination of the validity of international commercial arbitration agreement. Most arbitration laws only require an arbitration agreement to be "in writing". But the arbitration law of the China require an arbitration agreement shall contain the following: 1. The expression of application for arbitration. 2. Matters for arbitration. 3. The arbitration commission chosen. And China's present arbitration law and practice in respect of determination of the validity of international commercial arbitration agreement are somewhat different from the other nations.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.23
• /
• pp.93-127
• /
• 2004

A contract is made when both parties have reached agreement, or they are deemed to have. After contract the law recognizes rights and obligations arising from the agreement. In order to discover whether agreement was reached between these two parties, we have to analyse the process of negotiation. Recently The People's Republic of China legislated a New Contract Law, which has come into effect since 1st of October 1999. This Law adapts the rules of United Nations(Vienna) Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and the Unidroit Principles for International Commercial Contracts. And this law is now widely enforced to commercial transactions between individuals, enterprises or other economic organizations of the People's Republic of China and foreign enterprises. Therefore, the foreigner who wish to make a sales contract with Chinese should understand the rules of New Contract Law of China. According to this New Law only a contract which contain offer and acceptance is valid and binding, and it is also pointed out that terms of contact must be certain. Though an oral contract is usually equivalent to a written one, in a case of commercial transactions written contract with signature is desirable. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the new rules of this Law and the new features of their application to commercial transactions in China.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.39
• /
• pp.345-366
• /
• 2008

The paper analyzes GMO legal system and the problems of its management in China and their suggestions to Korea. GMO has been arising as a principal alternative of grain while grain prices continue to climb. Although there has been concerns about GMO imported from China, it is true that we have not studied on China's legal system and the problems of its management in China. The paper believes that when Chinese government does not manage GMO primarily, we have a high possibility that China's GMO food will access to Korean market at any time, and threaten our health and safety. Hence, it is highly time to analyze how legally China treats GMO and what the problems of its management are. The paper found out problems of China's GMO management in three ways. Firstly, GMO legal system of China is confused and it has limitation of effectiveness. China has no regulations like "a law" to regulate GMO and regulations which exists now are not easy to apply in substance. Secondly, China has no administrative strictness to manage GMO. For example, the regulation which ministry of agriculture in China promulgated in March of 2002 started to use partially since 2003, 7. Thirdly, China, as a nation that administration superiors to, market does not do its roll to control GMO. It relates to the low concerns and care of Chines people about GMO. The paper shows suggestions and countermeasures according to problems of China's GMO management.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.63
• /
• pp.89-110
• /
• 2014

Since the CISG came into force in 1 January 1988 in China, many cases as well as arbitral awards have been decided under the CISG during the period of about 30 years of its application in China. After the CISG entered into force and before the handovers of HK in 1997, the China courts or CIETAC applied CISG to the disputes between China party and HK party in many cases, even PRC reserved CISG article 95. On the Contrary, after the handovers of HK in 1997, the China courts or CIETAC did not apply CISG to the disputes between them in many cases with the reason that China filed an CISG article 95 declaration and HK is not a contracting unit. The matter is the China's contract law and civil law have convinced that the CISG is highly applicable as "International Practice" under the China law in appropriate circumstances, so sometimes China courts or CIETAC applied CISG based on the China law not CISG itself. As a result, some interpretation made by the China court or CIETAC might not comply with the international character of the CISG and to some extent even impaired the uniform application of the CISG. So the author expects more and more valuable cases to be reported which will be good for its further development.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.45-64
• /
• 1993

The law of territorial sea is a fundamental law by which the width of sovereign domain of a coastal state is determined. The P.R.China'a regime on the territorial sea was established through the Declaration on China's Ttrritorial Sea of 1958 and the P.R.China's Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone Law of 1992. And the P.R.China's consistent policy on the territorial sea can be summarized as follows ; \circled1 The adoption of the straight baseline and 12 nautical miles of the territorial sea width, \circled2 The foreign merchant vessels can enjoy the right of innocent passage, while requesting for prior permission for the foreign military vessels on the entry into territorial sea. \circled3 The Chiungchow Strait and the Bohai Bay are claimed as the internal waters. \circled4 Enlistment of the whole coastal islands including the Taiwan. 12 nautical miles of the territorial sea width can be recognized as lawfull with respect to the 1982 UNLOS Convention. But the P.R.China's Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone Law of 1992 contains some problems on the legality viewed in the light of customary international law. Firstly, it can be said that the adoption of simple straight baseline is not reasonable, and it must be investigated closely on the hidden intention of China. Secondly, there involved some possibility of international dispute on making Tung Tao which is 69 nautical miles apart from the mainland of a basepoint and on making the Bohai Bay of a historic bay. And also public notification of all basepoints for the straight baselines is necessary to meet the requirement of customary international law, Thirdly, two military zones established unilaterally in 1950 are illegal with respect to the customary international law, and they must be repealed deservedly. Fourthly, there have a lot of restrictions on the innocent passage even for foreign merchant vessels by the municipal law such as the Maritime Traffic Safety Law. As a conclusion, the P.R.China's territorial sea regime contains some illegal elements such as unilateral expansion of the maritime sovereignty or jurisdiction. In order to meet the general principle of the international law, the P.R.China's territorial sea policy must be modified on the basis of multilateral agreement with the states concerned. And Korea, as a state with opposite, has a definite right to take countermeasure agaist the P.R.China's contiguous zone.