| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
152276
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
There is a growing concern that China has become more assertive in its foreign policies. The fear is whether China’s economic growth may translate into modern and effective military advancement. This engenders the critical question of whether China feels comfortable in the current international order, which is defined by international law and institutions. This article argues that the Chinese approach to international law and institutions is tightly associated with its evolving perception of sovereignty, and national interests vis-à-vis international law and institutions, and is characterised by a love–hate attitude towards them. With its opening up, China now views multilateralism as a way for the international community to constrain the capriciousness of a superpower, and regards the international institutions simply as power-sharing development. However, China’s integration in international institutions represents its attempt to work within international norms to pursue its interests. China’s ambivalence towards international judicial settlement of disputes signals the historical legacy as well as China’s uneasiness with playing an active role in international institution-building and rule-making.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
116561
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In response to strident and frequent domestic political outcries, some of China's trade partners have recently accused the Chinese government of intervening in its currency markets, and are threatening to lodge complaints with the World Trade Organization. However, can the WTO assert jurisdiction over China's RMB issue? Analysis of the relevant WTO rules applicable to exchange rate policies does not provide a clear-cut or easy answer. A case like this would likely require expansive interpretation of vague WTO provisions, and also a broadening of its authority into peripheral trade-related areas. Moreover, it is doubtful that China's trading partners could actually make a convincing case that China has violated its commitments under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Agreement on Subsidy and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
054545
|
|
|