Recent reforms in international anti-laundering regime install legal professionals as gatekeepers by requiring them to take certain due diligence measures and actively cooperate with the state. These requirements have generated controversy and varied compliance among states. The prevailing view in legal academia and profession is that compliance with these requirements is inversely related to the resilience of states’ domestic rule of law system. The article critiques this view: the gatekeeping controversy is a debate taking place among different traditions of rule of law, and not creeping-in from outside the bounds of rule of law. By tracing policy documents, prominent judicial decisions and records of activities of legal professional associations, the article shows that states’ divergent compliance is instead a function of (i) a split in the philosophical inclinations of judiciaries over how the legal profession serves the public interest, and (ii) a turf-war over the administration of the legal profession.
The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS or the Convention) is one of the most important accomplishments in the development of international law in the twentieth century. As a comprehensive compilation of the modern law of the sea, the UNCLOS not only codifies numerous customary rules of law of the sea, but also progressively develops the treaty rules of law of the sea. Especially the three bodies established by the UNCLOS, namely the International Seabed Authority (ISA), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), have played an important role in facilitating the implementation of the UNCLOS and promoting stability and development of the international marine order. As a member of the big family of the States Parties to the UNCLOS, China has been faithfully fulfilling the obligations of the UNCLOS, fully engaged in the work of the three bodies and actively contributing its solutions and wisdom. In the process of implementing the UNCLOS, China has formed its own practices and policies.
The evolutionary interpretation of a norm presents a similar nature—even if obviously not identical—to the modification of the law, which is a process that follows an interpretative method that must be particularly careful not to be in contrast with the intention of the states concerned by the rule. Interpretation in practice, in speciem in the World Trade Organization becomes prescriptive to descriptive, since our aim will be to see the theme of evolutionary interpretation through the jurisprudence of the Organization.