In the nineteenth century, classical liberalism originated from Britain. Nearly all the countries across the globe had benefited from the liberal international economic order (LIEO) under the Pax Britannia. However, the United States has never taken in classical liberalism. Rather, it regards international trade as a “zero sum game” and upholds “fair trade” through the international institution of WTO/GATT. From the British free trade to the U.S. fair trade, from the WTO to the fragmented PTAs, and from free trade to protectionism, classical liberalism has been gradually fading away. The higher standards on the various non-tariff issues in the TPP have reached a new altitude against classical liberalism. In face of the high-standard trade rules in the 21st century, China should not follow them recklessly but give due consideration to the status quo of its economic development when negotiating FTAs in the future.
Ten specialists in the fields of tax law and public finance from Japan, the Netherlands, China, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Vietnam recently gathered in Leiden, the Netherlands to present papers and give lectures on tax law in those countries for the symposium `Tax Law in East and Southeast Asia Towards the 21st Century.'
The meeting fostered the exchange of information on recent reforms of tax systems, with participants examining both differences and similarities and discussing further planned or necessary reforms for each country in East and Southeast Asia on the threshold of the 21st century. The papers collected in this volume were originally prepared for the conference. After the conference, contributors revised their papers on the basis of the discussions conducted.
Giving due consideration to the comparison of tax systems in these areas, these revised papers emphasise themes such as tax structure, especially that of direct and indirect taxes; intergovernmental fiscal relationships; and recent reforms to and problems of tax systems. The result: an extremely useful and informative work which covers ground rarely covered before. Legal and other tax practitioners as well as academics will find this volume of great value.
One of the defining features of the new generation of European investment treaties is the inclusion of market access provisions. It remains to be seen, however, whether and to what extent this might become a standard practice of the eu. This article attempts to answer this question first by reviewing the development of market access policy in the eu and then by analyzing treaty practice on market access both at the eu level and at Member State level. Subsequently, it discusses the more specific issues that may be involved in market access provisions in the potential eu Model bit. It concludes that the world is witnessing a new generation of investment treaties (“Global bit 2.0”) with the eu and other major economic players accepting concrete market access or investment liberalisation commitments, which shall to a considerable degree help pave the way towards a multilateral investment treaty (mit).
This article examines whether ‘trial and error’ is an effective approach to the design of regulations for China’s emission-trading pilot programs. These pilots are designed and operated at local levels for the purpose of testing regulatory design and implementation, with the hope that a national scheme will be built on these experiences. Through an examination of China’s involvement in the Clean Development Mechanism, design and operating principles for emission trading, and China’s regulatory and institutional framework for emission reductions, this article argues that the trial-and-error approach helps the regulatory design of local pilot programs to be adaptive to local circumstances. Such circumstances include local laws, institutional capacities, and developmental priorities. But trial and error also has shortcomings, namely in its capacity to mediate the competing demands of environmental sustainability, commercial viability, financial integrity, and political legitimacy. This article contains lessons for the construction of China’s national emission-trading scheme.
In 1972, the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention) was negotiated. It is a global treaty, for the first time, to regulate dumping of waste at sea worldwide. Following this global endeavor, the Protocol to the London Convention (London Protocol) was later agreed to further modernize the London Convention so as to reinforce the management of dumping of waste at sea. While in East Asia, only China, Japan, the Republic of Korea (South Korea) and the Philippines have acceded to the Convention and its Protocol, other countries do not show their willingness to sign them. Against this background, this article will address the responses of these East Asian states to the implementation of the London Convention, and analyze and assess their relevant laws and regulations with particular reference to China’s practice. In addition, it will focus on new challenges, such as offshore carbon storage, to the London Convention.