This quarterly journal addresses a key gap in the academic literature related to China’s modern governance and public policy, providing timely and comprehensive review articles targeted to both specialist and non-specialist readers. Each edition will be dedicated to one article, of approximately 50 pages in length, which surveys the literature on a given topic and provides a framework for understanding the evolution of thought in this area of inquiry.
Topics will include key thematic areas of change and continuity in Chinese governance as well as the institutional perspectives critical to understand modern China. Topic areas will concern: inequality, social policy, financial policy, health policy, environmental policy, water and energy policy, civil society, the politics of urbanization, democracy, labor, human rights, and gender. Additionally, articles will address questions of ideology, the role of the NPC, the role of the Party, local politics at the village, county, and provincial levels, civil/military relations, and business/government relations.
The journal’s target audience will be a composite of both specialist and non-specialist readerships. Sinologists trained in a variety of disciplines, including political science, sociology, economics, public policy, and other areas will find utility in up-to-date review articles. As China’s rise in the global political, economic, and social spheres attracts increasing numbers of non-Sinologists eager to understand China’s domestic levers of decision-making and power, this journal will also provide an important introduction to current analysis. It is the hope of the editors to create an intellectual bridge between such populations, and between past and current state-of-the-art thinking on Chinese governance.
invalidity 1 of contracts which harm public interests but are not prohibited by any other specific rule of law. These general rules usually affect the validity of contracts contrary to ‘publicpolicy’ or ‘good morals’. While the scope of these rules under English law and Dutch law may not be precisely
and well-being, as well as considering the broader and much more vexed question of how far publicpolicy is capable of incorporating ques- tions of belief and value into its indicators of happiness and the good life. Drawing on traditions of virtue ethics as the cultivation of ‘the life well-lived’, I
highlights the delicate balance between the autonomy of the arbitral process and the control of the national courts’. 5
“PublicPolicy” is one such ground provided in the New York Convention, as well as in the uncitral Model Law which is often invoked in the national courts to challenge or refuse the
human rights violations by investors can be raised in international investment arbitration. 2
In contrast to a general reluctance to take into consideration these human rights concerns, some tribunals have relied on transnational (or international) publicpolicy to dismiss claims tainted with issues
, concerns arising from the Labour Law perspective have not been dealt with suﬃciently by the Court. This article presents the relevant decisions of the Court of Cassation and assesses them from the perspective of labour law and the publicpolicy embedded in it. It is argued that, while the arbitrability of
The Center for Oceans Law and Policy series examines the most important aspects of oceans law and policy and is published under the auspices of the Center for Oceans Law and Policy at the University of Virginia. Supporting research, education, and discussion on legal and public policy issues relating to the oceans, the Center is among the leading institutes in the field and promotes interdisciplinary interaction at all levels, addressing international, national, regional, and state issues.