<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org">
<title>Chinese Journal of International Law - recent issues</title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org</link>
<description>Chinese Journal of International Law - RSS feed of recent issues (covers the latest 3 issues, including the current issue) </description>
<prism:eIssn>1746-9937</prism:eIssn>
<prism:publicationName>Chinese Journal of International Law</prism:publicationName>
<prism:issn>1540-1650</prism:issn>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/2?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/27?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/47?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/63?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/81?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/135?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/161?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/181?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/191?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/205?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/233?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/251?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/593?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/625?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/659?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/681?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/691?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/699?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/713?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/721?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/735?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/769?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/273?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/285?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/307?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/339?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/353?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/371?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/389?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/417?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/429?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/459?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/485?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/509?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/513?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/557?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/563?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/567?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/571?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/575?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/583?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/586?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/590?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Foreword]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-02-25</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp005</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Foreword]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>1</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>AGORA: KOSOVO</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/2?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Precedents in the Mountains: On the Parallels and Uniqueness of the Cases of Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/2?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>International law, especially its customary part, evolves to a great extent through acts of State practice serving as precedents. If States do not want that their behaviour becomes law (i.e. if they prefer to act contrary to Kant's categorical imperative), they claim that certain acts of their behaviour are so unique, so peculiar that they must not be considered as contributing to the change of law (they express their <I>opinio non juris</I>). In the 1990s, the UN Security Council also found that only uniqueness of situations in Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia-Herzegovina justified the use of "all necessary means" to deal with those situations. More recently, the recognition of the independence of Kosovo by a number of States and the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by Russia were described by recognizing States as being so unique, so <I>sui generis</I> that they could not serve as precedents. The article argues that the uniqueness, or parallels for that matter, is usually in the eye of the beholder. Whether certain situations, facts or acts serve as precedents depends to a great extent on whether one is interested in seeing them as precedents or not. People too often act upon their ideologies, beliefs and prejudices, not upon facts; the latter are interpreted in the light of preconceived ideas, or as Charles King, writing of the Georgia&ndash;Russian war, observes, "unfortunately, Western thinking of Russia has too often substituted analogy for analysis" ("Putin's March to the Sea", Foreign Affairs, Vol. 87, No. 6, November&ndash;December 2008). Then this article proceeds to study in greater detail parallels and differences between Kosovo, on the one hand, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia, on the other. The study ends with an inquest into the matter of how different States (or categories of States) deal with secessionist problems.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mullerson, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-02-25</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn040</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Precedents in the Mountains: On the Parallels and Uniqueness of the Cases of Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>25</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>2</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>AGORA: KOSOVO</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/27?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Independence of Kosovo: A Unique Case of Secession?]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/27?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The issuance of the Declaration of Independence by Kosovar authorities in February 2008 has been treated by the United Nations as not capable of creating a precedent in international law. The question remains as to whether the act was in conformity with international law. In resolution A/RES/63/3, the United Nations General Assembly decided to request the International Court of Justice to render an advisory opinion on that question. The Kosovo case, consequently, raises issues that merit further consideration. A legal finding by the Court would be worth all this trouble if it clarified the rules regarding post-colonial-age secessions, even though its conclusion on the situation of Kosovo will not be likely to affect the matter of recognition to any great extent. International intervention as a title to sovereignty is given some truth following these events concerning Kosovo. The conformity or not with international law of a unilateral act always depends on the legality of both the root for its initiation and the original rationale. From this perspective, the independence of Kosovo is indeed a unique case of secession.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[JIA]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-02-25</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp003</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Independence of Kosovo: A Unique Case of Secession?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>46</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>27</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>AGORA: KOSOVO</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/47?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Kosovo Case and International Law: Looking for Applicable Theories]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/47?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The Kosovo problem represents a formidable occasion to re-examine some basic tenets of international law, such as the so-called right to humanitarian intervention, the right to self-determination and the right of recognition. It will be shown here, however, that many proposals suggesting the need of a radical departure from traditional positions are ill-conceived. Nonetheless, it is the uniqueness of many facets of the Kosovo problem that requires the analyst to look for new solution. It is now up to the International Court of Justice to show the way in a politically much loaded case. In particular, the right to self-determination should find a re-interpretation corresponding to the needs of the twenty-first century.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hilpold, P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-02-25</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn042</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Kosovo Case and International Law: Looking for Applicable Theories]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>61</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>47</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>AGORA: KOSOVO</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/63?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Aviation Safety, ICAO and Obligations Erga Omnes]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/63?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is a United Nations (UN)-specialized agency mandated to promote the safety of international civil aviation. Because of the importance of air transport in the contemporary society, safety issues have become a matter of prime and common concern. Safety oversight function is not only the individual but also the collective responsibility of States. In view of the inherent link between aviation safety and the elementary considerations of humanity, the obligation to provide safety oversight has arguably acquired an <I>erga omnes</I> character, and all States have a legal interest in its observance. The audit activities of ICAO have provided some preliminary experience demonstrating that this obligation should ideally be enforced through centralized and neutral mechanisms within the UN system.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[HUANG]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-02-25</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn039</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Aviation Safety, ICAO and Obligations Erga Omnes]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>79</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>63</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>ARTICLES</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/81?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Desordre Public International under the New York Convention: Wither Truly International Public Policy]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/81?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Much confusion has revolved around the nature of the public policy defense under Article V(2)(b) of United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) to the point that the French term for public policy, <I>ordre public</I>, ought to be changed to <I>d&eacute;sordre public</I> to reflect the general disorder in the discourse on this particular subject. This article takes an in-depth look at the public policy defense and challenges the notion that enforcement States are obliged to consider supranational public policy when deciding whether to recognize or enforce an international arbitral award, except in only a few cases where certain regional obligations are involved. Even then, this is not the type of truly international public policy that is advocated by numerous commentators. Nonetheless, States are free to rely on truly international public policy when deciding on enforcement. Despite the perceived benefits to relying on truly international public policy, there are significant reasons to refrain from pushing for such reliance. While reliance on truly international public policy may help mitigate some of the adverse side effects associated with globalization, it is important to ask what is the price we are willing to pay to counter these side effects. The price should not be the emasculation of the New York Convention itself.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fry, J. D.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-02-25</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn043</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Desordre Public International under the New York Convention: Wither Truly International Public Policy]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>134</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>81</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>ARTICLES</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/135?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Recognition of the Chinese Government and the Convention on International Civil Aviation]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/135?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This article traces the membership and representation of China in the International Civil Aviation Organization. It examines which of the two governments claiming to represent China, the Government of the Republic of China (ROC) or the Government of the People's Republic of China (PRC), has, at any one time, been regarded as competent to exercise China's membership rights under the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention). In particular, the article asks which government can today validly designate "customs airports" in China, including Taiwan, and exercise the various other rights in respect of non-scheduled and scheduled flights referred to in Articles 5 and 6 of the Chicago Convention. It explains why airlines can operate direct international air services to non-designated airports in Taiwan without the special permission or other authorization of the Government of the PRC, despite the latter being regarded as having complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above Taiwan.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Talmon, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-02-25</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp001</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Recognition of the Chinese Government and the Convention on International Civil Aviation]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>159</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>135</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>ARTICLES</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/161?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Implementation of Human Rights Treaties by Chinese Courts: Problems and Prospects]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/161?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This article explores the implementation of human rights treaties by courts in the People's Republic of China. The general applicability of treaties in China is not mentioned in its Constitution, which leaves the status of treaties unclear in Chinese courts, and varying from area to area. In the human rights area, the application of treaties at the domestic level requires incorporation. The status of general comments and concluding observations made by treaty bodies is unclear, too. On the basis of the current human rights legislation in China, the problems and prospects of four different kinds of litigation (constitutional, civil, criminal and administrative) in Chinese courts are discussed separately.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Guo, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-02-25</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp004</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Implementation of Human Rights Treaties by Chinese Courts: Problems and Prospects]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>179</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>161</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>BRIEF COMMENTS, ESSAYS AND NOTES</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/181?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Notes on the International Court of Justice (Part 2): Reform Proposals Regarding the International Court of Justice--A Preliminary Report for the International Law Association Study Group on United Nations Reform]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/181?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Written for the International Law Association Study Group on UN Reform, this Preliminary Report reviews the more significant reform proposals regarding the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and makes some suggestions for further consideration such as the appropriateness of an ICJ Bar and a Model Code of Conduct for practice before the ICJ, the role of the ICJ and its heavy caseload, and possible coalitions to promote the ICJ.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Yee, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-02-25</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn046</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Notes on the International Court of Justice (Part 2): Reform Proposals Regarding the International Court of Justice--A Preliminary Report for the International Law Association Study Group on United Nations Reform]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>189</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>181</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>COURTS AND TRIBUNALS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/191?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Comments on Guyana v. Suriname]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/191?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p><I>Guyana</I> v. <I>Suriname</I> is a case where the international tribunal has an opportunity to deal with the state responsibility issue in a maritime delimitation dispute. This paper examines the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal over Guyanese submission that Suriname was internationally responsible for violating its obligations under the LOS Convention, the Charter of the United Nations and general international law to settle disputes by peaceful means. And the arbitral tribunal made great contributions to the clarification of the obligations under Articles 74(3) and 83(3) of the LOS Convention to make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements and not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of a final delimitation agreement.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[GAO]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-02-25</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp002</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Comments on Guyana v. Suriname]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>203</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>191</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>COURTS AND TRIBUNALS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/205?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Migrant Workers as Citizens within the ASEAN Landscape: International Law and the Singapore Experiment]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/205?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Using both legal and sociological definitions of citizenship, this paper examines how the international community, ASEAN countries and Singapore have responded to the migrant worker question.</p>
<p>The first part of this paper uses ASEAN examples and interrogates the question of migrant worker citizenship from an international legal or policy perspective, particularly recent efforts to construct a differentiated citizenship for migrant workers within destination States based on an inclusionary principle.</p>
<p>The second part of this paper then undertakes a close case study of foreign domestic workers or "maids" in Singapore. I examine how maids are depicted as non-citizens under Singapore's law and policy, how Singaporean non-governmental organizations have sought to counter this and how the latter may be guided by internationally developed concepts of differentiated citizenship and the inclusionary principle.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[CHEAH]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-02-25</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn041</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Migrant Workers as Citizens within the ASEAN Landscape: International Law and the Singapore Experiment]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>231</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>205</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>DEVELOPMENT AND HISTORY</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/233?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Protection and Development of Tibetan Culture]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/233?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This government whitepaper outlines China's policy regarding, and its promotion of, Tibetan culture as well as the motives behind such policy and promotion. It details the learning, use and development of the spoken and written Tibetan languages, the inheritance, protection and promotion of the Tibetan cultural heritage, the respect for the religious beliefs and native customs, and the all-round development of modern science, education and the media. The paper concludes that Tibetan culture is blooming with new vigor and energy in the new age and profoundly influencing the life of Tibetans and the development of Tibet's modernization through its diverse content and innovative forms.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[The State Council Information Office, China]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-02-25</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn044</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Protection and Development of Tibetan Culture]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>249</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>233</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>PRACTICE AND DOCUMENTS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/251?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Reflections on International Judges and Their Decision-making: A Review Essay on Daniel Terris et al. (eds), The International Judge]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/1/251?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>In reviewing this valuable book, some reflections were given concerning nominations of candidates for judicial posts, as well as on moral integrity of particular judges in the proceedings before the International Court of Justice on South West Africa (Namibia) between 1950 and 1971. Paradoxically, the controversial Judgment of 1966 had some salutary effects on further development of rules of general international law.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Degan, V.D.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-02-25</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn045</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Reflections on International Judges and Their Decision-making: A Review Essay on Daniel Terris et al. (eds), The International Judge]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>266</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>251</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>REVIEWS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/593?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Something Old, Something New: The 2006 Semipalatinsk Treaty on a Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/593?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The present article analyses the provisions of the 2006 Semipalatinsk Treaty establishing a nuclear weapon-free zone in Central Asia, explores their different nature and compares them with those contained in the Treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok and Pelindaba. The fundamental question to be answered is whether the Semipalatinsk Treaty will effectively contribute to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The article concludes that the treaty contains lights and shadows: although some positive innovations have been included in the final text, there are loopholes that might weaken the denuclearization regime. The "Great Game" in Central Asia and the tight relations of the regional States with the Russian Federation might also hamper the efforts to obtain the support of the other nuclear powers.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Roscini, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-10-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn033</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Something Old, Something New: The 2006 Semipalatinsk Treaty on a Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>624</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>593</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>ARTICLES</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/625?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Extraterritorial Export Controls (Secondary Boycotts)]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/625?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Some States, the United States in particular, have given their export controls and economic boycotts extraterritorial application. As a result, persons and companies in other States have been prevented from exporting to or investing in the States that are actually the targets of the boycott. It is argued that extraterritorial export controls are unlawful under international law, unless they can be justified by accepted principles of jurisdiction (territoriality, national security, nationality), or if other States acquiesce. Permissive principles should not be construed too broadly, however: jurisdiction solely based on national control of foreign corporations does not seem to be lawful, nor does jurisdiction based on perceived but largely unsubstantiated security threats.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ryngaert, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-10-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn032</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Extraterritorial Export Controls (Secondary Boycotts)]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>658</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>625</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>ARTICLES</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/659?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[International Investment Treaties and the Formation, Application and Transformation of Customary International Law Rules]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/659?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>International custom is one of the main sources of international law. As a relatively new branch of international law, international investment treaties, emerging in the late 1950s and having been very energetic since the mid-1990s, have become a driving force and an important forum for the formation, application and transformation of the customary international law rules.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[CAI]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-10-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn035</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[International Investment Treaties and the Formation, Application and Transformation of Customary International Law Rules]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>679</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>659</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>BRIEF COMMENTS, ESSAYS AND NOTES</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/681?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Comments on the Chinese Space Regulations]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/681?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Two sets of national space regulations have been issued in China. Comparing them with space legislations of other countries and State practice, this paper identifies the issues that have not been properly addressed by these regulations such as clarifying the term of "other organizations", requiring permits holders to govern the disposal of the payload in outer space on the termination of operation and specifying the rights of the authorized officers, and so on. It suggests that more work needs to be done in the domestic space legislations.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[LING]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-10-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn034</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Comments on the Chinese Space Regulations]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>689</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>681</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>BRIEF COMMENTS, ESSAYS AND NOTES</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/691?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Notes on the International Court of Justice (Part 1): Arguments for the Publication of the Rule-making Materials]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/691?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The current non-publication of the <I>travaux pr&eacute;paratoires</I> of the International Court of Justice Rules of Court is not easy to justify. There are concrete examples in which the availability of these materials will aid the interpretation of the Rules. Furthermore, broader considerations such as the spirit of the Statute, the prevailing trend in the world, the need to promote the rule of law, to inspire greater confidence in the Court and to improve efficiency in litigation before the Court all militate in favour of publication.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Yee, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-10-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn038</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Notes on the International Court of Justice (Part 1): Arguments for the Publication of the Rule-making Materials]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>698</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>691</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>COURTS AND TRIBUNALS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/699?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Rise of Peoples' Rights in the Americas: The Saramaka People Decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/699?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The <I>Saramaka People v. Suriname</I> decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights recognized the right of a non-indigenous minority group to the natural resources within its lands. Three factors make the decision significant: First, it affirms that certain tribal groups are more akin to indigenous communities than they are to other ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities in terms of the rights they possess. Second, the holding adopts an evolving principle of international law and makes it a binding norm in the Americas, enunciating a test to guide future interpretations of Article 21 of the American Convention. Finally, the Court's incorporation of peoples' rights into its analysis renders the decision a topical contribution to current debates on the meaning and scope of these rights.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brunner, L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-10-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn031</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Rise of Peoples' Rights in the Americas: The Saramaka People Decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>711</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>699</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>COURTS AND TRIBUNALS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/713?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Japanese Supreme Court Judgment in the so-called "Kokaryo Case"]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/713?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The so-called "Kokaryo Case", popularly called the "Guanghualiao An" in Chinese, is the case filed by the Republic of China in Japan that attracted much attention and dispute since delicate issues such as the recognition of the Chinese government and the juridical status of the Taiwan authorities were involved. This note briefly overviews the 27 March 2007 Japanese Supreme Court judgment in this case and provides some tentative comments on its nature and implications.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kitamura, T.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-10-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn037</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Japanese Supreme Court Judgment in the so-called "Kokaryo Case"]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>720</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>713</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>COURTS AND TRIBUNALS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/721?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Universal Periodic Review of the UN Human Rights Council: An Assessment of the First Session]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/721?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The Universal Periodic Review is an innovative mechanism for protecting and promoting human rights within the United Nations. Instituted by the Human Rights Council in 2006, it reviews human rights situations in all States. This article analyses the configuration of this new procedure in order to assess its success in de-politicizing human rights, and in providing substantive output on the improvement of human rights at domestic level. While it remains early to detect trends, the experience of the first session of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review could shed light on both positive developments and concerns.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Redondo, E. D.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-10-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn029</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Universal Periodic Review of the UN Human Rights Council: An Assessment of the First Session]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>734</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>721</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>DEVELOPMENT AND HISTORY</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/735?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Chinese Practice in Public International Law: 2007 (II)]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/735?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This part of the Survey covers materials reflecting Chinese practice in 2007 relating to VII. International Human Rights Law (Rule of Law at the National Level; Right of Self-Determination of Peoples; Racial Discrimination; Death Penalty; Re-education through Labour; Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Women's Rights; Rights of the Child; Rights of the Older Persons; Dialogue on Human Rights; Human Rights Council; Implementation of Human Rights Instruments); VIII. International Humanitarian Law (Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflicts; Child and Armed Conflicts; Biological Weapons; Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons; Landmines; Explosive Remnants of War; Cluster Munitions; Right of Individual Claims for Violations of International Humanitarian Law; Establishment of National Committee on International Humanitarian Law); IX. International Law of Treaties (Reservations to Treaties; Effects of Armed Conflicts on Treaties); X. International Environmental Law (Principle of "Common but Differentiated Responsibilities"; Shared Natural Resources; Climate Change; Disaster Reduction); XI. Law on Diplomatic Relations; XII. International Criminal Law (International Criminal Court; ICTY and ICTR; Special Court for Serra Leone (SCSL); Special Tribunal for Lebanon; International Military Tribunal for Far East; <I>Aut Dedere Aut Judicare;</I> Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction; Criminal Accountability of United Nations Officials and Experts on Mission; Repatriation of Some Chinese in Guantanamo; Criminal Jurisdiction in Joint Military Exercises); XIII. Law on the United Nations (Sanctions by the United Nations; Amendment of the Charter of the UN; Security Council Reform); XIV. International Organizations Law; XV. International Law on State Responsibility (Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts; Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities and Allocation of Loss in the Case of Such Harm).</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ZHU]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-10-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn030</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Chinese Practice in Public International Law: 2007 (II)]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>767</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>735</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>PRACTICE AND DOCUMENTS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/769?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Review of Chinese Reviews: Selected Articles Recently Published in Chinese [Part 7(3)]]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/3/769?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[BI]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-10-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn036</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Review of Chinese Reviews: Selected Articles Recently Published in Chinese [Part 7(3)]]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>772</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>769</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>REVIEWS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/273?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Asian Traditions and Contemporary International Law on the Management of Natural Resources]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/273?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>In the 1997 decision of the International Court of Justice in the dispute between Hungary and Slovakia regarding the uses of the Danube, Judge Weeramantry invoked ancient Asian traditions concerning the utilization of shared water resources to offer novel insights for the development of international law. In searching for inspiration for the concept of sustainable development in international environmental law, Judge Weeramantry examined the ancient irrigation-based civilization of his country, Sri Lanka, as well as early systems in other Asian societies. Asian traditions reflect numerous examples for fruitful cooperation in the management of shared natural resources, in diverse areas such as Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia and Iran, and the Middle East. Local social norms, shared culture and even religion have been utilized for sustaining long-term equitable utilization of shared watercourses. Many of the irrigation systems, including the social arrangements that supported them, survive to this day. In later periods, under the influence of Western scientists who showed no reverence to "primitive" practices, many Asian governments upset the delicate indigenous systems by imposing centrally planned, unsustainable management systems. Contemporary scientists and disillusioned governments are now rediscovering those ancient practices and are trying to reinstate them where possible. This paper describes these traditional irrigation practices and analyses the logic of collective action that sustains them. The insights of this exercise are then used to examine contemporary issues related to the management of freshwater resources in Asia, including the Indus, the Ganges and the Mekong rivers. The basic argument is that the shared Asian traditions, which also are reflected in contemporary international law, can and should serve as guidance in the management of the region's many shared resources.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Benvenisti, E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn008</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Asian Traditions and Contemporary International Law on the Management of Natural Resources]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>283</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>273</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>ARTICLES</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/285?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Immunity of International Organizations and the Jurisdiction of their Administrative Tribunals]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/285?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>International organizations regularly enjoy immunity from suit in employment-related cases. Instead of litigation before various national courts, staff members are supposed to bring their complaints before internal grievance mechanisms and ultimately before administrative tribunals set up by the organizations. The scope of jurisdiction of such administrative tribunals largely covers the kind of staff disputes insulated from national court scrutiny as a result of the immunity from legal process enjoyed by international organizations. Inspired by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular its 1999 <I>Waite and Kennedy</I> judgment according to which the jurisdictional immunity of international organizations may depend upon the availability of "reasonable alternative means" to protect effectively the rights of staff members, more and more national courts are equally looking at the availability and adequacy of alternative dispute settlement mechanisms. Some of them have even concluded that the non-availability of legal protection through an administrative tribunal or the inadequacy of the level of protection afforded by internal mechanisms justifies a withdrawal of immunity in order to avoid a denial of justice contrary to human rights demands.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Reinisch, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn020</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Immunity of International Organizations and the Jurisdiction of their Administrative Tribunals]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>306</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>285</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>ARTICLES</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/307?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[State Immunity, China and Its Shifting Position]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/307?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This paper argues that China may well consider a probable shift of its position on the principle of State immunity from the absolute doctrine to the restrictive doctrine for the purpose of better accommodating the rapid growth of the private sector in China's economic structure and significantly enhancing the judicial protection of the interest of Chinese private entities actively involved in international commerce since the 1990s. This paper makes a brief study of China's past practice and position in relation to State immunity, offers an analysis of the rationale for a position shift, recommends means to facilitate the shift and comments on some relevant principal legal issues about which China may have legitimate concerns.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[QI]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn028</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[State Immunity, China and Its Shifting Position]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>337</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>307</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>ARTICLES</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/339?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[International Legal Personality of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/339?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This paper briefly reviews the change in the political status of Hong Kong from a British colony to a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, sets out the international rights and obligations of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) as evidence of its international legal personality and discusses whether the HKSAR can be treated as a subject of international law.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[SUN]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn010</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[International Legal Personality of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>352</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>339</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>BRIEF COMMENTS, ESSAYS &amp; NOTES</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/353?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The 2007 Record of the International Court of Justice]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/353?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This article presents a brief overview of developments relating to the International Court of Justice during 2007. It also offers a succinct outlook on the basis of the status of the Court's docket and its programme of work as at 31 December 2007.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bekker, P. H.F.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn011</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The 2007 Record of the International Court of Justice]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>369</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>353</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>COURTS &amp; TRIBUNALS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/371?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Activities in 2007]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/371?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This paper gives an overview of the activities of, and those relating to, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in 2007. It provides information on the 17th Meeting of States Parties, organizational developments and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and comments on cases before the Tribunal in 2007.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gautier, P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn021</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Activities in 2007]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>388</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>371</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>COURTS &amp; TRIBUNALS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/389?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in 2007: Key Developments in International Humanitarian and Criminal Law]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/389?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The year 2007 was again a very productive year for The International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991. This article examines the judgements rendered by the Tribunal in 2007 and highlights the principal developments in international humanitarian and criminal law at the Tribunal. Among many other issues, the Tribunal's 2007 jurisprudence clarified important aspects of three forms of individual criminal responsibility, namely, aiding and abetting ("by omission"), superior responsibility and the joint criminal enterprise doctrine.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bostedt, F., Dungel, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn016</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in 2007: Key Developments in International Humanitarian and Criminal Law]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>415</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>389</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>COURTS &amp; TRIBUNALS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/417?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Comments on Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/417?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p><I>Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland</I> is important for it clarifies the division of areas of competences between the European Community (EC) and its Member States in the mixed agreements, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention). According to the Court of Justice of the European Communities, a finding that there has been a transfer to the Community of areas of shared competence is contingent on the existence of Community rules within the areas covered by the mixed agreement provisions in issue, even though these rules establish only minimum standards. Thus, when dealing with the LOS Convention disputes involving EC Member States, the court or tribunal needs to establish that the shared competence in question has not been transferred to the Community. Otherwise, it should decline jurisdiction on the basis that the parties or party lack(s) <I>locus standi</I>.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[GAO]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn022</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Comments on Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>427</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>417</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>COURTS &amp; TRIBUNALS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/429?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Against Enforced Disappearance: the Political Detainees' Case before the Nepal Supreme Court]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/429?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Enforced disappearances, for political reasons, are still a common practice in many countries. In many instances, courts have taken bold steps to deter State agencies from orchestrating and encouraging such acts through orders and decisions. In that vein, Nepal's Supreme Court, in 2007, breaking the long tradition of a conservative and passive approach to justice, issued a verdict of significant proportion which could have a long-lasting effect on the country's political governance, both from the municipal as well as international law perspectives.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Uprety, K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn015</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Against Enforced Disappearance: the Political Detainees' Case before the Nepal Supreme Court]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>457</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>429</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>COURTS &amp; TRIBUNALS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/459?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Legal Findings of Crimes against Humanity in the Al-Dujail Judgments of the Iraqi High Tribunal: A Forerunner for the ICC?]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/459?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The Iraqi High Tribunal's (IHT) trial-and-appeal judgments in <I>Al-Dujail</I> against <I>Saddam Hussein et al</I>. contain surprisingly detailed findings in international criminal law dogmatic, particularly regarding the elements of crimes against humanity. Since the statutory legal basis of crimes against humanity on which <I>Al-Dujail</I> is grounded is close to identical to its ICC counterpart set forth in Article 7 of the ICC Statute, the interpretations brought forward by the IHT might be of high relevance for future interpretation of Article 7 of the ICC Statute. This article discusses possibilities and limits thereof. Particular focus has been set on the problems of what shall be meant by "multiple" commissions of acts set forth in the legal definition of "attack", and what level of <I>mens rea</I> shall be required for "murder" as a crime against humanity.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kuschnik, B.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn018</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Legal Findings of Crimes against Humanity in the Al-Dujail Judgments of the Iraqi High Tribunal: A Forerunner for the ICC?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>483</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>459</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>COURTS &amp; TRIBUNALS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/485?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Chinese Practice in Public International Law: 2007 (I)]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/485?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This part of the Survey covers materials reflecting Chinese practice in 2007 relating to (i) Fundamental Principles of International Law (General Position; Respect of Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity; Non-Intervention of Internal Affairs; Rule of Law at the International Level); (ii) International Peace and Security (Nuclear Policy and Nuclear Disarmament; Non-Proliferation; Against Terrorism; Prevention and Resolution of Conflicts; North Korean Nuclear Issue; Iranian Nuclear Issue; Myanmar Situation; Afghanistan Situation; Darfur Situation in Sudan; Haiti Situation); (iii) China's Territorial Integrity (Taiwan; Tibet; Xisha Islands and Nansha Islands; Diaoyu Islands); (iv) International Law of the Sea (Delimitation of East China Sea; Okinotori Reef (Chongzhiniao Jiao); Delimitation of the Outer Limits of Continental Shelf beyond 200 nautical miles; International Seabed Authority; Navigation; Pollution from Vessels); (v) International Law of the Outer Space (Peaceful Use of the Outer Space; Application and Interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty in China's Courts); (vi) Individuals in International Law (Nationality; North Korean Asylum-seekers in China; Diplomatic Protection and Consular Protection; Expulsion of Aliens).</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ZHU]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn017</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Chinese Practice in Public International Law: 2007 (I)]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>507</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>485</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>PRACTICE &amp; DOCUMENTS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/509?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Statement on the Rule of Law at the National and International Levels (2007)]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/509?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>In this 2007 Statement, the Chinese representative puts forward China's views on the topic of the rule of law.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[DUAN]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn025</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Statement on the Rule of Law at the National and International Levels (2007)]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>512</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>509</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>PRACTICE &amp; DOCUMENTS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/513?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[China's Efforts and Achievements in Promoting the Rule of Law]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/513?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This government whitepaper describes the Chinese people's struggles for democracy, freedom, equality and the building of a country under the rule of law. It first provides an introduction to the historical course of these efforts and a general description of the Chinese legal system. The whitepaper then describes separately human rights protection, the market economy, public administration and governmental regulation, judicial enforcement of law and administration of justice, legal education, and international exchange and cooperation relating to these issues.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[The State Council Information Office, China]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn026</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[China's Efforts and Achievements in Promoting the Rule of Law]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>555</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>513</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>PRACTICE &amp; DOCUMENTS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/557?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Statement on Expulsion of Aliens, Effects of Armed Conflicts on Treaties, Responsibility of International Organizations (2007)]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/557?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>In this 2007 Statement, the Chinese representative elaborates China's views on the work of the International Law Commission regarding expulsion of aliens, effects of armed conflicts on treaties, responsibility of international organizations.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[LIU]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn027</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Statement on Expulsion of Aliens, Effects of Armed Conflicts on Treaties, Responsibility of International Organizations (2007)]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>561</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>557</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>PRACTICE &amp; DOCUMENTS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/563?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Statement on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2007)]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/563?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>In this 2007 statement, the Chinese representative puts forward the views of the Chinese delegation on the International Law Commission's "Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts".</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[MA]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn024</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Statement on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2007)]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>566</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>563</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>PRACTICE &amp; DOCUMENTS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/567?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Statement on "Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities and Allocation of Loss in the Case of Such Harm" (2007)]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/567?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>In this 2007 statement, the Chinese representative puts forward the views of the Chinese delegation on the International Law Commission's work relating to the "Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities and Allocation of Loss in the Case of Such Harm".</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[MA]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn023</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Statement on "Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities and Allocation of Loss in the Case of Such Harm" (2007)]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>569</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>567</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>PRACTICE &amp; DOCUMENTS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/571?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Review of Chinese Reviews: Selected Articles Recently Published in Chinese [Part 7(2)]]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/571?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[BI]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn019</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Review of Chinese Reviews: Selected Articles Recently Published in Chinese [Part 7(2)]]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>574</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>571</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>REVIEWS &amp; BIBLIOGRAPHY</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/575?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Legal Materials on China Received and Catalogued in the Peace Palace Library: 2007]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/575?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kost, I.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn013</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Legal Materials on China Received and Catalogued in the Peace Palace Library: 2007]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>582</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>575</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>REVIEWS &amp; BIBLIOGRAPHY</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/583?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The New Cold War: How the Kremlin Menaces both Russia and the West]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/583?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mullerson, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn014</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The New Cold War: How the Kremlin Menaces both Russia and the West]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>586</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>583</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>REVIEWS &amp; BIBLIOGRAPHY</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/586?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Dui Guonei Zhanzhengzui de Pubian Guanxia yu Guojifa [Universal Jurisdiction over War Crimes in Non-International Armed Conflicts and International Law]]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/586?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[BAI]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn009</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Dui Guonei Zhanzhengzui de Pubian Guanxia yu Guojifa [Universal Jurisdiction over War Crimes in Non-International Armed Conflicts and International Law]]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>590</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>586</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>REVIEWS &amp; BIBLIOGRAPHY</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/590?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Globalization and Its Discontents]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/7/2/590?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Du, M. M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-07-08</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmn012</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Globalization and Its Discontents]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>591</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>590</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>REVIEWS &amp; BIBLIOGRAPHY</prism:section>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>