<?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/8/3/573?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/589?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/593?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/621?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/637?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/657?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/681?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/695?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/715?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/741?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/779?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/781?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/785?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/792?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/267?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/285?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/291?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/299?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/323?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/347?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/375?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/395?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/423?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/441?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/455?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/493?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/553?rss=1" />
  <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:Seq>
</items>
</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/573?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Relevance of the Right to Self-determination in the Kosovo Matter: In Partial Response to the Agora Papers]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/573?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>In response to the first three articles that appeared in the Agora on Kosovo, this paper argues that there is a right of unilateral secession based on the right of external self-determination. According to the authors, the latter right is applicable outside a colonial context, in limited circumstances resembling the colonial paradigm. Modern customary international law provides the legal basis for a right of "remedial secession", an argument that is supported by relevant State and institutional practice. After having discussed the conditions of this right and its legal basis, the authors apply their findings to the Kosovo case, in order to answer the question whether the Kosovo Albanians had a right of unilateral secession under international law.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ryngaert, C., Griffioen, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:04:46 PST</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp021</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Relevance of the Right to Self-determination in the Kosovo Matter: In Partial Response to the Agora Papers]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>587</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>573</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>AGORA: KOSOVO (PART 3)</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/589?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Kosovo and the Pitfalls of Over-theorizing International Law: Observations on Hilpold's Rejoinder]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/589?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Peter Hilpold's rejoinder certifies that a debate about the legality of the Kosovo Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) would almost inevitably involve an attempt to reconsider the basic characteristics of the international legal system. This is clear from the example of the attempts to claim the legality of that UDI supported by one part of the international community and opposed by the rest of that community, by over-theorizing international law and thus claiming that the Kosovo UDI could be lawful even though it does not comply with the criteria of legality of the emergence of new States. This approach appears to claim that academic lawyers can project the consensual decisions of States to be substituted by their own perceptions.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Orakhelashvili, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:04:46 PST</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp026</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Kosovo and the Pitfalls of Over-theorizing International Law: Observations on Hilpold's Rejoinder]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>592</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>589</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>AGORA: KOSOVO (PART 3)</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/593?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Global Justice and the (Ir)relevance of Indeterminacy]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/593?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Global justice is one of the most indiscriminately used notions in international debate, usually taken to reflect a moral imperative of securing fairness between differently positioned States. As such, global justice might accurately be described as a meta-principle, used here to refer to its universal scope and the overarching conceptual reach of its subject-matter, as well as possessing a high degree of conceptual indeterminacy. It is suggested that there are three levels of uncertainty: indeterminacy of scope (to what is it relevant?), of content (what does it require?) and of application (is justice something that can even be understood at the global level?). In recognizing this uncertainty, the paper nevertheless concludes that while the recourse to principle in political and legal debate can never anticipate the attainment of justice, this should not marginalize the significance&mdash;the <I>relevance</I>&mdash;of striving for fairness at the global level, particularly between economically divergent States.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[French, D.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:04:46 PST</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp022</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Global Justice and the (Ir)relevance of Indeterminacy]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>619</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>593</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>ARTICLE</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/621?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between Hong Kong and Mainland China: A Successful Model?]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/621?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>After the handover in 1997, the Supreme People's Court of Mainland China and the Department of Justice of Hong Kong concluded in 1999 a bilateral Arrangement to resolve the problem of enforcing arbitral awards. The Arrangement provides a unique implementation instrument. This paper examines a number of court rulings in Hong Kong and the Mainland and evaluates how the Arrangement has played out in reality. The author observes that both the Mainland and Hong Kong share certain basic intentions for applying the Arrangement, including exclusion of reviewing merits, a cautious attitude towards public policy, and relaxed procedural requirements. On the other hand, there are also some differences in judicial practice revealed in the cases. Some of these differences, such as the scope of the Arrangement's application and double enforcement, are derived from the ambiguity of the Arrangement itself and must be clarified. Others, such as the validity of the arbitration agreement and the difficulty in applying foreign law, arise from the different statutes and legal traditions and may be eliminated through the development of law and further legal assistance between the Mainland and Hong Kong.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[FEI]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:04:46 PST</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp019</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between Hong Kong and Mainland China: A Successful Model?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>636</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>621</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>BRIEF COMMENTS, ESSAYS AND NOTES</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/637?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Issues in the Application of Depecage in Chinese Private International Law]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/637?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This essay examines the doctrine of <I>d&eacute;pe&ccedil;age</I> as a tool that may be used to solve complex private international law problems arising in China that cannot be satisfactorily resolved with the law of just one jurisdiction. A comparative analysis is made with US law to help create a framework for the applicability of <I>d&eacute;pe&ccedil;age</I> in China. Lastly, the essay examines the factors that may hinder the application of <I>d&eacute;pe&ccedil;age</I> in China.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ong, A. V. Y.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:04:46 PST</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp020</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Issues in the Application of Depecage in Chinese Private International Law]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>655</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>637</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>BRIEF COMMENTS, ESSAYS AND NOTES</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/657?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Proliferation Security Initiative: Towards Relegation of Navigational Freedoms in UNCLOS? An Indian Perspective]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/657?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Terrorism is a major challenge to maritime trade. Among the many measures introduced in the post-2001 period to address terrorism at sea, the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) has acquired a place of prominence, especially as the 2005 Protocol to the Convention on Suppression of Unlawful Activities against the Safety of Maritime Navigation has not yet entered into force. Even though the PSI is supposedly only a political initiative of America supported by a coalition of willing countries, the implications of the PSI for the existing law of the sea regime are significant. This article attempts to examine the compatibility of the PSI with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is submitted that when a few States act unilaterally, as in the case of the PSI, they give rise to new State practice which weakens and relegates existing international legal norms and institutions mainly relating to the freedom of navigation, right of innocent passage, exclusive rights of flag States and ship-boarding provisions enshrined in the law of the sea, though the degree of such relegation is debatable.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Thomas, T. V.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:04:46 PST</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp027</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Proliferation Security Initiative: Towards Relegation of Navigational Freedoms in UNCLOS? An Indian Perspective]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>680</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>657</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>BRIEF COMMENTS, ESSAYS AND NOTES</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/681?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Notes on the International Court of Justice (Part 3): Rule-making at the Court--Integration, Uniformization, Keeping Existing Article Numbers and Giving Public Notice]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/681?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This paper comments on, and makes proposals for improving, the rule-making at the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court), with a view to making it easier for States, particularly those that are represented by lawyers who are not ICJ specialists, to litigate before the Court. The paper argues that (1) all "rules", including provisions of the Rules of Court, Practice Directions and notes for parties should be centralized and integrated and the "rules" be called "rules", and (2) new rules be promulgated in a way that would keep the old article numbers as much as possible and only after some notice is given to the public, with a view to receiving comments.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Yee, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:04:46 PST</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp031</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Notes on the International Court of Justice (Part 3): Rule-making at the Court--Integration, Uniformization, Keeping Existing Article Numbers and Giving Public Notice]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>694</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>681</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>COURTS AND TRIBUNALS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/695?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[On the Recent Development of International Law: Some Russian Perspectives]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/695?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>There are some new features and new trends in the development of international law at the beginning of the new century and new millennium. The relatively short historical period of 60 years since the end of World War II caused nonetheless a change in the look of international law and of its role in the life of society. The present article touches upon the most important changes and characteristics of contemporary international law regarding three aspects, namely the Russian theory of international law, the official Russian position and the relations of the internal legal system towards international law. It addresses several important issues: the growth and expansion of the legal foundation of the life of the international community; the strengthened role of law in international relations; the change of correlation between coordinating and subordinating principles; the development of international procedural law, general international law and <I>jus cogens</I>; the strengthened need for dynamism in norm-formation; the growth of the "presence" and functioning of international law within domestic jurisdictions; the change in the relations between the fundamental principles; and the humanization of international law. Two other issues which are still related to these trends are also covered by the article: the problem of the "myths" of international law and the threat of its fragmentation.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Marochkin, S. Yu.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:04:46 PST</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp023</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[On the Recent Development of International Law: Some Russian Perspectives]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>714</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>695</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>DEVELOPMENT AND HISTORY</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/715?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Chinese Judicial Practice in Private International Law: 2006]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/715?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This annual survey of Chinese judicial practice in private international law in 2006 opens with an analysis of several significant judicial interpretations which will serve as guidelines for Chinese courts at various levels in charge of cases involving foreign elements, and which may give rise to problems calling for further improvements. A statistical analysis follows, examining 50 trans-jurisdictional civil and commercial cases before Chinese courts in 2006, and advocating reasonable invocation of the tool of evasion of law, the doctrine of <I>ordre public</I> and mandatory rules. The judgment rendered by the Supreme People's Court in <I>Starflower Investment Service, Ltd. v. Hangzhou Jinma Real Estate, Ltd. and Hangzhou Future World Recreation, Ltd.</I> is then discussed, with focus on choice of law for guaranties to foreign companies. Finally, after dealing with several cases in point, the authors suggest that the internet should be consulted more frequently in proving foreign law.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[HUANG, SONG, LI, LONG]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:04:46 PST</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp025</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Chinese Judicial Practice in Private International Law: 2006]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>740</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>715</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>PRACTICE AND DOCUMENTS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/741?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[National Human Rights Action Plan of China (2009-2010)]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/741?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:04:46 PST</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp024</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[National Human Rights Action Plan of China (2009-2010)]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>777</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>741</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>PRACTICE AND DOCUMENTS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/779?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Law of Command Responsibility]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/779?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jia, B. B.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:04:46 PST</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp029</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Law of Command Responsibility]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>781</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>779</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>REVIEWS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/781?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Guo Ji Fa Ben Ti Lun [On the Noumena of International Law]]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/781?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[WANG]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:04:46 PST</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp030</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Guo Ji Fa Ben Ti Lun [On the Noumena of International Law]]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>784</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>781</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>REVIEWS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/785?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Review of Chinese Reviews: Selected Articles Recently Published in Chinese (Part 8)]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/785?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[BI]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:04:46 PST</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp028</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Review of Chinese Reviews: Selected Articles Recently Published in Chinese (Part 8)]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>791</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>785</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>REVIEWS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/792?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Corrigendum]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/3/792?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:04:46 PST</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp032</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Corrigendum]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>792</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>792</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>CORRIGENDUM</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/267?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/267?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The purpose is to provide a general survey of the practice among States of the peaceful settlement of international disputes. The survey reflects the variety of instruments for peaceful settlement, including negotiation, conciliation and commissions of inquiry. Care is taken to indicate the quantitative significance of the inter-State arbitration in relation to the use of standing international tribunals, such as the International Court of Justice. The analytical commentary includes discussion of the typology of disputes and the comparative merits of arbitration and the process of adjudication in the International Court.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brownlie, I.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:26:35 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp015</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>283</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>267</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>THE WANG TIEYA LECTURE IN PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/285?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Kosovo UDI between Agreed Law and Subjective Perception: A Response to Hilpold]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/285?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Just like any other important international controversy, the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Kosovo raises multiple aspects of the relationship between law, fact and politics on the international plane. Diverse outcomes and solutions could be suggested from a theoretical perspective, with different options for balancing the importance of legal, factual and political factors. However, making an international legal argument on the independence claim of Kosovo requires that argument to be based on the verifiable set of qualified evidence pointing to the acceptance of the pertinent position by the international society of States. Over-theorizing the Kosovo question detaches its analysis from the international legal argument.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Orakhelashvili, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:26:35 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp008</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Kosovo UDI between Agreed Law and Subjective Perception: A Response to Hilpold]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>290</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>285</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>AGORA: KOSOVO (PART 2)</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/291?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[What Role for Academic Writers in Interpreting International Law?--A Rejoinder to Orakhelashvili]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/291?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The points of criticism advanced by Orakhelashvili can be confuted easily. Secession is a fact. A rule according to which secession can produce legal effects only to the extent these are allowed, as identified by Orakhelashvili, cannot be found in International Law. On a whole, the right to self-determination is a far more complex concept than portrayed by Orakhelashvili. Finally, Orakhelashvili seems to attribute a very limited role to the academic writer in norm interpretation: the straightforward choice between "right" and "false" interpretations. However, a more nuanced position must be taken.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hilpold, P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:26:35 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp013</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[What Role for Academic Writers in Interpreting International Law?--A Rejoinder to Orakhelashvili]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>298</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>291</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>AGORA: KOSOVO (PART 2)</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/299?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[International Treaties in the Chinese Domestic Legal System ]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/299?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>China has made considerable progress in the past thirty years with respect to implementation of international obligations in its domestic legal system. Although China's Constitution and its basic laws do not set forth a general provision on the status of treaties in the domestic legal system, substantive treaty obligations undertaken by China, to a large extent, have been incorporated into special national laws, exerting a direct impact on the economic and social activities of the country. This article examines various forms and modalities by which China implements its international obligations at domestic level. There have been an increasing number of cases where courts apply treaty provisions to give private parties additional legal protection. In the civil and commercial areas, international treaties apply primarily to cases with foreign elements, while in the criminal law area, China has prescribed almost all of the international crimes as criminal offences under its national criminal law. China implements its international obligations in good faith with the view that effective implementation of treaty obligations will not only serve well its own development, but also promote peace and cooperation among States.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[XUE, JIN]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:26:35 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp007</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[International Treaties in the Chinese Domestic Legal System ]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>322</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>299</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>ARTICLES</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/323?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[New Developments in the International Law of Piracy]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/323?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The law of piracy can be regarded as the oldest branch of international law, particularly the law of the sea. While the basic legal stipulations in international law as embodied in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea remained unchanged for a long time, there are some new developments relating to the change of the law of piracy associated with the resurgence of contemporary piracy in the 1990s and the so-called "anti-terror war" led by the United States after the September 11 event. This paper will address three aspects: the definition of piracy; new international legislation concerning piracy; and recent State practice, all contributing to the development of the international law of piracy.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ZOU]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:26:35 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp006</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[New Developments in the International Law of Piracy]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>345</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>323</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>ARTICLES</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/347?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Aerial Belligerency within a Humanitarian Rhetoric: Exploring the Theorizing of the Law of War/Terrorizing of Civilians' Rights Nexus]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/347?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Aerial belligerency, with respect to the law of war, is key to achieving the political objectives of a party to the conflict, and to convincing its adversary to accept conditions as negotiated solutions to a confrontation. However, a much more restrictive interpretation of humanitarian rights law during the planning of military air strikes in Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ecuador, Gaza and Pakistan has demonstrated that civilian immunity is still a legal concern. This paper describes and analyses the modernity of aerial acts of belligerency conducted within a legal framework. In fact, most recent armed conflicts and hostilities bring to light the fact that aerial warfare is now an attractive option in international affairs. Airpower is used as a strategic weapon to elevate foreign policy over legal principles. Aerospace weaponry and surveillance systems exist to insure superiority over low-tech and like-minded resistance groups. The means and methods in aerial warfare will in fact present the next legal challenge of the twenty-first century.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[St-Fleur, Y.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:26:35 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp017</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Aerial Belligerency within a Humanitarian Rhetoric: Exploring the Theorizing of the Law of War/Terrorizing of Civilians' Rights Nexus]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>373</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>347</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>ARTICLES</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/375?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Customary International Law, Arms Control and the Environment in Outer Space]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/375?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Recent military doctrines and activities have re-kindled a long-standing debate about the relationship between international law and arms control in space. There is a notion that existing rules governing certain military uses of outer space are inadequate. Nonetheless, protection of the environment remains sacrosanct. While, to some extent, treaty-based rules governing military uses of outer space also seek to place limitations on the deliberate infliction of environmental damage for military purposes, the development and role of customary international law are pertinent.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brisibe, T. C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:26:35 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp009</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Customary International Law, Arms Control and the Environment in Outer Space]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>393</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>375</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>BRIEF COMMENTS, ESSAYS AND NOTES</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/395?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Relevancy of Nationality to the Right to Prisoner of War Status]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/395?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>In 1960, the Privy Council of the United Kingdom, in <I>Public Prosecutor v. Oie Hee Koi and connected appeal</I>, <sup><cross-ref type="fn" refid="FN1">1</cross-ref></sup> refused to recognize the prisoner of war (POW) status of some of its citizens who were captured while acting as members of the opposing forces in hostilities because they had breached their duty of allegiance owed to the Crown. The purpose of this article is to prove that it defies the spirit of the Geneva Conventions (GCs) as well as the development of international humanitarian law to deprive a national of the detaining power of his POW status solely on the basis of nationality or duty of allegiance. The first half of this article shows that the non-allegiance requirement of POW status is not sustainable; the second part demonstrates that the object and purpose of humanitarian law require such nationals to be covered by GC III.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[TSE]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:26:35 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp016</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Relevancy of Nationality to the Right to Prisoner of War Status]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>421</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>395</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>BRIEF COMMENTS, ESSAYS AND NOTES</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/423?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Closest Connection Doctrine in the Conflict of Laws in China]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/423?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The closest connection doctrine plays an important role in the conflict of laws in China. It has been applied not only in the field of contracts but also to several particular issues in areas other than contract. The Supreme People's Court in China adopts the notion of characteristic performance and provides some presumptions to determine the country of closest connection. If the presumptive rules cannot be applied, the Chinese courts tend to take the contacts-counting approach to identifying the country of closest connection, which often leads to the application of Chinese law. The authors put forward three suggestions for China's future legislation: (a) to adopt the closest connection doctrine as a general principle; (b) to adopt the "integrated contacts-evaluation" approach to determine the country of closest connection; (c) to regulate the presumption of characteristic performance in legislation.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[YU, XIAO, WANG]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:26:35 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp018</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Closest Connection Doctrine in the Conflict of Laws in China]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>439</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>423</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>BRIEF COMMENTS, ESSAYS AND NOTES</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/441?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Activities in 2008]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/441?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This paper gives an overview of the activities of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in 2008. It provides information on the 18th Meeting of States Parties (2008), organizational developments, the jurisdiction and cases before the Tribunal.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gautier, P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:26:35 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp010</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Activities in 2008]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>454</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>441</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>COURTS AND TRIBUNALS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/455?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Legal Status of Taiwan and the Legality of the Use of Force in a Cross-Taiwan Strait Conflict]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/455?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The legal status of Taiwan remains one of the most important concerns in international relations, as the continual political tensions have the potential of generating armed conflicts, not only across the Taiwan Strait but also between the People's Republic of China government and the United States, and of destabilizing the security in the Asia-Pacific region and the international community. This article examines on the basis of international law whether Taiwan has a valid claim to statehood. The implications of relevant peace treaties, the issue of foreign recognition of States and governments, the nature and extent of the right to self-determination, and the permissibility of the use of force under the right of self-defense and the notion of humanitarian intervention in relation to the Taiwan question are discussed.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chan, P. C.W.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:26:35 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp014</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Legal Status of Taiwan and the Legality of the Use of Force in a Cross-Taiwan Strait Conflict]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>492</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>455</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>DEVELOPMENT AND HISTORY</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/493?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Chinese Practice in Public International Law: 2008]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/493?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This Survey covers materials reflecting Chinese practice in 2008 relating to: I. Fundamental Principles of International Law (Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence; Respect of State Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity; Non-Intervention of Internal Affairs; Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes); II. International Peace and Security (Fight against Terrorism; Women, Peace and Security; The Zimbabwe Situation; The Darfur Situation in Sudan; The Kosovo Issue); III. International Law on Disarmament and Arms Control (Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation; Chemical Weapons; Biological Weapons); IV. International Law on Recognition (Kosovo; South Ossetia and Abkhazia); V. China's Territorial Integrity and Boundaries (Taiwan; Tibet; Xisha Islands and Nansha Islands; Diaoyu Islands; China&ndash;Russia Boundary; China&ndash;India Boundary); VI. International Law of the Sea (Delimitation of the East China Sea; Delimitation of the Outer Limits of Continental Shelf Beyond 200 NMs; Straits Use for International Navigation; Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity beyond Areas of National Jurisdiction; International Seabed Authority; International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (ITLOS); China's Convoy Fleet in Somalia Coast); VII. International Law on Outer Space (Peaceful Use of Outer Space; Anti-Satellite Weapons); VIII. International Law on the Treatment of Aliens (Frontier Health and Quarantine; North Korean Asylum-seekers in China); IX. International Law on Human Rights (Rule of Law; Death Penalty; Rights of the Child; Women's Rights; Torture; Rights of the Persons with Disabilities; Dialogue on Human Rights; Human Rights Council; Implementation of Human Rights Instruments); X. International Humanitarian Law (Children in Armed Conflict; Landmines; Explosive Remnants of War; Cluster Munitions; Tear Gas; Right of Individual Claims for Violations of International Humanitarian Law; Search of US soldiers remains in China and North Korea); XI. International Law on Treaties (Reservations to Treaties; Effects of Armed Conflicts on Treaties); XII. International Law on Environment (Principle of "Common but Differentiated Responsibilities"; Shared Natural Resources; Climate Change); XIII. International Law on Diplomatic Relations and Consular Relations (Effective Measures to Enhance the Protection, Security and Safety of Diplomatic and Consular Missions and Representatives; Diplomatic Privileges); XIV. International Criminal Law (International Criminal Court (ICC); Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction; Criminal Accountability of United Nations Officials and Experts on Mission; Repatriation of Some Chinese in Guantanamo; International Suppression of Drug Crimes; Conclusion of Treaties on Extradition and Criminal Mutual Assistance); XV. Charter of the United Nations (Importance of the United Nations and the Role of China; Sanctions by the United Nations; Amendment of the UN Charter; Reform of the Security Council); XVI. International Law on International Organizations; XVII. International Law on Disaster Relief.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[ZHU]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:26:35 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp011</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Chinese Practice in Public International Law: 2008]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>551</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>493</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>PRACTICE AND DOCUMENTS</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/553?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Legal Materials on China Received and Catalogued in the Peace Palace Library: 2008]]></title>
<link>http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/8/2/553?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kost, I.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:26:35 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp012</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Legal Materials on China Received and Catalogued in the Peace Palace Library: 2008]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Chinese Society of International Law, Beijing</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>571</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>553</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>REVIEWS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY</prism:section>
</item>

<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>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:26:11 PST</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>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:26:11 PST</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>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:26:12 PST</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>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:26:12 PST</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>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:26:12 PST</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>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:26:12 PST</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>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:26:12 PST</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>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:26:12 PST</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>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:26:12 PST</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>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:26:12 PST</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>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:26:12 PST</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>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:26:12 PST</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>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:26:12 PST</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>

</rdf:RDF>