Between constancy and change : legal practice and legal education in the age of technology

In legal practice, as in other professions, the increasing use of technologies is not new. However, it is generally agreed that the latest round of new technological development, such as AI and big data, has presented, and will continue to present, challenges to the legal profession in a much more profound way. If the legal profession must adapt to technological changes, so must legal education. Technologies in legal education present us with three sets of considerations: the adoption and adaptation of technologies to teaching and learning; the study and research of disruptions and other impacts of technologies in society to assist in formulating legal responses to them; and the preparation of future lawyers.This paper first examines the impact of different technologies on legal practice and responses from the profession. Upon examining the opportunities and challenges brought about by new technologies, the paper will further discuss how legal education, especially its curricula, might respond to changes and challenges. It is argued that, like the way they adapted to globalisation, legal education and legal practice will meet new technological challenges and, as such, there is no reason to believe that there is not a bright future for legal education and the legal profession

People's Republic of China : legal response to Covid 19

Covid-19 first emerged in the Chinese city of Wuhan in late 2019, with the first mass outbreak starting there in January 2020. According to media reports, the earliest cases (though not ‘Patient Zero’) could be traced to as early as 17 November 2019. A historically unprecedented lockdown of an entire city of 11 million people and, slightly later, an entire province was imposed on 23 January 2020. The lockdown measures were so severe and strict that they were described by the World Health Organization’s country representative to China, Dr Gauden Galee, as ‘new to science’ that ‘has not been tried before as a public health measure.’ Various restrictions were also imposed nationwide from January to April 2020. Through these lockdown measures, China seemed to have controlled the ‘first wave’ of the pandemic by early April 2020 when Wuhan began lifting its strictest lockdown measures including the blockage of outbound traffic. On 7 April 2020, the Central Leading Group for the Prevention and Control of Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Epidemic and the State Council Joint Mechanism for the Prevention and Control of Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Epidemic each released its guidelines on resumption of work in China. By June 2020, China had declared a ‘decisive victory’ over the pandemic and a return to normality, albeit with ongoing prevention and control

Beyond trade & investment : a contextual analysis of the misgivings over the 'B & R' practices

While the ‘One Belt One Road’ (hereinafter ‘B & R’) Initiative and its practices are welcome by many (especially the business communities) in many countries, various concerns and questions have also been raised by governments and/or their agencies, NGOs, local communities and, of course, academics. These misgivings, often broader in nature than that of economic issues, range from questioning the motivation of the Initiative to concerns for actual welfare of local communities, as well as debating on development models. At a strategic level, the stake is high as the ‘B & R’ Initiative is seen as a geo-political and geoeconomic strategy, requiring repositioning and rebalancing of powers from all concerned. For the ‘B & R’ Initiative to be successful, participants – governments, business, or other parties – must take these misgivings seriously. We need to analyse them objectively and respond to them carefully. This paper examines these concerns and questions, often expressed in apprehension and misgivings, in context, but from a distance and as an outside observer. It is suggested that participants in the ‘B & R’ Initiative look beyond trade and investment issues in decision-making, considering not just supportive views but also misgivings raised by all interested parties, as trade and investment are indeed much more than trade and investment per se

Law in crisis : a critical analysis of the role of law in China's fight against COVID-19

This article analyses the role(s) of law in several critical aspects in China’s fight against COVID-19 during the period of its initial outbreak in Wuhan in late 2019 and early 2020. It first provides an analytic framework on the existing laws on the prevention and control of infectious diseases and responses to public health emergencies, focusing on the relevant mechanisms, institutions and procedures under the law. It then analyses several critical aspects of the operation of the legal framework, including information disclosure, the management of the crisis, and the legality of the various post lockdown measures and practices. It reveals that few legal requirements were in fact complied with during the fight against the COVID-19 emergency and, as such, Chinese law in a time of crisis was indeed itself in crisis

(The development of commercial franchise law in China : legal transplant and innovation)

With implementation of the Franchise Measures by the then Ministry of Internal Trade in 1997, China become one of the few countries with a franchise specific regulation. Although China has adopted the franchise concept from America successfully, it did not take America’s franchise law. In terms of commercial environment, Chinese market in 1990s was similar to US when its first franchise law was implemented. However, the commercial law environment and the understanding of franchise concept by general public were at a very different level. China’s 1997 Franchise Measures was criticized for being vague and unprofessional, however, it has facilitated the development of franchise in China. From the 2005 Franchise Measure by the Ministry of Commerce to the 2007 Franchise Regulation by the State Council, Chinese franchise law has developed through borrowing from experiences of international community and innovation. Based on traditional legal research methods combined with comparative methodology, historical methodology and critical theory, this paper analyses the adoption of legal transplant and innovation by Chinese authorities in developing franchise law in China. It also examines the strength and weakness of the franchise law in China in line with the development of franchise sector and commercial environment in China generally

(Law and selective enforcement : a case study of franchise regulation in China)

China has established a comprehensive commercial law framework since introduction of the open door policy in the late 1970s. China’s achievements in economic and law reform have been witnessed by the world. However, the enforcement of law in China has always been criticised by scholars and international businesses. This article recognises that selective enforcement of law, or in some cases no enforcement, by government agents is one of the major issues in China’s law enforcement. It takes the development and enforcement of franchise regulation in China as example, to analyse how inconsistence of enforcement of legislation can damage the legal system

China's long march to a franchise law : the 2007 Franchise Regulation

Within a decade of the introduction of Deng Xiaoping's 'open door' reforms which signaled the end of China 's international isolation under Mao Zedong, franchising was introduced to China, in the late 1980s, by the US franchising fast food pioneers KFC and McDonald's. However, it was the implementation a decade later of the 1997 Interim Franchise Measures which was the major catalyst for sector development through prescribing a rudimentary regulatory environment for the development of franchising. The Chinese franchise sector has grown rapidly since then as domestic and foreign companies have exploited the opportunities inherent in the world's fourth largest and fastest growing economy. With over 2600 systems China is already the world's most franchised country in terms of system numbers, although in per capita and contribution to GDP terms the sector is still at an early stage of development. A decade after the introduction of the 1997 Interim Franchise Measures, China has a new franchising law. In February 2007, the State Council issued a Regulation on the Administration of Commercial Franchises having effect from I May 2007 which, for the first time, subjects domestic and foreign invested franchisors to a uniform regulatory regime. This paper reviews the development of franchising in China and the laws, driven by WTO accession commitments, which have impacted on this development. In particular it evaluates the 2007 Franchise Regulation and assesses its impact on the future development of franchising in China

Franchise law in China : the interpretation and application of the 2007 Franchise Regulation

The introduction of the franchising concept by the fast food franchising pioneers was a necessary step in the development of franchising in China but not the only step. The concept of franchising was unknown to the law and, without official recognition or a regulatory framework, franchising could not develop as a distinct and specialised business contract. The development of the legal and regulatory regime for franchising has been highly influential in the development of the franchising sector. This chapter reviews the development of the regulatory regime for franchising in China and examines the impact of the 2007 Franchise Regulation. It addresses franchise contract dispute cases and examines the application and interpretation of the 2007 Franchise Regulation by the courts

BRI.2.0 : cosmetic repairs or a change of course?

At the Second Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation in April 2019, China began to directly address some of the criticisms of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) practices, and started to emphasize the needs of local communities, economic and environmental sustainability, and mutual understanding among all parties and people involved in BRI projects. China also began to stress the importance of international law principles and common practices, and a multilateral approach to the implementation of BRI. Together with its pledge, made in September 2018, to waive debts for selected least developed African countries, there is now talk of a ‘BRI 2.0’. However, is this BRI 2.0 fundamentally different from its original version? This article starts with a brief examination of the notion of BRI and its development in the last six years. It then reviews the various criticisms levelled against the BRI and its practices. This is followed by an analysis of recent responses from China to various concerns and misgivings. In its analysis, this article examines the BRI in a geopolitical context and argues that much more fundamental changes are needed for the ‘BRI 2.0’ to gain genuine support from Western developed nations

Dispute Resolution in the People's Republic of China: The Evolving Institutions and Mechanisms

Dispute resolution reforms in China in the last decade or so have all centred around the strategy of establishing an integrated dispute resolution system as part of China’s modern governance system. This new integrated system, referred to as the ‘Mechanism for Pluralist Dispute Resolution (PDR)’ in China, serves as a dispute resolution system as well as a comprehensive social control mechanism. This book is the first academic attempt to explain the methods of civil and commercial dispute resolution in China from the perspective of PDR. It systematically and critically examines the development of China’s dispute resolution system, with each chapter analysing in detail the development and transformation of the different institutions, mechanisms and processes in their historical, politico-economic and comparative context