This paper examines the judicial application of a strict liability framework to same-sex teacher-student sexual power relations in China. Strict liability is used in a differentiated sense, including relatively strict criminal and civil liability, administrative strict liability, and corresponding university disciplinary rules. The study analyzes the invalidity of sexual consent under university power imbalance by considering the micro-level operation of academic authority, the special vulnerability of sexual minority students, and the shift from subjective consent to structural exploitation. Through comparative analysis of legal rules and judicial practices in China, the United States, and Germany, it identifies the main dilemmas in Chinese practice, including gaps in the existing legal system, insufficient gender-neutral reasoning, and difficulties in evidence assessment. The paper proposes legislative, judicial, preventive, and remedial measures for introducing a strict liability framework in China. It argues that same-sex teacher-student sexual contact should be subject to a presumption of non-consent, accompanied by relatively strict criminal liability, civil liability, administrative sanctions, and university rules. These measures can help build a more coherent judicial system and provide stronger protection for students' sexual freedom, personal dignity, and rights.

In recent years, juvenile delinquency in China has shown a trend of younger age and violence, and the current age system for criminal responsibility faces difficulties in responding to vicious crimes committed by young minors. Taking the Handan body-burying case as the entry point, this paper systematically reviews the experiences and lessons of foreign systems of minors' criminal responsibility, and evaluates the two mainstream domestic views of the "lowering theory" and the "maintenance theory." On this basis, this paper advocates the "improvement theory," arguing that, on the basis of maintaining the bottom line of the current age of criminal responsibility, a stratified assessment mechanism for criminal responsibility capacity should be introduced, and a comprehensive correction system centered on coordination between justice and education should be constructed. Through refining judicial determination, optimizing law-enforcement procedures, improving alternative measures to criminal punishment, and strengthening correctional measures, a dynamic balance between punishment and education, and between protection and fairness, can be achieved, thereby providing theoretical and practical paths for the governance of juvenile delinquency.

In the context of economic globalization and technological globalization, international patent parallel litigation is increasing day by day, and the injunction system has gradually become the focus of judicial games in various countries. However, China's relevant laws are still blank and urgently need systematic research. The injunction originated in the Anglo American legal system, aiming to regulate parallel litigation by restricting parties' litigation in foreign courts. However, its application has also led to issues such as jurisdictional expansion, conflicts of judicial sovereignty, and weakening of the principle of international courtesy. Therefore, starting from the practical experience of international patent litigation, this article analyzes the core controversies and practical difficulties faced by the injunction system in practice, including its impact on the principle of territoriality of patent rights, the intensification of judicial confrontation, and the failure of international coordination mechanisms. On this basis, this article proposes that China should build a systematic response system from three levels: defensive mechanism construction, cautious construction of local injunction system, and advocacy of multilateral dialogue and cooperation, in order to safeguard national judicial sovereignty and the legitimate rights and interests of enterprises, and contribute Chinese wisdom to the stability of the international intellectual property governance order.

Science Philanthropy is an important form for social forces to support basic research and make up for insufficient public funding. This study examines four representative cases — Westlake University, the Shaw Prize, the Gates Foundation, and the Nobel Prize — through comparative analysis across four dimensions: funding sources and long-term sustainability, governance structure and project autonomy, field focus and strategic positioning, and early-stage investment versus post-achievement incentives. Research findings show that Science Philanthropy at home and abroad have developed differentiated operation models. Westlake University relies on government and non-governmental funding to form a Foundation University (adopted from Westlake University's official translation) model oriented towards national strategies. The Gates Foundation achieves large-scale foundation operation driven by global missions through professional investment. The Shaw Prize and the Nobel Prize have respectively established a closed trust type and a legal charter type of sustainable science award system. Based on this, this paper proposes three specific paths: establishing an investment mechanism for Science Philanthropy funds that combines competitiveness and stability, preserving academic autonomy within the compliance framework while strengthening professional decision-making and supervision constraints, and scientifically controlling the flow of Science Philanthropy funds to balance risks and efficiency.

Differentiated pricing algorithm is a new pricing mechanism generated under the conditions of digital economy, which poses a deep test to the regulatory tools of anti-monopoly law. The academic community has long been embroiled in disputes over its anti-monopoly legal attributes: the negation theory attributes it to excessive pricing behavior targeting consumers, while the affirmation theory advocates regulating it through differential treatment clauses. Both positions have their own rationality, but neither fully addresses the diversity of competitive damages caused by behavior. This article is based on the coexistence pattern of exploitation, exclusivity, and distortion, and reviews the shortcomings of the current regulatory framework in terms of normative basis, determination of market dominance, behavioral requirements, and value orientation. It advocates using case analysis and economic analysis as methodological starting points to construct a diversified and composite regulatory structure of "differential treatment+predatory pricing", "differential treatment+ultra-high pricing", and simple "differential treatment". Through the coordinated governance of anti-monopoly law, consumer rights protection law, and personal information protection law, the dual value of competition order and consumer welfare is nurtured.

In online gambling crimes, the "kanong" who provides a bank card is a typical helper. His behaviour has the characteristics of technical dependence, vagueness of meaning, and difficulty in assessing guilt. Therefore, the determination of the crime of "kanong" behaviour faces the three dilemmas of subjective and knowingly difficult to prove, the scope of objective behaviour and the object of help is vague, and the standard of "serious circumstances" is unclear. In judicial practice, the subjective knowledge of "kanong" is overly dependent on presumptive rules, and the content hierarchy is unclear. Objectively, there is a problem of dividing neutral help behaviour and criminal help, and the generalisation of the object of help. The application of the standard of "serious circumstances" presents a lack of reason and the risk of expansion of the bottom clause. To solve the above dilemma, we should adhere to the method of combining comprehensive identification and reasonable presumption, clarify the content level of "generally knowing" to identify subjective knowledge, delimit the punishability boundary of help behaviour in objective aspects with both behavioural characteristics and the object of help, and carefully apply the bottom-up provisions of "serious circumstances" to promote the accuracy and modesty of online gambling helping behaviour.

The intensive use of anti-suit injunctions in transnational litigation concerning standard-essential patents has become a focal point of judicial maneuvering among courts worldwide, vying for jurisdiction and the right to define rules. Since the Huawei v. Convinson case, which set a precedent in China's, the country has gradually developed anti-suit injunction rules centered on a "five-element analysis framework." However, these rules still face systemic dilemmas in four dimensions: legal basis, applicable requirements, international legitimacy, and implementation effectiveness. The root of these dilemmas lies in the inherent tension of using the conduct preservation system to bear the function of anti-suit injunctions, the broad interpretation of requirements, the dual challenges posed by international comity and TRIPs obligations, and the paradox of effectiveness in the anti-suit injunction game. The solution should unfold systematically through four levels: "concept—norm—requirements—coordination." Based on a principle of restraint, the approach should gradually transition from a stopgap measure of conduct preservation to a specialized system, introducing reverse presumptions and strict exceptions to constrain judicial discretion, and promoting a dual-track approach of domestic blocking mechanisms and dialogue with international rules, ultimately constructing a Chinese anti-suit injunction mechanism that is "beneficial domestically and justifiable internationally."

Gender-based violence (GBV) within LGBTQ+ communities raises challenges for protection order (PO) systems that were largely developed around heterosexual intimate partner violence (IPV) and physical harm. This paper compares the PO systems of California in the United States and the United Kingdom (UK) through a qualitative socio-legal approach. It examines how evidentiary standards, institutional bias, and narrow understandings of abuse affect LGBTQ+ victims’ access to protection. The analysis shows that identity-based abuse, coercive control, psychological violence, and threats of forced outing are often difficult to prove under conventional legal categories. California’s model formally permits LGBTQ+ applicants to seek relief, but it places heavy burdens on individuals through private filings, judicial discretion, and uneven enforcement. The UK system adopts broader definitions of domestic abuse and stronger multi-agency coordination, although bureaucratic complexity remains a limitation. The paper argues that effective reform requires expanded legal definitions of abuse, improved institutional awareness of LGBTQ+ IPV, and closer coordination between courts, police, social services, and community support organizations.

As Prepaid consumption is now very common. Merchants prefer to promote, and consumers also buy in - after all, discounts are available. At first glance, neither side is losing.But the problem lies in the "pay first, enjoy later" model. After you have paid the money, whether you can smoothly consume and when to consume depends entirely on the reliability of the merchant. Unfortunately, the law has not kept up and the provisions to protect consumers are insufficient. Some merchants set traps in contracts, using standard terms to restrict card refunds and transfers, and consumers are often powerless in case of disputes. As for the regulatory authorities, they each have their own responsibilities and cannot form a joint force.So, to truly protect consumers' wallets, we need to do a few practical things. Firstly, the system of performance bond must be established uniformly. Secondly, the regulatory mechanism needs to be unified. Furthermore, before the merchant collects payment, the information must be clearly stated and cannot be concealed.Ultimately, the supervision mechanism needs to be strong, and credit evaluation needs to keep up. Only in this way can the pain points of prepaid consumption be gradually resolved, and the market can also move steadily and far.

Artificial intelligence technology is accelerating the adoption of highly autonomous vehicles, but determining liability in traffic accidents presents challenges stemming from legislative, judicial, and technical factors. China's current laws are based on traditional driving practices and lack specific regulations to address the unique characteristics of autonomous driving. Traditional liability rules are insufficiently suited to this technology. In judicial practice, there is confusion regarding who should bear responsibility and what principles should apply, leading to inconsistent rulings in similar cases. Additionally, the opaque nature of algorithms and the system's ability to learn autonomously make it difficult to determine fault, establish causal relationships, and allocate responsibility. This paper uses the Sun Modi case as a starting point to analyze these legal barriers. Drawing on experiences from Germany, Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom, which have implemented hierarchical regulations, insurance coverage, and data recording systems, the paper proposes establishing liability rules based on the level of automation, improving the framework for determining responsibility and attributing fault, and creating mandatory insurance and compensation funds. It also suggests adopting multiple legislative approaches to ensure that laws remain adaptable, thereby balancing technological innovation with the protection of victims' rights. This approach can help promote the safe and orderly development of autonomous driving while providing a legal foundation for such progress.