This paper systematically examines the formulation path for China's Anti-Cross-Border Corruption Law from a comparative law perspective. It analyzes the core provisions and dual enforcement mechanisms of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the commercial organization "failure to prevent bribery" liability model under the UK Bribery Act 2010, and the five core mechanisms (prevention, criminalization/law enforcement, international cooperation, asset recovery, monitoring) established by the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), distilling commonalities and national characteristics in international cross-border corruption governance. The research identifies core dilemmas in China's current foreign-related anti-corruption legal system, including the absence of specialized legislation, fragmented and inadequate preventive measures, and insufficient international applicability of rules, necessitating urgent enactment of a dedicated law. Simultaneously, by integrating international conventions with Chinese wisdom, it will demonstrate China's responsible major country image. Actively sharing legislative experiences (e.g., "prevention priority") and participating in international rule negotiations will promote building a fairer, more inclusive new global anti-corruption order, significantly enhancing China's discourse power in international rule of law

With the widespread application of artificial intelligence technologies such as blockchain and big data technology, the field of international commercial arbitration is experiencing profound revolutions. The utilization of artificial intelligence in this field not only has acted as an important role in completing repetitive and mechanical basic tasks like drafting arbitration agreements and writing hearing transcripts. Instead, it is now playing a significant role in assisting with case adjudication. artificial intelligence offers positive impacts by enhancing arbitration efficiency, improving arbitration transparency, and reducing arbitration costs. However, it also has issues such as ethical risks, potential leakage of parties' personal information, weakening the "subjectivity" of arbitrators, and reducing arbitration accuracy. This paper proposes targeted measures to fully protect the personal information security of arbitration parties through legal regulations and technological measures, while consistently emphasizing the "subjectivity" of arbitrators. It uses artificial intelligence as an auxiliary tool in decision-making, enabling arbitrators to maximize arbitration efficiency while pursuing "substantive justice."

This paper examines multinational enterprises’ (MNEs) legal responsibility in safeguarding Indigenous rights through analyzing the U.S. legal system. Specifically, the paper focuses on the Apache Stronghold v. United States case to illustrate the systematic legal gaps at the state, federal, and international levels. This Supreme Court case reveals three significant issues: the absence of mandatory FPIC mechanisms allows MNEs to exploit indigenous lands and resources without prior consent; the limitation of a narrow definition of corporate liability to hold the parent companies liable; and the lack of legal enforceability of international soft law. Therefore, establishing legally enforceable mechanisms in accordance with international standards is essential to ensure consistent protection of indigenous rights. This essay argues for a multi-level legal reform. The specific measures will expand beyond FPIC implementation into legislation, the expansion of corporate liability, and the binding enforcement of UNDRIP between countries. These measures aim to ensure transparent and enforceable implementations of international standards for indigenous protection.

With the rapid development of cross-border e-commerce in China, intellectual property infringement issues on platforms have emerged as a significant legal challenge confronting society. The current E-Commerce Law of the People's Republic of China (Hereinafter referred to as the "E-Commerce Law") and Tort Liability Law of the People’s Republic of China (Hereinafter referred to as the "Tort Liability Law") establish the obligation of "notice and takedown" while also providing e-commerce platforms with a "safe harbor" protection. Nevertheless, ongoing challenges like jurisdictional disputes, shortcomings in e-commerce platform oversight, and the unclear enforcement of the "Red Flag Rule" still hinder the effectiveness of enforcement efforts. This study will analyze multiple Chinese judicial cases from 2019 to 2023 to reveal the three major deficiencies in China's current approach to intellectual property infringement on cross-border e-commerce platforms: i. The criteria for establishing "willful" infringement by platforms lack uniformity. ii. The boundaries of the platform's duty of care are ambiguous. iii. The measures for deterring repeated infringements are insufficiently stringent. Based on this, I propose several recommendations for legal reform, establishing a hierarchical standard for the transition from "knowingly" to "should have known," define the dynamic boundaries of the duty of care, and develop a tripartite disciplinary mechanism for repeated infringements. This study advocates for amending existing legislation to balance the protection of rights holders with the sustainable development of digital trade.

In the context of globalization and regional industrial transformation, increased capital and labor mobility have not always translated into equitable opportunities for young people to secure employment. This paper explores the paradoxical dynamics in Indonesia's industrializing regions, where young people face limited prospects despite their physical mobility and digital connectivity. Drawing on the frameworks of Mobility Justice and Waithood, and supported by Appadurai's notion of the "capacity to aspire," this study investigates skill mismatches between local youth and FDI-driven labor demands, the "modernity trap" in rapidly urbanizing areas, and grassroots responses such as community mutual-aid networks. This paper investigates how structural barriers, institutional neglect, and policy fragmentation create a mobility paradox for Indonesian youth who remain economically excluded despite their physical mobility and aspirational capacity. Public governance strategies including youth-inclusive planning, adaptive vocational education, and equitable labor policies are proposed to transform mobility into justice-oriented empowerment. Findings carry broader relevance for other Global South contexts experiencing similar development challenges.

In recent years, a growing number of Chinese technology companies have turned to U.S. stock exchanges to access global capital, enhance their international visibility, and increase market valuation. However, such cross-border listings have encountered increasingly complex legal and regulatory challenges. This paper examines the major obstacles facing these companies, with a particular focus on three critical areas: data security, technology security, and legal system risks. It highlights how differences between the Chinese and U.S. regulatory frameworks—especially in cybersecurity, export controls, and legal traditions—have created dual compliance pressures that may disrupt IPO plans, lower company valuations, or even lead to forced delistings. Through case studies such as Didi Chuxing, Luckin Coffee, and SenseTime, the paper illustrates the real-world consequences of failing to anticipate regulatory expectations. To address these challenges, the paper proposes several compliance strategies, including localized data governance, risk assessments for sensitive technologies, collaboration with U.S. legal experts, and litigation preparedness planning. Ultimately, the paper argues that Chinese firms must move beyond passive compliance and adopt a proactive and legally informed approach to succeed in the evolving global capital market. By improving transparency and aligning more closely with regulatory requirements, these companies can better manage legal uncertainty, protect shareholder interests, and achieve sustainable international growth.

In the context of global economic integration, multinational corporations have become a significant force in driving global economic growth. However, the issue of their social responsibility in host countries is becoming increasingly prominent. This article focuses on two key issues: protecting the interests of multinational company employees and addressing environmental responsibilities. In practice, some multinational companies have engaged in labor rights violations, such as underpaying wages, excessive overtime, and neglecting occupational health and safety, as well as environmental pollution and ecological destruction. Although China's Company Law clearly requires enterprises to assume social responsibilities, there are still legal loopholes in practice, including double standards on environmental issues, lack of transparency, inadequate labor protection, and the gig economy's evasion of responsibilities. To address these issues, this article proposes a multi-level legal regulatory system: implementing mandatory environmental liability insurance, refining environmental information disclosure, adding a special chapter on cross-border employee rights protection, standardizing labor relations in the gig economy, and strengthening cross-border law enforcement cooperation and social supervision mechanisms. The aim is to achieve a balance between the economic benefits and social responsibilities of multinational companies, thereby ensuring the sustainable development of host countries.

Article 12 of the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law of the People's Republic of China grants Chinese citizens and organizations the right to seek judicial remedies by initiating legal proceedings in a People's Court when their rights and interests are infringed upon by discriminatory restrictive measures imposed by foreign states. Although the law stipulates that affected parties may bring an action for recovery under anti-sanctions, the provision's general and abstract nature presents certain issues in its practical application that further analysis and discussion are needed. Moreover, such litigation is not the sole means of recourse available to the parties; in practice, they may also agree to submit their disputes to arbitration. However, given that sanction measures often implicate public interest and national sovereignty, uncertainty exists as to whether an arbitral tribunal may, according to an arbitration agreement, adjudicate such disputes. With neither current international law nor domestic legislation offering explicit guidance on this conflict, this paper argues that in instances where a conflict arises between litigation jurisdiction and an arbitration agreement, precedence should be given to litigation jurisdiction. This approach facilitates the convenient resolution of disputes in a manner consistent with the underlying objectives of anti-sanction recovery actions.

With the continuous advancement of the "Belt and Road" Initiative (hereinafter referred to as "B&R"), the issue of the recognition and enforcement (hereinafter referred to as R&E) of foreign court judgments in our country has gradually become the focus of judicial practice and theoretical research. The principle of reciprocity (hereinafter referred to as PoR) plays a key balancing role in safeguarding national judicial sovereignty and promoting international judicial cooperation. This paper systematically studies the application dilemmas of the PoR in China, with a focus on discussing the legitimacy foundation of the PoR and who bear the responsibility of proof reciprocal relationships. The research finds that the PoR not only safeguards the equality of national sovereignty, but also promotes the construction of judicial trust, and guarantees the predictability of international commercial AC. T The ambiguity and inconsistency issues in the current judicial practice on how the burden of proof is divided are revealed, and it is clarified that the first burden of proving the existence of a reciprocal connection should rest with the applicant. In response to the existing issues, a systematic improvement scheme is proposed: at the legislative level, to clarify diversified qualification standards and rules of proof; at the judicial level, to construct a tiered review mechanism; at the level of international cooperation, to weaken reciprocal reliance through treaties; and to build a cross-border shared databases from the perspective of technical assistance.

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has spurred overseas investment by Chinese enterprises. However, investors in host countries face risks of "regulatory takings" arising from fragmented environmental legislation and arbitrary enforcement, alongside systemic governance gaps due to ineffective regulatory oversight in host states. These issues underscore deficiencies in the investment protection regimes of BRI partner countries. Concurrently, the current Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism exacerbates conflicts of interest between host states and investors by excessively prioritizing investor rights. This study focuses on the core issue of balancing investor rights protection with host states' public interests. Applying normative analysis, case studies, and comparative research methods, conducts an in-depth examination of the institutional dilemmas affecting investor rights protection under the BRI and their underlying causes. The research proposes that institutional reconstruction hinges on establishing a dynamic equilibrium framework: on the one hand, International Investment Agreements (IIAs) require optimization through clarifying indirect expropriation criteria, defining the scope of Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET), and incorporating exception clauses for social responsibilities and public interests; on the other hand, dispute resolution mechanisms should be innovated by exploring a multi-tiered settlement system integrating mediation and arbitration, while advancing the top-level design of a BRI Investment Protection Convention. This study aims to provide institutional solutions for reconciling investment protection with host states' regulatory sovereignty, thereby facilitating the rule of law and sustainable development of the Belt and Road Initiative.