Suchergebnisse

The Trump administration declared the "Free and Open Indo-Pacific" (FOIP) strategy as the new U.S. policy on Asia in 2017. This new strategy will have far-reaching implications for U.S.-Asia relations and global governance. The FOIP is conventionally perceived to focus on security dimensions. By "free," the United States expects all countries "to exercise their sovereignty free from coercion by other countries."1 The qualifier, "open," is meant to refer to regional connectivity, in particular including freedom of navigation.2 Notably, the economic dimensions of this component also envision "fair and reciprocal trade" and "transparent agreements."

This article examines the evolution of Taiwan's relationship with Singapore since the 1960s as a unique case study in the Asia-Pacific. The theoretical concept of recognition in international relations (IR) and its nexus with international law are used to analyze the conclusion of the bilateral military and trade agreements absent diplomatic relations. The article argues that beyond security dimensions, the two states' struggles for recognition exhibit the formation of national identities, which invigorate the claims for sovereign state status in global politics. First, this article explores the emerging notion of recognition in IR and sheds light on the significance of Taiwan's presidential visit to Singapore under its one-China policy. Second, it explains Singapore's pursuit of external sovereignty that led to substantive defense cooperation with Taiwan, as well as the role of Lee Kuan Yew in facilitating Beijing–Taipei negotiations. Finally, it assesses contemporary developments such as the inking of the Taiwan–Singapore free trade agreement and the first-ever summit between the presidents of China and Taiwan in Singapore. Hence, the political and legal analysis of Singapore–Taiwan relations enriches the study of IR and contributes to the understanding of the foreign policy of China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

This article provides the most up-to-date examination of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which is poised to become the world's largest free trade agreement (FTA). It argues that the 16-country mega-FTA will galvanize the paradigm shift in Asian regionalism and build a normative foundation for the Global South in international economic law. Based on intertwined theoretical and substantive claims, this article opens an inquiry into the assertive legalism of developing nations in the new regional economic order. It further manifests the pivotal force of emerging economies against populist isolationism in the Trump era that undermines the neoliberal foundation of global trade liberalization.By analyzing the converging policies of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), China and India, the article first demonstrates the status of the RCEP in Asian powers' contemporary FTA practice. In light of the ASEAN Economic Community, the new 11-member Trans-Pacific Partnership and EU FTAs with Singapore and Vietnam, caution should be given to the utilization of tariff preferences, services liberalization and investor-state dispute settlement. Finally, the article assesses the RCEP's systemic impact on the legal fragmentation due to jurisdictional conflicts under trade and investment agreements. The consolidation of divergent trade rules and the pro-development operative mechanism will fortify the RCEP as a pathway to the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific and reinvigorate the multilateral trading system.

The article analyzes Taiwan's legitimacy debate over trade negotiations with China. The theoretical concept of legitimacy is used to assess Taiwan's cross-straits negotiation mechanism and trade agreements. This article argues that Taiwan's current legal framework governing congressional supervision of cross-straits agreements falls short of procedural legitimacy and performance legitimacy. By explaining the constitutional design for Taiwan's "white glove" mechanism, the article explores the initial procedural legitimacy deficit. As cross-straits negotiations involve increasingly substantive obligations, the legitimacy of bilateral agreements has changed fundamentally. The massive protest in the Sunflower Movement due to the Services Trade Agreement reinforced legitimacy concerns. Taiwan's ambiguous congressional review procedures and negative public perception undermine performance legitimacy of cross-straits agreements. Notwithstanding the conclusion of free trade agreements (FTA) with Singapore and New Zealand, Taiwan's domestic political impasse will jeopardize its efforts to integrate into regional FTAs. Hence, the legitimacy of Taiwan's law and politics regarding cross-straits negotiations will have a profound impact on its cross-straits and foreign trade policies.

The article examines the liberalization of trade in legal services in the Association of the Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its reform prospects to meet the challenges of multi-jurisdictional practice. It argues that while the ten-country bloc pledges to progressively liberalize the legal sector, ASEAN commitments under free trade agreements (FTAs) constitute merely 'paper commitments'. To achieve the goal of the ASEAN Economic Community to form a single market and production base, a feasible, incremental roadmap is imperative to integrate the legal services market. The article first analyzes the economic impact of foreign law firms on ASEAN's legal capacity building and the evolution of emerging ASEAN law. By assessing legal services negotiations under the World Trade Organization, the European Union, and Asia-Pacific FTAs, the article identifies issues of complexity in international arenas. The Singapore experiment further explores the effectiveness of FTAs with Australia and the USA and self-initiated FTA-plus measures such as Joint Law Ventures and Qualifying Foreign Law Practices. These case studies, along with law firms' operations vis-à-vis regulatory changes, demonstrate the best practices. Finally, the article provides reform proposals that will accelerate the integration of ASEAN's legal services market and enhance its competitiveness under the multilateral trading system.

This Article examines the evolution of international law as a professional and intellectual discipline in the Republic of China (ROC), which has governed Mainland China (1912–1949) and post-1949 Taiwan. The ROC's centennial development fundamentally shaped modern China's course of foreign relations and postwar global governance. The Article argues that statism, pragmatism, and idealism define the major features of the ROC's approach to international law. These characteristics transformed the law of nations into universally valid normative claims and prompted modern China's intellectual focus on the civilized nation concept. First, the Article analyzes the professionalization of the discipline of international law. It offers insight into the cultivation of China's first-generation international lawyers in the Foreign Ministry, international law societies, and the Shanghai Mixed Court. Second, it explores the ROC's approach of assertive legalism in applying international law to advance diplomatic objectives. The nation's strategic engagement with unequal treaties, the League of Nations, and the United Nations contributed to its Grotian moment. The assertion of legal claims in judicial proceedings and Taiwan's international standing further reinforced the dynamic dimension of the discipline. Therefore, this Article provides a valuable case study of twentieth century international lawmaking in East Asia.