Columbia Journal of Asian Law最新文献

{"title":"Artificial Intelligence Regulation and China's Future","authors":"Karman Lucero","doi":"10.7916/CJAL.V33I1.5454","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/CJAL.V33I1.5454","url":null,"abstract":"China has announced to the world that it intends to become the \u0000global leader in artificial intelligence (AI), both in terms of developing \u0000and deploying the technology as well as governing it with appropriate \u0000laws and regulations. In light of this declaration, it is tempting to take \u0000the Chinese government at its word and brace for an AI-powered China \u0000of the future. \u0000Plans, however ambitious, do not always reflect reality. \u0000Therefore, when it comes to understanding China's bold AI-related \u0000declarations and actions, it is important to put them into institutional \u0000context and look beyond the appearance of China's stated ambitions \u0000and into the more nuanced reality of how China's existing political and \u0000legal institutions describe and use the term \"AI.\" \u0000On that note, China's AI ambitions have currently served more \u0000immediate rhetorical and political goals rather than substantive ones. \u0000Furthermore, focusing on rhetoric over substance is having significant \u0000and potentially negative impacts on China's political and legal \u0000institutions, leading to institutional decay, the process by which \u0000growing complexity, ambiguity, and transaction costs inhibit \u0000institutions' capacity to rapidly, clearly, and effectively gather and \u0000share information and delineate tasks.","PeriodicalId":239270,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Asian Law","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117266974","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Rhetoric and Realism: The First Diet Debates on Japan's Military Power","authors":"Sheila A. Smith","doi":"10.7916/CJAL.V33I1.5452","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/CJAL.V33I1.5452","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":239270,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Asian Law","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130486096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Implications of Revision of Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan on the Defense Policy of Japan","authors":"Hideshi Tokuchi","doi":"10.7916/CJAL.V33I1.5453","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/CJAL.V33I1.5453","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":239270,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Asian Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133831544","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Fragmenting Cybersecurity Norms Through the Language(s) of Subalternity: India in 'the East' and the Global Community","authors":"Riccardo Vecellio Segate","doi":"10.7916/CJAL.V32I2.3371","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/CJAL.V32I2.3371","url":null,"abstract":"The global cybersecurity discourse has never proved more fragmented than in the aftermath of the failure of the last United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security. This discourse stands trapped in long-lasting and seemingly crystallized normative stances between “the West” and “the East,” yet it also calls upon the international community to regulate a wide spectrum of phenomena, ranging from thefts of digitally-stored trade secrets to large-scale pervasive attacks, which may soon reach the threshold of armed attacks. If one situates the major cybersecurity players on a sliding scale between freedom and control over cyber content and infrastructure, the mainstream stance would place the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Brazil, India, China, and Russia in that order. Nonetheless, this scale is in practice more complex, in part due to the influence of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a regional security forum which has witnessed major rebalancing after the membership expansion in June 2017. \u0000This paper scrutinizes India’s contribution towards a possible fragmentation of the “Eastern” cybersecurity discourse based on hard laws and state assertiveness, and the consequent disruption of the constructivist East-West binary dialectic about cyberwarfare, cyberterrorism, cyber espionage, and online data protection. By simultaneously negotiating its sub-alterity and rejecting its subalternity, India holds the potential to reshape an otherwise almost-coherent “cyber East.”","PeriodicalId":239270,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Asian Law","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114981650","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Book Review: Marites Dañguilan Vitug, Shadow of Doubt: Probing the Supreme Court","authors":"Dominic J. Nardi","doi":"10.7916/CJAL.V24I2.3313","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/CJAL.V24I2.3313","url":null,"abstract":"In the words of C. Neal Tate, since the late 198os, the Philippines have become, “[a]side from India … the only nation in Afro-Asia where the expansion of judicial power can be said to be a significant, current political development.”‘ Indeed, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has struck down significant economic reforms, issued new rules to assist human rights victims, thwarted constitutional amendments, and even helped overthrow a president. Until recently, the Court was even one of the most popular institutions in the country.’ Despite these developments, there has been remarkably little scholarship about the Court as a political institution from either Filipinos or foreign observers.3 Legal developments in the Philippines should be of particular interest to American comparative law scholars. The United States colonial period heavily influenced Filipino law and legal institutions. Filipino lawyers have pursued LL.M. degrees at American law schools. Justice Antonio Carpio of the Supreme Court of the Philippines has even given new justices books on the history of the U.S. Supreme Court because he considers it a role model.’ Yet, despite these links to the U.S., the Supreme Court of the Philippines faces unique political and institutional challenges. Likewise, although the Court frequently cites U.S. case law,5 its own jurisprudence has gone in directions that would bewilder many American jurists.6 Indeed, the country is a prime example of how local political cultures can reinterpret and reshape foreign legal transplants.","PeriodicalId":239270,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Asian Law","volume":"259 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117098787","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Crystallization, Unification, or Differentiation? The Japanese Civil Code (Law of Obligations) Reform Commission and Basic Reform Policy","authors":"Akira Kamo","doi":"10.7916/CJAL.V24I1.3302","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/CJAL.V24I1.3302","url":null,"abstract":"About one hundred ten years after enactment of the Japanese Civil Code, the debate over the reform of contract law has heated up. On November 2009, based on the consultation of the Minister of Justice, the Working Group on the Civil Code (Law of Obligations) was established. One distinctive feature of this reform process is that the academic contribution became a driving force. Shortly before the consultation, several reform proposals were propounded by different research groups. Notably, the Japanese Civil Code (Law of Obligations) Reform Commission proclaimed a sweeping and ambitious reform proposal: the Basic Reform Policy (Draft Proposals). However, not every lawyer felt the necessity of a comprehensive reform, and some bitterly criticized the reform movement. The fierce debate among academics and practitioners brings to light key characteristics of the Japanese Civil Code, several current streams of the Japanese legal scholarship, and the relationship between academe and practice in Japan. Focusing on the Basic Reform Policy (Draft Proposals), this article seeks to describe both legal scholarship advancing Civil Code reform and criticism of reform from practitioners.","PeriodicalId":239270,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Asian Law","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131209980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"When Courts and Politics Collide: Mongolia's Constitutional Crisis","authors":"Tom Ginsburg, G. Ganzorig","doi":"10.4324/9781315089263-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315089263-4","url":null,"abstract":"Mongolia’s political system has received well-deserved attention as one of the most successful examples of democratization in the Asian region. Since 1990, Mongolia has undergone peaceful constitutional change and has conducted several democratic elections. Human rights are well-respected, the media is free and political competition exists. This is all the more remarkable given that constitutional democracy has developed “without prerequisites,”","PeriodicalId":239270,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Asian Law","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114374840","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Administrative Procedure Reforms in China’s Rule of Law Context","authors":"Xixin Wang","doi":"10.7916/CJAL.V12I2.3184","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/CJAL.V12I2.3184","url":null,"abstract":"The law reforms that have been taking place in China since the late 1970s have marked the beginning of ajourney toward realizing the rule of law in the country. Comprehensive changes in the field of law witnessing during the past two decades have resulted in a more developed legal system not only as to the arena of civil society but the public life as well. However, in the courses of law reform, two significant phenomena have presented themselves and called for attention. First, compared to other branches of the Chinese legal system, administrative law had long been “forgotten” by both government officials and legal scholars. As a practical matter, even in the 1980, almost ten years after the economic and legal reforms, administrative law still had been viewed as ” a forgotten corner” throughout the entire legal system.’ In other words, there have been a gap or a blank spot for almost four decades in the area of administrative law since the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Second, while the lav reforms have focused mostly on the construction of a substantive legal system, the legal procedure, which traditionally has long been the weakest part of China’s legal system, has not received enough attention from either legal scholars or the Chinese leaders. However, under the pressures of China’s social transition and active interaction between the state and the society, and especially in the 1990s, as results of China’s continuing economic and political changes, reformers have started to realize the significance of legal procedure as a crucial part of the legal system and an effective mechanism to ensure the integrity of the state and the society, legitimacy of public decisions, and procedural justice and fairness. As a result, for the first time, the Seventh National People’s Congress (NPC), during its second session on April 4, 1989, enacted the Administrative Litigation Law (ALL), under which procedural legality is required in the decision-making context of the administrative procedure. The ALL marked an important step toward the rule of law in the administrative process by requiring administrative authorities to follow administrative procedures. It subsequently has promoted the progression of China’s administrative procedural reform over the past ten years.","PeriodicalId":239270,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Asian Law","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125292610","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How May China Respond to the U.S. Trade Approach? Retaliatory, Inclusive and Regulatory Responses","authors":"Heng Wang","doi":"10.7916/CJAL.V31I2.3367","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/CJAL.V31I2.3367","url":null,"abstract":"This paper endeavours to conceptualize and provide an analytical framework for China’s response to U.S. trade policy. It analyses the following questions: what is the new U.S. trade approach? How might China respond to the United States’ trade approach? What are the trend and implications of China’s response to the U.S. trade approach? It argues, first, that the U.S. trade approach has not changed regarding most of the U.S.-style regulatory disciplines. However, it has changed in terms of the shift toward managed trade, unilateralism and trade enforcement. Second, China will likely adopt a three-track approach: consisting of retaliatory, inclusive and regulatory responses. Third, these responses exist on a political-legal spectrum that spans from a more political retaliatory response through to an inclusive one, or a more legalized approach (regulatory response). The inclusive response is likely to be given primacy by China over the other two responses, and China’s responses carry profound implications.","PeriodicalId":239270,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Asian Law","volume":"5 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130506067","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Brown Moment in Taiwan: Making Sense of the Law and Politics of the Taiwanese Same-Sex Marriage Case in a Comparative Light","authors":"Ming‐Sung Kuo, Hui-Wen Chen","doi":"10.7916/CJAL.V31I1.3362","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/CJAL.V31I1.3362","url":null,"abstract":"The Taiwan Constitutional Court (TCC) recently issued a landmark decision in Interpretation No. 748 (the Same-Sex Marriage Case), declaring the definition of marriage as a gender-differentiated union of a man and a woman under the Civil Code unconstitutional and setting the stage for Taiwan to become the first in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage. This decision has been compared to Obergefell v. Hodges. However, reading Obergefell in the broad context of the gay rights movement and the role of judicial review in Taiwanese constitutional politics, we challenge this analogy. Due to the discrepancy between the social movement and the law in the fight for constitutional rights for gays and lesbians in Taiwan, the Same-Sex Marriage Case is Taiwan’s Brown v. Board of Education moment in her constitutional law and politics. To make sense of the law and politics of the Same Sex Marriage Case, we evaluate its political context and the text and style in its reasoning. We observe a discrepancy between law and politics in the pursuit of the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians in Taiwan. The rise of same-sex marriage to the top of the antidiscrimination agenda resulted from the continuous effort of gay rights activists, while the TCC watched this movement from the sidelines until the Same-Sex Marriage Case. This case thus mirrors Brown in two respects. First, the role of the TCC has been publicly questioned after its Brown-like contentious decision on the issue of same-sex marriage. Second, the text and style of the Same-Sex Marriage Case is evocative of the exceptional brevity, managed unanimity, and scientific rationality in Brown. Echoing the Brown Court, the TCC attempts to manage judicial legitimacy through judicial style, while anticipating the political reaction to its ruling in light of its historic intervention in gay rights issues by tackling the fundamental question of same-sex marriage head-on.","PeriodicalId":239270,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Asian Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123352881","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}