郭丹青的中国法律博客

[172]  Jerome Cohen and Yu-Jie Chen on the Stern Hu trial

Here's an interesting piece by Jerome Cohen and Yu-Jie Chen on an as-yet undiscussed aspect of the Stern Hu proceedings. I've made one very modest change in adapting it from text to web. I might also add that the notion that domestic laws can't be used as an excuse to override China's treaty obligations is also set forth in the 1987 predecessor to the document discussed below, although (unlike its successor) it doesn't specifically mention trials.

The Chinese Government's refusal to allow Australian Government consular officials to observe the secret portion of the Rio Tinto trial was supposedly based on

[171]  Job opportunity: Senior Fellow and Project Director for China Health Law Initiative (Georgetown Law)

I have received an announcement of the headlined job opportunity. The first two paragraphs are below. The full announcement is here.

Senior Fellow and Project Director for China Health Law Initiative

The O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law is seeking an exceptionally qualified candidate to serve as Senior Fellow and Project Director for the Institute’s China Health Law Initiative.
 
The China Health Law Initiative, a partnership between Georgetown University Law Center’s O’Neill Institu

[170]  Job opportunity: US government positions in China trade

I have received the following message:

Two China trade-related positions are open in the US government.

One position is for an international trade specialist in the Office of the China Economic Area and the other is for the

I remain baffled by the attitude of the Australian government in the Stern Hu case. Not only has it failed to press for its right to attend all of the trial proceedings, but it has parroted the Chinese government’s line about the legal basis for exclusion and, again taking a leaf from the Chinese government’s book, refused to explain (a) just what laws and regulations it believes allow exclusion, or (b) just who requested it. As I said in an earlier post, I realize these things are complicated, that it's all too easy to kibitz from outside, and that there may be things going on behind the s

Here are some comments from Jerome Cohen on my recent post about the Stern Hu case (posted here with his permission):

Don, I'm very glad to have your careful analysis spelling out the absurdity of the Qin Gang argument on behalf of MOFA. I have been taking the same position as you all week in response to inquiring Australian media and suggesting that they take a look at the Australia-China Consular Convention, which you have carefully done. The Australian Government, perhaps not wa

[166] The closing of the Stern Hu trial: a legal analysis (part 2 of 2)

Second issue: China's treaty obligations

But suppose you don't buy any of the above and believe that Chinese domestic law justifies closing the trial on the grounds of commercial secrets. That doesn't end the discussion. We still have to ask whether China as a state has a treaty obligation to allow Australian consular representatives to attend the trial.

Here the answer seems to be pretty clearly Yes. The argument in summary is this: (a) the Chinese-Australian agreement on consular access very clearly gives A

[164]  Environmental group seeks senior researcher on China (London-based)

I have received the following announcement from the International Institute for Environment and Development:

Dear Colleagues,

We are currently advertising for a new Senior Researcher position to
work on China. The post holder will join the Group which best suits
their background.  The purpose of the role is to understand more clearly
the influence of China on environment and development challenges, the
new geopolitics and innovation.

The position will be permanent, full time and based in London.

The closing date is 12 noon on Monday 29 March. Interviews will be held
by telephone on 12 April, second interviews to be confirmed.

Full details are av