As China-U.S. relations become more complex, the United States considers China a major competitor and employs various means to impose trade sanctions, exerting pressure on Chinese enterprises. Among these measures, export controls in the high-tech and communication sectors are prevalent, often justified under the banner of "national security." The U.S.'s sanctioning behavior reflects its concerns about China's rise in these fields, attempting to maintain its technological advantage by controlling the export of crucial technologies and curb the development of China's technology and communication industries. The frequent use of U.S. export controls in recent years has had a significant impact on Chinese enterprises. In this context, it is essential to delve into the characteristics of U.S. trade sanctions to comprehensively understand their impact on Sino-U.S. trade. Additionally, understanding China's responses to these sanctions is crucial for our country's enterprises to more effectively navigate and counteract the measures imposed by the United States.

In the 21st century, because ZTE Corporation was subject to US sanctions and penalties in the first half of 2018, which caused widespread concern in the international community and heated discussion in the domestic legal community, the Enterprise Compliance Plan was highly concerned and warmly responded in Chinese Mainland.[5] Looking at the response and implementation of corporate compliance in China, it has gone through a process of introduction and standardization by central and state-owned enterprises, and acceptance and institutionalization by private enterprises. In the process of handling criminal cases, the Supreme People's Procuratorate actively promotes the implementation and development of corporate compliance in China through the procuratorial work mechanism, accumulating rich judicial experience, and transforming the "imported" corporate compliance mechanism into an important part of China's economic development and legal implementation. Currently, the Supreme People's Court is also gradually considering the positive significance of corporate compliance in specific cases in its judicial work, and making reasonable considerations in specific judgments accordingly. Against this backdrop, it is obviously of positive significance to summarize the practical experience of criminal justice in the implementation of corporate compliance, analyze and look forward to the future legal mechanism for implementing corporate compliance plans, and promote the implementation of corporate compliance in China from the perspective of socialist rule of law concept and system, so that it can serve China's economy and enterprise development.

The outstanding traditional Chinese culture represented by intangible cultural heritage is the "root" and "soul" of the Chinese nation. In the process of "creative transformation and innovative development" in which thoughts and expressions are interwoven and coupled, the main value of the intangible cultural heritage community should be brought into play, the cultural nutrients of the intangible cultural heritage soil should be tapped to help realize the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. In fact, intangible cultural heritage protection has become a systematic project. The systematic thinking of intangible heritage reveals that protection action is an organic process of integrating internal material and immaterial resources to achieve integrity. By bridging and implementing the principle of integral protection of intangible cultural heritage, exploring and cultivating the inheritance methods of intangible cultural heritage groups, improving and constructing the system of related disciplines of intangible cultural heritage, continuously and strengthening the modern path of non-hereditary transmission, establishing scientific, integral and overall thinking of systematic protection of intangible cultural heritage, so as to promote the systematic protection work of intangible cultural heritage.

Before the Amended Anti-Monopoly Law (“Amended AML”) was implemented in 2022, the divergence on resale price maintenance (“RPM”) between the AML public enforcement agencies and the courts had been noticeable and attracted heated debates. The AML administrative agencies responsible for public enforcement against RPM in China firmly adopt the principle of “prohibition + exemption” by imposing the burden of proof on the enterprises who are alleged to engage in RPM acts: enterprises have to apply for exemption once the agencies prove and prohibit the RPM acts. AML agencies do not need to prove the “restricting or excluding competition” effect under this approach. On the contrary, the courts had required the plaintiff in private enforcement cases to prove the “restricting or excluding competition” effects in addition to the RPM acts. In the Amended AML, such disagreement between public and private enforcement was formally addressed by explicitly adding the precondition of “restricting or excluding competition” and allocating such burden of proof to enterprises/defendants. Prior to the Amended AML, such a new trend was already seen in the landmark Supreme Court Yutai case, where the courts’ standards for determining the illegality of RPM started to move towards the approach of the AML public enforcement agencies. The new Supreme Court Judicial Interpretations on AML for comments issued in 2022 further confirmed the new trend and clarified that enterprises/ defendants shall prove that there is no “effect of excluding or restricting competition” in RPM cases. Nonetheless, how such a reformed RPM policy will be applied in practice remains blurred. The Old AML was applied in all the RPM cases after the Amended AML took effect. It is unclear how to apply the “exemption” rule and in particular “safe harbor” rule once an RPM act is identified and presumed to be anti-competitive. No case has ever touched such issues. EU’s overall RPM practice on RPM appears similar to China’s RPM policy with differences on safe harbor and exemption. It is useful to take reference to EU policy and practice along the reform road with China’s post-pandemic economy conditions taken into consideration. This paper first introduces the previous RPM policy and the new trend in China and then takes the reference to EU policies on RPM. This paper finally concludes that the elements of competitive effects, the new safe harbor rule, and the exemption rule should be further clarified in the coming implementation regulations and judicial interpretations to avoid antitrust law Type I errors, i.e., over-regulation.

The family is an independent community, in which members have closer life ties and deeper subjective emotions than ordinary social members. The diversity of the internal relationships within the family and the different expressions of family ethics determine the pluralistic normative construction of criminal law when it intervenes in the family. However, with the transformation of the social structure, the function of the family has gradually declined. The traditional Chinese society's "family-oriented" ideology has fallen behind, and the past value judgment of "emphasizing order and disregarding freedom" does not conform to the social values of the people. Firstly, in terms of the configuration of penalties, the statutory penalties for domestic crimes are lighter than those for similar crimes, which conflicts with the increasing sense of equality, rights, and modern family concepts in society. Secondly, in the judicial practice process, the judicial organs ignore unfair interest arrangements, attach importance to outdated value judgments, overemphasize departmental interests, and infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of vulnerable groups. These behaviors all go against the values of ordinary people. This article takes the crimes of purchasing trafficked women and child abuse in traditional Chinese family crimes as examples, combined with current social trends and the transformation of traditional family values and order. Based on the unique and complex features of the protected legal interests in family crimes, it balances the values of order protection and human rights protection, faces up to the connotation and extension changes of domestic crimes in the new era, and establishes the family law theory of criminal law.

Some African countries have decided to create the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa (O.H.A.D.A.) to build a common legal space to meet their economic and social needs. This organization results from their desire to standardize their legislation to find solutions to the persistent economic sluggishness generating endemic mass unemployment. Its primary purpose is to restore confidence to investors who, for a long time, have turned their backs on Africa because of the obsolescence, scattering, and extreme heterogeneity of its legislation of an economic nature. With this in mind, the Community body has introduced several uniform laws conducive to economic activity between Member States. That raises the question of security within this regional space. Appearing as a strategic weapon, the regional legislator has put legal means of protection on the civil level, which unfortunately proves to be insufficient. Because of this, recoursing to criminal law is necessary. However, we note that the member states of the O.H.A.D.A. consider the penal field their preserve. The corollary of this national character results in a need to move towards unifying the penal field within the framework of an organization of integration, which is O.H.A.D.A. That constitutes a problematic challenge regarding determining a penal policy in the regional space.

During the trial supervision procedure, the judge did not specify whether the case was determined as a foreign-related case because the applicant had American nationality. Rather, the judge only explained the “service of process and periods” of the foreign-related judicial procedure. The judge believed that the applicant had a fixed domicile in China, which was involved in the case, where the heating fee and property fee were disputed so the legal provisions on foreign-related procedures without a domicile within the territory of the People's Republic of China did not apply to the “service of process and periods”. To further explain the case, the applicant completed the purchase contract in September 2004 and the property management service agreement in November 2004. The applicant completed the Oath of Allegiance and acquired its American nationality on November 28, 2006. The applicant owed the property fee and heating fee for the period from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2016. In terms of time, the applicant had owed property fees and heating fees for nearly a year as a Chinese national and had owed property fees and heating fees for more than nine years as a US national, which means that during the period when the arrears of property fee and heating fee occurred, the nationality of the applicant changed from Chinese to American.

This article aimed to contribute to the global conversation on consequential courts by examining the history of the Judicial Yuan, China’s apex court from the 1920s to the 1940s, in terms of how it was viewed in diary entries by Chiang Kai-shek, the predominant political leader, by Ju Zheng, the President of the Judicial Yuan, and by Xie Guansheng, the Minister of Judicial Administration. This article is the first to engage with the diaries of these political and judicial leaders at the highest level to explore key aspects of the legal history of the Republic of China. This article focused on the structural and functional evolution of the Judicial Yuan that resulted from the informal daily interactions between the judicial leaders and the leading political figure in China between 1928 and 1948. It is contended that these interactions not only affected the development path but also substantively reshaped the structure and power of the Judicial Yuan. Chiang’s personal deference to the President of Judicial Yuan’s legal expertise in constitutional designing helped smooth the integration of a bigger national apex court into the newly formed central government system. The later more dramatic interactions between Ju Zheng and Chiang created one driving force for the China’s national apex= court to survive through the extremely turbulent times during the 1930s and the 1940s.As a result, these two decades of changes in China’s apex court brought about a degree of creative institutionalization that laid a further basis for Chinese legal exceptionalism.

To better examine how shadow banking activities are affected by banking regulation, this paper uses the implementation of new regulatory standards in China's banking sector in 2011 as a quasi-natural experiment to test whether China's banking regulatory policies were effective in curbing shadow banking activities from 2007 to 2019 using data on banks' entrusted loans to measure the size of shadow banking business. The findings of this study are as follows: Firstly, the new regulatory standards had effectively inhibited the development of shadow banking business such as entrusted loans. Mechanism analysis showes that CAR had a significant positive impact on entrusted loans, once the CAR fell, the entrusted loans decreased. Meanwhile, the higher the LIR was, the more shadow banking activities Chinese banks were likely to engage in. Further insight reveales that among banks with larger assets and higher profitability, the impact of the new regulatory policies on shadow banking business was more significant. The results remain robust when the paper also consideres the policies issued in 2017 for shadow banking. The findings of this paper demonstrate the actual effect of China's regulation on shadow banking from a micro perspective and provide a scientific and theoretical basis for the implementation of regulatory policies.