2026-02-13
FOREWORD Francisco T. Quintana The staff of the Washington International Law Journal proudly present the first installment of Volume 35. Formerly published as the Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal , the Journal was historically defined by legal and policy issues within the Pacific Rim region. Since Volume 24, the Journal has expanded its scholarly scope and now publishes articles addressing international, foreign, and comparative law from across the globe. This year also marks a significant operational milestone with the launch of the Washington International Law Blog , which provides a platform for legal academics worldwide to publish condensed versions of their work for broader public engagement. Volume 35, Issue 1 presents readers with scholarship interrogating contemporary questions of international and comparative law from across the globe. The issue begins with Olusola B. Adegbite’s examination of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine through the lens of international law, analyzing its legal implications and impact on the rules-based international order. Next, Jiefeng Lu analyzes the practical challenges of litigating workplace sexual harassment in China and proposes reforms to improve access to just and effective remedies. The issue continues with Jefferson Ting’s reflection on the legal role of citizenship in the historical and constitutional development of Malaysia as a sovereign state. Ruifeng Song then explores China’s allocation of data protection duties, offering insight into the structure and logic of its regulatory framework. Finally, Jerry I.H. Hsiao evaluates Taiwan’s emerging approach to artificial intelligence governance through its proposed Basic Law on Artificial Intelligence and future regulatory strategies, providing an external perspective on how governments are confronting AI development. The Washington International Law Journal relies on the generous support of scholars, donors, and the University of Washington to publish legal scholarship at the forefront of international law. On behalf of Volume 35’s Executive Board, I would like to thank Professor Zang for his continued dedication to the journal, as well as our Board of Directors for their meaningful guidance at every step. I also wish to recognize the commitment and professionalism of the Washington International Law Journal editorial staff, whose efforts sustain the Journal’s standards of excellence. I am especially grateful to my colleagues on the Executive Board—Vivian Hernández, Patrick Mahoney, Omar Sethi, Jasmin Bolte, Claire Mullin, Jeffrey Hayden, David Song, Samuel Hagshenas, and Petar Jeknic—whose leadership, judgment, and steady collaboration were essential to bringing the Journal’s vision to fruition. With deep appreciation for the scholarship contained herein, we are honored to present Volume 35, Issue 1. Francisco Quintana is the Editor-in-Chief of the Washington International Law Journal . As of January 2026, he is a third-year student at the University of Washington School of Law. He dedicates his work in this role, with deep gratitude, to his family, friends, and mentors, especially his parents, godmother, and best friend Niko.
2026-02-13
2026-02-13
Abstract : The development of China’s anti-sexual harassment laws and policies over the past few decades has raised the hopes of many. However, the sheer volume of regulations can easily create the false impression that the Chinese legal system is effectively dealing with workplace sexual harassment. Statistics show that the number of lawsuits filed in Chinese courts remains trivial, even though workplace sexual harassment continues to be widespread. This article argues that courts in China misunderstand how to apply important concepts in litigation such as how to define sexual harassment and employer liability. The difficulty of carrying the burden of proof in workplace sexual harassment litigation also hinders legal remedies. This article offers concrete proposals for advancing China’s ongoing legal reform on workplace sexual harassment law by reconceptualizing workplace sexual harassment, adopting fairer evidence rules, and firmly establishing an employer liability framework.
2026-02-13
Abstract: For nearly three years, the Eastern European nation of Ukraine has been entangled in a war it did not instigate, did not desire, but was forced into by its more powerful neighbor, Russia. Since the onset of the war, Russia has faced accusations of widespread atrocities, including severe violations of human rights, international humanitarian law, and breaches of other international norms. Following the inauguration of United States (US) President Donald Trump, there has been a renewed effort to bring both parties to the negotiating table and end the conflict. With the ongoing negotiations, there is no better time to investigate and place Russia’s actions in the correct legal context regarding this war than now. Thus, this article examines Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent conflict. The article’s analysis is divided into two parts. The first part focuses on a contextual analysis of the concept of “Novorossiya” and how this centuries-old idea was revived by Russia to rally ethnic Russians in Ukraine in support of its invasion. The second part conducts an extensive legal analysis of the invasion, concentrating on the legal framework governing the prohibition of the use of force under Article 2 (4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter and the scope of the right to self-defence under Article 51. In the context of these two doctrines, it reviews Russia’s justifications for invading Ukraine, specifically the claim of collective self-defence in support of the alleged Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. A key question the article addresses is whether Russia’s claim of collective self-defence and its assertion of protecting the Russian-speaking people of eastern Ukraine is legally sustainable in international law. It concludes that Russia’s actions constitute a clear violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty as well as territorial integrity and that its justification for using force lacks legal merit. Based on its analysis, the article concludes that there are sufficient grounds to pursue justice to uphold international law, maintain its credibility, and deter similar acts of aggression in the future.
2025-05-01
Siyi Lin
In a wide range of situations, the law in different jurisdictions requires that a person who has been unjustly enriched at another’s expense make restitution to the other. However, what justifies the liability for unjust enrichment? This fundamental question has perplexed unjust enrichment scholars, especially in the common law world, for decades, with various justificatory ideas being proposed while no consensus has been reached. This article explores the justification of the law of unjust enrichment within the context of China’s historical, legal, and social frameworks for the first time. A historical review reveals that the notion of unjust enrichment has been persistently reserved in China after its transplantation through different historical periods due to its conformity with China’s most influential philosophical tradition: Confucianism. Therefore, this article proposes a rational explanation for unjust enrichment liabilities through a Confucian lens. This innovative Confucian account complements existing Western theories of unjust enrichment.
2025-05-01
Pavithra Rajendran
Through a comparative analysis of the criminal laws of Sri Lanka and the United States, this paper examines how Sri Lanka’s legal framework on sexual offenses often hinders women’s access to justice and reinforces systemic gender discrimination. Recognizing the structural constraints inherited from older common law traditions, it underscores the potential for reform through targeted, gradual changes, drawing on developments in modern common law in the United States and relevant international legal standards. The discussion unfolds in three parts: first, a feminist critique of exiting criminal laws in postcolonial; common law systems such as Sri Lanka’s; second, a comparative analysis of laws on sexual offenses and related legal frameworks in Sri Lanka and the United States; and third, a set of reform-oriented recommendations for Sri Lanka, informed by United States legal practice and international laws.
2025-05-01
Sang Yop Kang et al.
Mainland China traditionally upheld the one-share-one-vote (OSOV) principle. Since 2019, however, Chinese authorities have introduced the dual-class equity structure (DCES) for innovative enterprises. Due to investor-protection concerns, China’s DCES operates on a “stringent approval system,” with only eight corporations listed under DCES as of December 31, 2024. This Article provides a comprehensive policy analysis of the Chinese DCES system, including empirical analyses of the eight existing cases. It explores legal and economic aspects of investor protection within China’s DCES, examining “three sets of investor safeguard measures”: (1) “three numerically specified rules” (e.g., 10% equity rule, 10-time voting-right rule, and 2/3 voting-right rule); (2) sunset provisions (event-driven and time-based); and (3) rules converting special-voting shares into shares with one vote (e.g., conversions in an amendment to the articles of association, the appointment and removal of independent directors, and mergers and control contests). Addressing tunneling concerns, this Article argues for “DCES with enhanced investor protection.” To foster entrepreneurship, the Chinese authorities should gradually relax the stringent approval system for DCES. This relaxation is crucial for China, as escalating tensions with the United States have significantly impacted its DCES-IPO markets. Additionally, the DCES-IPO market in Hong Kong remains inactive, underscoring the need for viable DCES-IPO markets in Mainland China.
2025-05-01
Monica Glenzer
This paper seeks to offer a fresh perspective into the Chinese Communist Party’s (“CCP”) implementation of lawfare to assert dominance over Taiwan. Rather than viewing lawfare as one doctrine with one outcome, this paper aims to reorganize lawfare in its many uses, identifying the three primary categories that the CCP uses to extend its sovereignty over Taiwan: (1) using law to legitimize a nation’s own goals, (2) using law to delegitimize an adversary’s actions, and (3) weaponizing an adversary’s laws. This paper seeks to analyze and recharacterize current and historical events in terms of these three lawfare categories, demonstrating how the CCP is using lawfare to prepare the battlefield for an impending conflict in Taiwan.
2024-10-28
Dongsheng Zang
Abstract: In April 2024, Biden Administration officials revealed that in the year 2023, about 90% of Russia’s microelectronics came from China, which Russia has used to make missiles, tanks, and aircraft. Nearly 70% of Russia’s approximately $900 million in machine tool imports in the last quarter of 2023 also came from China. [1] U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently stated at the G7 meeting that “[w]e see China sharing machine tools, semiconductors, [and] other dual-use items that have helped Russia rebuild the defense industrial base.” [2] This demonstrates how far China is willing to go in defiance of the sanctions on Russia, seemingly vindicating an increasingly popular view characterizing China’s relations with Russia as an alliance in the “New Cold War” (NCW) literature. [3] This essay aims to question this claim. To its credit, the NCW provides a necessary correction to the naivete and wishful thinking of the 1990s during the globalization era—best exemplified by the Bill Clinton administration in the United States and the Gerhard Schröder chancellorship in Germany. However, learning the lessons takes more than a moment of intellectual reflection. Two years into the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Europe is caught by two fears related to decoupling: one is China’s retaliatory measures [4] and the other is the possible second presidential term of Donald J. Trump in the United States. [5] Prompted by the urgency on the battlefields, the NCW offers reasons for unity between United States and Europe, in response to an emerging alliance between China and Russia. However, this essay argues that it jumps too quickly to claim a Russia-China alliance and, therefore, misses another aspect of Russia-China relations after the invasion of Ukraine: the imperial collision. This essay aims to provide a preliminary framework for examining the driving forces that work to divide and eventually undermine the Russia-China alignment. [6] The essay starts in Part I by examining the anti-Western ideology shared by Presidents Putin and Xi Jinping. Despite their common objectives, shared values, and personal commitments, fundamental cracks in the ideology can still be detected – primarily due to the different approaches adopted by Russia and China. Part II examines the economic alignments between Russia and China following the invasion of Ukraine. The goal of this section is to contextualize the ideological cracks within three specific areas: trade, finance, and investment. While both Russia and China, on one hand, and NCW pundits, on the other, highlight the high level of economic complementation—either by celebrating or raising alarms—a closer look at the data reveals how ideological cracks translate into discontent and risks for both countries. Part III discusses the lack of institutions in the Russia-China relations that undermine stable and long-term cooperation. The essay will conclude with some remarks on the ramifications of the debates on decoupling or de-risking policy that this symposium is focused on.
2024-10-28
Sital Kalantry
Abstract : The University of Washington International Law Journal’s timely symposium explores the strains in the U.S.-China political and economic relationship. As China and the United States become estranged, or “decoupled,” this essay explores the United States’ relationship with India in light of this trend. The U.S.-India foreign relations are stronger today than they have been in India’s 75-year history as an independent nation. [1] To understand why this is the case, we have to examine both the U.S. and Indian foreign policy perspectives. The United States’ interest in India has grown in part due to the United States’ own changes in domestic policy and motivations to counter China. It is only in the more recently that India has been open to a stronger partnership with the United States due largely to political and economic changes in the country.