This article evaluates reparation by the state after four of the worst episodes of violence against religious minorities in independent India. Examining official records obtained through India’s law on the right to information, I analyze government aid to victims after identity-based massacres over a 20-year period. I argue that there is a well-established repertoire of assistive measures after sectarian violence but, despite the resources available within a politically stable state, aid for victims of mass violence in India is unimaginative and meagre. I argue further that the political opportunity structure for reparations is limited by the fact that sectarian mobilization is embedded within electoral politics in India. Just as sectarian politics led governments to tolerate mass violence, it constricts the checks and balances that might lead to adequate reparation after violence subsides. I then suggest that opportunities to negotiate better reparation for victims expand over time, and propose that a law on reparation would constrain state bias and strengthen opportunities for victims to demand the support that they need.

This paper focuses on Internet intermediaries’ civil liabilities for contents produced by third parties. By comparing Chinese law with the laws of the US and EU, it argues that the US law grants broad civil immunity to Internet intermediaries, and the EU and China restrict civil immunity to intermediaries but in different ways. This is on account of how, in the US, Internet intermediaries enjoy civil immunity as long as they do not become content providers. In the EU, aside from mere conduit intermediaries, all other intermediaries are subject to the notice-and-take-down mechanism before enjoying civil immunity. In contrast, in China, even after an intermediary properly follows the notice-and-take-down mechanism, it may still be subject to civil liability under the Chinese Consumer Law. Further, this paper argues that the policy priority for the law for Internet intermediaries varies fundamentally in the three jurisdictions. The US law for intermediaries’ liability focuses on protecting freedom of speech. The EU emphasizes the protection of personal information as a fundamental human right. Contrastingly, Chinese policy priority is unclear. Consumer protection has boomed in public popularity and increasingly attracted the attentions of the legislature and judiciary in China. However, it is doubtable that the protection of consumers can provide a prevailing policy support for Chinese law in the same way as freedom of speech and the protection of personal information do under the laws of the US and the EU, respectively.

This article highlights reliance on lay participation as a mechanism for solving perceived problems in Japanese criminal justice by examining three reforms aimed at increasing lay participation in Japanese criminal justice: the mandatory prosecution power given to Prosecution Review Commissions, the saiban’in seido (lay-judge system), and Penal Institution Visiting Committees. The article argues that lay participation plays an important role in legitimizing aspects of the current system. Despite the Nagoya Prison Scandal in 2002–03, Japan’s extraordinary achievements in order inside prisons have been maintained and citizens are comforted that the system has oversight by Visiting Committees. Although PRCs and saiban’in seido represent a more open approach to eligibility and selection than Visiting Committees, they too help to legitimize existing structures. The article concludes by considering challenges to the continued reliance on lay participation in Japan including reform fatigue, the demographic crisis, the impact of geography, and technological developments.

How do dignity discourses shift the framing of struggles for basic legal freedoms? Based on our decade-long empirical research on lawyers and politics in China, we provide a theoretical intervention in a burgeoning socio-legal scholarship on dignity in this article. Drawing inductively from in-depth interviews, we find that a powerful current of dignity consciousness and sentiment, joined by an acute awareness of dignity harms, flows through the community of Chinese activist lawyers. Their dignity discourses can be witnessed and explained in four streams of awareness: (1) dignity experienced as an ideal in juridical, philosophical, and theological idioms; (2) dignity takings experienced indirectly and directly in the property takings of clients’ homes, farms, and livelihood; (3) assaults on dignity through property takings of spaces of religious worship; and (4) the takings of professional dignity from the lawyers charged with defending the dignity of others. This article points to the value of dignity framings in the general theory of collective action for basic legal freedoms.

Through an empirical study of the state-sponsored community mediation programme in Sri Lanka known as Mediation Boards (MBs), this paper examines this local-level mediation as a hybrid practice. Established as an Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism, the MBs were initiated as a more effective and efficient alternative to the formal courts for local and minor disputes. In the case-study conducted on an MB, it was found that there is extensive replication of formal legal procedures alongside the mediators’ own cultural interpretations of disputes. By locating this hybrid practice theoretically within the framework of legal pluralism and its broad definition of law, an attempt is made to expand the scope of the pluralistic nature of law not only to include alternative forms of law, but also to understand the dynamic interactions between multiple normative orderings.

In May 2018, Artidjo Alkostar retired from the Supreme Court of Indonesia after a judicial career spanning almost two decades. Over this period, he presided over many of Indonesia’s most prominent and controversial criminal cases and became renowned for routinely rejecting corruption appeals and increasing prison sentences. In the celebratory publications that marked his retirement, Alkostar was held up as a model judge, with senior legal figures, including Supreme Court judges, singling out his strong work ethic, integrity, simplicity of character, and firmness. Curiously absent from the list of praiseworthy attributes were pre-requisites for effective judging, including adequate legal knowledge, transparent legal reasoning and decision-making, objectivity and avoiding the perception of bias. An analysis of Alkostar’s most notorious decisions suggests that he, and the judges who served with him, did not always clearly display these pre-requisites. This article considers what this says about judging in Indonesia and what might, in practice, be the defining characteristics of a good judge there.

The judicialization of politics in Taiwan is particularly evident in three domains: the expansion of judicial power, a shift in political equilibrium, and litigation for social change. Yet it is not altogether clear why politicians and social groups are willing to transfer decision-making powers from the political branches to the judiciary, particularly the Constitutional Court. This paper endeavours to fill this academic lacuna by suggesting that the judicialization of politics occurs in Taiwan because both politicians and citizens choose the judiciary as another agent to implement their preferred policies. Nevertheless, Taiwan does not become a juristocracy and, indeed, the pace of the judicialization has slowed down since the second party turnover. The development of the judicialization of politics in Taiwan may shed new light on many old topics, such as judicial supremacy and the relationship between judicial power and political uncertainty.

The scale and urgency of the consequences of the Anthropocene for human civilization call for comprehensive responses from human societies. As leaders in law, law schools have a role in helping their respective societies respond to the impacts of the Anthropocene. The present analysis discusses potential approaches to help law schools in Asia integrate the Anthropocene into their legal education curricula. Drawing upon existing legal education literature regarding issues of content, teaching tools, curriculum placement, and subject status as a law topic, the analysis explores the potential issues facing law schools in the adoption of the Anthropocene as a component of learning. The analysis then addresses the particular contextual sociocultural, economic, and political circumstances likely to challenge the integration of the Anthropocene into Asian law schools. The conclusion finishes with directions for future research.

A new paradigmatic shift in confronting the climactic endgame of the Anthropocene in Asia is in order. Scientific studies warned that Asia would become the epicentre of anthropogenic catastrophes and environmental disasters in the world. As the outgoing Asian Law and Society Association (ALSA) president, I wish to contribute to critical discussions on two issues: (1) Earth Jurisprudence and (2) the Rights of Nature. These legal concepts must be critically examined, discussed, and developed by socio-legal researchers and policy-makers in order to avert the impending crises of the Anthropocene in Asia. This report examines the recent development of a robust movement toward Earth Jurisprudence in multiple countries of Asia, the Americas, and the Pacific—that is, countries that have recently enshrined the concept of the Rights of Nature into their legal system through transforming nature into rights-bearing entities in order to protect them from harmful human activities. Failing any significant remedial measures, many Asian cities, shores, and coastlines, including the archipelagos of multiple island states in the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean may soon disappear due to the many decades of egregious human activities of industrialized countries and the corporate world. A robust system of Earth Jurisprudence must be established, in which the Rights of Nature must be imbedded in the centre of legislative and constitutional discussions and deliberations.

The Principles of Asian Contract Law (PACL) are the most recent addition to the series of uniform laws regarding transnational commercial contracts. This time, the harmonization initiative must address the problem of a great variety of legal traditions, all of which are quite difficult to reconcile. The author focuses on the object and objectives of the PACL by reconsidering the notion of “Asian law” and the alleged cultural neutrality of contract law as a legal discipline. The paper argues that the PACL project lacks clarity. Its ambitious objectives, while apparently intelligible, fail to produce the desired results in their entirety: the Asian regional harmonization of contract law turns out to resemble its occidental forerunners. The study goes beyond the traditional comparative law. It explores the model law (in the making) in a broader context of legal policy, parallel regional private-law-making efforts in the field of contract law as well as in the context of legal globalization.

Chinese fintech, initially taking the form as “Internet finance,” is growing rapidly and poses great challenges to its financial regulatory authorities. Acclaimed as a new financial innovation, Internet finance was once accepted and even welcomed by the normally conservative Chinese financial regulators, who simultaneously adopted a wait-and-see strategy, to encourage such innovation and avoid overwhelming regulation. The benevolent regulation stance, however, bred rampant Ponzi schemes or fake financial innovation, resulting in tremendous monetary losses among lots of investors. To show a quick and active response, the central government popped into a whack-a-mole game, starting a four-year campaign of strict Internet finance regulation that has even cracked down on all the P2P lending platforms. This article analyzes the regulatory policy updates of Chinese Internet finance that is transforming to certain kinds of lawful fintech with difficulties, and that adaptive regulatory-organization restructure, regulatory-system optimization, and regulatory-model innovation would be more effective and constructive regulatory options.

This paper asks how globalization relates to legal culture. It argues that there exists, at least in the developed world, a general global culture; it follows, then, that there must be a global legal culture as well. Not everyone in modern societies is completely drawn into the global legal culture, however, as the research of the David and Jaruwan Engel in Thailand suggests. In general, however, the legal cultures of modern, developed societies are strongly convergent. In particular, there is emerging a global and convergent culture of human rights. Some Asian scholars and political figures have argued that conceptions of fundamental human rights are culturally Western, and may not suit the cultures of the East. The paper argues, however, that the human rights culture is not “Western” so much as modern; it arose in the West, but it is no more unsuitable to Asian societies than the automobile and the computer, which also arose first in the West.

It has long been argued that the legal system does not have a strong role in explaining China’s economic miracle; therefore, China is often presented as an anomaly for the “law matters” hypothesis. This study contributes to the debate from a unique perspective by examining the connection between law and the operation of factor markets. In China, laws and regulations governing factor markets have been systematically distorted by the government, intentionally or unintentionally, to facilitate the nation’s enormous economic growth in the short run at the cost of environmental quality, ordinary citizens’ welfare, and long-term economic health. Thus, China has become a fast-growing but unsustainable economy.

This paper focuses on the conflict of norms in the interface between the “transplanted” formal law and the local social norms in the land-law reforms in Vietnam and Myanmar, each representing different legal families, while sharing commonness in that both have attempted law-making in the post-colonial independence period in order to restore the basis of the livelihoods of the local population. Both of the legal concepts of “land-use right” (quyen su dung dat) in Vietnam and “land-use right for cultivation” (loat paing kwint) in Myanmar have been the product of law-makers’ restorative attempts at farmland security, while intentionally avoiding usage of the term “ownership” that would result in the capitalist transaction of land as a commodity. However, the contemporary land-law reforms led by donor-oriented “legal transplant” in these countries have resulted in the plunder of such policy, by reintroducing the same mechanisms of land exploitation as existed in the colonial days. Roaring protests of the local agricultural population seem to be a rising-up of the social norm descended from the immemorial past as an unwritten Constitution to bring an end to the centuries-long movement of “legal transplant” of the modern capitalist law.

Since the fall of socialism in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, and some states of Southeast Asia, the international financial institutions and individual donor states have initiated wide-scale legal-aid programmes to assist these states in their transition from socialism to a market economy. Whereas the aid from financial institutions vis-à-vis recipient states is often agreed upon specific conditionalities, the donor states design their foreign legal aid according to individual preferences, although sometimes with references to universal goals. Currently, various donor states provide legal aid to Uzbekistan. Given the fact that Uzbekistan is the former Soviet Republic that still bears multiple traces of a socialist legal system and additionally integrates indigenous informal law, this research provides an analysis of how different donor states base their legal-aid activities on entirely different philosophies and levels of gravity, and how receptive the hybrid structure of Uzbekistan’s law is towards such aid.

The newly established judicial-transparency platforms, like China Judgements Online, have provided access to a new resource—judicial big data—making it possible to conduct empirical, big-data-based legal research. However, as is often the case with new products, these platforms—China Judgements Online, in particular—pose a few problems for big-data-based legal research: insufficient academic depth; immature technical methods; and lack of innovation due to flawed data, strict technical thresholds, and lack of theoretical ambition and ability. In the future, big-data-based legal research should make use of current data resources, continue to promote statistical science and computer science in research, and apply small-data research methods, and in the meanwhile pay attention to the combination of data and theory.