It is an immense honor to be here. But the honor is special indeed; because it was around this time seventy-four years ago—more precisely on April 13, 1945—that Robert H. Jackson (as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) addressed this same gathering, in a classic speech titled “Rule of Law Among Nations.”

Welcome to this discussion on “Emerging Accountability Mechanisms: Innovative or Ineffective?” During this session, four expert panelists will examine the evolution and future of so-called “alternative” or “non-traditional” mechanisms that aim to secure accountability for serious violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. This category comprises mechanisms with a range of goals and forms, from investigative institutions that prepare evidence to be handed off to criminal courts, to transitional justice mechanisms that seek through non-criminal means to redress violations, prevent a relapse into violence, and facilitate reconciliation.

The Trump administration declared the “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” (FOIP) strategy as the new U.S. policy on Asia in 2017. This new strategy will have far-reaching implications for U.S.-Asia relations and global governance. The FOIP is conventionally perceived to focus on security dimensions. By “free,” the United States expects all countries “to exercise their sovereignty free from coercion by other countries.”1 The qualifier, “open,” is meant to refer to regional connectivity, in particular including freedom of navigation.2 Notably, the economic dimensions of this component also envision “fair and reciprocal trade” and “transparent agreements.”

China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) ambitiously aspires toward expanding regional markets and facilitating economic integration across Asia and Europe. It has been regarded as a game-changer on the landscape of dispute resolution market, triggering a proliferation of “adjudication business.” This report examines the dynamics of international dispute resolution in context of the BRI, discussed from the three following perspectives: (1) BRI investors and disputants; (2) three major means of dispute resolution on offer; and (3) institutions involved.

The Indo-Pacific, given its economic and geopolitical significance as exemplified by the growing multilateralism in the region, is an incubatory space for innovative legal infrastructure. Against the backdrop of growing tension between the United States and China in the region, I emphasize China's expanding footprint through the “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI) and its capacity to shape institutions, practices, and norms of international economic law. I begin by providing context and then suggest six ways in which the BRI may offer a novel approach to international economic law, with particular salience for the Indo-Pacific region.

U.S. trade policy is not what it used to be. Since the U.S. withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership in January 2017, Indo-Pacific trade relations have been in constant flux. It is not clear where U.S. trade policy will end up, particularly with regard to its relationship with China. However, the conclusion of two renegotiations of previous U.S. trade agreements can tell us generally about the new U.S. approach and what this means for our trading partners. I will discuss developments from the renegotiation of the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement (KORUS) and the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) as a replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

For over five decades, countries in Southeast Asia and its surroundings in Asia, the Pacific Ocean, and Pacific Rim have enjoyed peace and stability, upon which economic growth and welfare have accumulated. The marvel of uninterrupted development has transformed them into a group of countries that are part of the engines of global economic growth. Over the period of 1967 until 2017, Southeast Asian region recorded growth in gross domestic product (GDP) per capita almost thirty-three times bigger, from USD 122 to USD 4,021. In 2016, the region represented 6.2 percent GDP of the world in 2016, almost doubled the share in 1967 at just 3.2 percent. The period also saw an immense trade growth from USD 9.7 billion to USD 2.2 trillion. Right now the region has become the third largest economy in Asia and the fifth largest in the world.

I want to begin by spending a little time articulating how I understand the U.S. government's new “free and open Indo-Pacific” (FOIP) policy, which encompasses more than the trade agreements Inu discussed in her remarks. Then, I want to take a look at how this new U.S. strategy and approach would apply to one important key player in the region: Taiwan.

I welcome you all to this closing panel for the 113th Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law.

The 2019 Jessup Problem concerns four issues: (1) the responsibility of states with respect to the conduct of a corporate national; (2) the protection of migratory species; (3) the rights to culture and religion; and (4) the rights of indigenous peoples to benefit from their traditional knowledge. The Applicant (Aurok) and the Respondent (Rakkab) are two neighboring states. Aurok is a small, least-developed, landlocked country. Rakkab is larger and has a multi-ethnic population of roughly 4.5 million.