Peking University School of Transnational Law Wishes You a Happy Chinese New Year and Good Fortune in the Year of the Rat!
Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont Geoffrey W. Crawford Visits STL
In October 2019, Chief Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford was invited to deliver a lecture and hold a discussion at STL. Judge Crawford used to be a partner at O’Neil, Crawford & Green law firm. In 2014, he was nominated by President Obama as the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. He has a close relationship with STL.
On October 10th, Judge Crawford delivered the lecture on Marbury v. Madison and the Judicial Review. The lecture was moderated by Dean Philip McConnaughay and was attended by STL students and faculty.
Judge Crawford launched the lecture by providing the historical context of Marbury v. Madison—the fourth presidential election in America. President John Adams appointed nearly 60 “midnight judges” on the last day of his presidency. However, James Madison, the Secretary of State refused to deliver the commission letters for many of these judges, without which the appointment would not have officially been concluded. Marbury was one of the appointed judges who never received their official commission. Consequently, Marbury sued Madison before the Supreme Court of the United States by filing a writ of Mandamus to compel the delivery of his commission.
Judge Crawford then discussed how Judge John Marshall approached this case wisely. Judge Marshall first affirmed that Marbury was indeed entitled to the commission, that the Secretary of State’s conduct can be sued, and that Mandamus would be the correct remedy. However, he dismissed Marbury’s claim on the ground that the Constitution did not authorize original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of the United States in issuing Mandamus. The Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the original jurisdiction, was unconstitutional. With that, Marshall’s holding established the US Supreme Court’s power of judicial review.
By way of comparison, Judge Crawford then analyzed the judicial review system in China and the UK. In China, the court does not have the power of judicial review. Instead, power to correct governmental action that violates the constitutional norms is vested to the National People’s Congress Standing Committee. In the UK, under the principle of “Parliamentary Sovereignty,” the courts have authority to determine whether an administrative act is against parliament, but they generally do not have the power to strike down a legislation directly. As an example to demonstrate the scope of the courts’ jurisdiction, Judge Crawford discussed the recent R (Miller) v. Prime Minister case, where the UK Supreme Court struck down the Prime Minister’s prorogation of Parliament. Finally, Judge Crawfordrevisited the issue of judicial review in the US by sharing his own experience as a judge engaging in judicial review.
The lecture concluded with a Q & A session where Judge Crawford gave patient and detailed answers to the questions posed from the students and faculty. The questions ranged from the personal to the professional. On one end, for example, when asked about how to determine whether a law is good or bad, Judge Crawford said that he would adopt an economic analysis. On the other end, when asked about his transition from an appellate court judge to a trial court judge, he said that his personality contributed to the transition because the trial court was more fun.
The students and faculty were impressed by Judge Crawford’s excellent, informative and humorous lecture. Chen Xin, a 1L student, said, “I’m grateful for the first-hand experiences Judge Crawford showed us. His explanation of different ways of legal interpretation is also illuminating.” Guo Qianru, a 2L student, expressed her feelings after joining in the discussion, “Judge Crawford and Professor Campbell shared with us their very interesting work experience and touching life stories. Judge Crawford said that personality matters when choosing a future job.”
All in all, the lecture was deemed to be a memorable one that left a deep impression on students.
Francis Snyder, C.V.Starr Professor of Law at Peking University School of Transnational Law, was awarded 2018 the People’s Republic of China Friendship Award, the highest honor for “foreign experts who have made outstanding contributions to the country’s economic and social progress.” The award was announced by the State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs (SAFEA) and presented by Vice Prime Minister Liu He at the Great Hall of the People on September 29. Premier Li Keqiang met with the Recipients on September 30.
Speaking after the awarding ceremony, Professor Snyder said, “I am deeply honored and really delighted to receive this Award. It has been my great pleasure to contribute to China for more than 20 years. I express my profound thanks to SAFEA, Peking University, Peking University Shenzhen Graduate School, and STL for their constant support.”
STL Dean Philip McConnaughay noted on behalf of the entire STL community that, “Francis Snyder’s scholarly contributions to China-EU trade relations and to the development of food safety law and protocols in China have had enormous beneficial impact over the years. We are very fortunate and very proud to have Professor Snyder as an esteemed member of our academic community.”
Professor Snyder is a scholar of European Union Law, WTO and international economic law, EU-China relations, technical standards, anti-dumping and food safety law. He has served as the Co-Director of the Academy of European Law, Centennial Professor at the London School of Economics and Guest Professor at Peking University Law School and Tsinghua Law School.
Professor Snyder has been actively engaging in China-EU relations and China food safety reform. Among recent professional appointments, He was invited to serve as the leading foreign expert to China’s Central Government for reform of the food safety system in China and contributed to reform the 2009 Food Safety Law. His additional awards and achievements include the honor of Officier de l’Ordre des Palmes Académiques by French Republic and being listed in Marquis Who’s who in the World and in International Authors and Writers Who’s who.
It is not the first time that STL community to be granted with the esteemed Award. STL’s Founding Dean Jeffrey Lehman received the honor in 2011.
On November 13, Peking University School of Transnational Law (STL) hosted an international workshop on soft law: The Use of Soft Law by National Courts and Public Authorities: An EU-China Comparison. The workshop was jointly organized by STL and China-EU School of Law at the China University of Political Science and Law. It brought together leading scholars, from China and abroad, to study the opportunities and challenges of soft law, and explore the application and innovation of soft law in the fields of finance, economics, environmental policy and public safety. The workshop was moderated by STL’s faculty while speakers included professors from University of Helsinki, University of Milano, Aix-Marseille University, Maastricht Univerisity, Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and University of Macao.
STL Dean Philip McConnaughay, Maastricht University Professor Mariolina Eliantonio, and STL Professors, JIN Zining and Francis Snyder, first delivered welcoming remarks expressing their gratitude to all the participants and introducing the workshop program.
The workshop was divided into four sessions on the following themes: “Opportunities and Challenges of Soft Law,” “Use of Soft Law by Public Authorities in the Financial and Economic Fields,” “Use of Soft Law by Public Authorities in the Protection of Values Related to Environment and Public Health,” and “Soft Law and Standards for Legal Innovation.”
The first session was chaired by STL Assistant Professor MAO Shaowei. Emilia Korkea-Aho, Associate Professor at University of Helsinki and a visiting scholar at Yale University, first raised the question: “How to study soft law” and proposed three dichotomies to help answer that question: “doctrinal research” and “socio-legal research”, “qualitative research” and “quantitative research”, “historical research” and “comparative research.” Then she switched the question from “how to study soft law” to “why to study soft law”. Professor BI Honghai from Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics gave an overview of soft law in China and put forward the question of “why soft law can be called ‘law’.” STL Professor HUANG Hui discussed the guiding cases as soft law in Chinese judicial practice, while STL Professor JIN Zining took environmental lawsuits as examples and explored the administrative “Opinion Letter” as soft law in PRC’s Courts. In the Q&A session, the students present actively proposed their own thoughts on the issues raised to the scholars.
STL Professor Douglas Levene chaired the second session. STL Professor Sang Yop Kang, cited the Korean National Pension Service (NPS) as an example illustrating how shareholder activism functions as soft law. From the perspective of comparative law, Nathalie Rubio, a scholar at Aix-Marseille University, explored the use of EU soft law by Member States in the fields of EU competition and State Aids Law. STL Professor Duncan Alford, used the operation of Supervisory Colleges in EU banking supervision as a case study of how “soft law” became “hard law”. Jacopo Alberti, Professor from University of Milano, introduced the soft law of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and explored the reception of EU financial soft law in Italy and other EU Member States.
The third session was chaired by STL Professor Thomas Yunlong Man. Professor Eliantonio explored the EU environmental soft law and its effects at the national level from a comparative perspective. STL Assistant Professor Stephen Minas conducted an analysis of the current situation and explored the role of soft law in making finance environmentally sustainable in the EU and China. STL Assistant Professor CAO Fei discussed soft Law and the medical duty of care from the perspective of Chinese practitioners. Du Li, Assistant Professor at University of Macao, introduced the development of genetic technology and genetic research in China, and analyzed the role of soft law in promoting responsible and sustainable research and clinical practice.
The fourth session was chaired by STL Assistant Professor Joy Xiang. The author of Supreme People’s Court Monitor, STL Distinguished Scholar in Residence, Susan Finder, presented her observations and comments on China’s evolving soft case law system. STL Professor Mark Feldman, explored the development of soft law in a transnational context by tackling the G20 principles for Quality Infrastructure Investment and the Green Investment Principles for the Belt and Road. Rostam Neuwirth, Professor at University of Macau, also a visiting professor at STL, referred to the BRICS International Rule of Law Forum and analyzed the soft law nature of the treaties, as well as other materials produced by the BRICS Summit Meetings.
Maastricht Univerisity Professor Mariolina Eliantonio, and STL Professor Francis Snyder, delivered the closing speech. Professor Eliantonio summarized the content of the workshop and expressed her expectations for the development of soft law research while Professor Snyder concluded by once again thanking all participants. He hoped that the seminar would serve as an inspiring and rewarding experience that would allow the participants as well as the audience to productively engage the ever-growing field of soft law.
On November 16-17, 2019, Peking University School of Transnational Law (STL) successfully held the Second “International Conference on Facts and Evidence — A Dialogue between Law and History.” The conference was co-sponsored by the “2011 Plan” – the Collaboration Innovation Center of Judicial Civilization, STL, and the Institute of Evidence Law and Forensic Science of China University of Political Science and Law (Key Laboratory of Evidence Science, Ministry of Education). The conference built on the success of the workshop held at STL on September 14-15 . Under the same theme, that workshop brought together more than 20 distinguished jurists and historians from around the world to explore issues relating to fact-finding in the judicial process and historical research.
STL Dean Philip McConnaughay, China University of Political Science and Law Professor Zhang Baosheng and STL Professor Thomas Y. Man all delivered opening remarks expressing their warm welcome to all the participants and confirming the significance of the conference’s theme.
The conference consisted of six sessions. The first session explored major themes in law and history and was moderated by Q. Edward Wang, Professor of Rowan University. Professor Ronald J. Allen from Northwestern University commenced by reflecting on fact-finding in history, science and law, emphasizing points of difference and commonalities. Subsequently, Zhang Baosheng, Professor of China University of Political Science and Law made a comparison between fact-finding methodologies in evidence law and history. He emphasized that in evidence law evidential reasoning establishes a relationship between factual premises and judgment conclusions, and gave a detailed illustration of “the Inference of Best Explanation.” In response to that, Zhang Xupeng, Professor of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences discussed the use of evidence by historians. He thought that historians should explore the cultural meaning behind evidence. He also discussed how to use evidence typically not perceived as such to reconstruct the past.
STL Professor Francis Snyder moderated the second session “Facts and Proof: Concepts and Application.” Professor Clinton W. Francis from Northwestern University began by introducing the paradoxes and inefficiencies in modern judicial proof. He then explained the Semiotic Cycle and History of Language Development models in detail. He proposed that the paradox can be solved by increasing meta-communication. Professor Shu Guoying from China University of Political Science and Law analyzed three core concepts in law and history: facts, evidence and proof. He pointed out that “fact” belongs to the field of epistemology and needs to be proven by cognition. Finally, Aviezer Tucker, Associate Researcher of Davis Center for Russian & Eurasian Studies at Harvard University, discussed the generation of probable facts from testimonies in jurisprudence and historiography. He emphasized that multiple testimonies can generate more probable knowledge than each one and innovatively created a three-stage modular inference method.
The third session focused on “Evidence and Facts: Perspective from History” and was moderated by Zhao Lei, Professor of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Rowan University Professor Q. Edward Wang explored the use of oral testimonies through a case study of “comfort women.” Traditional view downplayed comfort women’s oral testimonies, but critiques from feminist scholars led by Chizuko Ueno urged both historians and jurists to reconsider the meaning of “facts.” University of Udine Professor Edoardo Tortarolo explored what “historical fact” is. He concluded that the notion of historical fact is itself a historical entity. He argued that historical and legal studies pursue different pragmatic and epistemic agendas. Legal facts have a direct performative consequence while historical facts only have indirect performative consequence. Tsinghua University Professor Zhong Weimin illustrated the subjectivity of historical study through distinct comments from historians towards Qishan. He also pointed out that subjectivity is inevitable in law. Bielefeld University Professor Zoltan Simon drew a distinction between judging the past and blaming the past and analyzed the risks of opting for the imprescriptible and toning down the sense of morality.
Under the theme of “Evidence and Facts: Prospective from Law”, the fourth session was moderated by STL Professor Mark Feldman. The session began with Professor David L. Faigman from University of California Hastings College of Law delivering his speech on fact-finding in constitutional decision-making. He distinguished between different kinds of facts concluding that constitutional doctrinal facts are part of law-making and should not be allowed to be considered by lower courts in subsequent cases, while constitutional reviewable facts and adjudicative facts apply uniquely to a particular litigation. Professor Raymond L. Solomon from Rutgers University analyzed the Elaine Massacre in America. Different narratives adopted by lawyers and reporters reflected the differences in treating evidence between law and history. Peking University Doctor Wang Ruijian, on behalf of Professor Chen Ruihua, discussed how to verify facts in criminal cases in China. He proposed an appropriate “grafting” between the subjective standard of “reasonable doubt” and the objective standard of “insufficient evidence.” Finally, Professor Stephan Landsman from DePaul University took the development in England’s Old Bailey Criminal Court during the eighteenth century to illustrate the development of adversarialism in England. He also analyzed the benefits as well as risks of the new adversarialism.
The fifth session focused on “Case Studies in History and Law” and was moderated by STL Assistant Professor Stephen Minas. The session began with Assistant Professor Berber Bevernage from Ghent University delivering his speech on The Adjudication of ‘Historic Injustice’ in Case Concerning the Former British Empire（2000-present). He pointed out despite some remarkable successes most of the colonial historic justice cases brought before UK courts remain unsuccessful and most British judges remain highly skeptical about cases venturing into historic justice. Professor Chen Jingliang from South Central University of Finance and Law delivered his speech which focused on Factual Cognition and Legal Reasoning in the Judicature of the Song Dynasty from the perspective of knowledge. Nanjing Audit University Doctor Chen Suhao discussed Plea Bargaining at the ICTY, rethinking its role in the process of fact finding at the ICTY. Tianjin Normal University Associate Professor Feng Jinpeng discussed the presumption of Guilt in the Trial of Socrates. He adopted a historical method and analyzed the particularities of Scoratic presumption of guilt.
Under the theme of “Seeking Truth in Law and History” the sixth session was conducted by Associate Professor Lin Jing from China University of Political Science and Law. Bard Graduate Center Professor Peter N. Miller focused on Objects as Facts. He cited various literature from China and foreign countries to present his research that objects are a particular kind of fact. STL Professor Thomas Y. Man’s speech was about Truth in History and in Law: Factfinding in Cross-disciplinary Context. He focused on the historical figure of Aaron Burr and proceeded to elaborate on factfinding in the court of history and of law. Professor Zhang Luping from China University of Political Science and Law focused on Chasing truth from the perspective of history, analyzing the effect of the textual development process on the narration of case facts before it is finally ascertained in trial.
In the closing ceremony, Moderator Zhang Baosheng invited three honored guests to deliver the closing remarks. Professor Ronald J. Allen from Northwestern University expressed his gratefulness to the committee which organized this international conference. Rowan University Professor Q. Edward Wang summarized the achievements of this two-day conference. STL Professor Thomas Y. Man expressed his thankfulness to all the people who have contributed to the successfulness of holding this international conference and his expectation to holding similarly meaningful conferences in the future.
On October 31, 2019, a delegation of high-profile government officials visited STL. The delegation included Liu Jin – the Director of Department of International Cooperation and Exchanges from the Ministry of Education (MOE), Yan Bingcan – the Senior Inspector of Department of International Cooperation and Exchanges from MOE, Wang YI – the Senior investigator of Department of International Cooperation and Exchanges from MOE, and Xu Jianling – the Vice Minister of Shenzhen Education Bureau. The delegation was welcomed by leaders from PKU Shenzhen including Tan Wenchang – the Party Secretary and Vice Dean of PKU Shenzhen, Yang Zhen – the Vice Dean of PKU Shenzhen, Zeng Hui – the Vice Dean of PKU Shenzhen, and Ren Ting – the Vice Party Secretary of PKU Shenzhen. It was also welcomed by distinguished members of the STL community, including Professor Thomas Man – the Associate Dean of Development at STL, Keru Chen – the Assistant Dean of Admissions and Administration at STL, and Cole Agar – the Director of International Program at STL.
During the visit, Professor Man discussed STL from three main angles: student enrollment, faculty and curriculums. He emphasized that STL is the only law school in the world that combines an American-style Juris Doctor degree (J.D.) with a China law Juris Master degree (J.M.). Moreover, he eloquently summarized STL’s mission as contributing to a Chinese legal profession that is equipped to serve an advanced economy based on technological innovation, financial services and internationalization. The International Program Director, Cole Agar, introduced the admissions and study program for international students. Director Liu Jin concluded that it is important to further foster the advantages of the existent educational program as well as proceed in extending the reach of international cooperation and partnership in education.
On January 9, 2020, a public lecture on “Recent Developments in U.S. Intellectual Property Law and Antitrust Law” was successfully held at Peking University School of Transnational Law (STL). This lecture invited Hugh C. Hansen, Director of the Intellectual Property Research Center of Fordham University in the United States, and Daryl Lim, Professor of Law and the Director of the Center for Intellectual Property (IP), Information & Privacy Law at the University of Illinois at Chicago John Marshall Law School, to share the latest developments in US intellectual property law and antitrust law, as well as its impact on China. Professor Susan Finder, distinguished scholar at residence at STL, chaired the lecture.
Professor Hugh C. Hansen has taught intellectual property law for many years. His focus is on the legal realist understanding of how courts, agencies, congress and the private sector interact with IP law and each other. In the same vein, he has founded and currently directs the Fordham Conference on Intellectual Property Law and Policy, now in its 25th year, and the Fordham IP Institute. The Director General of the WIPO called the Fordham IP Conference “the Davos of the IP world.”
Professor Daryl Lim is a multi-award-winning author, observer, and commentator of IP trends and how they influence and are influenced by law, technology, economics, and politics. He holds the inaugural Microsoft Professorial Fellowship at Fordham University School of Law’s Emily C. & John E. Hansen IP Law Institute and was awarded the 2019 Thomas Edison Innovation Fellowship by the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University.
In the lecture, Professor Hugh C. Hansen explored the theme of “What is the law?” from the perspectives of Intellectual Property, Legal Realism and the US law. He talked about three levels of courts in the United States, and they could apply different strategies to a case and affect the results of law and case law. He pointed out that the Constitution and the laws of the United States Congress had little impact on IP case law, while state regulations and case law had little impact on IP law.
Professor Daryl Lim introduced the current patents through the popular Chinese ancient drama “The Story of Yan’Xi Palace”. He introduced the current patents with the development of the most popular artificial intelligence, 5G and the Internet of Things , the interactive development of law and intellectual property and antitrust law . For example, he pointed out that China’s development level in 5G has attracted worldwide attention and discussion, and in the 5G competition, how will the latest progress in the field of antitrust law affect the United States, and what actions will the United States take to respond. At the same time, the international anti-monopoly case of Huawei in recent years also reflects the complex relationship between intellectual property rights and anti-monopoly law and its far-reaching impact.
After the speech, Mr. He Jing, a partner of Anjie Law Firm, made some comments on different situations between the U.S. and China under the development of Intellectual Property Law and Antitrust Law. During the Q&A session, the students and other practitioners also had a full and lively discussion with the guests on related issues.
On December 4th, STL Career Service Center and CIETAC South China Sub-Commission jointly held Law Career Panel on Litigation and Arbitration at STL. This Panel was moderated by Ms. Jin Xi, assistant to secretary general of CIETAC South China Sub-Commission. Ye Lu, partner of King & Wood Mallesons, Wang Chunge, director of Beijing Energy Holding Co., Ltd., and Chen Yaoquan, partner of TianTong Law Firm, were the guest speakers.
Ms. Ye is a senior partner of King & Wood Mallesons’ Litigation and Dispute Resolution Department. She has long been recognized as a leading expert in PRC-related dispute resolution in the Asia Pacific region, and as a leading lawyer in the field of dispute resolution by prestigious legal publications including Chambers China and Asian Legal Business. Ms. Ye is also a member of the Court of SIAC and chair of the One Belt One Road Subcommittee of IBA under Asia Pacific Forum.
Mr. Wang is currently a director of Beijing Energy Holding Co., Ltd., and vice chairman of China Maritime Law Association. He also serves as arbitrator and mediator in many arbitration institutions, such as CIETAC and SCIA. Before joining Beijing Energy Holding, he was the general legal counsel at China Merchants Group.
Mr. Chen is a founding partner of TianTong Law Firm. He is one of the lawyers that represented the largest number of cases before the Supreme People’s Court and obtain the highest winning rate. Mr. Chen has kept the “zero lost” record for many consecutive years. Many of his cases are viewed as leading cases that fill existing legal gaps.
At first, Mr. Chen shared his views on what it means to be a litigation lawyer. Mr. Chen shared his life experience of how he became a lawyer and partner at TianTong Law firm. Mr. Chen believes that good litigation lawyers have some shared qualities, including the sense of responsibility, the ability to cope with great pressure, creativity, and team spirit. Some basic skills are also required for litigation lawyers. The first is the ability of legal analysis and oral presentation. Litigation lawyers need to identify and summarize the core issues in large cases and explain it in a clear and concise way. The second is research skills, which requires an ability to retrieve relevant information and conduct in-depth research on the cases they represent. The last is writing skills. New beginners must adapt to the style of legal writing. They must put themselves in the judges’ shoes to write in a way that is easy for them to understand and accept.
Mr. Chen provided several suggestions on how to improve these abilities. First of all, “doing your best to accomplish your work is a prerequisite for making progress”. In addition, it is also very important to improve your shortcomings. Mr. Chen mentioned that there are several secrets behind TianTong’s high winning rate in court. First, TianTong lawyers will conduct an objective assessment before representing a case. Second, the lawyers diligently work on their cases, which has been recognized by judges. Third, TianTong lawyers will present their opinions in the most agreeable and persuasive way, minimizing the judges’ burden.
Later, Mr. Chen briefly introduced TianTong’s recruitment system and answered some questions raised by the students. In answering the question of the choice of place to practice law, Mr. Chen believed the convenience of commuting may vary from different places. Take Shenzhen as an example. Shenzhen has a good legal and business environment and a great potential for the development of the legal service market. Moreover, as an immigrant city, it satisfies the friendliness-to-outsiders factor. When asked about the systemization of China’s judicial cases, Mr. Chen believed that the quality of Chinese judicial opinions has been greatly improved due to the publication of judicial opinions. The systemization of cases requires the efforts of the entire legal professional community. TianTong only made a small contribution to it.
Next, Ms. Ye shared her views on the career planning of litigation lawyers. Ms. Ye held a positive view on the development prospects of Shenzhen and the Greater Bay Area. Shenzhen’s economic development features innovation. A large number of innovative private enterprises were born here, one of the most dynamic regions in the Chinese economic landscape. However, compared with Beijing and Shanghai, the legal service market in Shenzhen has a large gap in terms of business volume, law firm income, and professionals, which also means that it has great potential of growth. Then, Ms. Ye shared an international arbitration case she had formerly handled, and described how her team turned the difficult case to a win and received the respect of their counterparty. This case fully illustrated the importance of details and persistence. It also emphasized that lawyers engaged in international arbitration must understand the rules and learn to make use of the rules to defend their clients.
As for career advice, Ms. Ye suggested that students have various options to consider. Apart from litigation, there is a large number of non-litigation legal services in need. Engaging in non-litigation practice requires lawyers to have certain knowledge of a particular industry and requires understanding client needs. For students who wish to engage in international dispute resolution, a good mentor can provide them with much guidance. They can consider starting at an international law firm with a perfect training system. Ms. Ye also mentioned that with the development of society and technology, the forms of legal services may also undergo huge revolutions. Students need seriously consider alternatives before deciding to be a lawyer. In the end, Ms. Ye took Haben Girma, the first blind graduate of Harvard Law School, as an example to encourage young students to face the pressures and dilemmas they might face with a positive attitude with which they can identify and develop their talents.
Later, Mr. Wang shared his suggestions on career planning for in-house counsel. Mr. Wang first introduced the evolution of legal department in the state-owned enterprises, and pointed out that in-house counsel is playing a more and more important role in state-owned enterprises. Generally speaking, integrity, legal analysis skills, communication skills, team spirit, management and industrial knowledge are required for in-house counsel. In addition, with the implementation of the Belt and Road initiative, people who have both good foreign language skills and legal knowledge are in great demand in enterprises.
Next, Mr. Wang talked about his views on the relationship between the management and in-house counsel. He believes that the duty of in-house counsel is to identify legal risks and to provide solutions, while the management is responsible for balance between business opportunities and legal risks. Nowadays, in-house counsel has become a career option with both challenges and flexibilities that are worth considering.
After the three guest speakers’ speeches, Ms. Jin Xi briefly introduced the professional development in arbitration institutions. The job in arbitration institutions is stable, which can provide us with the whole picture of dispute resolution, and better understanding of the cases. With Chinese enterprises engaging in international business, more and more parties have chosen arbitration as the form of dispute settlement. Thus, arbitration has a good prospect for development in China and is, as such, also a good career choice.
During the Q & A session, guest speakers shared their views on dealing with pressure. Mr. Wang believes that pressure exists in all kinds of occupations. The key is to learn to turn the stress into motivation. By solving the problem, we will gain a sense of accomplishment and release from the stress. Ms. Ye believes that people face different pressures at different stages, which is more common for lawyers. Young people should improve their ability to resist pressure. Instead of being self-centered, they should consider themselves as part of a team, accumulating experience in the teamwork step by step. When asked about the prospects of maritime legal services, Mr. Wang believed that maritime law often involve technical issues and international disputes. With the implementation of Belt and Road, maritime law is undergoing integration with other transportation law. People with broad knowledge and good legal skills will gain more advantages in the job market. For students who are interested in international arbitration, Ms. Ye suggested that they can apply for relevant academic programs to learn more about the rules and culture of international arbitration. On the choice of place of practice, Shenzhen is adjacent to Hong Kong, and can draw many advanced experiences from Hong Kong, and is thereby a good choice to consider.
Finally, the career panel ended successfully with warm applause. The communication with top law professionals in different fields improved the students’ understanding of the industry and provided insight towards the students’ career planning.
Professor Joy Y Xiang was appointed a Visiting Fellow at the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law (“NUS Law”). As a Visiting Fellow, Professor Xiang spent two months in residence at NUS Law pursuing her research, attending workshops and meetings, and contributing with seminars to the Singapore legal community. Professor Xiang was invited to talk on Cleantech Innovation at a seminar jointly organized by the Asian Law Institute and the Asia-Pacific Center for Environmental Law at NUS. Professor Xiang was also invited to talk on IPR Management in International Cleantech Cooperation at a seminar organized by the Applied Research Center for Intellectual Assets and the Law in Asia at the Singapore Management University. Professor Xiang thanks Dean Philip McConnaughay and Professor Norman Ho (who held the same appointment in 2017) at PKU-STL for their support to her appointment.
Professor Xiang’s research focuses on exploring ways to enhance innovation and collaboration. Her current research project is on global cleantech development and deployment; three law review articles have resulted from this project. Professor Xiang’s teaching includes U.S. and International IP, Patent Law, IP in East Asia, and IP Strategies.
STL students were provided with the opportunity to test their advocacy skills, legal research, and legal writing skills through the 2019 STL Intramural Moot Court Competition on December 1. STL students were invited to join the competition by submitting a written argument on behalf of one side in a fictional U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the liability of a corporation that offers paid services for creating “deepfakes,” then argued in preliminary, quarter-final and semi-final rounds to determine which four participants would qualify for the final round.
This is the second Intramural Moot Court Competition organized by STL’s Moot Court Board, a group of upper-level students who previously represented STL in moot court competitions.
Four STL 2L students, Li Yumo, Xie Zihan, Xu Yanhua and Zhang Tiying advanced to the finals. Each finalist presented their arguments before a panel of three judges: Frank Li, Partner at FangDa, Teng Haidi, Partner at King & Wood Mallesons, and Zhang Haomiao, an STL alumna and Senior Associate at King & Wood Mallesons. The judges were impressed by all four finalists. Zhang Tiying received the prize for Best Oralist from the judges. Xie Zihan received the prize for Best Memorandum representing appellant from the Moot court Board. Wu Ruoxin and Xie Yan received the prize for Best Memorandum representing appellee from the Moot Court Board.
Students who have been selected through Intramural Moot Court will have the opportunity to apply to STL’s Moot Court Program, which sends teams to several national and international moot court competitions each year, including the Willem C. Vis International Arbitration Competition, the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot, the Stetson International Environmental Law Moot, the Frankfurt Investment Arbitration Moot.