Editors' Foreword

“International”is indeed the key word for this third volume of Peking University Journal of Legal Studies.Not only are the authors from Brussels, Hamburg, New York, Oxford, Shanghai and Beijing, and most of them graduated from and feel attached with PKU Law School, but in addition their papers address issues of international significance such as the WTO and Lehman Brothers, peruse cases with international impact like Coca-Cola/Huiyuan, and explore ways of improvement for Chinese contract, company, and financial laws by drawing on international experiences.Meanwhile in the symposium section, three articles elaborate from different perspectives on the principles and measures to enhance intellectual property rights protection in China.Finally, a statistical study conducted by Shenzhen Stock Exchange researchers provides the readers with a vivid picture of the current China's capital markets and their regulatory enforcement.

Rainer Kulms's Lehman's Spill-over Effects: Cooperation v.Regulatory Arbitrage? , reviews the meltdown of Lehman and its aftermath.Lehman had been a multinational conglomerate relying on regulatory arbitrage and insouciant about negative externalities in the event of a bankruptcy.European and non-European jurisdictions had to come to terms with the implications of regulatory arbitrage for Lehman's retail structured products.Financial conglomerates questioned the belief that the negative externalities could be contained by comity and cooperative behaviour in the context of cross-border insolvency proceedings.Alternatively, cooperative solutions may be achieved through private party insolvency protocols or cross-border government intervention.As the credit market disruption crept in, the European Union stepped up its cri sis management proposing regulatory intervention.On an international level, cooperation produced efforts to anticipate systemic risk by devising early warning mechanisms.This does not yet amount to a substantive public international law rule on cross-border coordination.

Li Xiaoling's Expired Peace Clause: Claims under WTO's Agreement on Subsidies&Countervailing Measures and Agreement on Agriculture, exams the evolution of GATT/WTO discipline on agricultural subsidies over the past 60 years and shows that the gap between agricultural subsidies rules and general rules on subsidies has been widening.The breadth of this gap, however, is to some extent dependent on how one deals with the relationship among the AOA, SCM and GATT 1994.The WTO jurisprudence has repeatedly dictated that the AOA, SCM and GATT 1994 provisions should be interpreted harmoniously and applied simultaneously and cumulatively.However, research on the specific relationship between the AOA and SCM in concrete scenarios reveals that such an approach would lead to, in many circumstances, more stringent discipline on agricultural subsidies than those on industrial subsidies. Although this result might effectively promote trade liberalization in agriculture, it runs counter to the intentions of the Uruguay Round negotiators.

Zhang Huyue（Angela）'s Problems in Following E.U.Competition Law: A Case Study ofCoca-Cola/Huiyuan, reveals that China's Ministry of Commerce（MOFCOM）in the Coca-Cola/Huiyuan case appeared to have applied the portfolio effects theory adopted in some E.U.and Australian cases; however, MOFCOM may have failed to realize that this theory is often based on the prediction of exclusionary effects of conglomerate mergers that are too remote and speculative, leading to potential high cost of error and an over-deterrence of efficient transactions. Moreover, the study shows that there has been an increasing international consensus that conglomerate mergers rarely pose anticompetitive effects, and recent E.U.cases have required the European Commission to satisfy a high burden of proof in cases of portfolio effects.Additionally, this paper examines the problems of using the AML to protect domestic small-and medium-sized firms.Finally, the paper discusses the enforcement challenges facing MOFCOM and the need for China to introduce more checks and balances into the merger control regime.

Jon Woo-Jung's The Assignment of Receivables under the Chinese Contract Law and Some Suggestions, discusses the assignment of receivables and regulations on securitization in China.China enacted the Contract Law in 1999, and issued several administrative measures to facilitate securitization.There have been growing securitization practices in China, which shows strong developments of the Chinese financial sector.However, this article also points out weak points of Article 80 of the Contract Law, which deals with the assignment of receivables, and the administrative measures for securitization.By comparing the Chinese system with those of other major jurisdictions such as the U.S., England, Germany, France, the Republic of Korea and Japan, suggestions are made which Chinese jurists might well consider in order for China to move into the centre of world finance.

Ge Weijun's Prohibition ofFinancial Assistance under International Perspectives: A Possible Model for Chinese Company Law, deals with one corporate law issue, namely, the control of the financial assistance from the company.The general purpose behind such financial assistance legislation is to assure that a person uses his or her own assets, not the company's assets, to buy that company's shares.Therefore any form of financial assistance is prohibited, so as to avoid the reduction of company assets which may prejudice the interests of the creditors and the minority shareholders, and to prevent market manipulation and management misfeasance.Upon defining financial assistance, this paper outlines the different models of prohibition in the UK and the US, and then gives some suggestions for Chinese law.

Zhang Ping's For Fairness, Reasonableness, and Non-Discrimination: Necessity to Limit Patent Rights Incorporated into Standards, discusses the necessity to limit rights in patents incorporated into technological standards by examining the reasons for the introduction of technology standards to the patent field; it also analyzes the justifications for such limitations by examining patent policies of current Standard Setting Organizations（SSO）and related judicial practice.Nowadays, setting technology standards for products inevitably involves“piling, overlapping, and interdependent”patents.To fulfill the goal of“fairness, reasonableness, and non-discrimination”, patent rights so incorporated into standards should be subject to appropriate limitations.

Liu Yinliang's Justification of the Criminal and Administrative Enforcement ofIntellectual Property Rights in China: Historical Contexts and Contemporary Scenes, asserts that the criminal enforcement of intellectual property rights has been an international issue drawing much attention recently.By examination of the historical context and present situation regarding the legislation of intellectual property laws in China, this article justifies the criminal and administrative enforcement of intellectual property rights and explores their respective roles in the construction of the intellectual property system.It is argued that while criminal procedures and penalties could provide deterrence to intellectual property crimes, administrative remedies could also help control and punish intellectual property infringement or counterfeiting that may injure the public interest.China has established a unique system for the enforcement of intellectual property rights that complies with the TRIPS and other international treaties.

Yang Ming's The Legal and Economic Analysis on the Cross-Class Protection of Well-Known Marks, demonstrates the fact that the crossclass protection of well-known marks is a widely understood theory and system in the field of trademark law, but the boundaries of such protection are obscure and many debates are raised.In China, the legislation surrounding the protection of well-known marks is fruitful, but the problem still remains.There are two main reasons for this: first, the words used in the legislation are very abstract, and second, cross-class protection has been excessively emphasized.As a result, the standard is seldom uniform when the legislation is applied in judicial practices.For this reason, building a method to analyze the boundaries of protection for well-known marks is needed, so that the relating legislation can be used as a target in judicial practice, and the protection of well-known marks will not be excessive.

Cai Yi, et al.'s A Statistical Analysis on Administrative Sanctions against Securities Violations in China（2007—2009）, is aimed at assessing the implementation of administrative sanctions in the securities market of the People's Republic of China（PRC）, from an empirical perspective based upon specific statistical analyses.A comprehensive comparative study is therefore conducted on the manner of disposal, types of administrative sanctions, number of sanctioned entities and persons, a mount of pecuniary penalties, and annual case closure ratios from several different perspectives in respect of the securities enforcement cases in the years of 2007—2009.Based on the collected information, the authors carry out statistical analysis using six dimensions（violations, violators, amount of pecuniary penalties, and comparisons of pecuniary penalty data between SOEs and private companies, between Shenzhen and Shanghai markets, and between the Main Board and the SME Board of Shenzhen market）and reach some preliminary conclusions.Additionally, relying on the annual reports and data released by various securities and futures regulators（including the US, the UK, Germany, France, India and the Hong Kong area of China）, the authors examine general information on administrative sanctions for securities violations in other jurisdictions and provide a preliminary comparison with such sanctions in the PRC.