Frequently Asked Questions
2020 Vol. 28, No. 3 Published: 27 March 2020
Politics and Law
On the EU Blocking Statute
2020, 28(3): 50-66 | Full text
(1 KB) | PDF
(1150 KB) (
After the Trump administration took office, aggressive economic sanctions have been implemented by the US government overseas. The abuse of extraterritorial jurisdiction has been opposed by countries around the world and it directly leads to the renewal of the EU Blocking Statute. Currently, nearly all major economies have blocking statutes. Typically, blocking statutes not only block the effect of other countries’ extraterritorial laws at the national level but also provide private remedy mechanisms at the individual level. The EU Blocking Statute is typical of contemporary blocking statutes and it currently applies to certain US economic sanctions against Iran and Cuba. The EU Blocking Statute covers all the three core mechanisms of typical blocking statutes: Firstly, it blocks the legal effect and implementation of specific US laws in the EU. Secondly, it prohibits relevant entities from complying with specific US laws. Thirdly, it allows relevant entities to claw back damages caused by specific US laws. Although there are shortcomings to be improved for the EU Blocking Statute, it had been undoubtedly playing an important role in protecting the EU and European entities against specific US laws, providing important bargaining chips for the EU in political negotiations with the US and influencing the implementation of the US economic sanctions for a long time. China is one of the few major economies in the world that do not have blocking statutes. Due to China’s special position in the international political and economic system, the enactment of a blocking statute is of special significance to China. The blocking statute currently makes the most important part of China’s fivelevel mechanism in coping with US economic sanctions. In the lawmaking process of the blocking statute, China should give full considerations to its diplomatic and political needs as well as its own traditional legal practice and learn from the experience of various countries, especially the EU, in terms of the legislative models, core mechanisms, designation of foreign laws, application procedures, methods of penalties and so on.
Pushing Ahead 21st Century Maritime Silk Road Initiative
Historical Logic behind the Rise of Malacca Strait: Zheng He’s Seven Voyages to the West Seas and Malacca
2020, 28(3): 94-102 | Full text
(1 KB) | PDF
(987 KB) (
The Malacca Strait used to be unknown in history. Internationally, it was used to call the strait in Malacca, which was named after the famous international port of Malacca. Malacca derived from Melaka(满剌加), which is a transliteration. The strait got a special name in the early 15th century with the rise of the Melaka Kingdom (满剌加王国). The rise of the Strait was inseparable from the rise of the Melaka Kingdom and Zheng He’s seven voyages to the West Seas. This article provides a further analysis of Zheng He’s seven voyages, in which Melaka was visited each time. Presently, it’s commonly acknowledged that Zheng He had been to Melaka for five times. Zheng He’s first voyages to Southeast Asia and onward had eliminated the piracy problem in the Strait, ensuring the security of the Strait, which played a vital role in the rise of the strait. From the perspective of global history, our research on Zheng He’s voyages not only explores the trajectory of how China has unveiled the great voyage of mankind in the Ming dynasty but also probes into major issues of how to view and understand global history. An exploration of the rise of the Malacca Strait could provide an insight into how Zheng He’s voyages have changed the world. The rise of the Strait was the result of the heyday of the maritime Silk Road in the early 15th century and was a successful example of cooperation and win-win international relations in history. The farreaching significance was to become an inflection point of global history and profoundly affect the progress of human history. It means that the center of human interaction had turned from the Eurasian continent to the sea, symbolizes the irreversible trend of building a community with a shared future for mankind towards the ocean, and indicates that the transition to the Pacific era based on the rise of the Strait depends not on the Westerners’ voyages to the east after nearly a century.
Copyright © Editorial Board of Pacific Journal