Columbia Journal of Asian Law

Regulating Cyberspace in Vietnam: Entry, Struggle, and Gain

Ha N. Nguyen — 2022-08-17

This study explores the evolution of cyber regulation in Vietnam since its inception, that is from the events of January 1997, when cyberspace first arrived in Vietnam, to the momentous protests instigated by the Cybersecurity Draft Law in June 2018. A Vietnamese cyber regulatory regime is imagined as an analytically constructed regulatory space where different actors enter, struggle, and gain in their pursuit of regulatory interests. The study argues that cyberspace in contemporary Vietnam has aided non-state actors to participate in the law-making and regulatory processes by inducing state actors to respond with cyber laws, regulatory approaches, and measures. Moving beyond the dichotomy of cyberspace as an inevitable tool for liberation or oppression, Vietnamese cyberspace has been both an instrument for non-state actors to participate in lawmaking, and a regulatory measure for state actors to regain control. A sociological landscape in contemporary Vietnam is depicted through the evolution of a Vietnamese cyber regulatory regime, shaped by dynamic interactions between domestic actors. In sharp contrast to the previous image of an authoritarian Vietnam, cyberspace has aided contemporary Vietnam to metamorphose into a more pluralistic society where organically formed social actors co-regulate cyberspace.

What Lessons can the Luckin Coffee Scandal Offer to Australia–China Cross-Border Listed Companies’ Supervision? Problems and Reform Suggestions in China

Qi Guo — 2022-08-17

The continuous disclosure compliance of Chinese cross-border companies listed in Australia has long been a concern, as Chinese companies are either frequently delisted or rejected by the Australian Securities Exchange. The particularity of cross-border listings generates information asymmetry between securities regulators based out of the host jurisdiction and the home jurisdiction. This then impacts the effectiveness of the host jurisdiction’s supervision of the cross-border listed companies and each company’s continuous disclosure compliance. The purpose of this article is to clarify the issues surrounding cross-border supervision by the securities regulators in China to shed light on current dilemmas and suggest possible reform proposals. Considering the similarities of the securities markets in the US and Australia, as a case study example, this article looks at Luckin Coffee, a US-listed Chinese company, which created a scandal in 2020 when it was accused of continuous disclosure fraud. The case points out relevant lessons for Australia–China securities cross-border supervision.

Antitrust Remedies: A Comparison Between the Cases against Alibaba and Facebook

Yueting Chen — 2022-08-17

Antitrust Remedies: A Comparison Between the Cases against Alibaba and Facebook

Interpreting “Settled Abroad” in China’s Nationality Law: Theory, Practice, and Problems

Jisen Zhang — 2022-08-17

The globalization of China and active international migration across Chinese borders involving millions of people have made understanding Chinese nationality law an issue of tremendous importance. In recent years, disputes concerning nationality have arisen out of undefined terms in the Nationality Law. At the center is the term “settled abroad,” which impacts the nationality of those who acquire foreign nationality and children born to overseas Chinese citizens. The limited literature and legislative interpretations do not clearly define the term. A thorough analysis shows that “settled abroad” means permanent or long-term residency and generally does not scrutinize the length of the actual residence period except for a complete absence of actual residence or undocumented migration. This Note further examines all publicly available cases disputing nationality in the past seven years to understand the judicial practice. It turns out Chinese courts also refrain from inquiring about the actual residence period in non-criminal cases. In recent years, the sensitive nature of the issue and the discoordination among authorities have prevented amendment or interpretation of the nationality law.

This Note makes two key contributions to the literature. First, it provides a much-needed interpretation of the key provisions in Nationality Law that have profound implications for millions of people. In contrast to prior literature, which often lacks sufficient comparison and analysis, this Note addresses all prior discussions in a comprehensive way. Second, it is the first work that applies empirical methods to examine how Chinese courts apply the Nationality Law. Finally, this Note also offers several explanations for the stagnant amendment of the Nationality Law from a policy angle.