Through a comparative analysis of the criminal laws of Sri Lanka and the United States, this paper examines how Sri Lanka’s legal framework on sexual offenses often hinders women’s access to justice and reinforces systemic gender discrimination. Recognizing the structural constraints inherited from older common law traditions, it underscores the potential for reform through targeted, gradual changes, drawing on developments in modern common law in the United States and relevant international legal standards. The discussion unfolds in three parts: first, a feminist critique of exiting criminal laws in postcolonial; common law systems such as Sri Lanka’s; second, a comparative analysis of laws on sexual offenses and related legal frameworks in Sri Lanka and the United States; and third, a set of reform-oriented recommendations for Sri Lanka, informed by United States legal practice and international laws.

In 2017, the Japanese penal code was amended to broaden protections for victims of sexual assault. However, pressure mounted for further protections after several decisions on cases involving rape shocked the nation in 2019. In 2023, the penal code was amended again including to raise the age of consent to 16 and broaden the definition of rape to include nonconsensual sexual acts. This comment examines the history of rape law in Japan, introduces challenges that victims of sexual assault face when trying to seek justice, and analyzes the first cases determined under the amended code. Finally, it looks to the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany on how to improve access to justice for victims of sexual assault in Japan. Ultimately, Japanese courts appear to be recognizing previously unrecognized psychological factors that victims of sexual assault face. However, it is too early to tell whether the code changes alone will greatly improve how the rate of rapes that are reported and prosecuted.

In a wide range of situations, the law in different jurisdictions requires that a person who has been unjustly enriched at another’s expense make restitution to the other. However, what justifies the liability for unjust enrichment? This fundamental question has perplexed unjust enrichment scholars, especially in the common law world, for decades, with various justificatory ideas being proposed while no consensus has been reached. This article explores the justification of the law of unjust enrichment within the context of China’s historical, legal, and social frameworks for the first time. A historical review reveals that the notion of unjust enrichment has been persistently reserved in China after its transplantation through different historical periods due to its conformity with China’s most influential philosophical tradition: Confucianism. Therefore, this article proposes a rational explanation for unjust enrichment liabilities through a Confucian lens. This innovative Confucian account complements existing Western theories of unjust enrichment.

Mainland China traditionally upheld the one-share-one-vote (OSOV) principle. Since 2019, however, Chinese authorities have introduced the dual-class equity structure (DCES) for innovative enterprises. Due to investor-protection concerns, China’s DCES operates on a “stringent approval system,” with only eight corporations listed under DCES as of December 31, 2024. This Article provides a comprehensive policy analysis of the Chinese DCES system, including empirical analyses of the eight existing cases. It explores legal and economic aspects of investor protection within China’s DCES, examining “three sets of investor safeguard measures”: (1) “three numerically specified rules” (e.g., 10% equity rule, 10-time voting-right rule, and 2/3 voting-right rule); (2) sunset provisions (event-driven and time-based); and (3) rules converting special-voting shares into shares with one vote (e.g., conversions in an amendment to the articles of association, the appointment and removal of independent directors, and mergers and control contests). Addressing tunneling concerns, this Article argues for “DCES with enhanced investor protection.” To foster entrepreneurship, the Chinese authorities should gradually relax the stringent approval system for DCES. This relaxation is crucial for China, as escalating tensions with the United States have significantly impacted its DCES-IPO markets. Additionally, the DCES-IPO market in Hong Kong remains inactive, underscoring the need for viable DCES-IPO markets in Mainland China.

This paper seeks to offer a fresh perspective into the Chinese Communist Party’s (“CCP”) implementation of lawfare to assert dominance over Taiwan. Rather than viewing lawfare as one doctrine with one outcome, this paper aims to reorganize lawfare in its many uses, identifying the three primary categories that the CCP uses to extend its sovereignty over Taiwan: (1) using law to legitimize a nation’s own goals, (2) using law to delegitimize an adversary’s actions, and (3) weaponizing an adversary’s laws. This paper seeks to analyze and recharacterize current and historical events in terms of these three lawfare categories, demonstrating how the CCP is using lawfare to prepare the battlefield for an impending conflict in Taiwan.