Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Euro-American human rights scholarship has depicted an over-simplified account of China's human rights issues that emphasizes a confrontational nature of Sino-Western dialogue on human rights. But a picture of an unyielding and nationalistic China inevitably leaves out the story of a rapidly evolving China that has certainly been locked in an irreversible path of development of market-oriented economy, which calls for deeper and more comprehensive reform in her political structure. China needs a head-to-toe reform in executive, legislative and judicial branches that facilitates further economic growth and maintains social stability. Unprecedented challenges require brand new solutions, and stability must be sustained through change. China has to learn from countries, IGOs, and NGOs familiar with the principles of liberal democracy that correspond to a market-oriented economy. China has realized and steadily addressed that need, especially after her accession into WTO. And her recognition of those challenges reflects a sense of rising self-confidence about her survival and prosperity in the near future. Acknowledging the constantly creative tension between economic development and corresponding legal-political structure would help us better understand human rights and democracy in today?s China without uncritically endorsing Chinese government?s developmentalist argument. Although Western countries have failed in almost every attempt at the annual meeting of UN Human Rights Commission to raise concerns about China?s human rights condition, and Beijing?s compromises in response to international human rights protest during the 1990s were at best passive, tactical, and sporadic, international socialization efforts have undergone through alternative channels and approaches: bilateral human rights dialogues, cooperation projects of judicial reform, official or non-official assistance in codifying new laws, programs of legal scholar/practitioner exchange, etc. On another front is establishment of transnational linkages between China?s grassroots NGOs (not those sponsored by government) and their foreign/international counterparts in various issue-areas, like environmental protection, gender, HIV/AIDS, education, cultural activities (Morton 2005). Quantity and quality of these dialogues and cooperative projects have grown exponentially after China?s accession to WTO in 1999.However, projects of China?s legal-judicial reform based upon Sino-Western communication and cooperation have only recently become an object and interest of Western scholarship. We have learned that China?s recalcitrant attitude has prompted Western countries, IGOs and non-governmental advocacy organizations to shift their approach from public shaming and multilateral pressure to bilateral dialogue and selective cooperation. But we are not sure what factors caused an accelerated, booming Sino-Western communication and cooperation on human rights issues since the late 1990s. Could it be attributed to a changed and softened approach of socialization efforts? Is it due to a growing degree of interdependence between China and the World economy, especially when China was working on her WTO membership? Or maybe an updated perception of Chinese leadership concerning international socialization efforts has created a more conciliatory environment that made cooperation and joint projects easier. These questions have been rarely visited. Furthermore, not only do we know so little about which countries, which IGOs, and which NGOs/Foundations have been involved in what projects at which level, and who their Chinese counterparts are, but we also lack a probe into the efficacy of Western engagement in China?s legal-judicial reform: how much, and in what aspect, has Sino-Western human rights dialogue and cooperation influenced China?s legal-judicial reform? Have at least some Western proposals and advices been incorporated into those newly codified or re-written laws? These questions should be worth my pursuing in order to have a better grasp on the extent to which China has embraced international socialization efforts.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Informant and witness directories on the Internet reflect the conflict between defendants’ due process rights to build defenses for themselves and the interests of the government in protecting individuals and prosecuting criminals. This conflict may arise in organized crime cases, for instance, which have relied significantly on the testimony of witnesses, some of whom may face threats or reprisals.
These directories, such as whosarat.com, characterize themselves as tools to level the playing field for defendants in federal criminal cases. By their reckoning, defendants would not otherwise have the means to compete with the more extensive investigative resources of state or federal law enforcement agencies. For instance, they cite defendants’ needs for material with which to impeach informants or law enforcement officers, who would testify for the prosecution at trial.
However, such directories may also endanger or intimidate informants and law enforcement officers. With their identities publicized, agents may no longer operate safely or effectively in an undercover capacity, for instance. Likewise, informants may feel intimidated, to the extent that they refuse to cooperate, or even suffer reprisals for their publicized association with the government.
This paper will weigh defendants’ due process rights to build defenses for themselves against the government’s interests in protecting individuals and prosecuting criminals. The paper will also attempt to offer a legal standard that strikes a balance between the conflicting rights and interests of defendants and the government.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Traditionally, there are two approaches to theorizing global justice—one statist and the other cosmopolitan, and scholars debating over this subject often have to choose between the two extreme approaches. In this article, I argue that we need to move beyond the debate by advancing a middle way approach, and Rawls’s the Law of Peoples represents such an alternative.
In his theory of global justice, Rawls insists that the Law of Peoples must be worked out by adopting a two-stage approach to the use of original position, and because of this approach, the difference principle that he advances in A Theory of Justice does not apply in global context. Rawls’s approach to global justice has drawn much criticism from scholars who favor a more egalitarian or cosmopolitan approach. From their point of view, Rawls’s Law of Peoples comes close to what Allen Buchanan caricatures “rules for a vanished Westphalian world”. Against these cosmopolitan critics, I argue that Rawls’s two-stage approach better fits the global context for two reason: first, because Rawls’s political liberalism is more reasonable than comprehensive liberalism favored by cosmopolitan liberals; second, the moral standing of the state cannot be easily dismissed as cosmopolitan liberals often do.
At the level of substantive issues, cosmopolitan liberals justify applying the difference principle at the global level by employing various arguments, most notable of which are: first, the argument from interdependence and circumstances of justice; and, second, inequality of bargaining power and the erosion of background fairness. Against these arguments, I argue that the difference principle cannot be applied directly to the global context because the global context is qualitatively different from the domestic context in that the international society does not constitute a social union of social unions. In addition, I argue that cosmopolitan liberals must embrace the idea of a world state if they are to realize their ideal. The fact that they are hesitant to embrace such an institutional arrangement gives us one more reason to prefer a middle way approach.