During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, a number of international cruise ships were infected, thereby resulting in serious public health and human rights problems. Multiple difficulties were encountered in the prevention and control of the coronavirus disease onboard ships, while rule-based international cooperation in this regard appeared inefficient and ineffective. By applying interdisciplinary methodologies, including empirical research of law, policy science, and health studies, this research reviewed the legal difficulties in the prevention and control of COVID-19 on international cruise ships and sought solutions from a policy-making and strategic perspective. We found that, apart from the inherent nature of cruise ships such as crowded semi-enclosed areas, shared sanitary facilities and limited medical resources, there are also nonnegligible legal reasons affecting the effectiveness of containment measures on board. In particular, there is ambiguity and even inconsistency of relevant international norms and domestic regulations, and some of the key rules are neither mandatory nor enforceable. We conclude by suggesting that rule-based international cooperation on this issue must be strengthened with respect to information sharing and management, a more effective supervisory mechanism, clarification of key rules over jurisdiction and distributions of obligations among the port states, flag states, nationality states, and cruise ship companies.

The rise of the synthetic opioid epidemic has time and time again brought criticism on China and India, the world’s two main producers of fentanyl and its chemical precursors. In the past few years, the two countries have attempted to strengthen regulations over fentanyl production and distribution, though its effects on global drug governance remain under scrutiny. This study used qualitative and comparative methods to investigate the current regulatory landscape for fentanyl, including its efficiency and potential loopholes in China and India. It concludes that although both China and India are actively and significantly attempting to step away from the global fentanyl supply chain, these efforts remain ineffective due to institutional loopholes, namely inadequate legislation and fragmented regulatory structures. From insights gained on global drug governance, we recommend a binding international convention concentrated on controlling fentanyl and its related substances, with further bilateral and multilateral cooperation among states as necessary complementation.

Advanced artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are now widely employed in China’s medical and healthcare fields. Enormous amounts of personal data are collected from various sources and inserted into AI algorithms for medical purposes, producing challenges to patient’s privacy. This is a comparative study of Chinese, United States, and European Union operational rules for healthcare data that is collected and then used in AI functions, particularly focusing on legal differences and deficiencies. The conceptual boundaries of privacy and personal information, the influence of technological development on the informed consent model, and conflicts between freedom and security in rules of cross-border data flow were found to be key issues requiring consideration when regulating healthcare data used for AI purposes. Furthermore, the results indicate that the appropriate balance between privacy protections and technological development, between individual and group interests, and between corporate profits and the public interest should be identified and observed. In terms of specific rule-making, it was found that China should establish special regulations protecting healthcare information, provide clear definitions and classification schemas for different types of healthcare information, and enact stricter accountability mechanisms. Examining and contrasting operational rules for AI in health care promotes informed privacy governance and improved privacy legislation.

The ASEAN‐inaugurated Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) was eventually concluded on 15 November 2020 after 8 years of tough negotiations. India was counted as an important member of the RCEP, but it chose to back out when other members were finalizing the RCEP legal text. This article critically analyzes the relevant legal provisions leading to India's withdrawal from this significant mega trade deal, the reasons behind India's refusal of those provisions, the possibility of isolationism India might face, and geopolitical changes in Sino–India relations post stand‐off on the Galwan Valley as well as the COVID‐19 pandemic. It argues that unbalanced economic relations, India's self‐reliant ideology, as well as China's growing hegemony in the Asia‐Pacific region are among the principle factors for India to back out from the RCEP. However, the door to participate in the future remains open for India.

International arbitration, as a neutral, flexible, efficient and binding legal means of dispute resolution, has been effective in settling maritime delimitation disputes, especially in recent years since the UNCLOS came into force. There are a number of reasons (i.e. advantages) for its increased popularity. Reasonable expectations thus arise as to its applicability onto similar maritime delimitation disputes of the East Asian countries whose diplomatic efforts have mostly failed to address these matters. This article examines this practical issue primarily from the legal perspective by reviewing relevant international rules including the UNCLOS provisions on compulsory dispute resolution and cases such as the ongoing Philippines-China arbitration over the South China Sea. Observations are also made from the political and cultural perspectives as well. It concludes that, though multiple dispute settlement means are still encouraged, international arbitration could be an important alternative for East Asian countries seeking a peaceful solution to their maritime delimitation disputes.