It is widely held that there are no indigenous roots in China for the rule of law; it is an import from the West. The Chinese legal tradition, rather, is rule by law, as elaborated in ancient Legalist texts such as the Han Feizi. According to the conventional reading of these texts, law is amoral and an instrument in the hands of a central rule who uses it to consolidate and maintain power. The rule is the source of all law and stands above the law, so that law, in the final analysis, is whatever pleases the ruler. This essay argues, to the contrary, that the instrumentalism of the Han Feizi is more sophisticated and more principled than the conventional reading recognizes. It suggests that, by examining the text of the Han Feizi through the lens provided by American legal theorist Lon Fuller, we can observe an explicit articulation of what Fuller called the internal morality of law. The principles of this morality are elaborated and their importance explained. In this way, the Han Feizi is retrieved as a significant reference point for thinking about legal reform in China today.

This article reviews the main patterns of Asian migration in Europe and the ways in which Europe today has become 'multicultured' with Afro-Asian legal diversities. It discusses the limited role which Asian states have played in the processes of emigration and settlement. It further examines the status of the laws transplanted by Asian migrants and their descendants in Europe and the ways in which Asian diasporas in Europe are engaging in new hybrid patterns of socio-legal navigation and reconstruction. The article is critical of European legal orders as not having reacted adequately to these patterns of Asian legal reconstruction but also urges Asian legal scholars to investigate this underexplored field in more detail.

Asian countries increasingly see the need for uniform or harmonised law at least in commercial matters, but the adoption of international uniform laws has nonetheless often been slow in many parts of Asia. How should Asia harmonise its laws? Should there be an Asian harmonisation or should Asian nations simply adopt internationally negotiated uniform law? Do the internationally negotiated laws sufficiently take into account the legal traditions of Asia or are they simply compromises between the main Western legal traditions (civil and common law)? Using the CISG as an example, the author readily concedes that it does not take into account non-Western legal traditions but argues that Asian nations should nonetheless adopt such international instruments. First, for better or for worse, either Asian Western civil law or Western common law is the formal law in force in commercial matters in most Asian countries and therefore any harmonisations of these formals laws would be useful in Asia. Furthermore, the adoption of these formal international instruments in Asia would allow Asians to (more informally) influence their interpretation and make sure that they are applied taking into account Asian experiences and values.

Defamation law is complex and requires the parties to be very clear about their strategy from day one of the action, especially in relation to the 'meaning' of the allegedly defamatory words. The meaning of the words determine, amongst other things, the extent that discovery must be made and the range of evidence that can be put forward by the parties. However, there is often confusion over the meaning of the words, especially in relation to the justification and fair comment defences. As such, it is argued that in all defamation actions the court should make a compulsory ruling on meaning shortly after the close of pleadings.