Peiran Wang

Extraterritoriality is the prominent turning of economic sanctions against Russia as the response to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, with aiming of the circumvention sanctions. This article focuses on whether the extraterritorial application of EU restrictive measures necessarily violates international law. For the third-party states, do they have international law obligations to comply with the jurisdiction of the EU? Beginning with the overview the sanction regime of the EU against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, the author outlines extraterritorial sanctions exceed the confines of the territorial principle of jurisdiction, exploring the compatibility between extraterritorial sanctions and countermeasures of the third-party, codified in Article 50, the UN Charter, and the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), 2001. When economic sanctions as measures that are consistent with the sanctioning state’s international obligations, which does not require some form of separate legal justification. The author concludes that what extraterritoriality of restrictive measures the EU has imposed on Russia in response to its aggressive war in Ukraine is the constructive role in upholding rule-based international order when they are under the clarified international legal conditionality. The practices of EU’s extraterritorial sanction against Russian suggest that could lead to a turning point in international sanctions practice, whereby the imposition of extraterritorial sanctions would be perceived as legitimate means to ensure the effectiveness of some specific sanctions regimes with aims of upholding international norm.

The extraterritoriality of U.S. export controls has become an increasingly important constraint on independent European defence-industrial cooperation, procurement, and technology transfers. Yet legal authority alone cannot explain why U.S. regulations are able to influence the decisions of governments and firms operating outside American jurisdiction. This article argues that the effectiveness of U.S. export controls depends on broader structures of technological and industrial dependence embedded within transatlantic defence-production networked relations. Drawing on geoeconomics, economic statecraft, and theories of structural power, it examines how U.S. technological centrality enables export controls to generate regulatory power beyond territory and how this influence has created tensions with European strategic autonomy and technological sovereignty. The article analyses the recent efforts of European single defense market-building are and will be under constraints by the extraterritorial application of U.S. export controls, as responses to these structural vulnerabilities. It argues that legal contestation has produced only limited results because it does not address the underlying dependencies that make export controls effective. European defence-market integration should therefore be understood not only as a project of defence-industrial modernisation, but also as an attempt to reduce external dependence and rebalance technological and industrial power within the transatlantic defence economy.

As a rising power, China has cautiously undertaken international responsibilities such as regional stability and peace. This has included the dispatching of blue helmet and engineer troops under the UN framework to assume mine-clearing and infrastructure (re)construction in post-conflict regions. Moreover, China has accepted the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) norm, which it endorsed at the World Summit in 2005 and later under UNSCR 1674. China has accepted the RtoP principle despite its traditional doctrine of non-intervention and its “Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence”. As put forward by Zhou Enlai when he received an Indian government delegation on 31 December 1953, nonintervention is central to the “Five Principles” as they refer to mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. Fifty years on, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao (2004) called the “Five Principles” “the cornerstone of China’s independent foreign policy”. At the same time, China remains persistently cautious about the non-consensual use of force and is reticent about applying sanctions, particularly when these measures are not fully backed by relevant international and regional organizations. This ambivalent attitude and behavior relates to China’s UN diplomacy, domestic realpolitik and the country’s strategic culture.

With the improvement of living standards and the development of the Chinese medicine industry, the elderly has an increasingly strong demand for disease prevention and health care and rehabilitation. Based on the current research, it has been found that Chinese medical exercises such as Yijinjing can regulate qi and blood, relieve tendon and activate collaterals, strengthen physical fitness, prevent and treat diseases, and have obvious health and rehabilitation value. It has attracted the attention of many scholars. This paper will briefly explain the significance of massage techniques of Yijinjing in the health care and rehabilitation of the elderly.

Background: Inhibitors of B‐cell CLL/lymphoma 2 (Bcl‐2) family proteins have shown hope as antitumor drugs. While the notion that it is efficient to coordinate, balance, and neutralize both arms of the anti‐apoptotic Bcl‐2 family has been validated in many cancer cells, the weights of the two arms contributing to apoptosis inhibition have not been explored. This study analyzed the best combination ratio for different Bcl‐2 selective inhibitors.Methods: We used a previously established mathematical model to study the weights of Bcl‐2 (representing both Bcl‐2 and Bcl‐xL in this study) and myeloid cell leukemia‐1 (Mcl‐1). Correlation and single‐parameter sensitivity analysis were used to find the major molecular determinants for Bcl‐2 and Mcl‐1 dependency, as well as their weights. Biological experiments were used to verify the mathematical model.Results: Bcl‐2 protein level and Mcl‐1 protein level, production, and degradation rates were the major molecular determinants for Bcl‐2 and Mcl‐1 dependency. The model gained agreement with the experimental assays for ABT‐737/A‐1210477 and ABT‐737/compound 5 combination effect in MCF‐7 and MDA‐MB‐231. Two sets of equations composed of Bcl‐2 and Mcl‐1 levels were obtained to predict the best combination ratio for Bcl‐2 inhibitors with Mcl‐1 inhibitors that stabilize and downregulate Mcl‐1, respectively.Conclusions: The two sets of equations can be used as tools to bypass time‐consuming and laborious experimental screening to predict the best drug combination ratio for treatment.