The doctrine of ‘best interests of the child’ has guided courts in determining post-divorce child custody cases in Taiwan since 1996 amendments to the Civil Code. Amended Article 1055-1 requires judges to consider factors such as ‘the age, sex, and wishes of the child’ and ‘the age, occupation, character, health condition, economic condition, and lifestyle of the parents.’ However, previous studies have not clarified which factors judges consider primary. This article collects Taiwanese family court decisions from 2012 to 2017, involving 1,126 children whose parents were both Taiwanese and who both sought to acquire custody, in which Taiwanese district courts granted sole custody to the husband or wife. The article employs decision tree methodology, a commonly used machine learning technology. The article concludes that the three most significant factors considered by Taiwanese judges are first, which parent is the child's current primary caregiver, followed by the wishes of the child and the judge's assessment of parent-child interaction. This result runs counter to widely held beliefs that parental gender and parents’ occupations and economic resources are still prime factors in judges’ contemplation. Decision tree learning, we suggest, can assist parents’ and lawyers’ case evaluations and speed up extrajudicial custody determination arrangements.

General equality rights in written constitutions – rights stating the ideal of equality without specifying categories of impermissible differentiation – have often been effected through the idea of equality as rationality. Equality as rationality demands that differentiations between like entities have to be rationally justifiable. Such equality rights are applicable to legislation and executive action. This presents a prima facie overlap with substantive review in common law administrative law, since substantive review is also concerned about the rational justifiability of executive action. This raises three questions: (1) Are both sets of legal principles indeed similar? (2) Have courts managed to distinguish them in practice? (3) If not, then given that both sets of legal principles exist at different levels in the legal order, how can their similarity be rationalised? This article will study these questions, drawing upon Hong Kong and Singapore law as test cases.

The COVID-19 pandemic is reshaping the landscape of Chinese dispute resolution. The aim of this article is to outline China's various approaches to such development in times of global pandemic. The article primarily examines the features of online arbitration in China with a special focus on the significance of party autonomy and the authority of the tribunal in handling virtual hearings. This trend prompts the question as to whether virtual hearings and the use of digital technology ensure the protection of data and privacy. Further, the article analyses the impacts of online dispute resolution on litigation and different sets of new rules adopted in China to handle online hearings. It concludes that China successfully addressed most of the raised questions in terms of data and privacy protection, and that the processes through which dispute resolution becomes increasingly digitalised seems to be an irreversible trend that warrants further research into its consequences.

Countries across the world expanded digital surveillance strategies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As the pandemic occurred contemporaneously with a global trend toward greater digital repression, commentators advanced the notion that China would use the health crisis to promote a technology-enabled form of authoritarian governance abroad. This article surveys the evidence for these claims by first examining the literature on the increase of digital surveillance associated with China and then presenting three case studies from developing countries with varying responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The selected countries – Brazil, South Africa and Vietnam – used surveillance technology as part of their pandemic response and have either been influenced by Chinese approaches or adopted Chinese technology in recent years. Examining these case studies allows us to better understand claims regarding China's role in the general spread of digital surveillance and the interplay between Chinese state objectives and local political environments. Crucially, we illustrate how China's engagement in digital governance abroad is heavily contingent on domestic environments. Against a backdrop of China's growing influence in global digital governance, the effects observed in these case studies of Chinese surveillance models and technology proliferating through pandemic management are diffuse and contextualised by local factors.

The narrative that banks, government departments and state-owned enterprises are the foremost protagonists in shaping China's outbound capital flows has been a commonplace view. This article seeks to expand the focus to include other under-scrutinised players: lawyers. With reference to exporting industries (such as shipping and natural gas), this article explains how lawyers – in tandem with China's governmental and judicial organs – have shifted from enabling outflows to postponing them, as a result of China's Covid-19 force majeure regime. Even with capital on pause, Covid-19 has also kept lawyers busy, prompting them to think about how to maximise their firm's proximity to the clients they have and to new clients that they want to win. Accordingly, this article also provides an overview of the techniques used by predominantly Anglo-American law firms to gain access to new legal markets during Covid-19, with a view to winning more work from Chinese capital-exporters and their foreign counterparties.