Xiao Mao is a research student at the University of Oxford, where she is sponsored by the Rhodes Scholarship. Her research is supervised by Professor Dan Sarooshi QC.
She holds an Msc in International Crimes and Criminology from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, an LLM in International Law from University College London with distinction, and an LLB from Shanghai Jiao Tong University with distinction. She also devotes herself to international law in various other capacities, e.g. as an affiliated expert and a research associate for a Pro-bono Law Firm (Public International Law and Policy Group-NL), as a Focal Point for NGOs (Chinese Initiative on International Law based in China and in the Hague), as a researcher for Research Centres (e.g. the Centre for Tokyo Trial Studies at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Centre for International Criminal Justice at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) and as an editor for legal journals and blogs (Asian Journal of Law and Society, Amsterdam Law Forum). She has made presentations at several academic symposiums and published several peer-reviewed articles on legal journals in Chinese and English. Besides the Rhodes Scholarship, her study and research were sponsored by a number of scholarships and awards, such as the VUFP/Orange Tulip Scholarship, National Scholarship awarded by the Chinese Ministry of Education, KoGuan Scholarship (twice) and Chun-Tsung Scholarship etc.
Her research interest lies in public international law, international dispute settlement, international criminal law and war law.
- The legacies of Tokyo Trial have been overlooked and questioned partly because prosecuting aggression was allegedly a violation of the principle of legality. This essay argues that the trial should not be overlooked for this reason because the legality debate at the trial provides insights into the interplay between the principle of legality and sources of international criminal law. Besides the majority judgment, some minority opinions could shed light on the nature of the Tokyo Charter by distinguishing between jurisdiction and applicable law and link the issue to the legality challenge. Although the Tokyo Charter was formally different from the Nuremberg Charter, both of them are substantive in nature so that the tribunals were allowed not to address the legality challenge. In addition, prosecuting aggression was arguably not a violation of the principle of legality because this principle, at that time, did not bind ex post facto legislation against international crimes committed during World War II.美、英等国以自卫权的名义对叙利亚境内的恐怖组织“伊拉克和黎凡特伊斯兰国”进行武力打击涉及《联合国宪章》第51条自卫权意义上的“攻击”是否必须归因于一国的问题。美、英等西方国家试图以叙利亚“不愿意或不能够”打击恐怖组织为由扩张自卫权的行使范围。本文通过分析《联合国宪章》第51条的文本、国际法院的判例和相关国家实践检验现行国际法规则，认为美英等国及部分西方学者所提出的对自卫权意义上“武力攻击”发动主体的广义解读尚未成为国际社会普遍接受的国际法规则，但在国际社会反恐行动日益迫切以及“国际法范式转移”背景下此种解读或成为应然法。DOI: 10.13806/j.cnki.issn1008-7095.2017.05.008国际社会一直致力于打击和惩治海上暴力犯罪,但由于对海上暴力犯罪进行惩治的国际法律体系存在着管辖权破碎的问题,致使缺乏对犯罪行为人(尤其是海盗团伙、恐怖团体的领导人)进行惩治的有效手段。随着海上暴力犯罪的恐怖主义化,以及有组织跨国集团参与到诸如海盗犯罪、暴力危及海上航行安全罪、海上恐怖主义等犯罪中,海上暴力犯罪行为开始愈发的残暴,并出现大量死伤等危害人类情形。针对以上情形,根据《国际刑事法院罗马规约》中关于危害人类罪管辖条件、构成要件等规定,国际刑事法院在满足一定条件下可以对海上暴力犯罪中的危害人类情形依危害人类罪予以管辖。ISBN: 1008-7095
Public international law, international dispute settlement, international criminal law, war law
Blog posts by Xiao Mao