On July 14, the international academic conference "Law and Economic Development in the Context of Globalization," hosted by the Law and Economics Research Institute, was successfully held at the Haidian Xueyuan Road Campus. More than 60 experts and scholars from nearly ten countries, including China, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, the United States, Australia, and Singapore, attended the conference to discuss cutting-edge issues in global economic and legal development.

Vice President Shi Jianzhong attended the conference and delivered a speech. On behalf of the university, Shi extended a warm welcome to all participating experts and scholars from China and abroad. He noted that the process of globalization has undergone significant changes over the past decade and is currently facing numerous challenges. Thus, researchers need to adopt new perspectives and methods when discussing the relationship between law and economic development.Shi further emphasized that artificial intelligence has profoundly impacted globalization, with the transition from weak AI to strong AI reshaping the organization and regulatory frameworks of international trade and commerce. He pointed out that in addressing the challenges of globalization, countries must reassess the relationship between law and economics and explore new mechanisms for cooperation and regulation. He expressed hope that this conference, through in-depth academic exchanges and discussions, would advance innovative research in law and economics under globalization and provide new theoretical support and practical insights for high-quality global economic collaboration.

The conference was divided into four sessions: "Keynote Speeches," "Economic Analysis of Law," "Empirical Research in Legal Studies," and "Theories of Regulation and Governance." Chinese and international experts engaged in heated discussions on frontier issues in law and economics, including the interactive relationship between bankruptcy law reform and economic development, artificial intelligence and financial regulation, revisions to company law, and major trends in regulatory governance.The successful hosting of this conference provided a high-quality academic exchange platform for global scholars in law and economics, fostering research collaboration between Chinese and international academics. It also contributed theoretical support for the high-quality development of China's rule of law and the transformation and upgrading of its economic development.

Session 1: Keynote Speeches

(1) Professor Li Shuguang, China University of Political Science and Law: "The Interaction Between Bankruptcy Law Reform and Economic Development"

In his keynote speech, Professor Li Shuguang focused on three main aspects: the relationship between business survival rates and market exits, personal debt discharge and individual bankruptcy, and the role of bankruptcy law reform in promoting economic development. First, Professor Li emphasized the close connection between bankruptcy law reform and economic growth. He argued that the number of registered enterprises is not an accurate indicator of the business environment; instead, attention should be paid to enterprise survival rates—whether businesses are operational, employ workers, and contribute taxes. By comparing survival rates in the U.S., the U.K., and the EU, he observed that China's enterprise survival rate is relatively low, with many "zombie enterprises" existing. Additionally, the number of businesses exiting the market in China last year was far fewer than the number of new registrations, indicating that bankruptcy law has been insufficient in facilitating market exits. Next, Professor Li addressed the lack of an individual bankruptcy law and its impact on economic development. While Shenzhen has piloted a personal bankruptcy regulation, reorganization procedures dominate over liquidation, reflecting inadequate protection for personal debtors. He stressed the necessity of enacting an individual bankruptcy law to stimulate economic vitality. Finally, Professor Li highlighted the comprehensive nature of bankruptcy law reform, including expanded applicability, restructuring for small and micro-enterprises, family business consolidated bankruptcy, financial institution bankruptcy, and cross-border insolvency. He argued that these reforms would profoundly impact financial risk prevention, economic recovery, and structural transformation. His speech underscored the importance of bankruptcy law reform in promoting economic growth, optimizing the business environment, and protecting the interests of creditors and debtors, offering a healthier and more sustainable legal framework for national economic development.

(2) Ted Chu, Chief Economist, Millennium Institute: "Artificial Intelligence and Financial Regulation—Belief, Balance, and Coordination"

Ted Chu explored the interaction between artificial intelligence (AI) and financial regulation, emphasizing AI's transformative role in promoting global sustainable economic development. He noted that despite long-term stagnation in global economic growth, compounded by challenges such as the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, AI holds tremendous potential as a disruptive force. Unlocking AI's potential, however, requires a fundamental rethinking of its integration into the economy. Chu highlighted that while the financial services industry has been at the forefront of AI adoption, it has not yet experienced a paradigm shift. The highly regulated nature of the financial sector can stifle innovation. Current regulatory responses, he noted, are largely reactive to incremental AI advancements, such as addressing intellectual property issues and fraud involving AI-generated content. To harness AI's transformative capabilities, Chu advocated for structural reevaluation, recognizing AI's unique autonomy and distinguishing it from traditional tools. He suggested adopting a holistic approach, treating the technological environment as part of a socio-technical ecosystem, and aligning regulatory advances with technological progress. Financial innovation, he argued, should focus on activities that positively contribute to the real economy. A well-regulated system should encourage collaborative, win-win interactions among market participants, including AI. Chu further discussed innovative regulatory frameworks that could guide AI applications in finance, offering incentives and reducing compliance costs. He emphasized the need to balance innovation, safety, and regulatory objectives, highlighting AI's potential to aid regulators in achieving more effective oversight. In conclusion, Chu stressed the importance of aligning AI development with global values and ethics, fostering rational AI advancement through effective regulation.

(3) Professor Deng Feng, Peking University Law School: "Ill-Fitting Adjustments and a Market-Blind Approach: A Review of the 2023 Company Law Amendments"

Professor Deng Feng critically analyzed China's 2023 Company Law amendments in his keynote address. He began by acknowledging the highlights and positive aspects of the revisions, such as reinforcing the constitutional foundation of the law, clarifying voting rights in shareholder and board meetings, addressing procedural deficiencies, aligning with international standards, and simplifying certain provisions. However, Deng pointed out shortcomings, including inadequate consideration of asymmetries among different types of companies and insufficient distinction between limited liability companies and joint-stock companies. He argued that the amendments over-relied on organizational law theories while neglecting the multidimensional nature of companies as market entities, including issues like equity transfers and control rights. This disconnect from market realities could lead to more corporate deadlocks and shareholder disputes. Deng also predicted that the amendments might result in governance issues being resolved through judicial intervention rather than market mechanisms. This reliance on courts could lead to increased litigation and internal friction, rather than fostering the healthy development of companies.

(4) Professor Stefan Weishaar, University of Groningen Faculty of Law: "New Developments in EU Climate Change Policy: A Law and Economics Analysis of the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism"

Professor Stefan Weishaar provided a detailed analysis of recent developments in EU climate policy, focusing on the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) from a legal and economic perspective. He noted that while the goals of the Paris Agreement aim to limit global temperature increases, current trends are not promising. Despite progress in the EU's emissions reduction policies, the worsening climate crisis underscores the urgency of global cooperation. Weishaar emphasized that CBAM is not a protectionist measure but an environmental policy tool aimed at internalizing carbon costs in line with the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). CBAM encourages importers to choose cleaner products and pressures foreign producers to reduce emissions. The EU’s ETS, covering about 40% of carbon emissions, remains the primary tool for climate policy but requires further strengthening to address future challenges. Rising carbon prices could lead to production shifts to countries with less stringent emissions regulations, creating "carbon leakage." CBAM addresses this by requiring importers to pay a carbon price equivalent to the EU's for goods entering the market. This mechanism not only incentivizes foreign producers to lower emissions but also ensures transparency and compliance in production processes. Currently covering industries such as hydrogen, electricity, fertilizers, cement, aluminum, and steel, CBAM will be implemented in phases, with full enforcement planned for 2026. While it may increase the cost of imported goods and influence global trade patterns, Weishaar concluded that CBAM plays a critical role in global emissions reduction and environmental protection, offering a valuable perspective from law and economics.

Session Two: Economic Analysis of Law

(1) Professor Wei Jian from Shandong University Zhongtai Securities Financial Research Institute: "Investor Protection, Capital Market Efficiency, and Corporate Innovation—New Evidence from the Revision of the Securities Law"

Professor Wei Jian's presentation focused on the impact of the revised Securities Law on investor protection, capital market efficiency, and corporate innovation. He analyzed four main research questions: Can improvements to the investor protection legal framework promote corporate innovation? How does enhanced investor protection influence corporate innovation? What mechanisms drive the impact of enhanced investor protection on corporate innovation? How do factors such as corporate ownership structure, separation of control and ownership, and competitive business environments affect this relationship? Professor Wei's team conducted rigorous empirical analysis and found that the revised Securities Law, particularly its strengthened investor protection framework, significantly boosts corporate innovation output. Key mechanisms include alleviating corporate financing constraints, reducing short-termism, and increasing investor risk tolerance.

Discussant: Assistant Professor Wu Yuhao, Peking University School of Law

Assistant Professor Wu Yuhao praised the report's contribution to public policy evaluation in social sciences, highlighting its relevance to empirical legal research. He also provided suggestions for refining the use of methods such as difference-in-differences analysis.

(2) Dr. Friedemann Roy, World Bank - International Finance Corporation: "Global Economic Outlook and Its Impact on Emerging Market Real Estate Dynamics"

Dr. Roy examined the global economic outlook and its dynamic effects on real estate markets in emerging economies. Key points included: Residential markets showed resilience post-pandemic despite rising interest rates and limited supply. Commercial real estate suffered negative impacts, with some sectors requiring restructuring or repositioning. Unique characteristics of emerging markets, such as mortgage dynamics and borrower demographics, contributed to residential market resilience. Dr. Roy also discussed climate change’s impact, such as hotter urban climates and rising sea levels, suggesting low-carbon, digital, and demographic-sensitive urban designs as responses, creating significant investment opportunities for emerging markets like China.

Discussant: Associate Professor Ren Zeyu, CUPL Institute of Law and Economics

Professor Ren highlighted the dual challenges and opportunities posed by climate change for emerging markets and emphasized the regulatory and financial distinctions between China and other emerging economies. He suggested tailored strategies to address constraints like limited purchasing power among younger demographics.

(3) Associate Professor Dai Xin, Peking University School of Law: "The Justification for Applying Strict Liability to AI Torts"

Professor Dai Xin explored the inadequacies of traditional fault-based liability in addressing AI torts, citing issues like the "black box" challenge and unclear liability attribution. Using economic models, he argued that strict liability, by considering precautionary costs and social welfare, is a more appropriate attribution model for AI-related torts. He also proposed introducing insurance mechanisms to enhance compensation effectiveness.

Discussant: Associate Professor Wu Zhicheng, Renmin University of China School of Law

Professor Wu concurred with the challenges of fault-based liability and addressed concerns about strict liability's potential innovation-stifling effects. He suggested incorporating case analyses into the report to enhance its practical relevance.

(4) Professor Zhang Qing, CUPL Institute of Law and Economics: "Rethinking the Ownership Framework for Health Data"

Professor Zhang Qing discussed whether health data should be subject to property rights. He highlighted the multifaceted nature of health data, including its clinical, personal, and economic values, and critiqued overly simplistic assumptions about its ownership. He argued that health data lacks the foundational characteristics of traditional property and that assigning ownership could increase transaction costs without adding significant protection beyond existing privacy laws. Instead, he advocated for substantive protection mechanisms that ensure stakeholder participation and emphasize cooperative frameworks over exclusivity.

Discussant: Assistant Professor Li Wenjing, CUPL Institute of Law and Economics

Professor Li emphasized the practical significance of protecting personal health data, noting the challenges of balancing conflicting interests and ensuring data security. She proposed specific measures to prevent data breaches while maintaining usability.

Session Three

(1) Professor Jeroen van der Heijda of the Australian National University: "Major Trends in Regulatory Governance: From Deterrence to Cooperation and Back to Deterrence"

Professor Van Der Heijda outlined the historical development of regulatory governance. Since the 1950s, and especially since the 1980s, academia has increasingly moved away from viewing regulation merely as the specific implementation of laws or a tool for managing market activities. Regulatory governance has gradually been defined as a broad, structured, and ongoing process intentionally carried out by individuals or collectives ("regulators"). Regulatory governance achieves its intended goals through various means, including standard-setting, monitoring, enforcement, and rewards and penalties. Traditionally, regulation was understood as hierarchical, intrusive, deterrence-based, and enforced through one-size-fits-all static rules. However, over the past 50 years, regulation has shifted towards more collaborative, mixed-incentive, goal-based, flexible, and customized models. This transformation is reflected in several aspects. For example, responsive regulation seeks to resolve issues through cooperation, avoiding escalation to more stringent measures. Risk-based regulation draws on private sector risk management strategies, with regulators adopting "nudging" measures supported by behavioral theory, and increasingly relying on self-regulation, co-regulation, and voluntary regulation. However, regulatory governance still faces multiple challenges, including regulatory blind spots, the reform of existing regulatory systems, how to create synergies amid multiple crises, and addressing the rising populism and anti-science attitudes. To address these issues, academia should continue to collaborate in research, cultivate a new generation of regulatory experts, promote and document best practices in regulatory practice, and remain vigilant against the risks of innovating for innovation's sake.

Discussant: Assistant Professor Xu Shudan, Institute of Law and Economics, China University of Political Science and Law

Assistant Professor Xu Shudan reviewed the presentation and discussed two issues concerning regulation in China. The first is regulatory capture, primarily occurring in the financial sector. Due to China’s more centralized administrative system, businesses may exploit regulatory capture to gain competitive advantages and eliminate institutional barriers. The second issue is overregulation, which, although not apparent in the current context, is still a widespread concern globally. Overregulation raises the issue of how to regulate the regulators, especially when they make mistakes or exceed their authority. The speaker suggested addressing these issues by introducing regulatory innovations such as meta-regulation, self-regulation, and responsive regulation, which could partially alleviate these challenges.

(2) Professor Zhang Wei, Vice Dean of Singapore Management University: "The Overlooked Reality of Shareholder Activism in China: Ignoring Western Expectations"

Professor Zhang Wei's lecture focused on shareholder activism in China, revealing the actual situation of Chinese shareholder activism through the manual collection of receipts. The research found that shareholder activism in China is thriving, particularly in the past five years, with a significant number of major shareholder actions. The success of these actions is not significantly affected by whether the target company is a private or state-owned enterprise. In fact, when private shareholders challenge large state-owned enterprises, their success rate exceeds fifty percent. In contrast, when state-owned shareholders initiate activist actions against private enterprises, their success rate is less than fifty percent. As China progresses in its marketization process, it has gradually formed a rule-based market where shareholder activism is primarily driven by market forces, rather than systemic political intervention. This finding challenges the traditional Western view that the corporate governance environment in China is heavily influenced by politics and emphasizes the trend of China developing into a more rule-based legal system in recent years. Professor Zhang pointed out that although political forces may play a role in certain boundary situations, overall, shareholder activism in China is mainly driven by market forces, which is important for understanding corporate governance in China and future policy development.

Discussant: Assistant Professor Chi Shunyu, Institute of Law and Economics, China University of Political Science and Law

Assistant Professor Chi Shunyu provided commentary on Professor Zhang Wei’s lecture. Professor Chi pointed out that shareholder activism in China is mainly promoted through three channels: institutional investors, state-owned shareholders, and investor service centers, which is highly valuable for research in the current market context. The commentary agreed with the research conclusion that, due to the presence of regulatory agencies in China, the corporate governance level of state-owned enterprises is often not weaker than that of private enterprises and may even be better. The research used an insightful method, comparing the success rate of shareholder activism based on the nature of shareholders and enterprises. However, the commentary also suggested that in addition to studying the success rate of shareholder activism, it is essential to focus on the number of activist actions initiated by shareholders.

(3) Associate Professor Yu Xiaohong of Tsinghua University and Associate Professor Ma Chao of the University of International Business and Economics: "The Nexus of Law, Finance, and Politics: Local Government Debt and Illegal Fundraising in China"

The lecture by Professors Yu Xiaohong and Ma Chao, set against the backdrop of shadow banking and local government financing platforms, explored the impact of local government financing platform debt on local financial markets and its relationship with local governments in combating illegal fundraising. The lecture pointed out that local government financing platforms are an important tool for local governments to bypass direct debt issuance restrictions, using shadow banking and wealth management products as their main sources of financing, which has driven infrastructure projects and economic growth. However, this reliance has also led to significant crowding-out effects, forcing the private sector to increasingly rely on informal finance, which in turn has led to a rise in cases of illegal public deposit absorption and fundraising fraud. The lecture highlighted that the local government's focus on illegal fundraising activities is positively correlated with the enforcement of illegal public financing cases, especially in areas where the issuance of local government financing platform debt is high. Furthermore, mayors with financial work experience can mitigate the negative impact of excessive debt issuance on the enforcement of illegal fundraising. The study used multiple data sources and regression models to verify the impact of local government debt issuance, fiscal pressure, and government attention on illegal activities, and conducted robustness checks to further confirm the reliability of the results. The research conclusion emphasizes the interaction between local government debt, shadow banking, and informal finance in the complex political and economic environment, as well as the importance of the legal and institutional framework. These findings are significant for understanding China’s local government debt management and financial regulatory policies and provide valuable perspectives for future research.

Discussant: Professor Gong Di of the University of International Business and Economics

Professor Gong Di provided commentary on the lecture. He first summarized the content of the lecture. The study explored the relationship between local government debt and illegal fundraising, analyzing data from the Supreme Court and panel regressions at the city level, finding a positive correlation between local government financing platform debt and the number of illegal public financing cases. The research pointed out that the increase in local government financing platform debt has created a classic crowding-out effect in local capital markets, leading to more informal financial activities. Illegal fundraising cases are seen as a proxy variable for the degree of informal finance. The paper used text analysis methods to collect and analyze shadow banking and illegal fundraising cases from 2013 to 2019, finding that the rise of shadow banking is related to the restrictions on loans to local government financing platforms by banks. Although the study provides empirical evidence on how the increase in local government financing platform debt impacts informal financial activities, there are still challenges in identifying causality. The research emphasizes the complex relationship between law, finance, and politics and reveals the important role of local government financing in promoting illegal financial activities.

(4) Professor Xu Wenming of the Law and Economics Institute, China University of Political Science and Law: "Unveiling the Overlooked Civil Litigation for Securities Information Violations in China: Empirical Evidence from Listed Company Announcements"

Professor Xu Wenming's lecture explored the background, characteristics, and development trends of civil litigation related to securities information violations in China. Information disclosure violations in China's securities market have long been a topic of concern, but the actual application of civil litigation has been relatively limited. With the judicial reforms in 2015 and the revision of the Securities Law in 2019, the number of civil securities lawsuits has significantly increased, especially after 2019, with both the number of cases and the amount of claims rising notably. The lecture pointed out that nearly all of the companies being sued had previously been subject to administrative sanctions, showing an interdependence between public enforcement and private litigation. Sample data shows that from 2002 to 2023, 200 non-financial listed companies were sued in first-instance trials for information disclosure violations, and 462 companies were administratively punished for information violations. Although the number of civil lawsuits has increased year by year, the actual number of cases might be underestimated due to delays in court procedures. The research also found a positive correlation between the severity of violations (measured by the length of administrative procedures) and the likelihood of lawsuits. Overall, Professor Xu emphasized the important role of China's civil litigation mechanism in protecting investor rights, improving market transparency, and enhancing governance, while also pointing out the challenges and limitations of the current system in practice. These findings are significant for understanding the legal and regulatory environment of China's securities market and provide valuable insights for future institutional improvements.

Discussant: Professor Tang Yingmao of Fudan University

Professor Tang Yingmao pointed out that the data used in the research came from listed company announcements, administrative sanctions, and court litigation documents, making it a valuable near-complete sample study. He also noted that China's litigation mechanism is not identical to that of the United States. Many securities lawsuits in the U.S. end in settlements, making it difficult to see court outcomes from the data, but the data from China provides a good research sample. He suggested that future research could combine the characteristics of Chinese securities litigation with U.S. litigation to conduct studies over a longer time span.

Session 4

(1) Associate Professor Chen Tianhao of the School of Public Administration, Tsinghua University: "Revealing the Dynamics: The Impact of Bureaucratic Structure on Antitrust Enforcement in China's Digital Platform Industry"

Professor Chen Tianhao's report explored how different organizational structures and their vertical and horizontal changes affect antitrust enforcement. Antitrust enforcement is influenced by both professional logic and political logic. The former refers to enforcement decisions made based on professional judgment (strong professional logic/weak professional logic); the latter emphasizes responding to political loyalty (strong political logic/weak political logic). The report argues that the organizational structure adopted by administrative agencies affects antitrust enforcement, because decision-makers are of limited rationality and thus need organizational structures to assist in decision-making. Organizational structures mainly include horizontal and vertical structures. The former refers to how tasks are distributed at the horizontal level, while the latter refers to how substantial authority is distributed vertically across different levels of government. The article empirically analyzes the vertical decentralization of China's antitrust enforcement agencies, showing a shift from decentralization to centralization, and uses the Sina merger case as an empirical analysis to explore the impact of this decentralization change on antitrust enforcement.

Discussant: Associate Professor Gui Binwei of the Law and Economics Institute, China University of Political Science and Law

Professor Gui Binwei pointed out in the discussion that the focus of the report is on the overlooked organizational structure, particularly the ambiguity in defining organizational structure. The report proposes a new set of standards for studying organizational structure. Previous studies have often been descriptive, without addressing the causal relationships of organizational structures. The report measures organizational structure using the standards of horizontal professional specialization and vertical specialization, leading to two logics: one being professional logic, the other being political logic. Horizontal specialization influences professional logic, while vertical specialization affects political logic. Loose or centralized horizontal specialization results in loose or centralized professional input, and loose or centralized vertical specialization leads to more freedom or higher political loyalty.

(2) Assistant Professor Jonida Milaj-Weishaar of the University of Groningen: "The EU's Data-Driven Innovation: A Legal and Economic Perspective"

Professor Jonida Milaj-Weishaar proposed that the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has introduced a risk-based regulatory approach, which supports innovation in the digital economy but may undermine the effectiveness of traditional rights-based regulatory methods in protecting individual rights. In the current EU data governance practice, the difficulty of reconciling these two approaches is increasing. A typical manifestation of this is the weak enforcement trend in data law across EU member states. From the data on administrative penalties in various member states, issues such as inconsistent enforcement standards, selective enforcement, and low penalties are apparent. Therefore, Jonida, from the perspective of law and economics on public and private enforcement, suggested that the strengths of both enforcement methods should be combined to strengthen public enforcement, with a focus on enhancing individual rights protection in the implementation of the GDPR. Additionally, considering that in the risk-based approach, the obligations of data controllers and processors to assess data processing are vague, it is necessary to gradually improve the relevant standard rules to ensure that the rights protection concepts in the GDPR are strictly and comprehensively implemented.

Discussant: Assistant Professor Xie Yaowen of the Law and Economics Institute, China University of Political Science and Law

Professor Xie Yaowen focused on three main issues in the discussion. First, why has the Personal Information Protection Law weakened the protection of individual rights? This stems from the conceptual differences between personal information protection law and privacy law. The former needs to balance the interests of various stakeholders in the development of the digital economy, which is why both the EU and China are moving away from the concept of absolute rights protection. Second, how has the Personal Information Protection Law weakened the protection of individual rights? The core of this is reflected in Professor Jonida's mention of using "risk-based regulation" to balance multiple interests in data processing. Third, how does the Personal Information Protection Law protect the rights of digital subjects? Beyond deterrence, the law should focus on cooperative enforcement while delineating the scope of individual core rights, ensuring that the protection of these rights is not affected by the level of risk.

(3) Zhang Xin, Partner at Global Law Firm: "The Transparency Requirements of the WTO Agreement on Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD): A Perspective from Developing and Least Developed Countries"

The WTO IFD Agreement is the first international agreement initiated and promoted by China. Its primary goal is to promote foreign direct investment (FDI) flows between member countries, particularly to developing and least developed countries, in support of sustainable development. This is achieved by increasing the transparency of measures, simplifying administrative procedures, implementing other investment facilitation measures, and promoting international cooperation. The IFD Agreement provides special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries, allowing them to choose the timing and scope of implementing the agreement's provisions based on their own implementation capacity. For example, developing and least developed countries can opt to implement certain provisions after a specified period following the agreement's entry into force. The study found that the biggest obstacle faced by investors and their lawyers is the difficulty in finding or verifying host countries' investment measures or their current status. Based on these findings, the report recommends that developing or least developed countries prioritize establishing a "single information portal" website to disclose the investment measures of host countries. This is not only practically feasible but also relatively easy to implement and can serve as a clear target for capacity building and sponsor donations.

Discussant: Assistant Professor Cai Jiawei of the Law and Economics Institute, China University of Political Science and Law

Professor Cai Jiawei highlighted in the discussion that international organizations advocate for international investment facilitation, and China played a significant role in pushing for the establishment of the IFD Agreement. Since 2019, global investment has sharply decreased, bringing the IFD Agreement to the forefront of the agenda. Due to the impact of Sino-U.S. friction, China has played an important role in this process. The negotiation of the text lasted for six years, and from the development history of the document, it is clear that China and developing countries attached great importance to the agreement and pushed for its implementation, reflecting the agreement's significance for the development of developing countries.

(4) Judge Brian Hartwell of the Michigan District Court: "Due Process Analysis of the Highly Regulated Residential Leasing Industry in the U.S. and Michigan"

Judge Hartwell began by introducing the summary proceeding, a simplified lawsuit procedure for quickly recovering ownership of rental properties in the U.S. He then outlined a series of executive orders issued by the Governor of Michigan in response to COVID-19, referencing the timeline of 2020. These included school closures, restrictions on gatherings, limitations on the food service industry, stay-at-home orders, mask recommendations, the resumption of manufacturing, allowances for small gatherings, and the end of stay-at-home orders. These executive orders had an impact on the court system, including the transition of courts to video conferences during the stay-at-home order as an essential government service and the restrictions placed on eviction (tenant) lawsuits by federal and state governments. In 2021, the CDC issued an eviction moratorium, which was later ruled unconstitutional. Following that, the Michigan Supreme Court planned to reopen landlord-tenant courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the CDC's eviction moratorium. In the post-pandemic period, Michigan courts introduced simplified procedures, adding two pretrial periods of 14 days and 28 days, between the filing of a lawsuit and the trial, which effectively increased litigation efficiency.

Discussant: Assistant Professor Zong Zheng of the Law and Economics Institute, China University of Political Science and Law

Professor Zong Zheng noted that housing leasing policy shifted from a temporary policy to a permanent one. The new rules placed landlords in a disadvantaged position, as they could no longer evict tenants through the original procedures, while tenants could leverage this process to counter landlords. During the pandemic, the decline in U.S. tourism led to a significant decrease in tenants, prompting landlords to lower rents. The U.S. government adjusted this to balance supply and demand. However, the new procedures have a certain degree of reasonableness, as tenants might have also lost their jobs due to the pandemic. Landlords are now more inclined to coordinate with tenants rather than directly resorting to legal procedures (since the simplified procedure is no longer available), as the costs of legal procedures have risen, motivating landlords to adopt less costly negotiation methods to resolve issues. This has, to some extent, resulted in a Pareto improvement. However, the end of the pandemic does not necessarily mean the end of its impact, so future policies may still have room for change and adjustment.