• Home »
  • Big stories »
  • Indian academics support law review at inaugural China India Legal Forum

19 June 2017 at 07:40 BST

Indian academics support law review at inaugural China India Legal Forum

Legal risks whilst investing in India was top of the agenda whilst a review of the law was also explored.

Natthapong Khromkrathok

The high level conference on the theme of 'How to Avoid Legal Risks While Investing in India' was organised as part of a collaborative initiative between the host institutions and was held at East China University of Political Science and Law in Changning Qu, Shanghai, China. Participants to the conference were drawn from academia, industry, law firms and government and public policy institutions from India and China. Dr EMS Natchiappan, former Minister of State for Commerce and Industry, senior parliamentarian and currently president,  Indian Society of International Law and Mr R Venkataramani, distinguished senior advocate of the Supreme Court of India and former member, Law Commission of India also participated in the discussion.

'Share deep and pervasive ties'

Speaking at the forum, Professor, C Raj Kumar, Vice-Chancellor, JGU said: ‘We share deep and pervasive ties with the ECUPL, and are committed to strengthening our relationship through continuous exchange and interaction. The University level cooperation agreements signed today will further help to enhance and deepen our ties with ECUPL, which is amongst the leading universities of China and the world.’

Open international mechanisms

Professor Kumar noted that it was important to open institutional mechanisms to navigate and reduce risks for foreign investment in India. He said: ‘For the last few decades governments in India have shown wider political commitment, and there was political consensus for attracting FDI. There is a need for increasing convergence of the mindset of individuals and institutions to reduce and navigate risks.’

Review sought

Speaking at the forum, Mr R. Venkataramani, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India, said: ‘Foreign investments being a class by themselves and which fill an economic vacuum, deserve a differential treatment in several respects. The conglomerate of laws relevant in this regard, including the commercial courts law, warrant a review. Expedition of all processes are desirable, subject of course to national concerns. A consolidated foreign investment code may help.’

Joint research - agreement

Speaking on the occasion, Professor Yanping Lin, Vice President, ECUPL, Shanghai, remarked: ‘I am happy we are signing this agreement with the OP Jindal Global University on the 65th anniversary of our institution. Our relationship with leading universities like JGU is very important and we are keen to further strengthen our relationship through joint research and joint teaching and high level interactions that simultaneously promote India-China dialogue.’

Think-tank

The China India Legal Forum conference seeks to serve as a think-tank for policy dialogues between governments of the two countries and promote civil society based communication and interaction in India and China. The idea for the forum was conceived during the visit of a delegation from JGU to ECUPL in April this year. 

Hosts

Jindal Global Law School (JGLS) of OP Jindal Global University (JGU), Institute of BRICS Legal Studies of the East China University of Political Science and Law (ECUPL) and Dentons Shanghai Office hosted the inaugural China India Legal Forum.

Next conference set

ECUPL and JGU also signed a University level cooperation agreement at the joint forum. Under the new agreement, both institutions have proposed to create an institutional framework for focusing on BRICS by setting up a 'Centre for BRICS Legal Studies' and organising a first-of-its-kind India China Moot Court Competition' that will be open to law schools from across the world. The second China India Legal Forum is proposed to be held in Delhi/Sonipat in February 2018.

 
   
 
 
 

Also read...

Coca-Cola's 'Zero' trademark worth, well, maybe zero?

Decade-long trademark battle between bitter rivals takes another twist as court overturns 2016 decision