Douglas Arner et al on Building Open Finance: From Policy to Infrastructure (Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law)

"Building Open Finance: From Policy to Infrastructure"
Douglas Arner, Ross Buckley, Christine Wang, and Dirk Zetzsche
Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law
Volume 15, Issue 1 (2025)
Published online: June 2025

Abstract: As one of the most digitalized sectors of the economy, finance is increasingly dependent on data. Over the past decade, the implementation of Open Banking and Open Finance in an increasing number of major jurisdictions around the world, including the European Union (EU), the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, Brazil, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), seeks to break down data silos, empower consumers, and increase competition among financial service providers, aiming to maximize the value of financial data for innovation, growth, and competitiveness. In addition to mandatory requirements, other governance approaches to Open Finance, including collaborative arrangements and voluntary initiatives, are emerging. For example, Singapore and Hong Kong are actively supporting the development of Open Finance through collaboration between regulators and industry, while both China and India are seeking to develop new approaches to making data available to support development, innovation, and competitiveness. In the United States (US), industry associations have promoted Open Finance practices, and a new mandatory rule from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) on personal financial data rights is currently pending.

There are complex problems in the interaction between financial regulation and data governance in Open Finance. Customer data shared through an Open Finance system is both subject to financial regulatory requirements, such as rules governing the collection, processing, and use of financial data, and to the general governance framework for data protection. Furthermore, Open Finance initiatives adopted by different jurisdictions affect information sharing in domestic financial markets and in the cross-border transfer of financial data. The trend towards data localization and the asymmetry of data sharing leads to an unlevel playing field between market players, thereby exacerbating the problem of regulatory fragmentation in Open Finance regimes. Given the evolving nature of digital finance and the complexity of integrating data into its process, the main challenge is to develop appropriate governance approaches that can maximize the benefits of data sharing while mitigating new cross-cutting challenges in finance and data regulation.

Based on an analysis of experiences to date in leading jurisdictions, we synthesize a range of policy strategies to address the complex interplay of financial regulation and data governance inherent in building Open Finance. These hold important lessons also for the US as it moves forward. The multi-disciplinary nature of Open Finance requires coordination between regulators and industry to ensure policy coherence and technical interoperability. Where financial and data regulatory regimes intersect, it is important to establish a collaborative forum and/or provide general guidance to facilitate a better understanding of Open Finance governance and improve consistency in regulatory action across sectors. In response to the increasing digitalization of the economy, there is also the need to expand the scope of data sharing from the financial sector to other industries, and thus move towards a broader Open Data framework.

Gary Meggitt on The Changing Landscape of Professional Liabilities (New book chapter)

"The Changing Landscape of Professional Liabilities"
Gary Meggitt
in Insurability of Emerging Risks: Law, Theory and Practice, edited by Baris Soyer and Özlem Gürses (Bloomsbury Publishing, January 2025), Chapter 11, pp. 233 - 254
Published in January 2025

Introduction: Once upon a time, it was relatively easy to identify who was ‘a professional’ . As the authors of Jackson & Powell on Professional Liability put it, ‘the occupations which are regarded as professions have four characteristics’ . These are the ‘mental’ rather than ‘manual’ nature of their work; the ‘moral’ or ‘societal’ aspects of their role; the existence of collective organisations to which they belong and which oversee their activities; and the elevated social status which they enjoy.

Those characteristics are passing into history. Professionals’ work may still be mental rather than manual, but the quality of their work is no longer ‘judged’ by their professional peers but by the managers of the corporate entities in which they are now often employed. Moreover, emerging technology, including artificial intelligence (AI), presents an even greater challenge. Can a ‘bot’ be a barrister ? If not, why not ? If an architect uses AI to design a building and that design is defective, who is to blame ? The architect or the AI or the AI’s developer ? If the design is superlative, who takes the credit ?

The demise of traditional partnerships and the ‘commercialization’ of their practices has exacerbated the tensions between professionals’ disparate ethical duties to their colleagues, clients and the wider community. The supervisory role of collective organisations such as national law societies has been diluted by the growth of statutory regulatory bodies and, in the view of some, sidestepped by multinational professional service firms. Finally, professionals’ supposed social status has been all but eradicated by the public’s disinclination to defer to their ‘betters’. This is reflected, most importantly for professional indemnity (PI) insurers, in the growth of claims against professionals for both their own alleged misconduct and in ‘facilitating’ the misconduct of others.

This chapter addresses the changing nature of the work, obligations and regulation of professionals by reference to the ‘four characteristics’ in Jackson & Powell. It considers the possible risks that may be brought about by these changes. It discusses the need for policyholders and insurers to familiarise themselves with these risks and to address them when it comes to their practices (in the case of the former) and underwriting, claims management possible development of alternative forms of cover (in the latter’s case). Although this chapter focuses on legal professionals (so as to keep it to a manageable length) it touches upon the experiences of other professions where appropriate. Finally, although it concentrates on developments in the UK, it does not neglect those in other significant jurisdictions.

HKU Law Welcomes Ms. Lea-Anne Lee

Welcome to Ms. Lea-Anne Lee, who joins the Faculty of Law as a Senior Lecturer.

Lea-Anne graduated from University College London and obtained her Postgraduate Certificate in Laws at the University of Hong Kong. She was admitted as a solicitor in England and Wales and Hong Kong.

During her extensive private practice with Hogan Lovells, Clifford Chance and Freshfields in London and Hong Kong, she specialised in advising financial institutions on mergers and acquisitions and financial laws and regulations. Her clients included the full spectrum of participants in financial services including retail and investment banks, insurers, asset managers, fund houses, brokers and intermediaries.

Since the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, Lea-Anne undertook various senior management roles in house advising on domestic and cross border legal, compliance and regulatory aspects on restructuring, business controls and risk management for various international financial services operations in Asia Pacific (covering China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Korea, India, Taiwan, Australia as well as various South East Asian countries), including ABN AMRO, Credit Suisse/UBS and Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited. She was responsible for navigating regulatory affairs and handling critical and large scale interactions with domestic regulators and international college of supervisors.

At the University of Hong Kong, her main focus of teaching is on financial laws and regulations. She looks forward to sharing her deep experience on the financial industry’s practice and compliance issues.

Adrian Kuenzler on Regulatory Diffusion Beyond Digital Empires – Searching for a Resilient Competition Law Framework (GRUR International)

"Regulatory Diffusion Beyond Digital Empires – Searching for a Resilient Competition Law Framework"
Adrian Kuenzler
GRUR International
Published online: December 2024

Extract: Regulation has had a resurgence across many jurisdictions of late, with digital platforms being distinct new objects that need to be addressed. The emergence of this new regulatory object is part of a global – and vital – tendency toward reassessing tech power and state sovereignty. However, there are considerable differences in how digital platforms are dealt with across jurisdictions. The European Union, the United States, and China have each adopted their own regulatory approaches, ranging from rights-based to market- and state-driven models. While this has led to concerns about regulatory fragmentation and increased costs for consumers, considerable uncertainty also remains regarding how to regulate, identify, and adopt the most suitable regulatory approach.

A largely underappreciated aspect of this debate is the rapid process of regulatory diffusion – the adoption of substantially similar rules – in different jurisdictions beyond the major digital empires. Examples include the member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and its trading partners, where a shift from an ex post to an ex ante regulatory approach in competition law is underway, with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) emerging as a blueprint that different countries customize to fit their digital ecosystems and domestic policies.

Giuliano Castellano on Don’t Call It a Failure: Systemic Risk Governance for Complex Financial Systems (LSI)

"Don’t Call It a Failure: Systemic Risk Governance for Complex Financial Systems"
Giuliano Castellano
Law & Social Inquiry (First View, pp. 1-42)
Published online: March 2024

Abstract: The probability that an event will avalanche into an impairment of essential services constitutes a “systemic risk.” Owing to the inherent complexities of modern societies, the outbreak of a novel disease or the failure of a financial institution can rapidly escalate into an impact significantly larger than the initial event. Through the lens of complex system theory, this article draws a parallel between financial crises and disasters to contend that the regulatory framework for financial systemic risk is unequipped to address its fundamental dynamics. Epitomized by the market failure rationale, financial regulation is premised on a reductionist view that purports both systemic risk and law as external to the actions of market participants. Conversely, this article advances a twofold conceptual framework. First, it shows that systemic risk emerges from the same complex dynamics that generate the financial system. Second, it understands law as an agent of complexity, thus contributing to the emergence of finance and its inherent instability. Normatively, this conceptual framework reveals the limits of current regulatory approaches and constructs a holistic risk governance framework that is akin to the one adopted to govern disaster risks.

Ryan Whalen on ChatGPT (RTHK Radio 3 Backchat)

Ryan Whalen, an expert on AI from the perspective of law and policy from HKU Law, joined the panel discussing the use ChatGPT at the university level on RTHK Radio 3's Backchat programme on 30 March 2023.  HKU has adopted an initial policy barring students from using ChatGPT in submitted work without a teacher's consent. In the panel discussion, Dr Whalen shared his views on whether there shoudl be regulation of this new technology.  To listen to the discussion, click here. 

Angela Zhang on Agility Over Stability: China’s Great Reversal in Regulating the Platform Economy (Harvard International Law Journal)

"Agility Over Stability: China’s Great Reversal in Regulating the Platform Economy"
Angela Zhang
Harvard International Law Journal, Volume 63, Issue 2, pp. 457-514
Published in February 2023

Abstract: This Article develops the five-element HAPPY model to study Chinese regulation: the regulatory process is hierarchical, the top leadership is adaptable, the Chinese regulators are parochial, the firms are pliant and the Chinese public need to yelp to be heard. By focusing on China’s great reversal in regulating the platform economy, I show that Chinese policy volatilities have stemmed from the hierarchical structure in which power is centralized among top leaders, who also suffer from a chronic deficit of information. I particularly highlight how favorable support from the top leadership, aggressive lobbying from tech firms, and the bureaucratic inertia of the regulators together contributed to a lag in regulating Chinese online platforms. When a crisis looms, the top leadership quickly mobilizes all administrative resources and propaganda to initiate a law enforcement campaign against tech giants. However, without strong judicial oversight, aggressive agency interventions create the risk of over-enforcement and administrative abuse. Thus far, China’s reorientation of its policy control has significantly bolstered its regulatory capacity across various fronts including financial, antitrust, and data regulation. By exerting greater oversight over platform governance, the government has enhanced the bargaining power of the various platform participants in dealing with the platforms. The government’s heavy-handed approach has also afforded it great leverage to nudge tech firms to prioritize developing cutting-edge technologies, and to steer them away from foreign stock markets, thus reducing reliance on the West for both technologies and capital. Despite the campaign’s immediate impact, it remains to be seen whether it will bring about lasting changes, especially in light of the persistent lobbying from tech firms and the risk of regulatory capture. At the same time, the volatile policy swing has itself generated risks and uncertainties, which in turn could cause turmoil to domestic social and financial stability. As the rest of the world is similarly confronted with thorny questions about how to rein in Big Tech, China’s experience with platform regulation could offer some lessons that inform the global policy debate. Although this Article focuses primarily on the platform economy, the HAPPY model has the promise to shed light on the complexity and dynamics in other areas of regulatory governance in China and beyond.

Douglas Arner, Giuliano Castellano, and Eriks Selga (RPg) on Financial Data Governance (Hastings Law Journal)

"Financial Data Governance"
Douglas W. Arner, Giuliano G. Castellano, and
Eriks K. Selga (RPg)
Hastings Law Journal, Volume 74, Issue 2, pp. 235-292
Published in 2023

Abstract: Finance is one of the most digitalized, globalized, and regulated sectors of the global economy. Traditionally technology intensive, the financial industry has been at the forefront of digital transformation, starting with the dematerialization of financial assets in the 1960s and culminating in the post–2008 global financial crisis era with the fintech movement. Now, finance is data: financial transactions are transfers of data; financial infrastructures, such as stock exchanges and payment systems, are data networks; financial institutions are data processors, gathering, analyzing, and trading the data generated by their customers. Financial regulation has adapted to this fast-paced evolution both by implementing new regimes and by adapting existing ones. Concomitantly, general data governance frameworks to protect a broad spectrum of interests, from individual privacy to national security, have emerged. Though these areas of law intersect, their relationship often remains unclear. This Article sheds new light in this critical area, focusing on key challenges and providing viable solutions to address them.

HKU Law alumna Dorothy Siron (Zhong Lun Law Firm) on Regulatory Ramblings Episode 11 podcast

Regulatory Ramblings Ep11. Dorothy Siron is the Co-Managing partner of Zhong Lun Law Firm’s Hong Kong office. She heads the Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice. Being born and raised in the territory, where she trained as a solicitor, before recertifying in Canada. Dorothy is also a veteran litigator.

     Her expertise encompasses white collar and financial crime in HK and overseas, crime, cyber fraud, enforcement of foreign judgments as well as trust and probate disputes, and family law matters. In her worldwide pursuit of wrongfully obtained assets.

     As crypto-related frauds, such as those involving cryptocurrency theft, initial coin offerings (ICOs) and ransomware attacks, become more pervasive and sophisticated, lawyers, Internet security experts, regulators and law enforcement are under greater pressure to respond swiftly and effectively to a relatively new field they are still struggling to understand. Ultimately, it will require a multidisciplinary and multi-party approach to provide the victims of fraud with appropriate redress and make them whole.

     An alumna of The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law, she discusses crypto fraud, remedies for victims and the creation of the Hong Kong chapter of the Crypto Fraud and Asset Recovery (CFAAR) network as well as gives advice on law students about how to specialise in crypto as a lawyer.

     This podcast is brought to you by The Reg/Tech Lab, The HKU-SCF FinTech Academy and HKU-edX Professional Certificated in FinTech.  Listen to the podcast and let us know what you think.

Julien Chaisse & Jamieson Kirkwood on Taxing the Future: Digital Stateless Income, Business Organisation, and the Search for a New Regulatory Paradigm (Singapore Journal of Legal Studies)

"Taxing the Future: Digital Stateless Income, Business Organisation, and the Search for a New Regulatory Paradigm"

Julien Chaisse & Jamieson Kirkwood

Singapore Journal of Legal Studies

Published in September 2022 

pp. 267-289

Abstract: At a time when “stateless income” is the main tax imperative, this article analyses the challenges of internationalising taxation of multinational enterprises in the digital economy and traversing the normative solutions provided so far (and still to be provided) by both coordinated and unilateral rules and policies. In such a way, this article is therefore firmly entrenched at an important intersection of comparative and business law. Considering that the main problem for tax authorities might be that they have remained national—and landlocked—whereas multinational enterprises operate globally—and virtually, this article also brings into the analysis the connected issues of free trade, globalization, and State sovereignty. The article demonstrates the necessity for international and multilateral solutions such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project’s “Two-Pillar” solution and explains how this solution can be supplemented by other multilateral reforms.

Douglas Arner on Digital Finance, Financial Inclusion and Sustainability: Building Better Financial Systems (RGC SFS)

Digital finance has accelerated its influence on financial systems in the wake of crises including the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical conflicts, climate change and market volatilities across the globe.

      Awardee of the 2020/21 Research Grants Council (RGC) Senior Research Fellow Scheme, Douglas Arner (Kerry Holdings Professor in Law at The University of Hong Kong) leads his team in the exploration on digitisation and its effects on finance and regulation through new technologies.

     In collaboration with the Alliance for Financial Inclusion and alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Group, the Senior Research Fellow Scheme project strategises to enable FinTech and RegTech solutions to build relationships between digital payments and financial inclusion. Watch this video to learn more about the project’s initiatives.

Syren Johnstone on Blockchain as a Disruptor of Securities Regulation (HK Lawyer)

"Blockchain as a disruptor of securities regulation"
Syren Johnstone
Hong Kong Lawyer, 

April 2022, pp. 40-46

Abstract: While blockchain is often described as a disruptor and disintermediator of commercial activity, it is less common to ponder to what extent securities regulation, and how it is understood and expected to operate, might be disrupted by blockchain and the cryptoasset tokens (hereafter, “tokens”) built on it.

New Book by Syren Johnstone: Rethinking The Regulation of Cryptoassets (Edward Elgar)

Rethinking the Regulation of Cryptoassets: Cryptographic Consensus Technology and the New Prospect

(Rethinking Law series)

Syren Johnstone

Edward Elgar Publishing

Publication Date: September 2021

328 pp

Description: This thought-provoking book challenges the way we think about regulating cryptoassets. Bringing a timely new perspective, Syren Johnstone critiques the application of a financial regulation narrative to cryptoassets, questioning the assumptions on which it is based and whether regulations developed in the 20th century remain fit to apply to a technology emerging in the 21st.

Review:

‘Prof. Johnstone’s book on the regulation of cryptoassets forces us to think twice about the way we try to regulate the digital economy. He challenges the habit of the regulators to push new disruptive ideas and instruments into old frames and concepts, and invites them to move out of their comfort zone. Rethinking the Regulation of Cryptoassets is a complete account of the challenges we face in developing a crypto-economy and proposes a coherent and sustainable regulatory framework that ensures both market efficiency and technological relevance.’ – Eva Kaili, Chair of the STOA Committee, Rapporteur of the Blockchain Resolution of the European Parliament, Brussels

‘Cryptographic consensus technology presents extraordinary market opportunities but also raises a host of vexing regulatory challenges. Rethinking the Regulation of Cryptoassets maps this complex terrain and charts a way forward, offering a novel approach to the regulatory enterprise to protect against abuses while fostering innovation. Johnstone brings considerable legal, financial, and technological sophistication to the task, and his analysis is at once rigorous and accessible. This book will become essential reading on the future of cryptoassets.’ – Christopher Bruner, University of Georgia, School of Law, US

‘The crypto industry moves fast and requires regulatory frameworks that can cater to that pace. Prof. Johnstone brings forward a number of ideas that are worth reflecting on as cryptoassets are definitely here to stay.’  – Henri Arslanian, Global Crypto Leader and Partner, PwC

‘Johnstone provides a refreshing way to think about the regulatory limits of applying the standard financial narrative to a technology that is globally programmable but locally valuable. His DBA (Determined-By-Architecture) framework may help align regulation with the borderless possibilities of mathematics.’ – Pindar Wong, Chairman, VeriFi (Hong Kong) Ltd

Benjamin Chen on The Expressiveness of Regulatory Trade-Offs (Georgia Law Review)

"The Expressiveness of Regulatory Trade-Offs"
Benjamin Chen

Georgia Law Review, Volume 55, Issue 3

Published online on 4 May 2021

Abstract: Trade-offs between a sacred value—like human life—against a secular one—like money—are considered taboo. People are supposed to be offended by such trade-offs and to punish those who contemplate them. Yet the last decades in the United States have witnessed the rise of the cost-benefit state. Most major rules promulgated today undergo a regulatory impact analysis, and agencies monetize risks as grave as those to human life and values as abstract as human dignity. Prominent academics and lawmakers advocate the weighing of costs and benefits as an element of rational regulation. The cost-benefit revolution is a technocratic coup, however, if citizens view regulatory trade-offs as a symbolic denial of the values they hold dear.

     This Article details three experiments that evaluate responses to a cost-benefit justification for regulatory policy. Across a range of conditions, the experiments revealed no evidence of diffuse hostility toward a consequentialist approach to saving lives. The final experiment found, however, that informing participants that they were expected to vindicate the sanctity of life resulted in them doing so. This result demonstrates the malleability of norms and expectations surrounding regulatory trade-offs.

       Taken together, the experiments suggest that people normally do not perceive regulatory trade-offs as symbolic affronts that call for an expressive defense of the value of life. While these results do not conclusively establish the normative desirability of the cost-benefit paradigm, they do suggest the absence of any broad opposition to consequentialism in public life. These findings have implications for the democratic legitimacy of the administrative state and its institutional design. They also bear on the relationship between tort and regulation as mechanisms for risk control. Insofar as tort judgments are expressive and regulatory decisions are not, regulation that preempts the common law of torts might help temper the tangible costs of symbolism.

Douglas Arner et al on Decentralized Finance (Journal of Financial Regulation)

"Decentralized Finance"
Dirk A Zetzsche, Douglas W Arner, Ross P Buckley
Journal of Financial Regulation, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp.  172–203
Published in September 2020

Abstract: DeFi (‘decentralized finance’) has joined FinTech (‘financial technology’), RegTech (‘regulatory technology’), cryptocurrencies, and digital assets as one of the most discussed emerging technological evolutions in global finance. Yet little is really understood about its meaning, legal implications, and policy consequences. In this article we introduce DeFi, put DeFi in the context of the traditional financial economy, connect DeFi to open banking, and end with some policy considerations. We suggest that decentralization has the potential to undermine traditional forms of accountability and erode the effectiveness of traditional financial regulation and enforcement. At the same time, we find that where parts of the financial services value chain are decentralized, there will be a reconcentration in a different (but possibly less regulated, less visible, and less transparent) part of the value chain. DeFi regulation could, and should, focus on this reconcentrated portion of the value chain to ensure effective oversight and risk control. Rather than eliminating the need for regulation, in fact DeFi requires regulation in order to achieve its core objective of decentralization. Furthermore, DeFi potentially offers an opportunity for the development of an entirely new way to design regulation: the idea of ‘embedded regulation’. Regulatory approaches could be built into the design of DeFi, thus potentially decentralizing both finance and its regulation, in the ultimate expression of RegTech.

Douglas Arner et al on Regulating Artificial Intelligence in Finance: Putting the Human in the Loop (Sydney Law Review)

"Regulating Artificial Intelligence in Finance: Putting the Human in the Loop"
Buckley, Ross P.; Zetzsche, Dirk A.; Arner, Douglas W.; Tang, Brian W.

Sydney Law Review,  Vol. 43 Issue 1, pp. 43-81

Published in March 2021

Abstract: This article develops a framework for understanding and addressing the increasing role of artificial intelligence ('AI') in finance. It focuses on human responsibility as central to addressing the AI 'black box' problem -- that is, the risk of an AI producing undesirable results that are unrecognised or unanticipated due to people's difficulties in understanding the internal workings of an AI or as a result of the AI's independent operation outside human supervision or involvement. After mapping the various use cases of AI in finance and explaining its rapid development, we highlight the range of potential issues and regulatory challenges concerning financial services AI and the tools available to address them. We argue that the most effective regulatory approaches to addressing the role of AI in finance bring humans into the loop through personal responsibility regimes, thus eliminating the black box argument as a defence to responsibility and legal liability for AI operations and decisions.

Douglas Arner et al on Regulating Libra (Oxford Journal of Legal Studies)

"Regulating Libra"
Dirk A Zetzsche, Ross P Buckley, and Douglas W Arner

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Volume 41, Issue 1, Spring 2021, pp. 80–113
Published on 1 December 2020

Abstract: Libra is the first private cryptocurrency with the potential to change the landscape of global payment and monetary systems. Due to the scale and reach provided by its affiliation with Facebook, the question is not whether, but how, to regulate it. This article introduces the Libra project and analyses the potential responses open to regulators worldwide. We conclude that perhaps the greatest impact will come not from Libra itself, but rather from reactions to it, particularly by other BigTechs, incumbent financial institutions and governments around the world.

New Book: Regulating Government Ethics (Dr Wu Chonghao, PhD 2014)

Regulating Government Ethics: An Underused Weapon in China's Anti-corruption Campaign

Dr Wu Chonghao (PhD 2014)
October 2016, CUP, 314 pp

Description: This book examines government ethics rules and their enforcement in China (as well as in three other jurisdictions for comparative insights). Empirical research methods (involving primarily semi-structured interviews) were employed to explore the dynamics of actual enforcement policies and practices in China. This book formed an analytical framework through reviewing existing theories on government ethics regulation and general regulation literature and analyzing government ethics rules in the US, the UK, and Hong Kong. Using this framework, it seeks to explore the patterns and features of government ethics rules and their enforcement in China. It shows that the inadequacy of government ethics rules per se and the deterrence-oriented criminal enforcement style of government ethics regulation are important but ignored elements of the problem of rampant corruption in China. Such analysis has generated important and practical policy implications for China's government ethics rules and their enforcement.

• Provides a new perspective on China's fight against corruption, including bribery, embezzlement and fraud
• Presents a systematic analysis of the government ethics rules in China, such as areas where it is not regulated and where existing rules are not comprehensive
• Includes rich empirical data on anti-corruption enforcement that provides a better understanding of government ethics rules in China