With the rapid development of global e-commerce, cross-border e-commerce has become an important force in promoting international trade and economic globalization. Due to the rapid development of cross-border e-commerce, the number of online disputes is gradually increasing. These disputes demonstrate their complexity and diversity in terms of legal application, evidence acquisition, and enforcement. Tmall Global is a cross-border e-commerce platform under the Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba Group. This study takes Tmall Global as an example to analyze the characteristics of disputes on this platform and explore the current situation of online disputes in cross-border e-commerce. Drawing on the experience of online dispute resolution in the European Union, ASEAN, and other regions, this article proposes a series of suggestions to improve China’s cross-border e-commerce online dispute resolution mechanism, including enhancing the platform’s own dispute resolution capabilities, strengthening international cooperation and artificial intelligence, optimizing dispute resolution processes using large data and cloud computing, strengthening consumer rights protection, and optimizing legal and regulatory frameworks. The aim is to provide an effective dispute resolution mechanism for China’s cross-border e-commerce platforms and provide useful reference for other countries.

Cross-border ecological cooperation is always a challenging issue. Ecological cooperation in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area has its own uniqueness as it is cross-border cooperation under “One Country, Two Systems”, which is different from multinational cooperation or regional collaboration within one country. This paper analyses the cooperation documents of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao, official reports and academic literature, and then summarises the unique pattern of ecological cooperation in the Greater Bay Area under “One Country, Two Systems”. It outlines four characteristics: different priorities in ecological management of each side, case by base cooperation, government-dominated cooperation with low public participation, and huge institutional gap between three sides. This article also identifies several problems and causes: lack of common ecological targets for each side and effective cross-border regulative measures, cumbersome coordination in cross-border cooperation. Finally, four feasible recommendations have been put forwarded: creating new institutional arrangements under the context of “One Country, Two Systems”, establishing the efficient decision-making platform for the inter-city cooperation, introducing the market-based resource allocation, and encouraging public participation in ecological monitoring.

Cross-border infrastructure projects offer significant economic and social benefits for the Asia-Pacific region. If the required investment of $8 trillion in pan-Asian connectivity was made in the region’s infrastructure during 2010–2020, the total net income gains for developing Asia could reach about $12.98 trillion (in 2008 US dollars) during 2010–2020 and beyond, of which more than $4.43 trillion would be gained during 2010–2020 and nearly $8.55 trillion after 2020. Indeed, infrastructure connectivity helps improve regional productivity and competitiveness by facilitating the movement of goods, services and human resources, producing economies of scale, promoting trade and foreign direct investments, creating new business opportunities, stimulating inclusive industrialization and narrowing development gaps between communities, countries or sub-regions. Unfortunately, due to limited financing, progress in the development of cross-border infrastructure in the region is low.

This paper examines the key challenges faced in financing cross-border projects and discusses the roles that different stakeholders—national governments, state-owned enterprises, private sector, regional entities, development financing institutions (DFIs), affected people and civil society organizations—can play in facilitating the development of cross-border infrastructure in the region. In particular, this paper highlights the major risks that deter private sector investments and FDIs and provides recommendations to address these risks.

The purpose of the article is to examine the changes in cross-border cooperation between Vietnam and China as a result of the development and connectivity of cross-border infrastructure between the two countries. This article is based on a mixed-methods study that includes desk research and surveys. The article explains how the two countries’ approaches to border shifted from ‘barrier’ to the border of ‘connectivity’. Accordingly, the article examines the changes in border management cooperation between the two countries, which serves as a vital basis for cross-border development cooperation. Furthermore, the article examines the perceptions of the two countries regarding the development and connectivity of cross-border infrastructure for comprehensive cooperation between the two countries and beyond. At the same time, the article examines how the two countries promote the development and connectivity of cross-border infrastructure, both hard and soft. The article also examined some initial results and some issues facing the two countries. The paper concludes with some findings. In particular, the article concludes that increased border connectivity will encourage cross-border cooperation and integration between the two countries and help to alleviate security concerns. Although the two countries have made efforts to open their borders, in the transition from a border of ‘barriers’ to a border of ‘connectivity’ remain partly to Vietnamese people’s memories of the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese border war, as well as the impact of the two countries’ unresolved South China Sea disputes. However, Vietnam also tries to promote cross-border cooperation within a controllable level.

High-quality implementation of cross-border mergers and acquisitions (cross-border M&As) is an important pathway for emerging-market multinational enterprises (EMNEs) to enhance their international competitiveness. However, in comparison to developed countries, cross-border M&As by EMNEs are often prohibited by the liability of origin caused by negative political coverage. How and why negative political coverage affect the completion of cross-border M&As by EMNEs? What are the contextual constraints that moderate the impact of negative political coverage on cross-border M&As completion? Based on the “liability of origin” theory, this paper addresses these questions using data from the Zephyr database on cross-border M&As by EMNEs in the United States from 2016 to June 2021 and employing a logit model for estimation. The research findings are as follows: (1) Negative political coverage leads to negative perceptions of emerging market countries by host country stakeholders, creating the liability of origin and stigmatizing the corporate nationality, thereby reducing the success rate of cross-border M&As by EMNEs. (2) Increasing geographical distance leads to information asymmetry, reinforcing the negative impact of negative political coverage on the completion of cross-border M&As by EMNEs. (3) Relevant mergers and acquisitions exacerbate the negative effect of negative political coverage on the success rate of cross-border M&As by EMNEs. (4) Being a publicly traded firm and having successful experience in cross-border M&As both intensify the negative impact of negative political coverage on the success rate of cross-border M&As by EMNEs.