Views
China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition
Written by Jeremy MEI Ziyang
LLM student at Wuhan University
Visiting student at Singapore Management University
I. Background
On 15 May this year, Ministry of Justice (MOJ) of China issued its Official Notice No 5 of 2026 (‘the MOJ Notice’), announcing that the relevant extraterritorial investigation carried out by EU on Chinese entities Nuctech constitutes improper extraterritorial jurisdiction measures under China’s Regulation on Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ROCIFEJ, State Council Decree No 835).[1] This Regulation was promulgated and entered into force on 7 April 2026. As a nationwide regulation promulgated by State Council, although it cannot be called an ‘Act’ that should be passed by the National People’s Congress, its legal hierarchical force directly follows an ‘Act’, higher than the previous Blocking Rules issued by Ministry of Commerce (MOC).[2]
Enforcement of New York Judgments in Côte d’Ivoire: Insights from a Recent Decision of the Abidjan Commercial Court
(AI-generated picture)
Many thanks to Boris Awa (Kigali Independent University ULK, Kigali, Rwanda) for the tip-off
I. Introduction
The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Francophone African countries remains a largely underexplored subject in the literature, including in French-language scholarship. The laws of many countries have not yet been systematically analysed from a comparative perspective, and in several jurisdictions access to even the most basic information is itself a considerable challenge. This note aims to raise awareness of African private international law, in particular in Francophone Sub-Saharan African countries. The case discussed here concerns the enforcement of a New York judgment in Côte d’Ivoire. It provides an opportunity to present the Ivorian system of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and to examine some of the key issues addressed by the Ivorian court.
Investment Awards vs Sovereign Immunity: Navigating the Enforcement Maze
By Cara North, Counsel, Ashurst
The intersection of foreign State immunity and the enforcement of international arbitral awards has been a hotly contested issues in recent years. First the question was whether a State has waived immunity from court processes concerning recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards by ratifying the 1965 Convention of Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID Convention) – to which the answer has been yes in Australia and the England and Wales (among other jurisdictions). More recently, the question has been whether a State’s ratification of the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) constitutes an implicit waiver of sovereign immunity, to which the High Court of Australia most recently held no.
In CCDM Holdings, LLC v The Republic of India [2026] HCA 9, the High Court of Australia unanimously held that ratification of the New York Convention does not, of itself, waive foreign State immunity under the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth). The decision aligns Australia with the current position in the United States, Canada, and England and Wales, reinforcing an emerging common law consensus in that regard.
News
Virtual Workshop (in English) on June 2, 2026: Thalia Kruger on „The Problem with Legal Certainty in Private International Law”
On Tuesday, June 2, 2026, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. (CEST).
Thalia Kruger (University of Antwerp) will speak, in English, about the topic
“The Problem with Legal Certainty in Private International Law”
Legal certainty is often considered foundational in private international law. It is used as justification for some of our connecting factors, and their application in time, as well as for our standards on recognition of foreign authentic instruments and judgments. However, if understood in a positivistic and precise manner, legal certainty can impede or complicate legal changes. The paper investigates where legal certainty has undesired consequences, especially in a context of righting past wrongs.
The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.
If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.
VII Foro de Derecho Internacional Privado (Madrid): Call for Papers
The organizers of the VII Foro de Derecho Internacional Privado have issued a call for papers for the next edition of the Forum, which will take place at the University of Alcalá (Madrid, Spain) on 29–30 October 2026.
The Foro Europeo de Derecho Internacional Privado (FEDIPr) is a permanent seminar devoted to the study of issues arising from transnational private relationships through regular meetings focused on discussion and debate. The Forum aims to contribute to legal scholarship and scientific progress through an empirical, comparative, functional, and multidisciplinary methodology, while serving as a meeting place for specialists in Private International Law.
Virtual Presentation (in English) on May 26, 2026: Prof. TU Guangjian on China’s Shift on Foreign State Immunity and its Legal Implications for ‘One Country, Two Systems
Here is the link for the forthcoming Asian Private International Law Academy (APILA) monthly online meeting on Tuesday 26 May 2026 at 7 pm JST:
Topic: APILA Monthly Online Meeting on Tuesday 26 May 2026 at 7 pm JST
Time: May 26, 2026 07:00 PM Osaka, Sapporo, Tokyo
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89849901085?pwd=FUgb34HqwyIhxkFU92lygqFSw6Ll3I.1
Meeting ID: 898 4990 1085
Passcode: 132732