Views
Trial Supervision System No Longer Impediment in Hong Kong’s Recognition and Enforcement of Chinese Mainland Judgments
1. Introduction
For more than 20 years after the handover, Hong Kong courts had regularly noted difficulties with the ‘trial supervision system’ 
(also known as ‘retrial procedure’ 
) in the Chinese Mainland when attempting to recognise and enforce Mainland judgments under the common law, as the trial supervision system was thought to mean that these judgments fail to meet the ‘final and conclusive’ requirement. Such thinking was criticised by scholars as problematic.[1] To address the issue, statutory regimes on the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments between the Chinese Mainland and Hong Kong have been implemented. More recent studies documented changes in the judicial attitude of Hong Kong courts,[2] but there was a lack of definitive rulings to clarify the legal position. This article focuses on the most recent Hong Kong cases which confirmed that the trial supervision system in the Chinese Mainland has no automatic impact on the recognition and enforcement of Mainland judgments in Hong Kong. A party alleging that the trial supervision system has affected the finality and conclusiveness of a Mainland judgment must prove the likelihood of a retrial being ordered through factual and/or expert evidence.
REFLECTIONS ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN AFRICAN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW
I. INTRODUCTION
This is the second symposium relating to private international law in Africa to be hosted on this blog, following a series that has run consistently since 2 February 2026. The first symposium, which focused on private international law in Nigeria, took place on 14 December 2020 and was jointly hosted on Afronomics and this blog. It was organised by Professor Richard Frimpong Oppong and me.
Professor Beligh Elbalti and I are deeply grateful to the scholars who agreed to participate in this symposium at short notice, including Dr Solomon Okorley, Dr Theophilus Edwin Coleman, Dr Elisa Rinaldi, Miss Anam Abdul-Majid, Mr Kitonga Mulandi, Dr Boris Awa, and Dr Abubakri Yekini.
The idea for this second symposium originated with my dear colleague, Professor Beligh Elbalti, and I am thankful to him for involving me in the leadership and organisation of this project. The symposium finds its true genesis in a larger edited volume we are currently preparing on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Africa, which examines developments across no fewer than twenty-six African jurisdictions. Read more
Protection of Forced Heirs and International Public Policy
Written by Matteo Mangone, PhD candidate in Private Law at the University of Turin
Protection of Forced Heirs and International Public Policy: A Comparative Analysis of Germany and Italy in Light of the Bundesgerichtshof Judgment of 29 June 2022
1. The German Approach
The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice), in its judgment of 29 June 2022, affirmed the following legal principle: the protection of mandatory heirs pertains to German public policy and, consequently, pursuant to Article 35 of EU Regulation No. 650/2012, it is possible to disregard the lex successionis designated under Article 22 of the same Regulation whenever its application does not concretely guarantee mandatory heirs a level of protection at least equivalent to that ensured by German inheritance law. Read more
News
Enforcing Indian Judgments Abroad: The Hidden Costs of Révision au Fond
A recent article in the latest issue of the Asian Journal of Comparative Law revisits a feature of Indian private international law that often sits in the background of transactional and disputes practice but can decisively shape outcomes: the continued presence of révision au fond in India’s law on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (REFJ).
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.