Views
First Thai Monetary Judgment Enforced in China, Highlighting Presumptive Reciprocity in China-ASEAN Region
This post is kindly provided by Dr. Meng Yu, lecturer at China University of Political Science and Law, and co-founder of China Justice Observer.
Key Takeaways:
- In June 2024, the China-ASEAN Free Trade Area Nanning International Commercial Tribunal under the Nanning Railway Transportation Intermediate Court in Guangxi ruled to recognize and enforce a Thai monetary judgment (Guangxi Nanning China Travel Service, Ltd. v. Orient Thai Airlines Co., Ltd. (2023) Gui 71 Xie Wai Ren No. 1).
- Apart from being the first case of enforcing Thai monetary judgments in China, it is also the first publicly reported case confirming a reciprocal relationship based on “presumptive reciprocity”.
- The Chinese court’s confirmation that “presumptive reciprocity”, as outlined in the Nanning Statement, is a form of mutual consensus between China and ASEAN countries helps to promote the circulation of judgments within the China-ASEAN region.
News
Workshop on Cross-border Protection of Cultural Property-Agenda
Workshop on Cross-border Protection of Cultural Property Agenda
2025.2.28, UTC 8:00 – 12:15 (London Time)
8:00 – 8:05 | Opening Remarks | ||
Zheng Tang | professor of Law, editor in chief, Chinese Journal of Transnational Law; Associate Dean, Wuhan University Academy of International Law and Global Governance | ||
8:05 – 8:45 | Keynote Address | ||
Christa Roodt | Senior Lecturer of History of Art, University of Glasgow | ||
Zhengxin Huo | Professor of Law, China University of Political Science and Law | ||
Panel 1: Legal Mechanisms of Cross-Border Cultural Property Protection | |||
8:45 – 9:00 | Elena Moustaira | The contribution of Postcolonial Theory to the cross-border protection of Indigenous cultural heritage | |
9:00 – 9:15 | Yehya Badr | Restitution of stolen foreign cultural property and hurdles in choice of law | |
9:15 – 9:30 | Maggie Fleming Cacot | Forfeiture and freezing orders in transborder cultural property litigation | |
9:30 – 9:50 | Commentary and Discussion | ||
Panel 2: Regional Practices and Challenges in Cultural Property Restitution | |||
9:50 – 10:05 | Andrzej’s Jakubowski | Moving People, Shifting State Borders and the Return of Cultural Property: The Case of Poland | |
10:05 – 10:20 | Miroslaw Michal Sadowski | From freedom to restitution (with special focus on Central and Eastern Europe and the Lusophone community) | |
10:20 – 10:35 | Ekin Omeroglu | The Issue of Applicable Law in Disputes Arising from Violations of Private Law Regulations on Cultural Properties: The Case of Turkiye | |
10:35 – 10:50 | Ruida Chen | Restitution of cultural property in China: In search of a new paradigm for cross-border cultural property claims | |
10:50 – 11:10 | Commentary and Discussion | ||
Panel 3: Looking to the Past and the Future | |||
11:10 – 11:25 | Dabbie De Girolamo | The Relevance of ADR for transnational cultural property disputes: A Survey and Analysis of China’s experience | |
11:25 – 11:40 | Andreas Giorgallis | Restitution of cultural objects unethically acquired during the colonial era: The intersection of Public and Private International Law | |
11:40 – 11:55 | Evelien Campfens | Evolving Legal Models of Restitution | |
11:55 – 12:15 | Commentary and Discussion |
Join Zoom Meeting:
https://zoom.us/j/87424891864?pwd=8rHX72dmzi7FCDWWnm7F2n1OLIOFaC.1
Meeting ID: 874 2489 1864 Password: 574150
Giustizia consensuale No 2/2024: Abstracts
The second issue of 2024 of Giustizia consensuale (published by Editoriale Scientifica) has just been released, and it features:
Tommaso dalla Massara (Professor at Università Roma Tre), Per un’ermeneutica della certezza nel processo civile romano: tra regula iuris e determinazione pecuniaria (For a Hermeneutics of Certainty in the Roman Civil Process: Between Regula Iuris and Pecuniary Determination; in Italian).
This contribution offers a reflection on procedural certainty, starting from the Roman classical process. In particular, crucial is the idea that, in this procedural system, certainty is to be related to the rule of ‘condemnatio pecuniaria’. Thus, certainty is translated into the determinacy of the pecuniary sentence. What emerges is a peculiar way of understanding judicial activity, which is characterised by the alternativeness between the groundedness and groundlessness of the claim (si paret/si non paret oriented to a certum), as opposed to the hypothesis in which the assessment is left entirely to the judge.
Beatrice Ficcarelli (Associate Professor at the University of Florence), L’acquisizione di informazioni e «prove» nella negoziazione assistita da avvocati: la tessera che mancava (The Acquisition of Information and ‘Evidence’ in Negotiation Assisted by Lawyers: The Missing Piece of the Puzzle; in Italian). Read more
Call for Participants: Quo Vadis Preferential Law Approach? A Survey on the Interpretation of Article 6(2) Rome I Regulation Across EU Member States
Benedikt Schmitz (University of Groningen) has shared the following call for participants with us:
Quo Vadis Preferential Law Approach? A Survey on the Interpretation of Article 6(2) Rome I Regulation Across EU Member States
Project description:
The Rome I Regulation plays a crucial role in determining the applicable law in cross-border consumer contracts within the European Union. Article 6(2) Rome I Regulation allows parties to choose the governing law while ensuring that consumers do not lose the protection granted by mandatory provisions of the law that would apply in the absence of such a choice. Despite its significance, the interpretation of this provision varies across Member States, leading to questions about its practical coherence and effectiveness. Read more