Views
Chinese Judicial Practice on Asymmetric Choice of Court Agreements in International Civil & Commercial Disputes
By Yuchen Li, a PhD student at Wuhan University.
A. Introduction
An asymmetric choice of court agreement is commonly used in international commercial transactions, especially in financial agreements, which usually allows one party (option holder) an optional choice about the forum in which proceedings may be brought but the other (non-option holder) an exclusive choice to sue in a designated court.[1] A typical example is as follows:
‘(A) The courts of England have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any disputes ….
(B) The Parties agree that the courts of England are the most appropriate and convenient courts … to settle Disputes and accordingly no Party will argue to the contrary.
(C) This Clause is for the benefit of the Finance Parties only. As a result, no Finance Party shall be prevented from taking proceedings relating to a Dispute in any other courts with jurisdiction. To the extent allowed by law, the Finance Parties may take concurrent proceedings in any number of jurisdictions.’ [2]
In recent years, issues concerning asymmetric choice of court agreements have been controversial in cases within some jurisdictions.[3] Despite the significant amount of research on asymmetric choice of court agreements, little attention has been paid to Chinese stance on this topic. With Chinese private parties actively engaging in international transactions, Chinese attitude towards such clauses is important for commercial parties and academic researchers. This article gives a glimpse of how Chinese courts handle asymmetric choice of court agreements in international and commercial civil litigations.[4] Read more
China’s New Civil Procedure Law and the Hague Choice of Court Convention: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back?
By Sophia Tang, Wuhan University
China’s New Civil Procedure Law adopted in 2023 and taking effect from 1 Jan 2024 introduces significant changes to the previous civil procedure law regarding cross-border litigation. One of the key changes pertains to choice of court agreements. In the past, Chinese law on choice of court agreements has been criticized for being outdated and inconsistent with international common practice, particularly because it requires choice of court clauses to be in writing and mandates that the chosen court must have “practical connections” with the dispute. After China signed the Hague Choice of Court Convention, there was hope that China might reform its domestic law to align with the Hague Convention’s terms and eventually ratify the Convention.
The New Civil Procedure Law retains the old provision on choice of court agreements, stating that parties can choose a court with practical connections to the dispute in writing (Article 35). This provision is included in the chapter dealing with jurisdiction in domestic cases, but traditionally, Chinese courts have applied the same requirements to choice of court clauses in cross-border cases.
The problematic exclusivity of the UPC on provisional measures in relation with PMAC arbitrations
Guest post by Danilo Ruggero Di Bella (Bottega Di Bella)
This post delves into the issues stemming from the exclusive jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on interim relief in relation with the judicial support of the arbitrations administered by the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC).
Risks of divesting State courts of competence on interim measures
On one hand, article 32(1)(c) UPC Agreement (UPCA) provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC to issue provisional measures in disputes concerning classical European patents and European patents with unitary effect. Under article 62 UPCA and Rules 206 and 211 of the UPC Rules of Procedure (UPC RoP), the UPC may grant interim injunctions against an alleged infringer or against an intermediary whose services are used by the alleged infringer, intended to prevent any imminent infringement, to prohibit the continuation of the alleged infringement under the threat of recurring penalties, or to make such continuation subject to the lodging of guarantees intended to ensure the compensation of the patent holder. The UPC may also order the provisional seizure or delivery up of the products suspected of infringing a patent so as to prevent their entry into, or movement, within the channels of commerce. Further, the UPC may order a precautionary seizure of the movable and immovable property of the defendant (such its bank accounts), if an applicant demonstrates circumstances likely to endanger the recovery of damages, as well as an interim award of costs. Additionally, under article 60 UPCA, the UPC may order provisional measures to preserve evidence in respect of the alleged infringement and to inspect premises.
News
AAPrIL’s November seminar: Mary Keyes on Jurisdiction Agreements in International Family Litigation
This week, the Australasian Association of Private International Law (AAPrIL) is co-hosting a free online seminar on ‘Jurisdiction Agreements in International Family Litigation’, to be presented by Professor Mary Keyes of Griffith University.
The seminar will be held online and in-person at UniSQ, Toowoomba, Queensland. The details are:
Online (Zoom): Wednesday 26 November 2025, 12.30 to 1.30pm AEST.*
In-person: Wednesday 26 November 2025, 12.30 to 1.30pm AEST, Wonderley & Hall Moot Court, Room Q420, Toowoomba Campus, University of Southern Queensland.
Please register by the details in the attached flyer:
Flyer_UniSQ and AAPrIL Seminar 2025-4
*Note the times given are in Australian Eastern Standard Time (UTC+10).
[Out Now!] Sooksripaisarnkit and Garimella on Legal Challenges of China’s One Belt One Road Initative: Private International Law Considerations
This note was kindly prepared by Dr. Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit.
A new book Legal Challenges of China’s One Belt One Road Initative: Private International Law Considerations edited by Dr Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit and Dr Sai Ramani Garimella has now been released by Routledge.
This book is a sequel to the book China’s One Belt One Road Initiative and Private International Law which was published by Routledge in 2018.
Here is the publisher’s blurb:
“This book covers new legal developments of the One Belt One Road (OBOR) project and assesses how litigation may be organised to enforce and compensate for defaults for its related initiatives.
This book is structured into five themes, consisting of essays which assess the decade of BRI’s existence in the context of international economic engagement and the rule of law, private international law, dispute resolution mechanisms – including mediation and judgment mobility. The chapters in the book strike new ground and cover recent developments such as the establishment of China’s International Commercial Court, engagements in multiple Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) construction and investment projects.
The book will be of interest to researchers, academics, policymakers and students interested in private international law issues pertaining to the OBOR routes as well as private international law in general, Asian studies and the politics of international trade”.
The table of contents and contributors include:
Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit and Sai Ramani Garimella: Current Developments of the One Belt One Road Project and the Emerging Private International Law Issues
Dilini Pathirana: Sri Lanka’s Loan Agreements with China under the BRI: A Reflection of Selected Infrastructure Project-Related Loans
Atul Alexander: China and Foreign State Immunity Law: Legal Implications on State-Owned Entities
Mark McLaughlin: Global Standards, Local Realities: An Analysis of Singapore Convention on Mediation in the Context of Chinese State-Owned Enterprises
Zhengxin Huo: China’s International Commercial Court and Their Operation
Beligh Elbalti: Choice of Law in Contracts and Foreign Law before MENA Arab Courts from the Perspective of Belt and Road Initiative
Anna Wysocka-Bar: Circulation of Judgments Between EU Member States and China: A Path Through Complicated Framework Examined on the Example of Poland
Nobumichi Teramura: Recognition and Enforcement of Chinese judgments in Cambodia: Uncertain Foundations of the Rigid Reciprocity Standard in Cambodian Law
Jie (Jeanne) Huang: Recognition and Enforcement of Chinese Judicially Confirmed Mediation Decisions Abroad: The Challenges of Finality
Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit: Private International Law Dimensions of Blockchain-Based Bills of Lading
Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit and Sai Ramani Garimella: Conclusion and Reflection
The book can be ordered directly from Routledge: https://www.routledge.com/Legal-Challenges-of-Chinas-One-Belt-One-Road-Initiative-Private-International-Law-Considerations/Sooksripaisarnkit-Garimella/p/book/9781032805733
Anyone can use the below discount code to obtain 20% discount (available until 31st March 2026:
The editors are in the process of planning a book launch event (online). Currently, it is scheduled on 26th January 2026 between 8:00 -9:00 p.m (Australian Eastern Daylight Time). Further details will be announced once the full programme of event is available.
Crossroads in Private International Law Webinar with on ‘the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive’ at the University of Aberdeen
The Centre for Private International Law & Transnational Governance of the University of Aberdeen is continuing its Crossroads in Private International Law webinar series with a talk by Birgit van Houtert (Maastricht University) and Francesca Farrington (University of Liverpool) titled ‘The EU Anti-SLAPP Directive – Comparative Perspectives on Implementation’:
The Centre for Private International Law & Transnational Governance invites you to our next Crossroads in PIL webinar. This session brings together experts on Anti-SLAPP legislation from the UK and the Netherlands to discuss the Anti-SLAPP Directive. With 6 months to go before the Directive’s implementation deadline, this webinar will take stock of emerging best practices and challenges in implementing the directive and flesh out some unresolved questions.
Dr Francesca Farrington (University of Liverpool) will introduce the challenges posed by cross-border SLAPPs, before discussing how the Directive’s provisions on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments respond to these challenges. While these provisions represent a positive development, they also leave a number of issues unresolved and raise concerns about the fragmentation of European private international law.
Dr Birgit van Houtert (Maastricht University) will address the Dutch draft act regarding the transposition of the Anti SLAPP Directive. She will focus in particular on the challenges concerning the implementation of Articles 16 and 17 of the Directive. These core private international law provisions aim to provide protection for SLAPP targets against third country proceedings and judgments.
The webinar will be chaired by Prof Justin Borg-Barthet (University of Aberdeen).
Additional information and the link to register can be found here.