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 In the past, Chinese law on choice of court agreements has been criticized for being outdated and inconsistent with international common practice, particularly because it requires choice of court clauses to be in writing and mandates that the chosen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
Virtual Workshop (in German) on January 13, 2026: Jens Kleinschmidt on “Zehn Jahre Europäische Erbrechtsverordnung – Stand und Perspektiven”
On Tuesday, January 13, 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). Jens Kleinschmidt (Trier University) will speak, in German, about the topic
“Zehn Jahre Europäische Erbrechtsverordnung – Stand und Perspektiven”
Seit zehn Jahren bestimmt die Europäische Erbrechtsverordnung die Planung und Abwicklung grenzüberschreitender Erbfälle in der EU. Eine Überprüfungsklausel (Art. 82 EuErbVO) sieht nach diesem Zeitraum einen Bericht über die Anwendung der Verordnung vor. Dies nimmt der Vortrag zum Anlass, aufbauend auf den Erfahrungen mit dem Rechtsakt über Zukunftsperspektiven nachzudenken. Den Ausgangspunkt bildet dabei das Europäische Nachlasszeugnis, dessen effet utile in der Rechtsprechung des EuGH wiederholt die Auslegung der gesamten Verordnung geleitet hat.
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.
Revisiting the Internationality of Contracts: Conference in Paris, 9 February 2026
The international character of contracts is currently undergoing significant transformations. Whether deliberately chosen by the parties, rejected by domestic courts, endured in certain regulatory contexts, or even rendered obsolete, the notion of internationality – long considered a cornerstone of private international law – calls for renewed analysis. Against this background, a conference entitled “Revisiting the Internationality of Contracts” will be held on Monday, 9 February 2026 from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the Grand Chamber of the French Court of Cassation.
List of China’s Cases on Recognition of Foreign Judgments [2025 Update]
As the new year begins, it’s a good time for a fresh start. One timely occasion to do so is the release, on 31 December 2025, of the annual update of the List of China’s Cases on Recognition of Foreign Judgments (Case List), prepared since 2019 by China Justice Observer (CJO), founded by Guodong Du and Meng Yu (updates for the years 2020, 2022, 2023, and 2024 were also previously posted on this blog).
The Case List is compiled on the basis of a collection of “all Chinese court decisions involving the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (REFJ), as well as foreign decisions concerning the recognition and enforcement of Chinese judgments.” The stated intention behind this endeavor is to “build reasonable expectations on REFJ in China.”
The Case List constitutes a particularly valuable source of information on judicial practice relating to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in China, both under international treaties concluded by China (for a full list, see here) and under domestic law, namely the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2023 Amendment), Articles 298–303.
According to the 2025 update, a total of 120 cases involving China and 26 foreign States and regions, excluding foreign divorce judgments, have now been collected. This represents an increase of 11 cases compared to the previous update (109 cases in the 2024 update).
Key features of the 2025 update include the following:
-
The List comprises 26 concise reports for each jurisdiction, together with a chart of bilateral judicial assistance treaties which China has concluded with 39 States, of which 35 bilateral treaties include judgment enforcement clauses.
-
A total of eleven newly added cases involve one treaty jurisdiction – Uzbekistan (one case), and five non-treaty jurisdictions, namely, Australia (one case), New Zealand (four cases), Singapore (two cases), South Korea (two cases), and the United States (one case).
-
Please note that Tian v Xu [2023] NZHC 3259 marks the first reported instance of a New Zealand court recognizing and enforcing a Chinese civil settlement statement (also known as a mediation judgment). By treating such instruments as equivalent to consent judgments, the New Zealand High Court has adopted a pro-enforcement approach consistent with precedents in Canada (Wei v Li 2019 BCCA 114) and Australia (Bank of China Limited v Chen [2022] NSWSC 749), providing a clear contrast to the earlier restrictive view expressed in Singapore (Shi Wen Yue v Shi Minjiu & Anor [2016] SGHC 137).
-
Another noteworthy case is Sunvalley Solar Inc. v Baoding Tianwei Solarfilms Co. Ltd. (2019) Ji 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 3, where a Chinese court refused to enforce a U.S. default judgment rendered in breach of a valid arbitration agreement. By holding that a defendant’s absence does not constitute an implied waiver, the Chinese court shielded arbitration clauses from being bypassed via foreign default judgments.
-
Other newly added cases, be it foreign judgments to be enforced in China or Chinese judgments to be enforced in foreign jurisdictions, provide a valuable comparative perspective on key issues in the eyes of courts from different jurisdictions, such as reciprocity ( e.g., the de jure reciprocity applied by a Beijing court in enforcing a South Korean IP judgment, the reciprocal consensus confirmed by a Shanghai court in enforcing a Singapore monetary judgment), natural justice (New Zealand), ascertainment and interpretation of foreign law (Singapore, Australia).
-
Each case has been reviewed, and more details, such as the grounds, the case numbers, and causes of action, have been added.
-
Case analyses have been aggregated under the country tags since 2022, so it is now easier to track down relevant cases, together with their information and analyses, in each country/region report. For example, under the tag ‘US-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’, one can find relevant case analyses involving mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments between the US and China.
For further details see here and here.
Happy New Year to all!
