Views
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 In the past, Chinese law on choice of court agreements has been criticized for being outdated and inconsistent with international common practice, particularly because it requires choice of court clauses to be in writing and mandates that the chosen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.
A Plea for Private International Law
A new paper by Michael Green, A Plea for Private International Law (Conflict of Laws), was recently published as an Essay in the Notre Dame Law Review Reflection. Michael argues that although private international law is increasingly important in our interconnected world, it has fallen out of favor at top U.S. law schools. To quote from the Essay:
Private international law has not lost its jurisprudential import. And ease of travel, communication, and trade have only increased in the last century. But in American law schools (although not abroad), private international law has started dropping out of the curriculum, with the trend accelerating in the last five years or so. We have gone through US News and World Report’s fifty top-ranked law schools and, after careful review, it appears that twelve have not offered a course on private international law (or its equivalent) in the last four academic years: Arizona State University, Boston University, Brigham Young University, Fordham University, University of Georgia, University of Minnesota, The Ohio State University, Pepperdine University, Stanford University, University of Southern California, Vanderbilt University, and University of Washington. And even where the course is taught, in some law schools—such as Duke, New York University, and Yale—it is by visitors, adjuncts, or emerita. It is no longer a valued subject in faculty hiring.
News
Perspectives Contentieuses Internationales (PCI), Volume 4
by Fabienne Jault-Seseke
Volume 4 of the Revue Perspectives Contentieuses Internationales (PCI) has been published. Available in open access here.
It includes a special feature on ‘the International Commercial Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal’ edited by Sandrine Clavel and Daniel Barlow. This feature provides an insight into the history of the chamber, its specific characteristics, its place in the European market for justice, and how it operates. It also includes a presentation of its case law in private international law by Marie-Elodie Ancel and François Mailhé. Case law in arbitration is the subject of three articles by Malik Laazouzi.
Widiez on Specialisation of Private International Law
Gaëlle Widiez (Bourgogne University) has recently edited a volume entitled The Specialization of Private International Law: Reflections from the Perspective of Business Law (La spécialisation du droit international privé : Réflexion dans le champ du droit des affaires), published by LexisNexis. Read more
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.