Views
First Case of Reciprocal Commitment: China Requests Azerbaijan to Enforce its Judgment Based on Reciprocity
It has been a hot topic to explore the recognition and enforcement of judgments between China and other countries. The core issue of the topic is the role of reciprocity under Chinese law and practice concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in China. Reciprocity was narrowly interpreted by Chinese courts in the past, blocking the circulation of lots of foreign judgments in China. Encouragingly, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) is adopting new rules to interpret reciprocity, which is now far more favorable to establishing the reciprocal relationship between China and foreign countries. Then it is up to lower Chinese courts to follow up and the new reciprocity rules established by the SPC are tested in practice.
This piece of comment is written by Dr. Meng Yu, lecturer at China University of Political Science and Law, and co-founder of China Justice Observer.
In 2019, in the Zhou et al. v. Vusal case, China’s request to Azerbaijan for judgment recognition and enforcement was accompanied by its reciprocal commitment through a diplomatic note, marking the first time China made a reciprocal commitment to a foreign country regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.
Key takeaways:
- In the field of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (REFJ), the new reciprocity criteria in China include three tests, namely, de jure reciprocity, reciprocal understanding or consensus, and reciprocal commitment.
- In 2019, in the Zhou et al. v. Vusal case, China’s request to Azerbaijan for judgment recognition and enforcement was accompanied by its reciprocal commitment through a diplomatic note, marking the first time China made a reciprocal commitment to a foreign country regarding REFJ.
- A reciprocal commitment is essentially a unilateral promise that takes effect upon being made.
- Before making such a commitment, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) examines and decides on the matter. This is logically consistent with the requirement from the Conference Summary that Chinese courts need to examine, on a case-by-case basis, the existence of reciprocity, on which the SPC has the final say.
Reciprocity is not new but reciprocal commitment is.
Readers familiar with the topic of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (REFJ) will undoubtedly be familiar with the concept of “reciprocity”. Although its manifestations and extent vary, the principle of reciprocity serves as the basis or precondition for REFJ in many countries, including China.
However, few countries have developed the concept of reciprocity as creatively as China, which has had at least five different standards for its determination—de facto reciprocity, presumptive reciprocity, de jure reciprocity, reciprocal understanding or consensus, and reciprocal commitment.
Among these, Reciprocal Commitment, as the most recently developed reciprocity criterion, often leaves people puzzled. What exactly is this unicorn-like criterion?
In 2019, in the case of Zhou et al. v. Vusal (hereinafter the “Vusal Case”), China requested Azerbaijan to recognize and enforce a judgment, making a commitment through diplomatic notes. This was the first reported case in which China made a reciprocal commitment to a foreign country regarding REFJ. This case will unveil to us the nature of Reciprocal Commitment.
I. What is “Reciprocal Commitment”?
Since the 2000s, reciprocity criteria have evolved significantly, reflecting China’s efforts to liberalize its REFJ rules.
Over a decade, the early, high-threshold reciprocity criterion—de facto reciprocity, was abandoned. One after another, more pragmatic and flexible criteria such as presumptive reciprocity and de jure reciprocity have emerged in the form of judicial policies, declarations, and memoranda. Following the release of the “Conference Summary of the Symposium on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trials of Courts Nationwide” (hereinafter the “Conference Summary”) of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC), a new generation of more open reciprocity criteria[1] has been established.
The new reciprocity criteria include three tests, namely, de jure reciprocity, reciprocal understanding or consensus, and reciprocal commitment, which also coincide with possible outreaches of legislative, judicial, and administrative branches.
Related Posts:
- How Chinese Courts Determine Reciprocity in Foreign Judgment Enforcement – Breakthrough for Collecting Judgments in China Series (III)[2]
- China’s 2022 Landmark Judicial Policy Clears Final Hurdle for Enforcement of Foreign Judgments[3]
It then begs the question, what exactly is reciprocal commitment?
According to the Conference Summary, the test of reciprocal commitment means that when trying a case applying for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment or ruling, the people’s court may recognize the existence of reciprocity, if “the country where the judgment-making court is located has made reciprocal commitments to China through diplomatic channels or China has made reciprocal commitments to the country where the judgment-making court is located through diplomatic channels, and there is no evidence that the country where the judgment-making court is located has refused to recognize and enforce a Chinese judgment or ruling on the ground of lack of reciprocity”.
For a while, reciprocal commitment was like a mysterious unicorn—because there were almost no cases or reports mentioning it. In contrast, the other two reciprocity tests have well-known instances, including the SPAR case, which involved the de jure reciprocity, where an English judgment was recognized and enforced in China for the first time[4]; the China-Singapore MOG, which demonstrated reciprocal understanding[5]; and the Nanning Statement, which involved reciprocal consensus[6].
One year after the Conference Summary, the first public document on reciprocal commitment finally appeared. This is the Vusal case, which was introduced as a typical case of reciprocal commitment in “Understanding and Application of the Conference Summary” authored by the SPC’s Fourth Civil Division, published in June 2023.
II. The Case of Vusal: First Case of Reciprocal Commitment
In July 2018, Yiwu Primary People’s Court, Zhejiang (the “Yiwu Court”), issued a first-instance civil judgment (2018) Zhe 0782 Min Chu No. 8836, in the case of a sales contract dispute between Zhou et al. and the defendant Vusal (a national of Azerbaijan). The judgment ordered the defendant Vusal to pay the plaintiffs Zhou et al. for the goods. The defendant Vusal failed to appear in the court after being duly summoned, and did not appeal during the appeal period. The judgment became effective in August of the same year.
After the judgment took effect, Vusal refused to satisfy the judgment, and the plaintiff applied to the court for enforcement of the judgment. The Yiwu Court filed the case for enforcement but did not find any of Vusal’s enforceable asset in China.
In October 2019, the Yiwu Court reported to the SPC to request the competent court of the Republic of Azerbaijan to recognize and enforce the judgment.
Upon review, SPC decided to submit the judicial assistance request to Azerbaijan, and to make a reciprocal commitment.
Finally, when making a judicial assistance request, the Chinese Embassy in Azerbaijan made a commitment to Azerbaijan in a diplomatic note that “it will provide equal assistance to Azerbaijan under similar circumstances in accordance with the law”.
III. Comments
This case marks the first time that China has proactively made a reciprocal commitment to a foreign country regarding REFJ. It is still unclear whether Azerbaijan has acted on China’s judicial assistance request for REFJ. There is also no available report or discussion on how Azerbaijan views the reciprocal commitment made by China through diplomatic notes.
One thing is certain: combined with the Vusal case, the meaning and application of reciprocal commitment have become clearer.
First, a reciprocal commitment is essentially a unilateral promise that takes effect upon being made. This “unilateral” commitment can be made by a foreign country (the future country where the judgment-making court is located) to China (the future requested country), or by China to the foreign country, as exemplified by China’s commitment to Azerbaijan in the Vusal case.
Second, a reciprocal commitment can be regarded as a presumption of the existence of reciprocity. Since the commitment is unilateral and differs from the bilateral reciprocity understanding or consensus, the making of such a commitment does not automatically prove the existence of reciprocity. Instead, reciprocity is presumed unless there is evidence to the contrary (i.e., the other country has previously refused to recognize and enforce a Chinese judgment on the grounds that a reciprocal relationship does not exist).
Third, reciprocal commitments are made through diplomatic channels, as in the Vusal case where the Chinese Embassy in Azerbaijan made the commitment through a diplomatic note. Before making such a commitment, the SPC examines and decides on the matter. This is logically consistent with the requirement from the Conference Summary that Chinese courts need to examine, on a case-by-case basis, the existence of reciprocity, on which the SPC has the final say.
[1] https://conflictoflaws.net/2022/chinas-2022-landmark-judicial-policy-clears-final-hurdle-for-enforcement-of-foreign-judgments/
[2] https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/a/breakthrough-for-collecting-judgments-in-china-series-3
[3] https://conflictoflaws.net/2022/chinas-2022-landmark-judicial-policy-clears-final-hurdle-for-enforcement-of-foreign-judgments/
[4] https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/a/chinese-court-recognizes-english-commercial-judgment-for-the-first-time
[5] https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/p/memorandum-of-guidance-between-china-supremecourt-and-singapore-supremecourt-on-recognition-and-enforcement-of-money-judgments
[6] https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/p/nanning-statement-of-the-2nd-china-asean-justice-forum
The Indian Satellite Saga and Retaliation: Recognizing the Supreme Court of India’s Judgment Abroad?
Introduction
As one of the most complex and fiercely contested recent investment disputes, the Indian Satellite Saga originated from India’s annulment of an agreement for leasing S-band electromagnetic spectrum on two satellites (Satellite Agreement) to Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. (Devas). The Saga involved multiple international arbitrations and domestic litigations. In 2022, the Supreme Court of India made a judgment (SCI Judgment) to wind up Devas. Devas and its foreign investors allege the SCI Judgment is a retaliatory measure against them for enforcing arbitration awards.
News
Second Issue of the Journal of Private International Law for 2025
The third issue of the Journal of Private International Law was published today. It contains the following articles
Andrew Tettenborn, “English conflicts law at sea – the transfer and creation of proprietary interests in ships”
Surprisingly, the law applicable to the creation and transfer of proprietary interests in ships remains remarkably obscure as a matter of the English conflict of laws. In this article an attempt is made to investigate the relevant authorities and to reconcile them. The conclusion is that, subject to exceptions, English courts will recognise transfers if they are effective under any one or more of (1) the lex situs, (2) the law of the registry and (3) (in the case of equitable interests) English law.
Gerard McCormack, “Hands up for UK joining the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 but lukewarm on the UK returning to the Lugano Convention 2007”
This article considers the relative merits of the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 and the Lugano Convention 2007 for the UK in the post-Brexit era viewed primarily from the extent of the insolvency exceptions in both Conventions (and in the Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005) as they apply to UK schemes of arrangement and UK restructuring plans for companies. The article briefly takes account of some broader issues relating to arbitration and exclusive choice of court agreements, primarily through the lens of The Prestige litigation, before reaching a conclusion in favour of the UK having become a Party to the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 in 2025 and against the UK rejoining the Lugano Convention 2007.
Guangjian Tu and Tiezheng Yang., “The doctrine of public policy in Chinese courts’ choice of law in the modern age”
It is generally agreed that in private international law the doctrine of public policy plays a fundamentally important role in the application of foreign law and can work as a safety valve. This doctrine has also been reflected in Chinese legislation as in many other jurisdictions. However, the application of this doctrine in Chinese courts is inconsistent, which could not only lead to uncertainty but also jeopardise justice. This article examines how the doctrine of public policy has been applied in choice of law in Chinese courts since 2010 when the new Chinese choice of law codification was made. It finds that there are basically four main types of cases in which Chinese courts have applied the doctrine of public policy to exclude the application of foreign laws. After detailed analysis and reflection, it is suggested that this doctrine continue to be applied for some of those cases but not for others.
Katja Karjalainen, “Acquiring a child abroad and paths to parenthood in Finland: The difference between private adoptions and international surrogacy arrangements”
The article delves into issues of legal tourism and global justice. By referencing the Hague Adoption Convention as well as Finnish legal approaches and case law with respect to the confirmation of a child-parent relationship following private intercountry adoptions and international surrogacy arrangements (ISAs), the article elaborates on the problematics of recognition. Doubts with respect to ethical and commercial aspects of arrangements and the deprivation of rights of vulnerable individuals have been presented with respect to both cases. The article shows the paradox between the legal approaches in these two cases that both entail an independent endeavour to get a child abroad. In doing so, the article underlines how the regulatory framework built up by the Hague Adoption Convention for the area of intercountry adoptions creates more space for global justice and collective interests than non-regulation, but may, in some cases, be detrimental to individual rights and interests. Non-regulation of ISAs underlines individual rights and interests and at the same time erodes domestic legal norms.The article delves into issues of legal tourism and global justice. By referencing the Hague Adoption Convention as well as Finnish legal approaches and case law with respect to the confirmation of a child-parent relationship following private intercountry adoptions and international surrogacy arrangements (ISAs), the article elaborates on the problematics of recognition. Doubts with respect to ethical and commercial aspects of arrangements and the deprivation of rights of vulnerable individuals have been presented with respect to both cases. The article shows the paradox between the legal approaches in these two cases that both entail an independent endeavour to get a child abroad. In doing so, the article underlines how the regulatory framework built up by the Hague Adoption Convention for the area of intercountry adoptions creates more space for global justice and collective interests than non-regulation, but may, in some cases, be detrimental to individual rights and interests. Non-regulation of ISAs underlines individual rights and interests and at the same time erodes domestic legal norms.
Maria Hook, “Are “extraterritorial” consumer laws anti-internationalist?”
This article asks whether extraterritorial consumer laws, defined as laws that create a risk of regulatory overlap, are anti-internationalist. Drawing on New Zealand law as a case study, the article argues that extraterritorial consumer laws may recognise intersecting but legitimate regulatory interests. If the plaintiff gets to choose the law, indirectly or directly, there is an appropriate process for identifying the applicable law based on the principle of favor laesi. In this sense, extraterritorial consumer laws do not just give effect to local interests, to be balanced with competing internationalist concerns. Rather, they themselves may reflect an internationalist approach to private international law, even if the approach is not universally adopted. The article then explores potential implications of this argument for the court’s analysis of the applicable law and jurisdiction. Courts may be more willing to embrace an extraterritorial interpretation of consumer laws, and to lean into the plaintiff’s ability to rely on foreign law despite local law also being applicable in principle (as has happened in New Zealand). Courts may also treat the plaintiff’s choice of forum with deference when they decide whether to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of the doctrine of forum (non) conveniens.
Aleksandrs Fillers, “Venue in the Brussels Ia Regulation”
Anybody who has even superficial knowledge of EU private international law has heard about its cornerstone – the Brussels Ia Regulation. Typically, the major issue when dealing with the said regulation is to determine which Member State can hear the dispute. However, the Brussels Ia Regulation has a second layer. In addition to rules of international jurisdiction, the Regulation, as interpreted by the CJEU, contains venue rules that determine which specific court can hear a case. This issue is far less known to courts and practitioners and often glossed over by scholars. The article aims to provide a comprehensive study of venue rules in the Brussels Ia Regulation.
Third Issue of the Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2025
The third issue of Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2025 has recently been published. It contains two private international law case notes and a book review.
Andreas Giannakopoulos, “Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses and EU Exceptionalism”
Matthew Hoyle, “Full Service: Freezing Injunctions and Service Out (Again)”
Thomas Raphael, “The Virtues of Symmetry”
Call for Papers: 4th APILA Conference, Doshisha University (Kyoto, Japan), 13–14 December 2025
The fourth annual APILA Conference will take place in person at Doshisha University in Kyoto (Japan) on Saturday 13 (Day 1) and Sunday 14 (Day 2) December 2025. The APILA Conference will be in the form of two days of roundtable discussions in English. Persons whose abstracts have been selected (see next paragraph) will deliver oral presentations in turn on Days 1 and 2. Each presentation will run for about 10 minutes and be followed by a discussion of about 10 to 15 minutes in which participants will have the opportunity to comment on the presentation. The objective of the APILA Conference is to assist presenters to refine prospective research papers with a view to eventual publication. Read more