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 In the past, Chinese law on choice of court agreements has been criticized for being outdated and inconsistent with international common practice, particularly because it requires choice of court clauses to be in writing and mandates that the chosen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
Hybrid Lecture: Venezuela’s Oil, Between a Rock and a Hard (Arbitration) Place (UCL, 26 Feb 2026, 1pm)
EAPIL Conference in Geneva from 18-20 June 2026: Registration open!
From 18 to 20 June 2026 the European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL) will host its third biannual conference. Following the Association’s conferences in Aarhus (Denmark) and Wroclaw (Poland) the conference promises to be a key event for scholars and practitioners interested in the present and future of European private international law.
Programme and Audience
Under the title “Shaping the Future of Private International Law in Europe – Putting Together the Pieces & Filling Gaps”, the conference will address structural developments, unresolved issues, and emerging challenges in European private international law. Special emphasis will be placed on 1) the consolidation of European private international law in a single instrument (EuPIL Act), 2) the unification of international property law (including the protection of cultural objects), and 3) the relationship of European Private International Law with third States.
All topics will be addressed from an analytical and a forward-looking perspective, combining doctrinal reflection with policy-oriented debate. Contributions will come from an internationally diverse group of speakers, reflecting EAPIL’s commitment to comparative and transnational perspectives.
The conference is open to academics, judges, practitioners, policymakers, and early-career researchers with an interest in (European) private international law.
Venue and Organisation
Hosted by the Faculty of Law of the University of Geneva, the conference will take place exclusively in person in Geneva. The choice of venue underscores the international outlook of the event and provides an ideal setting for scholarly exchange and networking.
Registration
Registration is available here. An early-bird rate applies until 15 March 2026, with standard registration available until 17 May 2026. Participation fees vary depending on registration date and include the option to attend the conference dinner. Further details on fees and registration can be found on the conference website.
Why Attend?
The EAPIL Conference 2026 offers a unique opportunity to:
- engage with cutting-edge research in private international law,
- discuss current reform projects and unresolved doctrinal questions,
- connect with leading scholars and practitioners from across jurisdictions, and
- contribute to shaping the future development of the field.
Further Information
More information on the programme, registration, and practical details is available on the conference website.
About EAPIL
The European Association of Private International Law was founded in 2019 to promote the study and development of Private International Law. It has today more than 600 members from more than 70 countries. For more information visit the EAPIL website and follow the EAPIL blog.
Crossroads in Private International Law Webinar with Tobias Lutzi on “Crossroads in Private International Law Seminar on the Reform of EU Private International Law” 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 Tobias Lutzi (University of Augsburg) titled ‘Between Ambition and Realism – What to Expect from the Upcoming Reforms to the Rome II and Brussels Ia Regulation?’:
The Centre for Private International Law & Transnational Governance invites you to attend the next seminar in our Crossroads in Private International Law seminar series. You can find the link to register at the bottom of this page.
Prof Tobias Lutzi (Junior Professor for Private Law at Augsburg University) will give a seminar on the reforms to the Rome II and Brussels Ia Regulation. Prof Lutzi has kindly provided the following abstract:
Last year, the EU Commission formally kicked off the process of reforming two key instruments of EU Private International Law, identifying potential areas for reform and setting out some overarching policy goals. In 2026, the Commission will face the more difficult decision of which of those areas to actually focus on. This talk will discuss the respective merits of those areas of reform, highlighting the tension between ambition and realism that will shape the Commission’s work.
We are looking forward to welcoming you online or on campus!
Additional information and the link to register can be found here.