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
HCCH Monthly Update: November 2025
HCCH Monthly Update: November 2025
Conventions & Instruments
On 5 November 2025, Algeria deposited its instrument of accession to the 1961 Apostille Convention. With the ratification of Argentina, the Convention now has 58 Contracting Parties. With the accession of Algeria, the 1961 Apostille Convention now has 128 Contracting Parties. It will enter into force for Algeria on 9 July 2026. More information is available here.
On 27 November 2025, Monaco deposited its instrument of accession to the 2005 Choice of Court Convention. With the accession of Monaco, 38 States and the European Union are bound by the 2005 Choice of Court Convention. The Convention will enter into force for Monaco on 1 March 2026. More information is available here.
Call for Papers- International Conference on Legal Aspects of Migration Management
Bilkent University Faculty of Law and Jean Monnet Chair in Legal Aspects of Migration Management in the EU and in Türkiye cordially invite you to submit abstracts for the International Conference on Legal Aspects of Migration Management to be held at Bilkent University on 6-7 March 2026.
The Conference aims to give the opportunity to researchers who would like to present their theoretical or empirical research on the development of policy, legislative and administrative responses to key migration issues.
We particularly encourage submissions on the questions of evolution of the international legal regime relating to migration; the right of asylum and asylum procedures; border management; sustainability and migration; circular migration; protection of unaccompanied minors and other vulnerable groups; effects of digitalisation on migration; externalization of migration policies, recognition of personal status; migrants’ access to fundamental rights and durable solutions. Proposals involving comparative perspectives of international, European and national approaches are most welcome.
Abstracts (max. 500 words) (in English or in Turkish) should be sent to migration@bilkent.edu.tr by 5 January 2026.
Detailed information shall be provided upon request: migration@bilkent.edu.tr
Chronology of Practice: Chinese Practice in Private International Law in 2024 Published
Written by Dr. Zihao Fan (Peking University Law School)
On 14 November 2025, the annual survey Chronology of Practice: Chinese Practice in Private International Law in 2024 (“the 2024 Survey”) was published in the Chinese Journal of International Law (Oxford University Press, Vol. 24(4)). This survey continues the long-running series of yearly reports, now in its twelfth year since 2013, and it remains an indispensable resource documenting China’s development in private international law for an international audience. The Survey is available at:
https://academic.oup.com/chinesejil/article/24/4/jmaf031/8321298?login=true
- Content and Focus of the 2024 Survey
The 2024 Survey covers six areas: an overview, civil subjects, jurisdiction, choice of law, international judicial assistance, and international arbitration and judicial review. Its characteristics are as follows:
First, the Survey follows the structure of previous years, summarising original materials without providing commentary.
Second, it further streamlines case facts and extracts core viewpoints. It covers two revised laws, one treaty approved by the Chinese government, three new and three revised administrative regulations, three judicial interpretations, seven batches of Supreme People’s Court (SPC) case reports, forty-three directly relevant typical cases, one SPC Work Report, and other official information and media sources.
Third, it focuses on several key issues:
- Ascertainment of extraterritorial law. In recent years, China has not only established multiple ascertainment centres, but the SPC has also issued specialised judicial interpretations and typical cases. Local courts have introduced rules relating to the ascertainment of foreign law, and many local courts and foreign-law ascertainment centres have published dedicated reports. These achievements have placed China’s judicial practice in foreign-law ascertainment genuinely “at the forefront” internationally.
- Jurisdiction in anti-monopoly cases and the application of the appropriate-connection principle became focal points of Chinese private international law practice during the year.
- Choice of law in contracts. SPC Reply Regarding the Validity of an Agreement Entered into by a Hong Kong or Macao-Funded Enterprise Registered in the Mainland Part of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area to Choose the Law of Hong Kong or Macao as the Applicable Law for Contracts or to Designate Hong Kong or Macao as the Place of Arbitration represents a significant breakthrough: two Mainland parties may choose Hong Kong or Macau law and may designate Hong Kong or Macau as the place of arbitration.
- Judicial review of arbitration. The SPC selected fifteen typical cases concerning judicial review of arbitration, including cases supporting the further development of Hong Kong arbitration, which is of positive significance.
Fourth, the 2024 Survey also covers other matters, including representative offices of foreign enterprises and foreign law firms in China. Notably, provisions allowing for the extraterritorial application of Chinese law are becoming increasingly common, and the securities-law field witnessed the first case in which a court exercised jurisdiction based on such a provision.
- Abstract of the 2024 Survey
The Survey provides the following abstract:
The 2024 survey of the Chinese practices in private international law highlights five aspects: First, in terms of legislative developments, two revised laws, three new and three revised administrative regulations, three judicial interpretations, were adopted. The Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) also issued seven groups of 43 typical cases. Additionally, China ratified the Agreement on Judicial Assistance and Cooperation in Civil or Commercial Matters with Saudi Arabia. Second, Chinese courts concluded substantial numbers of international cases: 26,000 foreign-related civil and commercial cases, 34,000 maritime cases and 18,000 commercial arbitration judicial review cases. Third, regarding jurisdiction, Chinese courts for the first time applied the appropriate connection approach under Article 276(2) of the Civil Procedure Law. In civil monopoly cases, both the SPC’s new judicial interpretation and selected cases confirmed that jurisdiction follows tort and contract rules. Fourth, regarding choice of law, foreign law ascertainment remains prominent, with Chinese courts demonstrating increased efforts to research and apply foreign laws through numerous reports, cases and rules. Finally, regarding arbitration, the SPC released six typical cases supporting the arbitration in Hong Kong and a Report on Judicial Review of Commercial Arbitration. In the Report, the SPC identified three cases involving public policy to illustrate the application scope while maintaining strict application standards.
III. Core Rationale of the Survey Series
Since 2013, the English-language annual Survey of Chinese private international law practice has centred on developments in Chinese private international law, reviewing both institutional developments and judicial practice. It covers conflict of laws, uniform substantive law, international civil procedure, international commercial arbitration, and international commercial mediation. This structure is common to all editions, though specific emphases vary each year.
Between 2013 and 2024, the series has addressed twelve SPC Work Reports, twenty-nine laws, thirteen administrative regulations, seventy-six judicial-interpretation-type documents, and 307 cases.
It is noteworthy that Chinese courts adjudicate more than 45,000 foreign-related civil, commercial and maritime cases each year. Most cases included in the Survey are selected by the team after extensive review of large numbers of judgments available on China Judgments Online and Peking University’s legal database, with the intention of identifying representative examples.
By providing original materials—including legislative and regulatory developments and case law—the series traces the evolution of China’s foreign-related civil and commercial legal system and judicial practice. The author aims to “tell the story of China’s foreign-related rule of law in an international language”, using a documentary style that enables domestic and international readers to appreciate China’s progress in this field.