Views
China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition
Written by Jeremy MEI Ziyang
LLM student at Wuhan University
Visiting student at Singapore Management University
I. Background
On 15 May this year, Ministry of Justice (MOJ) of China issued its Official Notice No 5 of 2026 (‘the MOJ Notice’), announcing that the relevant extraterritorial investigation carried out by EU on Chinese entities Nuctech constitutes improper extraterritorial jurisdiction measures under China’s Regulation on Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ROCIFEJ, State Council Decree No 835).[1] This Regulation was promulgated and entered into force on 7 April 2026. As a nationwide regulation promulgated by State Council, although it cannot be called an ‘Act’ that should be passed by the National People’s Congress, its legal hierarchical force directly follows an ‘Act’, higher than the previous Blocking Rules issued by Ministry of Commerce (MOC).[2]
Enforcement of New York Judgments in Côte d’Ivoire: Insights from a Recent Decision of the Abidjan Commercial Court
Many thanks to Boris Awa (Kigali Independent University ULK, Kigali, Rwanda) for the tip-off
I. Introduction
The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Francophone African countries remains a largely underexplored subject in the literature, including in French-language scholarship. The laws of many countries have not yet been systematically analysed from a comparative perspective, and in several jurisdictions access to even the most basic information is itself a considerable challenge. This note aims to raise awareness of African private international law, in particular in Francophone Sub-Saharan African countries. The case discussed here concerns the enforcement of a New York judgment in Côte d’Ivoire. It provides an opportunity to present the Ivorian system of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and to examine some of the key issues addressed by the Ivorian court.
Investment Awards vs Sovereign Immunity: Navigating the Enforcement Maze
By Cara North, Counsel, Ashurst
The intersection of foreign State immunity and the enforcement of international arbitral awards has been a hotly contested issues in recent years. First the question was whether a State has waived immunity from court processes concerning recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards by ratifying the 1965 Convention of Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID Convention) – to which the answer has been yes in Australia and the England and Wales (among other jurisdictions). More recently, the question has been whether a State’s ratification of the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) constitutes an implicit waiver of sovereign immunity, to which the High Court of Australia most recently held no.
In CCDM Holdings, LLC v The Republic of India [2026] HCA 9, the High Court of Australia unanimously held that ratification of the New York Convention does not, of itself, waive foreign State immunity under the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth). The decision aligns Australia with the current position in the United States, Canada, and England and Wales, reinforcing an emerging common law consensus in that regard.
News
Registration Open for Bonn Conference on “International Filiation Law in the EU”, 24 / 25 September 2026
Registration is now open for the already announced conference on “International Filiation Law in the EU” dealing with questions of filiation law resulting from the EU Parenthood Proposal. More information and the registration link can be accessed at the website of the conference. Registration is esp. important for the conference dinner as spots are limited and will be provided on a first come basis.
CoL.net: New Editors
We are delighted to welcome two new editors to the Blog’s Editorial Board.
Janaína Albuquerque Azevedo Gomes is an attorney admitted in Brazil and Portugal focusing on international family law. She has experience across numerous countries and sectors, including the Brazilian government and the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH).
Gustavo Ferraz de Campos Monaco is professor of private international law at the University of São Paulo, where he works at the intersection of private international law and general legal theory.
We are looking forward to their contributions.
Webinar on the New ICC Arbitration Rules
On 8 July, King&Spalding will be hosting a webinar on the new ICC Arbitration Rules, which entered into force last month.
The webinar will feature contributions from multiple members of the firms arbitration practice as well as a Q&A.
More information and an option to register can be found here.