Tag Archive for: China

New book: Legal Challenges of China’s One Belt One Road Initative: Private International Law Considerations

/0 Comments/in /by

A new book Legal Challenges of China’s One Belt One Road Initative: Private International Law Considerations edited by Dr Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit and Dr Sai Ramani Garimella has now been released by Routledge.

This book is a sequel to the book China’s One Belt One Road Initiative and Private International Law which was published by Routledge in 2018.

Here is the publisher’s blurb:

“This book covers new legal developments of the One Belt One Road (OBOR) project and assesses how litigation may be organised to enforce and compensate for defaults for its related initiatives.

This book is structured into five themes, consisting of essays which assess the decade of BRI’s existence in the context of international economic engagement and the rule of law, private international law, dispute resolution mechanisms – including mediation and judgment mobility. The chapters in the book strike new ground and cover recent developments such as the establishment of China’s International Commercial Court, engagements in multiple Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) construction and investment projects.

The book will be of interest to researchers, academics, policymakers and students interested in private international law issues pertaining to the OBOR routes as well as private international law in general, Asian studies and the politics of international trade”.

The table of contents and contributors include:

Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit and Sai Ramani Garimella: Current Developments of the One Belt One Road Project and the Emerging Private International Law Issues

Dilini Pathirana: Sri Lanka’s Loan Agreements with China under the BRI: A Reflection of Selected Infrastructure Project-Related Loans

Atul Alexander: China and Foreign State Immunity Law: Legal Implications on State-Owned Entities

Mark McLaughlin: Global Standards, Local Realities: An Analysis of Singapore Convention on Mediation in the Context of Chinese State-Owned Enterprises

Zhengxin Huo: China’s International Commercial Court and Their Operation

Beligh Elbalti: Choice of Law in Contracts and Foreign Law before MENA Arab Courts from the Perspective of Belt and Road Initiative

Anna Wysocka-Bar: Circulation of Judgments Between EU Member States and China: A Path Through Complicated Framework Examined on the Example of Poland

Nobumichi Teramura: Recognition and Enforcement of Chinese judgments in Cambodia: Uncertain Foundations of the Rigid Reciprocity Standard in Cambodian Law

Jie (Jeanne) Huang: Recognition and Enforcement of Chinese Judicially Confirmed Mediation Decisions Abroad: The Challenges of Finality

Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit: Private International Law Dimensions of Blockchain-Based Bills of Lading

Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit and Sai Ramani Garimella: Conclusion and Reflection

The book can be ordered directly from Routledge: https://www.routledge.com/Legal-Challenges-of-Chinas-One-Belt-One-Road-Initiative-Private-International-Law-Considerations/Sooksripaisarnkit-Garimella/p/book/9781032805733

Anyone can use the below discount code to obtain 20% discount (available until 31st March 2026:

The editors are in the process of planning a book launch event (online). Currently, it is scheduled on 26th January 2026 between 8:00 -9:00 p.m (Australian Eastern Daylight Time). Further details will be announced once the full programme of event is available.

 

 

Silence Is Not Submission: Chinese Court Refuses to Enforce U.S. Default Judgment Rendered in Breach of Arbitration Agreement

/in /by

 

Written by Dr. Meng Yu, lecturer at China University of Political Science and Law, and co-founder of China Justice Observer.

 

ABSTRACT

In around 2019, a Chinese court in Hebei Province refused to enforce a US default monetary judgment from a California court on the grounds that a valid arbitration agreement was in place (Sunvalley Solar Inc. v Baoding Tianwei Solarfilms Co. Ltd. (2019) Ji 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 3). This decision underscored the court’s reliance on the arbitration agreement’s validity, even though a subsequent legislative proposal to include arbitration agreements as an indirect jurisdictional filter in China’s Civil Procedure Law (2023 Amendment) was ultimately not adopted.

Read more

Singapore Money Order Recognized and Enforced in China

/in /by

The following post is reproduced from a recent update by the Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI). 
Many thanks to Catherine Shen for sharing the information.

 

In a judgment (2023) Hu 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 28 dated January 8, 2025, the Shanghai International Commercial Court (Shanghai Court) recognized and enforced an order given by the General Division of the Singapore High Court after finding reciprocity between China and Singapore in the recognition and enforcement of each other’s civil and commercial judgments. Read more

Finder on the Supreme People’s Court’s Notice on Foreign State Immunity Procedures

/in /by

The news about the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China issuing the Notice on Procedural Matters Related to Civil Cases Involving Foreign State Immunity has been previously reported on this blog.

Following this significant development, Professor Susan Finder, a distinguished Scholar in Residence at Peking University School of Transnational Law, has kindly shared her insights on the matter. Her post was originally published on the Supreme People’s Court Monitor. Given its valuable contribution, we decided to repost it here.

Our sincerest thanks to Professor Susan Finder for her thoughtful analysis and generosity in sharing her thoughts. Read more

The $24 Billion Judgment Against China in Missouri’s COVID Suit

/in /by

This article was written by Prof. William S. Dodge (George Washington University Law School) and first published on Transnational Litigation Blog. The original version can be found at Transnational Litigation Blog. Reposted with permission.

On March 7, 2025, Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. (Eastern District of Missouri) entered a default judgment for more than $24 billion against the People’s Republic of China and eight other Chinese defendants for hoarding personal protective equipment (PPE) during the early days of the COVID pandemic in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. The Eighth Circuit had previously held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) barred most of Missouri’s claims but that the hoarding claim fell within the act’s commercial activity exception.

Missouri now has the judgment against China that it wanted. But Missouri may find that judgment hard to enforce. As discussed below, there appear to be significant procedural problems with the judgment that at least some defendants might raise. More broadly, the properties of foreign states and their agencies or instrumentalities are entitled to immunity from execution under the FSIA. Immunity from execution is broader than immunity from suit, and it is not clear that any of the defendants have property in the United States that can be used to satisfy the judgment. Read more

New Titles on Conflict of Laws in the Latest Issue of the Osaka University Law Review

/in /by

The OSAKA UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW (OULR) is a prestigious international academic journal on law and politics with a rich history. Published annually by the Graduate School of Law and Politics at Osaka University since 1952, the OULR offers a valuable platform for discussing and sharing information on Japanese law and politics, all presented in English and other foreign languages including French and German from a comparative law perspective.

The OULR’s ultimate goal is to foster debate and facilitate the exchange of ideas between Japanese and international scholars, while promoting and disseminating original research in the fields of Japanese law and politics and other related areas.

 

That said, the latest volume (No. 72) features some papers that might be of interest to the readers of this blog, as well as researchers and practitioners of private international law. These papers highlight important legal developments in China, particularly in the areas of international civil procedure and sovereign immunity.

Read more

[Now available] Chronology of Practice: Chinese Practice in Private International Law in 2023 By Prof. HE Qisheng

/1 Comment/in /by

Since its inception in 2001, the annual survey on Chinese judicial practice in private international law, published by the Chinese Journal of International Law,  has served as a valuable source of information on Chinese practice in private international law, particularly during periods when case law was not readily available (notably prior to 2013). The first annual survery, titled ‘Private International Law in the Chinese Judicial Practice in 2001’, appeared in Vol. 2(1), 2003, and was prepared by Professors Huang Jin and Du Huangfang. However, in its early years, the survey was not published on a regular basis. Indeed, in addition to the 2001 survey, only three others were published between 2005 and 2014: the survey for the year 2002 (published in 2005), for 2003 (published in 2008), and for 2006 (published in 2009).

 

Since 2015, the regular publication of the survey has been ensured by Professor He Qisheng of Peking University Law School under the title “Chronology of Practice: Chinese Practice in Private International Law”. (For previous announcements on this blog, see the posts for 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. Annual surveys for the years 2013 to 2018 are also available on Professor He’s SSRN page.) Professor He’s dedication to maintaining and expanding the annual survey has been instrumental in ensuring it remains an indispensable resource for the field, while making information on private international law in China readily accessible to non-Sinophone researchers. Read more

The Development of forum non conveniens in the Chinese Law and Practice

/in /by

by Arvin LUO Fuzhong, Doctoral Candidate at Tsinghua University, Visiting Research Associate at HKU, LL.M. (Cornell), Bachelor of Laws (ZUEL).*

The doctrine of forum non conveniens is an important principle in civil procedure laws and frequently applied by courts in many legal systems, especially those of common law countries. According to this principle, when courts exercise their discretionary power to determine whether to exercise jurisdiction over the factual circumstances of a case, they primarily consider issues of efficiency and fairness to find the most appropriate forum to settle the dispute. If the acceptance of a case would lead to inefficient outcomes and consequences that are contrary to justice, the court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that it is not the appropriate forum.

Unrealized by many international scholars and practitioners,[1] China has been adopting (formally or informally) the doctrine of forum non conveniens for more than 30 years, first through a few court judgments, then provided in judicial interpretations issued by the Supreme People’s Court of PRC (“SPC”), which is binding for all Chinese courts, and finalized in the 2024 Civil Procedure Law of PRC. This article introduces the history of Chinese law adopting the doctrine of forum non conveniens in the past years, and the development of China’s law revision in 2023. Read more

An anti-suit injunction in support of an arbitration agreement in light of the EU Sanction against Russia

/1 Comment/in /by

By Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit, Lecturer in Maritime Law, Australian Maritime College, College of Sciences and Engineering, University of Tasmania

On 24th September 2024, Mimmie Chan J handed down the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in Bank A v Bank B [2024] HKCFI 2529. In this case, the Plaintiff (Bank A) with its base of operation in Germany was under the supervision of the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin). Its majority shareholder was the Defendant (Bank B) who held 99.39% shares. In turn, the Defendant was a Russian bank whose majority shareholder was the Government of the Russian Federation.

Read more

How many monetary judgments that Chinese courts decided to enforce are successfully enforced?

/3 Comments/in /by

It is necessary to distinguish (1) a court’s decision to acknowledge the validity of a foreign judgment (judgment recognition and enforcement), and (1) whether a judgment creditor successfully recovers the awarded amount in practice.

Read more