Droit international général

In response to the growing complexity of cross-border family disputes – driven by increasing mobility and evolving family configurations – the recently published Guida alla mediazione familiare internazionale in materia di responsabilita genitoriale e sottrazione internazionale di minori, authored by Costanza Honorati and Ester di Napoli (Pacini Editore, 2025; available online in open access, in Italian), offers a rigorous and thematically cohesive guide to the law and practice of cross-border family mediation. Grounded in both European and multilateral legal instruments, the volume brings together doctrinal precision, procedural clarity, and practical insight, establishing itself as an essential reference for legal practitioners, judges, mediators, and scholars navigating the intricate terrain of cross-border family justice.

The volume opens with a foundational reflection on the evolving legal and social configurations of cross-border families in crisis (Chapter 1: La mediazione familiare nel contesto transfrontaliero: uno sguardo d’insieme, by Ester di Napoli). This Chapter offers a conceptual and normative overview of family mediation in a transnational context, exposing its principles, objectives, and the interplay between substantive family law and instruments of judicial cooperation. By engaging with key legal sources – from the Council of Europe, the European Union, and the Hague Conference on Private International Law – the Author provides a robust framework for understanding the legal underpinnings of cross-border family mediation.

A significant contribution of the work lies in its detailed treatment of mediation procedures in cases involving parental responsibility and cross-border child abduction (Chapter 2: Il procedimento di mediazione familiare nei casi di responsabilità genitoriale e di sottrazione internazionale, by Ester di Napoli and Costanza Honorati). The Authors examine diverse models of mediation, the temporal and geographical contours of the process, and the variety of actors involved. Particular emphasis is placed on the procedural integration of mediation within the architecture of pending judicial proceedings, revealing how alternative dispute resolution can be effectively harnessed even in the midst of litigation. The Chapter also devotes considerable attention to the child’s role in mediation, affirming the centrality of the child’s right to be heard and to be appropriately informed. This rights-based approach is not merely rhetorical: it is embedded in the procedural design and underlined by practical guidance. Yet, the Authors do not lose sight of the ethical and legal limits of mediation. This section also develops a substantiated analysis of the challenges posed by domestic violence, emphasising the need for rigorous screening mechanisms and a nuanced understanding of power asymmetries within family relationships. Building on this, the book offers a granular analysis of mediation in the context of cross-border child abduction, with particular focus on tight procedural timelines, the dialectic between return proceedings and negotiated solutions, and the use of “package agreements” to resolve multifaceted family disputes.

The final part of the volume (Chapter 3: La circolazione dell’accordo di mediazione familiare negli Stati UE, by Costanza Honorati) offers a carefully reasoned examination of the recognition, enforcement, and circulation of mediated agreements within the European Union. Drawing on the Brussels II-ter Regulation, the 1996 Hague Convention, and relevant national instruments, the Chapter provides an authoritative interpretation of the legal frameworks governing cross-border effectiveness. At the heart of the analysis lies the complex transformation of mediated settlements into binding and enforceable decisions, including the conceptual and procedural distinctions between “agreements” and “decisions” under EU law. This section exemplifies the volume’s commitment not only to legal clarity but to practical operability, offering pathways for turning negotiated consensus into enforceable outcomes across jurisdictions.

In sum, Guida alla mediazione familiare internazionale in materia di responsabilità genitoriale e sottrazione internazionale di minori is far more than a practical manual: it is an invitation to reflect on the evolving normative landscape of cross-border family dispute resolution – one that increasingly privileges dialogue, cooperation, and child-centred justice. Through its intellectual coherence, doctrinal depth, and clear policy relevance, the volume offers both a roadmap and a critical commentary on the current and future architecture of cross-border family mediation within Europe and beyond.

Building on the success of the two previous editions (here and here), the third edition of the EAPIL Winter School is currently being organised by the European Association of Private International Law and the Department of Law, Economics and Cultures of the University of Insubria in Como, in cooperation with the Law Faculty of the University […]

The Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan invites young scholars to present the outcome of their doctoral research on any topic within the field of private international law, transnational law or the law of international arbitration, at a dedicated seminar to be held in Milan (the MECSI Seminar). Each MECSI Seminar will revolve […]

An employment dispute between a Greek stewardess and her employer offered the Supreme Court of Greece the opportunity to discuss the interpretation of Articles 20 and 21 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, on jurisdiction over individual employment contracts. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the matter (Ruling No 1453 of 2024) relies heavily on the […]

 

Private international law in post-Soviet Central Asian countries is clearly underrepresented in the literature, despite the fact that countries such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have fairly detailed legislation on international jurisdiction, applicable law, and the enforcement of foreign judgments. (For a general overview of Kazakhstan, see the entry on the country in J. Basedow et al. (eds), Encyclopedia of Private International Law, Vol. III (Edward Elgar), p. 2229, and the English translation of the relevant provisions in Vol. IV, p. 3358.)

To help address this gap, I’m pleased to share the publication of a new monograph on Private International Law in Kazakhstan, authored by Nurzhan S. Yeshniyazov and Mokhammed Abdel Mottaleb, and published in June 2025 as part of the International Encyclopaedia of Laws – Private International Law, by Kluwer Law International:

This monograph offers a systematic and up-to-date overview of Kazakhstan’s legal framework governing cross-border civil and commercial matters, including international jurisdiction, applicable law, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards. The content follows the standardized outline used across the Encyclopaedia, ensuring consistency and comparability with other national reports.

The addition of Kazakhstan to this global reference work is certainly a welcome development, helping to broaden the comparative scope of the series and providing valuable insights into a region that remains underrepresented in private international law scholarship.

 

The general table of contents of the monograph reads as follows:

Title Page – pp. 1–1

Copyright – pp. 2–2

The Authors – pp. 3–4

Table of Contents – pp. 5–12

List of Abbreviations – pp. 13–14

General Introduction – pp. 15–30

Part I. General Principles (Choice of Law Technique) – pp. 31–76

• Chapter 1. Sources of PIL
• Chapter 2. Determination of the Applicable Law
• Chapter 3. Basic Terms

Part II. Conflict of Law Rules – pp. 77–164

• Chapter 1. Persons
• Chapter 2. Obligations
•  Chapter 3. Property
•  Chapter 4. Intangible Property Rights
• Chapter 5. Family Law
• Chapter 6. Succession Law

Part III. Annex: International Civil Procedure – pp. 165–192

• Chapter 1. Sources of International Civil Procedure
• Chapter 2. The Principle of Lex Fori
• Chapter 3. National Jurisdiction
• Chapter 4. International Jurisdiction
• Chapter 5. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Decisions
• Chapter 6. International Insolvency Law
• Chapter 7. International Arbitration

Selected Bibliography – pp. 193–195

Annexes – pp. 196–195

• Annex I: The Civil Code – pp. 196–210
• Annex II: Merchant Shipping – pp. 211–213
• Annex III: The Civil Procedure Code – pp. 214–227
• Annex IV: Arbitration Law – pp. 228–230

Table of Cases – pp. 231–232

Case Citation:

Sqimnga (Nig.) Ltd v. Systems Applications Products (Nig.) Ltd [2025] 2 NWLR 423 (Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, Nigeria)

The dispute in this case arose between two Nigerian companies, Sqimnga Nigeria Ltd (the appellant) and Systems Applications Products Nigeria Ltd (the respondent). Both parties had entered into a Master Service Agreement in Nigeria, relating specifically to software solutions. A critical provision of this agreement stipulated that the laws of South Africa would govern any disputes, and further, that South African courts would possess exclusive jurisdiction to hear any matters arising from the agreement.

When a disagreement emerged between the parties, Sqimnga Nigeria Ltd initiated legal proceedings at the Lagos State High Court. The respondent immediately contested the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court, relying on the contractual clause mandating the use of South African law and courts.

At the High Court level, the court declined jurisdiction over the matter. This decision hinged on the court’s determination that Sqimnga Nigeria Ltd had not provided sufficient evidence or compelling reasons why the Nigerian courts should assume jurisdiction contrary to the clearly stipulated jurisdiction clause in the Master Service Agreement.

Dissatisfied with the High Court’s ruling, Sqimnga Nigeria Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appellant argued that the trial judge had misapplied the relevant legal principles by overlooking uncontroverted pleadings and witness statements. Additionally, the appellant contended that litigating the case in South Africa would impose unnecessary expenses and inconvenience upon the parties.

However, the Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the decision of the trial court, dismissing the appeal. In reaching this conclusion, the Court emphasized several key considerations. First, it reinforced the fundamental principle of contractual agreements through the maxims pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) and consensu facit legem (consent makes law), asserting that freely made agreements, absent fraud or duress, must be upheld.

Secondly, the Court emphasized that the explicit foreign jurisdiction clause agreed upon by the parties could only be set aside if a compelling justification were provided. To evaluate whether such justification existed, the Court applied the Brandon tests derived from the English case of The Eleftheria (1969) 1 Lloyd’s L. R. 237. These tests require the party challenging the jurisdictional clause to present clear evidence demonstrating “strong cause” for a local court to assume jurisdiction in deviation from the contractual agreement. The Court concluded that Sqimnga Nigeria Ltd failed to meet this evidentiary standard, as its arguments relied primarily on pleadings, unadopted witness statements, and legal submissions from counsel, none of which constituted adequate evidence to satisfy the Brandon tests.

The Court acknowledged the appellant’s concern regarding the inconvenience and additional costs associated with litigating abroad but held that such factors alone, without further compelling justification, were insufficient to disregard the jurisdiction clause explicitly agreed upon by both parties.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, thereby reaffirming the position that Nigerian courts will generally respect and enforce foreign jurisdiction clauses and choice of law provisions in contracts unless the challenging party can conclusively demonstrate compelling reasons otherwise. Additionally, the appellant was ordered to pay the associated costs.

 

It is worth noting that South African courts may also be inaccessible where the parties cannot establish a sufficient connection to that forum. For example, in Veneta Mineraria Spa v Carolina Collieries (Pty) Ltd (1987) (4) SA 883 (A) at 894 A–B, Viljoen JA held that in a dispute between two foreign parties (peregrini), the mere submission of the defendant (a peregrinus) is not, by itself, sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the South African court.

In such a case, to which court should the party seeking to enforce its rights turn? Had counsel and the Nigerian courts benefited from comparative research on South African law, the outcome might have been different, potentially on grounds of public policy. The Nigerian Supreme Court’s decision in Sonnar (Nig.) Ltd v. Nordwind (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 66) 520, 535, affirms that where a foreign court is inaccessible, a Nigerian court may decline to enforce a foreign jurisdiction clause on public policy grounds.

In conclusion, a private international law lawyer best serves their client by being well-versed in the comparative dimensions of the subject.

The T.M.C. Asser Institute has launched a call for abstracts for the panel Emerging Voices in Private International Law, which will take place as part of Adapting Private International Law in an Era of Uncertainty – Asser Institute 60 Years Series Conference, to be held on 24 October 2025 in The Hague. PhD candidates and […]

Axel Halfmeier (Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany) has kindly shared the following advertisement for a 3-year PhD scholarship with us, which will be part of a research project on ‘Making private law resilient: The role of private litigation in a democracy’.

The research project will investigate the role of private litigation in a democracy, in particular collective litigation, public interest actions or strategic litigation. There is an ongoing discussion about these phenomena and whether they support deliberative democracy by empowering citizens or are anti-democratic in the sense that they transfer excessive power to the judiciary in political questions. To answer this question, normative (legal doctrine, legal theory, political theory) but also empirical approaches are possible. The project can also focus on specific areas of private law, such as media and data protection law, climate litigation, capital markets or tort law in general. The exact study design will be discussed with a view to the interests and qualifications of the candidate.

Application deadline is October 1st, 2025.

Further information on the ‘Embracing Transformation’ scholarships can be found here.

Further information on the specific research project on ‘Democratic Resilience’ is available here.

Questions may be directed to Axel Halfmeier.

The Faculty of Law at Humboldt University of Berlin is inviting applications for a Junior Professorship in Private Law and Private International Law, to be filled as of 1 October 2026. The successful candidate will engage in teaching and research across private law and private international law, broadly defined – including international family and succession […]

In response to both global and domestic revelations of serious shortcomings in the intercountry adoption system, the Swedish government launched an official inquiry on the matter in October 2021. The objective was to assess past practices and propose legal reforms as well as other appropriate measures. Titled ‘Sweden’s intercountry adoption activities – Lessons learned and […]

On Tuesday, 6 July 2025, 12pm CEST, ConflictofLaws.net will be hosting an ad-hoc virtual roundtable on the Commission’s Brussels Ia Report.

Everyone interested is warmly invited to join via this Zoom link.

More information can be found here.

The establishment of an international chamber in the Paris Commercial Court aimed at competing with and divesting judicial business from the London Commercial Court. As the possibility that the United Kingdom would stop participating in the various instruments of judicial cooperation adopted by the European Union appeared to be increasingly credible, the governments of a […]

Conventions & Instruments

On 17 June 2025, the Republic of Korea deposited its instrument of ratification of the 1993 Adoption Convention. With the ratification of the Republic of Korea, the 1993 Adoption Convention now has 107 Contracting Parties. It will enter into force for the Republic of Korea on 1 October 2025. More information is available here.

On 30 June 2025, Denmark signed the 2007 Child Support Convention and deposited its instrument of approval of the Convention. With the approval of Denmark, 55 States and the European Union are bound by the 2007 Child Support Convention. It will enter into force for Denmark on 1 October 2025. More information is available here.

 

Meetings & Events

On 5 June 2025, the first meeting of the Working Group established to finalise the Good Practices document relevant to the 1965 Service, 1970 Evidence, and 1980 Access to Justice Conventions was held online, hosted by the Permanent Bureau. More information is available here.

On 13 June 2025, the Working Party on Cross-Border Family Mediation in the Context of the Malta Process met online. More information is available here.

From 16 to 18 June 2025, the Experts’ Group on Digital Tokens met for the first time. More information is available here.

From 25 to 27June 2025, HCCH Asia Pacific Week 2025 was held in Seoul, co-hosted by the Republic of Korea and the HCCH. The conference brought together over 400 participants from across Asia and the Pacific and beyond for wide-ranging discussions on the most recent developments relating to the HCCH’s key Conventions and instruments, ongoing normative projects, and possible future work. More information is available here.

 

Other Developments

On 2 June 2025, the Host Seat Agreement between Morocco and the HCCH was signed in Rabat, establishing the Regional Office for Africa of the HCCH. More information is available here.

 

These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.

Professor Mareike Schmidt (Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology) has kindly shared the attached  Call for Applications with us.

She is seeking to fellows working on ‘Complexity as an Issue of Law’ within the framework of her larger project on Change in and through Law: Digital Transformation and Climate Change

The latest issue of the new French journal dedicated to international dispute resolution, Perspectives Contentieuses internationales (PCI), has been released. It is an open access publication and can be freely downloaded here. Real Madrid v Le Monde The main focus of the issue is on the case of Real Madrid v. Le Monde (Case C-633/22). […]

On 30 May 2025, the signing of the Convention on the Establishment of the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed)  in Hong Kong marked an advancement in the field of international dispute resolution. Attended by representatives from over 85 countries and 20 international organisations – including the United Nations – the event introduced a treaty-based institutional framework dedicated specifically to mediation.

The IOMed Convention – with equally authentic texts in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish – outlines a structured, treaty-based model of mediation whose scope is deliberately broad, encompassing disputes between States, between a State and nationals of other States, as well as disputes between private parties involved in international commercial relationships (Article 24).

A defining feature of the IOMed Convention is its treatment of the legal effect and enforceability of mediated outcomes. Articles 40 and 41 affirm both the binding nature of settlement agreements resulting from IOMed-facilitated mediation and their enforceability within the domestic legal systems of contracting States. This model of consensual yet normatively binding dispute resolution finds a compelling parallel in – and complements – the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (the Singapore Convention). The Singapore Convention – which, as of 3 July 2025, counts 58 signatories and 18 parties – reinforces party autonomy while requiring the good faith implementation of mediated settlements. Particularly significant is Article 3 of the Convention, which obliges courts in contracting States to recognise international commercial settlement agreements and to enforce them in accordance with domestic procedures, provided the agreement satisfies the Convention’s requirements. While the Singapore Convention offers a uniform and efficient framework for the enforcement and “invocation” (see Art. 3(2)) of international settlement agreements resulting from mediation, the IOMed Convention contributes by establishing the institutional and procedural framework necessary for the conduct of mediation itself. Together, these instruments enhance both the normative foundation and the practical viability of cross-border mediation, thereby reinforcing its legitimacy in complex international commercial contexts.

Beyond its dispute resolution functions, IOMed also assumes a broader mandate to promote mediation (Art. 5). This includes fostering best practices (Art. 5(b)), organising conferences and training initiatives (Art. 5(c)), and implementing targeted capacity-building programmes (Art. 5(d)). A dedicated Mediation Fund (Art. 44), financed through voluntary contributions, is intended to promote equitable access to services, while a Capacity Building Committee (Art. 43) provides strategic oversight in this domain.

Ultimately, the IOMed Convention does not seek to alter the fundamental character of mediation. Rather, it aims to provide a coherent legal and institutional foundation at the international level. By anchoring mediation within a treaty-based framework, the IOMed Convention offers States and other actors a structured yet flexible environment in which to pursue dialogue-based resolution, with greater predictability, neutrality, and institutional support – while preserving the essential consensual nature that distinguishes mediation from adjudication. While its practical impact will depend on how States and other actors engage with its mechanisms over time, the Convention offers a new platform for exploring the potential of mediation in a variety of international contexts.

Two years have passed since the European Commission published two proposals on the protection of adults in international situations, namely a proposal for a Council Decision that would authorise all EU Member States to become parties of the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the international protection of adults “in the interest of the […]

 

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.

 

Key takeaways:

• In around 2019, a Chinese court in Hebei Province refused to enforce a US default monetary judgment issued by a California court, on the grounds of the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties (Sunvalley Solar Inc. v Baoding Tianwei Solarfilms Co. Ltd. (2019) Ji 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 3).
• The Hebei Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid under Chinese law (the law of the seat of arbitration), since the parties did not specify the law governing the arbitration agreement.
• The Chinese company’s failure to appear in the California court did not constitute a waiver of the arbitration agreement, as the Hebei Court ruled that silence does not imply an intention to abandon arbitration.
• The proposed inclusion of “arbitration agreements” as one of the indirect jurisdictional filters in China’s Civil Procedure Law (2023 Amendment) was ultimately not adopted, following legislative review which deemed it inappropriate to override foreign courts’ determinations regarding the validity of such agreements.

 

What happens if a foreign court default judgment was rendered despite an arbitration agreement and is later submitted for recognition and enforcement in China?

A local Chinese court in Hebei Province refused to recognize and enforce such a default judgment issued by a California court in the United States, on the grounds that the US court lacked indirect jurisdiction due to the existence of a valid arbitration agreement (Sunvalley Solar Inc. v Baoding Tianwei Solarfilms Co. Ltd. (2019) Ji 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 3).

Although the full text of the judgment has not yet been made publicly available, a case brief is included in a recent commentary book – Understanding and Application of the Conference Summary of the Symposium on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trials of Courts Nationwide[1] – authored by the Fourth Civil Division of China’s Supreme People’s Court (‘Understanding and Application’).

This raises an interesting and complex question: How would Chinese courts assess the indirect jurisdiction of the court of origin today, in particular, when an arbitration agreement is involved?

 

I. Case background

In January 2011, Sunvalley Solar Inc.(“Sunvalley”), a U.S. company, entered into an agreement with Baoding Tianwei Solarfilms (“BTS”), a Chinese company, for the manufacture of solar panels.

Sunvally later allegedly incurred damages due to defective equipment supplied by BTS and subsequently filed a lawsuit against BTS before the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, US (“California Court”).

On 7 Sept. 2017, the California court rendered a default judgment (no. KC066342) in favor of Sunvalley, awarding a total amount of USD 4,864,722.35 against BTS.

In 2019, Sunvalley filed an application before Shijiazhuang Intermediate People’s Court, Hebei Province, China (“Hebei Court”), seeking the recognition and enforcement of the California judgment (“US Judgment”).

 

II. Court’s Reasoning

Upon review, the Hebei Court held that the jurisdiction of a foreign court over a civil case is a prerequisite for courts to lawfully exercise judicial jurisdiction and also forms the basis upon which a foreign civil judgment may acquire res judicata and become entitled to be recognized and enforced in other countries.

In this case, the key issue was whether the arbitration clause agreed upon by the parties was valid, and if so, whether it excluded the jurisdiction of the California Court. This issue was essential in deciding whether the US Judgment could be recognized and enforced by the Hebei Court.

First, the Hebei Court examined the validity of the arbitration clause. In this case, the parties had only agreed on the governing law of the main contract, which was the laws of California, under Art. 15, Paragraph 1 of the “Procurement Contract”., The parties, however, had not specified the law governing the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the Court deemed the arbitration clause to be governed by the law of the seat of arbitration, which in this case Chinese law.[2] Under Art. 15, Paragraph 2 of the “Procurement Contract”, the parties had clearly expressed their intention to resolve their disputes through arbitration. According to the said provision, disputes arising out of the contract shall be submitted to the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC). As such, the Hubei Court held that the arbitration clause met the requirements of Art. 16 of China’s Arbitration Law and was therefore valid.

Second, the Hebei Court considered whether BTS’s default constituted a waiver of the arbitration agreement. According to Art. II, Para. 1 of the New York Convention, Contracting States are required to respect valid arbitration agreements. Such agreements are not only legally binding on the parties but also have the legal effect of excluding the jurisdiction of national courts. This principle is fully consistent with Art. 5 of China’s Arbitration Law and Art. 278 of China’s Civil Procedure Law (CPL), both of which clearly provide that a valid arbitration agreement excludes court jurisdiction. If the parties intend to waive the arbitration agreement afterward, such waiver must be clear, explicit and mutually agreed upon, in accordance with the general principle of contract modification. Mere non-appearance in court proceedings does not constitute a waiver of arbitration or submission to the jurisdiction of the California Court. In this case, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement remained unaffected by BTS’s failure to respond to the California Court’s summons. Accordingly, BTS’s silence could not be construed as an intention to waive the arbitration agreement. Thus, the California Court was deemed to lack jurisdiction over the case.

Third, the Hebei Court interpreted Art. 289 of the CPL, which provides for the recognition of “[J]udgments and rulings made by foreign courts that have legal effect”. The Court clarified that this refers specifically to judgments rendered by competent foreign courts. Judgments rendered by courts lacking jurisdiction, including in matters that should have been submitted to arbitration, do not qualify. Since the California Court issued its judgment despite the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, and without proper jurisdiction, the resulting US judgment could not be recognized and enforced under Chinese law.

Accordingly, the Hebei Court refused to recognition and enforcement of the US judgment.

 

III. Comments

Clearly, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement was the decisive reason why the Hebei Court found that the California court lacked proper indirect jurisdiction and thus refused to recognize the judgment it rendered.

While it may seem straightforward that a valid arbitration agreement generally precludes litigation before court, the extent to which such an agreement influences the review of a foreign court’s indirect jurisdiction raises a more nuanced and compelling question. This very issue was at the heart of legislative debates during the drafting of China’s recently amended CPL (“2023 CPL”), which entered in force on 1 January 2024.

 

1. The jurisdiction filter once in the draft

Interestingly, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement was initially included as one of the filters for assessing the indirect jurisdiction of foreign courts in the 2023 CPL Draft Amendment (see Art. 303, Para. 4 of the 2022 CPL Draft Amendment on indirect jurisdiction). Similar judicial views pre-dating the Draft can also be found in Art. 47 of the “Conference Summary of the Symposium on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trials of Courts Nationwide”, as well as in the commentary on that Article authored by the Fourth Civil Division of the SPC in the Understanding and Application.

However, this proposed filter was ultimately removed from the final version of the 2023 CPL Amendment.

So why was this filter removed? We can find the answer in the legislative review report on the Draft, the “Report on the Review Results of the ‘CPL Draft Amendment’” issued on Aug. 28, 2023, by the Constitution and Law Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC) to the NPC Standing Committee:

“[S]ome members of the Standing Committee suggested that Paragraph 4 was inappropriate. If the arbitration agreement has been deemed invalid by a foreign court and thus jurisdiction is assumed, Chinese courts should not easily deny the jurisdiction of the foreign court. It is recommended to delete it. The Constitution and Law Committee, after research, suggested adopting the above opinion and making corresponding amendments to the provision.”

 

2. What now?

If this case were to occur today, how would a Chinese court approach it? In particular, if there were a valid arbitration agreement between the parties, would the court still assess the indirect jurisdiction of the foreign court based on that agreement, if so, how?

This brings us back to the current rules on indirect jurisdiction set out Art. 301 of the 2023 CPL. It is important to note that where the foreign judgments originates from a country that has entered into a bilateral treaty on judicial assistance with China, the indirect jurisdiction rules in the treaty – rather than those in the CPL – will govern the recognition and enforcement process.

Related Posts:

• What’s New for China’s Rules on Foreign Judgments Recognition and Enforcement? – Pocket Guide to 2023 China’s Civil Procedure Law (1)
• Thus Spoke Chinese Judges on Foreign Judgments Recognition and Enforcement: Insights from Chinese Supreme Court Justices on 2023 Civil Procedure Law Amendment (4)

Under Art. 301 of the CPL, China adopts a hybrid approach to assessing indirect jurisdiction, one that combines the law of the rendering court and the law of the requested court. Specifically, for a foreign judgment to be recognized and enforced by Chinese courts, the foreign rendering court must meet the following jurisdictional requirements:

(1) it first must have had jurisdiction under its own national laws;

(2) even if a foreign court had jurisdiction under its own national laws, it must also maintain a proper connection with the dispute. If such a connection is lacking, the foreign court will still be considered incompetent for the purpose of recognition and enforcement in China.;

(3) The foreign court will also be deemed incompetent if its exercise of jurisdiction

a) violates Chinese courts’ exclusive jurisdiction under 279 and Art. 34 of the 2023 CPL, or

b) contradicts a valid exclusive choice-of-court agreement between the parties

In the context of the hypothetical scenario involving an arbitration agreement, a Chinese court would primarily examine the situation under Art. 301, Para. 1 of the CPL. This provision requires the court to consider whether the foreign court properly determined the validity of the arbitration agreement in accordance with the law of the country where the judgment is rendered and thereby determine whether it had jurisdiction.

a) If the foreign court determined that the arbitration agreement was invalid and exercised jurisdiction accordingly under its own law, a Chinese court would generally not deny the foreign court’s jurisdiction (unless it finds that the foreign court lacked proper connection with the dispute). This approach is also consistent with the legislative intent expressed by the NPC Constitution and Law Committee.

b) If the foreign court did not consider or address the validity of the arbitration agreement (as may occur, g., in a default judgment like in the Sunvalley case), how should the Chinese court evaluate the agreement’s validity during the recognition and enforcement stage? This raises a key unresolved issue: Should it assess the validity of the arbitration agreement according to the rules of Chinese private international law, or instead refer to the conflict-of-law rules in the State of origin? The 2023 Civil Procedure Law does not provide a clear answer to this question. As such the issue remains to be tested in future cases.

Related Posts:

• China Issues Landmark Judicial Policy on Enforcement of Foreign Judgments – Breakthrough for Collecting Judgments in China Series (I)
• First Case of Reciprocal Commitment: China Requests Azerbaijan to Enforce its Judgment Based on Reciprocity
• US-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement

 

————————-

[1] The Fourth Civil Division of China’s Supreme People’s Court, Understanding and Application of the Conference Summary of the Symposium on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trials of Courts Nationwide [Quanguo Fayuan Shewai Shangshi Haishi Shenpan Gongzuo Zuotanhui Jiyao Lijie Yu Shiyong], People’s Court Press, 2023, pp. 332-333.

[2] Cf. Art. 18, 2010 Law of the People’s Republic of China on Choice of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relationships (2010 Conflicts Act)

The relation between EU private international law and arbitration is notoriously complex. While the arbitration exemption of the Brussels I bis Regulation has rendered both much case law as well as legal debate, less attention has been paid to whether and how the EU conflict of law rules in the Rome I Regulation apply to […]

On 3 July 2025, Advocate General Norkus will deliver his opinion on case C-485/24, Locatrans. The request for a preliminary ruling, from the Cour de Cassation, Chambre sociale (Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, France), concerns the interpretation of the Rome Convention of 19 June 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations. ES, the defendant […]