Advertisement

People’s Republic of China (PRC): Optional Choice of Court Agreements in the Vibrant Age

  • Guangjian TuEmail author
  • Zeyu Huang
Chapter
Part of the Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law book series (GSCL, volume 37)

Abstract

Due to the late development of Chinese laws in general and Chinese Private International Law (PIL) in particular, Chinese treatment of choice of court agreements is relatively under-developed, compared with that in some other advanced jurisdictions. Choice of court agreements were not accepted in China until 1991 when China began to establish a market-oriented economy and recognition of optional choice of court agreements was not made until 2005 when the Supreme People’s Court issued a formal Notice. So far, it is not clear which law will be applied by Chinese courts to determine the validity of a choice of court agreement and whether a choice of court agreement will be presumed as “exclusive” or “optional” where the agreement is ambiguous. With the Chinese version of forum non conveniens and Chinese attitude towards foreign parallel proceedings, the overall effects of optional choice of court agreements is quite homeward in Chinese Courts.

References

  1. Briggs A (2012) The subtle variety of jurisdiction agreements. Lloyd’s Maritime Commer Law Q 364–381Google Scholar
  2. Chen AHY (2004) An introduction to the legal system of the People’s Republic of China, 3rd edn. LexisNexis, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  3. Fawcett JJ (2001) Non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements in private international law. Lloyd’s Maritime Commer Law Q 234–260Google Scholar
  4. Guo Y, Wen S (2014) A brief analysis of the legal effect on one-sided jurisdiction clause. Chinese Rev Int Law 4:48Google Scholar
  5. Jiao Y (2011) The legal system and the legal nature of choice of court agreements. Jurist 6:163Google Scholar
  6. Johnston G, Harris P (2017) Conflict of laws in Hong Kong, 3rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  7. Keyes M, Marshall BA (2015) Jurisdictional agreements: exclusive, optional and asymmetrical. J Priv Int Law 3:345–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lee E (2015) Legal pluralism, institutionalism and judicial recognition of Hong Kong – China cross-border insolvency judgments. Hong Kong Law J 45:331–350Google Scholar
  9. Liu X, Zhou Q (2014) The actual connection principle and Forum Non Conveniens in Chinese contractual jurisdiction system. Legal Sci 12:50Google Scholar
  10. Tang ZS (2012) Effectiveness of exclusive jurisdiction clauses in the Chinese courts – a pragmatic study. Int Comp Law Q 61:459–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Tang ZS, Xiao Y, Huo Z (2016) Conflict of laws in the People’s Republic of China. Edward Elgar, EnglandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Tu G (2007) The Hague choice of court convention—a Chinese perspective. Am J Comp Law 54:347–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Tu G (2012) Forum non conveniens in the People’s Republic of China. Chinese J Int Law 11:341–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tu G (2013) Arrangement on mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters between China and Macau: inherent problems, six years’ experience and the way forward. Hong Kong Law J 43:349–376Google Scholar
  15. Tu G (2016) Private international law in China. Springer, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tu G, Li X (2013) The second amendment to the PRC civil procedure law: an international litigation perspective. Hong Kong Law J 43:633–658Google Scholar
  17. Wang H (1991) Preamble and Section 2, The explanation on the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (For trial implementation)Google Scholar
  18. Zhang L (2014) An exploration on non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements. Tribune Polit Sci Law 32:122Google Scholar
  19. Zhang L (2016) An analysis of the legitimacy of asymmetrical jurisdiction agreements. Legal Sci 1:125Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Law, University of MacauMacauPR China

Personalised recommendations