Some Suggestions for Improving the International Credibility of the Chinese Judiciary: A Focus on the BRI



In order to build effectively the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), improvements in the international credibility of the Chinese judiciary is required. To this end, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released the Opinions on People’s Court’s Provision of Judicial Service and Safeguards for the BRI in July 2015, which sets guidelines and rules for Chinese courts to improve foreign judicial rules under the background of the BRI. However, the authors of this article maintain that the Opinions must be improved to meet the needs of the BRI and recommend that the Chinese courts look to the judicial ideologies of a major country in order to weaken the notion of judicial sovereignty and to promote a judicial ideology featuring equal protection, win-win cooperation, opening up, and efficiency. They also recommend improving the judicial system through various measures, including fully guaranteeing foreigners’ litigation rights, properly narrowing the ambit of exclusive jurisdiction, and properly settling parallel proceedings. In addition, they recommend innovating judicial methods, including actively applying forum non conveniens, actively confirming the existence of reciprocity, accurately applying international treaties and customs, and fully utilizing guiding cases, as well as promoting an inclusive judicial culture and a diversified resolution mechanism and ascertaining and correctly applying foreign law.


  1. De Boer, T. M. (1996). Facultative choice of law: The procedural status of choice of law rules and foreign law. Hague Academy of International Law, 257, 225–427.Google Scholar
  2. Han, D. (Ed.). (2014). International private law [Guoji Sifa] (3rd ed.). Beijing: Higher Education Press.Google Scholar
  3. Han, D., & Xiao, Y. (Eds.). (2004). Private international law [Guojisifa Xue]. Beijing: People’s Court Press.Google Scholar
  4. He, Q. (2007). On exclusive jurisdiction of investment contracts in China [Lun Woguo Touzi Hetong Zhuanshu Guanxiaquan]. Luojia Jurists’ Forum [Luojia Faxue Luntan], 6, 207–221.Google Scholar
  5. He, Q. (2015). International civil procedural law from a comparative law perspective [BiJiaofa Shiye Xia De Guoji Minshi Susongfa]. Beijing: Higher Education Press.Google Scholar
  6. He, R. (2016). On Chinese judiciary’s participation in making international economic rues [Lun Zhongguo Sifa Canyu Guoji Jingji Guize De Zhiding]. Chinese Revolution International Law [Guojifa Yanjiu], 1, 3–15.Google Scholar
  7. Li, S. (Ed.). (1998). Private international law in China and its international unifications [Zhongguo Yu Guoji Sifa Tongyihua Jincheng]. Wuhan: Wuhan University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ma, L. (2007). Analysis on the first case to recognise a Chinese civil and commercial judgment in German courts [Xi Deguo Fayuan Chengren Zhongguo Fayuan Minshangshi Panjue Diyian]. Studies in Law & Business [Fa Shang Yanjiu], 4, 150–155.Google Scholar
  9. Xiao, Y. (2007). Conflict of laws from a jurisprudence perspective [Falixue Shiye Xia De Chongtufa]. Beijing: Higher Education Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Law Institute, Wuhan UniversityWuhanPR China
  2. 2.Collaborative Innovation Center of Judicial Civilization, China University of Political Science and LawWuhanPR China
  3. 3.Collabordative Innovation Center of Judicial Civilization, China University of Political Science and LawBeijingPR China

Personalised recommendations