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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
All Chinese legal instruments and cases cited in this report can be found at www.chinalawinfo.com unless otherwise indicated, this website will not be cited again in the following discussion. See Tu (2016), p. 9; Tang et al. (2016), pp. 24–27.
- 3.
See art. 6 of Notice of the Supreme People’s Court on Issuing the Provisions on Case Guidance [2010] Fa Fa No. 51, which entered into force on 26 November 2010; Tu (2016), pp. 6–7.
- 4.
See art. 10 of Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Case Guidance [2015] Fa No. 130, which entered into force on 13 May 2015.
- 5.
However, whether academic doctrines (writings) can be legal sources is still controversial in the PRC. According to Tu’s observation, academic opinions have not yet become legal sources; but Tang et al. advocated that the opinions of Chinese academics should also be potential legal sources. See Tu (2016), p. 9; Tang et al. (2016), p. 28.
- 6.
See art. 34 of the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC, as amended in June 2017.
- 7.
See Tang et al. (2016), p. 69.
- 8.
See art. 33 of CCPL, which says: “The following cases shall be subject to exclusive jurisdiction of the courts specified in this Article: (1) Where a dispute is about an immovable property, the court for the place where the immovable property is located shall have jurisdiction; (2) Where a dispute is arising out of harbour operation, the court for the place where the harbour is located shall have jurisdiction; (3) Where a dispute is about succession, the court for the place of the deceased’s domicile upon death or where the main property to be inherited shall have jurisdiction”; art. 266 of CCPL, which says: “Actions instituted for disputes arising out of performance within the territory of the People’s Republic of China of contracts for Chinese-foreign equity joint ventures, Chinese-foreign contractual joint ventures or Chinese-foreign cooperative exploration and exploitation of natural resources shall be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the people’s courts of the People’s Republic of China”.
- 9.
E.g., see Tang et al. (2016), p. 60.
- 10.
See art. 34 of CCPL; art. 531 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China [2015] Fa Shi No. 5 promulgated on 30 January 2015, which entered into force on 4 February 2015 (2015 SPC Interpretation on CCPL); Tu (2007), pp. 359, 361; Tang (2012), pp. 466, 467.
- 11.
See art. 34 of CCPL. Chinese scholars have heavily criticized the “actual connection” principle. E.g., Tang et al. (2016), p. 70 (suggesting that a strict interpretation of the “actual connection” principle technically invalidates choice of court agreements choosing neutral fora, and thus the best approach is to remove the principle from Chinese law completely); Tang (2012), p. 466 (saying that the “actual connection principle” is inconsistent with international practice and incompatible with commercial convenience); Liu and Zhou (2014), p. 50 (arguing that the actual connection between the chosen court and the dispute should not be considered as one of the prerequisites for the validity of choice of court agreements).
- 12.
See Chap. 2 Jurisdiction of the CCPL (For Trial Implementation) promulgated on 8 March 1982, which entered into force on 1 October 1982.
- 13.
See arts. 25 and 244 of the 1991 CCPL, which was promulgated and entered into force on 9 April 1991. Art. 25 says: “Parties to a contract may, without violating rules concerning jurisdiction by forum level and exclusive jurisdiction, choose the court for the place where the defendant is domiciled, or where the contract is performed or signed, or where the plaintiff is domiciled, or where the subject matter is located as the court having jurisdiction over the dispute by a written agreement”. Art. 244 says: “Parties to a foreign-related dispute over a contract or any other right or interest in a property may choose a court for the place that has actual connection with the dispute as the court having jurisdiction over the dispute by a written agreement. Rules concerning jurisdiction by forum level and exclusive jurisdiction shall not be violated if a people’s court of the People’s Republic of China is chosen as the court having jurisdiction”.
- 14.
See Wang Hanbin (1991) Preamble and Section 2, The Explanation on the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (For Trial Implementation) (Amended Draft). Paper presented at the 4th Meeting of the Seventh National People’s Congress on 2 April 1991, which can be found at http://www.npc.gov.cn/wxzl/gongbao/2000-12/28/content_5002547.htm (last visited on 28 August 2018).
- 15.
See art. 25 and 242 of the 2007 CCPL promulgated on 28 October 2007, which entered into force on 1 April 2008.
- 16.
See Paragraph 58 of the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Amending the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2012) promulgated on 31 August 2012, which entered into force on 1 January 2013.
- 17.
See art. 34 of the 2012 CCPL promulgated on 31 August 2012, which entered into force on 1 January 2013.
- 18.
See art. 34 of the CCPL; Tang et al. (2016), p. 64.
- 19.
See Tu and Li (2013), pp. 644, 645.
- 20.
See Tang et al. (2016), p. 63.
- 21.
This refers to the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements concluded in the Twentieth Diplomatic Session of the Hague Conference on 30 June 2005, which entered into force on 1 October 2015, following the deposit of the instrument of approval by the President of the Council of the European Union on 11 June 2015. The PRC has now signed the Convention. See the webpage at https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=569 (last visited on 28 August 2018).
- 22.
See Tang et al. (2016), pp. 63–64.
- 23.
See art. 531 of the 2015 SPC Interpretation on CCPL says: “Parties to a dispute over a foreign-related contract or any other right or interest in a property may choose the foreign court for the place where the defendant is domiciled, or where the contract is performed or signed, or where the plaintiff is domiciled, or where the subject matter is located or any other place that has actual connection with the dispute as the court having jurisdiction over their dispute by a written agreement. For the cases over which a court of the People’s Republic of China has exclusive jurisdiction under art. 33 and 266 of the Civil Procedure Law, the parties shall not choose a foreign court to have jurisdiction over their dispute by an agreement unless they agree to choose arbitration to settle the case”.
- 24.
See art. 30, para. 2 of the 2015 SPC Interpretation on CCPL, which says: “Where a jurisdiction agreement provides that two or more people’s courts for the places having actual connection with a dispute shall have jurisdiction over the dispute, the plaintiff may institute the action in one of the people’s courts therein”; art. 32 of the 2015 SPC Interpretation on CCPL, which says: “Where a jurisdiction agreement provides that the people’s court for the place where one party is domiciled has jurisdiction over the dispute, but the place where the party is domiciled changes after the agreement is concluded, the people’s court for the place where the party is domiciled when the agreement is concluded shall have jurisdiction over the dispute, unless the parties agree otherwise”. Also see Tang et al. (2016), p. 66.
- 25.
See art. 24 of the Opinion of the Supreme People’s Court on Some Issues Concerning the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China [1992] Fa Fa No. 22 promulgated on 14 July 1992, which says: “If the jurisdiction agreement concluded by both parties to a contract is ambiguous or has chosen two or more people’s courts specified in art. 25 of the Civil Procedural Law to have jurisdiction over the dispute, such a jurisdiction agreement shall be invalid, and the jurisdiction shall be determined according to art. 24 of the Civil Procedure Law”.
- 26.
See note 24; Tang et al. (2016), p. 67.
- 27.
See art. 12 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Notice on Summary of the Second National Working Conference on the Trial of Foreign-Related Commercial and Maritime Cases [2005] Fa Fa No. 26, which was promulgated and entered into force on 26 December 2005 (2005 SPC Summary). This Article says: “If the parties in a case concerning foreign-related disputes agree that foreign courts have non-exclusive jurisdiction over their disputes, it can be deemed that such an agreement does not exclude the jurisdiction of the courts in the other countries which may assert jurisdiction. If one party institutes an action in a Chinese court, the Chinese court may accept the case if the court has jurisdiction over the case pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China”.
- 28.
See Reply Letter of the Supreme People’s Court on Request for Instructions as to the Validity of the Arbitration Clause in the Contract Dispute between Yanzhou Haoke Weibo Mining Engineering Co., Ltd. v. A Weber S.A. and Sofirol S.A., the Supreme People’s Court (2009) Min Si Ta Zi No. 19.
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
See Jiao (2011).
- 33.
See United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York, 10 June 1958, 330 U.N.T.S. 38 (the New York Convention).
- 34.
See Notice of the Supreme People’s Court on Implementing the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Acceded to by China (1987) Fa (Jing) Fa No. 5, which was promulgated and entered into force on 10 April 1987.
- 35.
See art. 124 (2) and 271 of the CCPL; art. 5 of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China, which entered into force on 1 September 1995 and was amended on 27 August 2009. Art. 124 (2) of the CCPL says: “A people’s court shall handle the following actions instituted in different circumstances: (2) Notifying the plaintiff to apply to an arbitral institution for arbitration where both parties have reached a written arbitration agreement, in accordance with the law, to apply for arbitration which prevents the parties from instituting an action in a people’s court”; art. 271 of the CCPL says: “In the cases concerning disputes arising out of foreign-related economic and trade matters, carriage and maritime activities where the parties have concluded an arbitration clause in contracts or a written arbitration agreement after a dispute arises to submit the dispute to foreign-related arbitral institutions or any other arbitral institution for arbitration, the parties shall not institute an action in a people’s court. If the parties have not concluded arbitration clauses in contracts or have failed to reach a written arbitration agreement after a dispute arises, the parties may institute an action in a people’s court”; art. 5 of the Chinese Arbitration Law says: “If the parties have concluded an arbitration agreement and one party institutes an action in a people’s court, the people’s court shall not accept the case unless the arbitration agreement is invalid”. For recognition and enforcement of arbitration agreements in intra-national (inter-regional) cases, please see Arrangements of the Supreme People’s Court on Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong SAR promulgated on 24 January 2000, which entered into force on 1 February 2000; Arrangement of the Supreme People’s Court on Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Macau SAR promulgated on 12 December 2007, which entered into force on 1January 2008; Arrangement Concerning Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Hong Kong SAR and the Macau SAR signed on 7 January 2013.
- 36.
See notes 21–22 and accompanying text. For further detailed discussion, see Tu (2007).
- 37.
For a list of the bilateral treaties to which PRC is a Contracting Party, see the website of the SPC available at http://www.court.gov.cn/shenpan-gengduo-73.html (last visited on 28 August 2018).
- 38.
See Section 1 of this Report.
- 39.
See notes 3–5 and accompanying text.
- 40.
Legally speaking, the relevant sources are only those that are currently applicable. However, academically, they could cover those that do not have legal effects any longer.
- 41.
- 42.
E.g. see Shandong Jufeng Network v. MGame & Tianjin Fengyun Network, the Supreme People’s Court (2009) Min San Zhong Zi No. 4; Model Case No. 44, Notice of the Supreme People’s Court on Issuing 10 Major Cases and 50 Model Cases on China’s Judicial Protection of the Intellectual Property Rights in 2009 [2010] Fa No. 172, promulgated on 14 April 2010.
- 43.
E.g. see Shandong Jufeng Network v. MGame (2009), Ibid.; China Point Finance Ltd. v. Zhuhai City Commercial Bank, the Guangdong High People’s Court (2004) Yue Gao Fa Min Si Zhong Zi No. 263; Yacheng Automobile Fittings v, HSBC Holdings, the Jiangsu Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court (2006) Xi Min San Chu Zi No. 23; Zhiming Xu v. Yihua Zhang, the Supreme People’s Court (2015) Min Shen Zi No. 471.
- 44.
See Sumitomo Bank Ltd. v. Xinhua Estate, the Supreme People’s Court (1999) Jing Zhong Zi No. 194.
- 45.
Ibid; art. 41 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Choice of Law for Foreign-Related Civil Relationships promulgated on 28 October 2010, which says: “The parties, by agreement, can choose the governing law for their contract; if the parties did not make a choice, the applicable law shall be the law of the place where the party who is to effect the characteristic obligation for the contract has his habitual residence or the law of another place which has the closest connection with the contract”.
- 46.
See Shandong Jufeng Network v. MGame (2009), note 42.
- 47.
See Shandong Jufeng Network v. MGame (2009), note 42.
- 48.
Once, there was a retrial case where the Supreme People’s Procuratorate protested that Hong Kong law, including its case law, as chosen by the parties as lex causae of the concerned contract, should be applied to interpret the choice of court clause and determine whether it was exclusive. However, the SPC did not support this argument, holding that it was an error in the application of law to refer to Hong Kong case law to interpret the choice of court clause. See Bank of China (Hong Kong) Ltd. v. Sichuan Province Foreign Economic and Trade Corporation, the Sichuan High People’s Court (2005) Chuan Min Zai Zhong Zi No. 70.
- 49.
See Zhong An Housing Ltd. v. Merchants Bank, the Supreme People’s Court (2001) Min Si Zhong Zi No. 1. See another similar case of the SPC, China International Iron & Steel Investment Corp. v. Guangzhou Branch of the Deutsche Bank, the Supreme People’s Court (2000) Jing Zhong Zi No. 173.
- 50.
See The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Asia) Ltd. v. Guangdong Shengtong Financial Leasing Ltd., the Guangdong Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court (2016) Yue 01 Min Chu No. 310; Toyota Tsusho Corp. v. Zhaoqing Dawang Qichang Industry Ltd., the Guangdong Zhaoqing Intermediate People’s Court (2017) Yue 12 Min Chu No.5.
- 51.
There are general presumptions to help courts in other jurisdictions. For example, under art. 25 (1) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation, a choice of court agreement is presumed to be exclusive unless the parties have agreed otherwise. At common law, the courts do not strictly presume exclusivity, but they have a tendency to conclude that choice of court agreements are exclusive which is compatible with the intention of rational commercial parties, see Tang et al. (2016), p. 64; Keyes and Marshall (2015), pp. 351, 352.
- 52.
See Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA v. Hin-Pro International Logistics Ltd., the Zhejiang High People’s Court (2013) Zhe Xia Zhong Zi No. 142. In contrast, the same choice of court clause in this case was interpreted by the English court as exclusive and therefore an anti-suit injunction was granted to stop the proceedings in the Chinese court: Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA v. Hin-Pro International Logistics Ltd. [2015] EWCA Civ 401.
- 53.
See Tang et al. (2016), p. 65. See another similar case where a Chinese court adopted the same approach: CMACGMS v. Shaoxing Haoyi, the Shanghai High People’s Court (2016) Hu Min Xia Zhong No. 291.
- 54.
See Zhiming Xu v. Yihua Zhang (2015), note 43.
- 55.
See Yacheng Automobile Fittings v, HSBC Holdings (2006), note 43.
- 56.
See Dignity International Development Ltd. v. Rich Profit Creation Ltd., the Supreme People’s Court (2016) Zui Gao Fa Min Shen No. 2783.
- 57.
See Tang (2012), p. 470.
- 58.
Ibid.
- 59.
See Tang (2012), pp. 470–472.
- 60.
See art. 532 (2) of the 2015 SPC Interpretation on CCPL, which says: “In dealing with a foreign-related case, under the following circumstances, a people’s court may render a ruling to dismiss the case, and inform the plaintiff to institute an action in a more convenient foreign court: (1) … (2) the parties do not have an agreement conferring jurisdiction on the courts of the People’s Republic of China…” Also see art. 11 (3) of the 2005 SPC Summary, which says: “In dealing with a foreign-related commercial case, if a Chinese court finds it is not convenient to exercise jurisdiction, that court can dismiss the case by the doctrine of forum non conveniens. To apply the doctrine, the following conditions must be met: (1) … (2) … (3) the parties do not have an agreement conferring jurisdiction on Chinese courts…”.
- 61.
See Reply Letter of the SPC on Yanzhou Haoke Weibo Mining Engineering Co., Ltd. v. A WEBER S.A. and SOFIROL S.A. (2009), note 28.
- 62.
See Tang et al. (2016), p. 72.
- 63.
See Tang (2012), p. 472.
- 64.
See art. 12 of the 2005 SPC Summary, note 27.
- 65.
Ibid.
- 66.
See Zhong An Housing Ltd. v. Merchants Bank (2001), note 49; Compania Sud Americana v. Hin-Pro International (2013), note 52.
- 67.
See art. 533 of the 2015 SPC Interpretation on CCPL, which says: “When both a Chinese court and a foreign court have jurisdiction over the same case, if one party is launching the litigation in the foreign court and the other party in the Chinese court, the Chinese court can exercise jurisdiction and accept the case…”; art. 10 of the 2005 SPC Summary, which says: “in a case where both a Chinese court and a foreign court have jurisdiction, if one party is suing in the foreign court and sues again for the same case in the Chinese court or the other party sues again for the same case in the Chinese court, the jurisdiction of the Chinese court shall not be influenced whether or not the foreign court has already accepted or made a judgment on the same case. The Chinese court, however, has some discretion to decide whether to exercise its own jurisdiction according to the circumstances of the case…”.
- 68.
See art. 532 (2) of the 2015 SPC Interpretation on CCPL and art. 11 (3) of the 2005 SPC Summary, note 60.
- 69.
See e.g., Sumitomo Bank Ltd. v. Xinhua Estate (1999), note 44. For a comprehensive discussion on the development of forum non conveniens in Chinese courts and how it interacts with optional choice of court agreements, see Tu (2012), pp. 341–365.
- 70.
See note 62 and accompanying text.
- 71.
E.g., see China International Iron & Steel Investment Corp. v. Guangzhou Branch of the Deutsche Bank (2000), note 49; The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Asia) Ltd. v. Guangdong Shengtong Financial Leasing Ltd. (2016), note 49.
- 72.
See Tang et al. (2016), pp. 65, 72.
- 73.
- 74.
E.g., see NKK (Japan) v. Beijing Zhuangsheng Ltd., the Beijing High People’s Court (2008) Gao Min Zhong Zi No. 919. The Chinese courts in this case asserted their jurisdiction even though there existed an exclusive choice of court agreement choosing Hong Kong courts for the reason that the Hong Kong judgment could not be recognized and enforced in the Mainland China. For another earlier case, see Kwok & Yih Law Firm v. Xiamen Huayang Color Printing Company, publicized in the Gazette of the Supreme People’s Court in 2004, Issue 7 and adjudicated by the Fujian Xiamen Intermediate People’s Court, where a similar optional choice of court agreement in favor of the Hong Kong Court was involved and the Chinese court asserted jurisdiction for enforcement purposes.
- 75.
See art. 31 of the 2015 SPC Interpretation on CCPL, which says: “Where a business entity enters into a choice of court agreement with a consumer by using standard clauses without reminding the consumer in a proper way to pay attention to such clauses, the people’s court shall support the consumer’s claim that the choice of court agreement is invalid”.
- 76.
See Tang et al. (2016), p. 67.
- 77.
Ibid.
- 78.
More elaboration on “proper notice” and the application of this specific requirement can be found in CMACGMS v. Zhejiang Haoyi Trade Ltd., the Shanghai High People’s Court (2016) Hu Min Xia Zhong No. 291.
- 79.
See art. 12 of the 2005 SPC Summary, note 27.
- 80.
See art. 533 of the 2015 SPC Interpretation on CCPL, note 67.
- 81.
See art. 532 (2) of the 2015 SPC Interpretation on CCPL and art. 11 (3) of the 2005 SPC Summary, note 60.
- 82.
See art. 281–282 of CCPL; Tu (2016), pp. 169–176.
- 83.
See Tu (2016), p. 10.
- 84.
See art. 2, 8 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China (Hong Kong Basic Law) and the Basic Law of the Macau Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China (Macau Basic Law).
- 85.
See Tu (2016), p. 10.
- 86.
Ibid.
- 87.
E.g., see the Arrangement of the Supreme People’s Court between the Mainland and the Hong Kong SAR on Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of the Judgments in Civil and Commercial Cases under Prorogation Jurisdiction, Fa Shi [2008] No. 9 promulgated on 3 July 2008, which entered into force on 1 August 2008); Arrangement of the Supreme People’s Court between the Mainland and the Macau SAR on Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments, Fa Shi [2006] No. 2 promulgated on 21 March 2006, which entered into force on 1 April 2006.
- 88.
- 89.
See e.g. Yacheng Automobile Fittings v, HSBC Holdings (2006), note 43 (where a Hong Kong court was granted with non-exclusive jurisdiction); Zhiming Xu v. Yihua Zhang (2015), note 43 (where a Mongolian Court was granted with jurisdiction); Tu (2016), p, 16.
- 90.
E.g., see art. 19 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Choice of Law for Foreign-Related Civil Relationships (I) promulgated on 28 December 2012, Fa Shi [2012] No. 24 and having entered into force on 7 January 2013, which says: “Issues concerning the applicable law in relation to civil relationships involving the Hong Kong SAR and the Macau SAR are subject to the provisions of this Interpretation by analogy”; art. 3, para. 1 of the Answers of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the Trials on Commercial Disputes involving Hong Kong and Macau that entered into force on 19 October 1987 but repealed on 18 January 2013, which says: “When dealing with procedural issues, the provisions of Book Five of the Civil Procedural Law (For Trial Implementation) on foreign-related civil procedures shall be applied to commercial cases involving Hong Kong and Macau”.
- 91.
See art. 8 of the 2005 SPC Summary, which says: “… if the parties have made an arbitration agreement or an exclusive choice of court agreement nominating a foreign court, Chinese court shall not exercise jurisdiction”. Also see Tu (2012), p. 361.
- 92.
See Tang (2012), p. 472.
- 93.
See, e.g., Yacheng Automobile Fittings v, HSBC Holdings (2006), note 43; Zhiming Xu v. Yihua Zhang (2015), note 43.
- 94.
See text to notes 51–67 above.
- 95.
See text to notes 12–32.
- 96.
See text to notes 27–32; Keyes and Marshall (2015), pp. 345–378.
- 97.
See Keyes and Marshall (2015), p. 364.
- 98.
Ibid.
- 99.
Cass civ, 1ère, 26.09.2012, Madame X v Banque Privée Edmond de Rothschild, No 11-26.022 (Rothschild).
- 100.
Ibid.
- 101.
For a detailed examination of different approaches adopted by the courts of France and England to determine the effect of an asymmetrical choice of court agreement, see Keyes and Marshall (2015), pp. 363–377; Mailhé, “France: A Game of Asymmetries, Optional and Asymmetrical Choice of Court Agreements under French Case Law”, in this collection, Sect. 3; Merrett and Carruthers, “United Kingdom: Giving Effect to Optional Choice of Court Agreements – Interpretation, Operation and Enforcement”, in this collection, Sect. 3.
- 102.
See Lai v. ABN AMRO Bank N.V., the Shanghai High People’s Court (2010) Hu Gao Min Wu (Shang) Zhong Zi No. 49.
- 103.
Ibid.
- 104.
See art. 31 of the 2015 SPC Interpretation on CCPL, note 75.
References
Briggs A (2012) The subtle variety of jurisdiction agreements. Lloyd’s Maritime Commer Law Q 364–381
Chen AHY (2004) An introduction to the legal system of the People’s Republic of China, 3rd edn. LexisNexis, Hong Kong
Fawcett JJ (2001) Non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements in private international law. Lloyd’s Maritime Commer Law Q 234–260
Guo Y, Wen S (2014) A brief analysis of the legal effect on one-sided jurisdiction clause. Chinese Rev Int Law 4:48
Jiao Y (2011) The legal system and the legal nature of choice of court agreements. Jurist 6:163
Johnston G, Harris P (2017) Conflict of laws in Hong Kong, 3rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, Hong Kong
Keyes M, Marshall BA (2015) Jurisdictional agreements: exclusive, optional and asymmetrical. J Priv Int Law 3:345–378
Lee E (2015) Legal pluralism, institutionalism and judicial recognition of Hong Kong – China cross-border insolvency judgments. Hong Kong Law J 45:331–350
Liu X, Zhou Q (2014) The actual connection principle and Forum Non Conveniens in Chinese contractual jurisdiction system. Legal Sci 12:50
Tang ZS (2012) Effectiveness of exclusive jurisdiction clauses in the Chinese courts – a pragmatic study. Int Comp Law Q 61:459–484
Tang ZS, Xiao Y, Huo Z (2016) Conflict of laws in the People’s Republic of China. Edward Elgar, England
Tu G (2007) The Hague choice of court convention—a Chinese perspective. Am J Comp Law 54:347–365
Tu G (2012) Forum non conveniens in the People’s Republic of China. Chinese J Int Law 11:341–365
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 43:349–376
Tu G (2016) Private international law in China. Springer, Singapore
Tu G, Li X (2013) The second amendment to the PRC civil procedure law: an international litigation perspective. Hong Kong Law J 43:633–658
Wang H (1991) Preamble and Section 2, The explanation on the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (For trial implementation)
Zhang L (2014) An exploration on non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements. Tribune Polit Sci Law 32:122
Zhang L (2016) An analysis of the legitimacy of asymmetrical jurisdiction agreements. Legal Sci 1:125
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tu, G., Huang, Z. (2020). People’s Republic of China (PRC): Optional Choice of Court Agreements in the Vibrant Age. In: Keyes, M. (eds) Optional Choice of Court Agreements in Private International Law. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 37. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23914-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23914-5_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23913-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-23914-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)