Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From Diplomacy to Law: Half-Way in Institutional Transition of China’s Regime on State Immunity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Sovereign Immunity Under Pressure

  • 735 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter maps China’s regime on State immunity in general and its nuanced policies and practices on specific issues, such as commercial activities, non-commercial torts, enforcement measures and the case of reciprocity. China’s regime on State immunity is a diplomacy-centric approach in transition with manifesting shortcomings: the futile but resilient absolute immunity as well as a principled position with pragmatic manoeuvres. China’s laws and practices send a mixed signal on an embedded trajectory to restrictive immunity. China still claims to hold the absolute doctrine of State immunity regarding cases against foreign state, foreign government or its assets despite such absolute immunity could be restricted on the basis of reciprocity. For other privileged persons, the immunity is restrictive to varying degrees without a coherent exception list. The diplomacy-centric regime on State immunity is not enough for a China with comprehensive integrations with the world. China is in an early stage of institutionalizing its regime on State immunity and still need more time to search for a clear and culturalized set of multiple goals with limited and sometimes mutually competing tools.

The author thanks Ms. Guannan Qu for her excellent research assistance. The research is supported by a Chinese National Social Science Research Grant (18CFX084). The views expressed in this chapter are those of the author alone.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, The State of Missouri v. The People’s Republic of China, et al. The United States District Court for The Eastern District of Missouri Southeastern Division, Case No.1:20-cv-00099, 21 April 2020. The State of Mississippi v. The People’s Republic of China, et al. The United States District Court for The Southern District of Mississippi Southern Division, Case No.1:20-cv-00168-LG-RHW, 12 May 2020. Moriah Aharon et al v. Chinese Communist Party et al, United States District Court Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:20-cv-80604-XXXX, 8 April 2020. Buzz Photos, et al v. The People’s Republic of China, et al., The United States District Court for The Northern District of Texas, Case No. 3:20-cv-00656-K, 17 March 2020.

  2. 2.

    China has been sued in the courts of the United States on a frequent basis. China always claimed absolute immunity and in principle refused to participate in the proceedings. In some cases, China’s state immunity had been denied by default judgments by the American courts but later restored due to China’s strong diplomatic maneuvers and special appearance in the court to invoke the state immunity. The notable cases are: Jackson v. People’s Republic of China (otherwise known as Huguang Railways Bearer Bonds), 550 F. Supp.869 (N.D. Ala. 1982), 22 Int’l Legal. Materials 75; Morris v. People’s Republic of China, 478 F. Supp. 2d 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); Pons v. The People’s Republic of China, 666 F. Supp. 2d 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Covington Marine Corp. et al v. Xiamen Shipbuilding Industry Co., Ltd., et al, 504 Fed.Appx.298(C.A.5(La.),2012); First Inv.Corp.of Marshall Islands et al v. Fujian Mawei Shipbuilding,Ltd., et al, F.3d 742(C.A.5(La.),2012); Walters v. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, 651 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 2011).

  3. 3.

    See Wang (1990), p. 288. China has been the most ‘enthusiastic champion’ of the principle of sovereignty under international law.

  4. 4.

    The Five Principles include: ‘(a) mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty; (b) mutual non-aggression; (c) mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs; (d) equality and mutual benefit; (e) peaceful co-existence’. The Speech of President XI Jinping at the Conference of the 60th Anniversary of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. The State Council of the People’s Republic of China (28 July 2014) http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2014-06/29/content_2709613.htm. Accessed 15 April 2021.

  5. 5.

    Judge Hanqin Xue noted: ‘[China] holds absolute immunity in case of acts of foreign States from national jurisdiction and execution. It is of the view that the principle of immunity is a right of State under customary international law rather than [of] comity…In its judicial practice, Chinese national courts have neither exercised jurisdiction over acts of foreign States, nor have they enforced any decisions involving public property of foreign States’. For details see Xue (2011), pp. 100–101. See also Duan (2011). Law Press, Beijing and The Department of Treaty and Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China (2018).

  6. 6.

    See generally Qi (2008).

  7. 7.

    Yang (2012), p. 3.

  8. 8.

    See generally Cai (2019).

  9. 9.

    Xue (2012), pp. 54–55.

  10. 10.

    Jia (2019).

  11. 11.

    Xi Jinping (President of the People’s Republic of China), ‘Firmly Pursuing the Rule of Law with Chinese Characteristics and Providing Legal Support for the Comprehensive Construction of a Modern Socialist State’, Qiushi, 2021, No.5, http://www.qstheory.cn/dukan/qs/2021-02/28/c_1127146541.htm. Accessed 15 April 2021. (‘For unjust and reasonable international rules and regimes that do not cope with the evolution of international order, plans should be proposed to reform the global governance system and construct the Community of Mankind with Shared Destiny’.) See generally Cai (2019).

  12. 12.

    Democratic Republic of the Congo v. FG Hemisphere Assocs., [2011] 14 H.K.C.F.A.R. 395, pp. 62, 502–12 (C.F.A.) (H.K.).

  13. 13.

    Li Fei, Deputy Director of the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, ‘The Explanations on the Draft Interpretation of Paragraph 1, Article 13 and Article 19 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, at the 22nd Session of the Standing Committee of the Eleventh National People’s Congress on 24 August 2011’, para. 3, (27 August 2011) http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2011-08/27/content_1934211.htm. Accessed 15 April 2021.

  14. 14.

    Democratic Republic of the Congo, China Railway Group (Hong Kong) Limited, China Railway Resources Development Limited, China Railway Sino-Congo Mining Limited, China Railway Group Limited, Secretary For Justice, v FG Hemisphere Associates, in The Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Final Appeal Nos 5, 6 & 7 Of 2010 (Civil) (On Appeal from Cacv Nos 373 Of 2008 And 43 Of 2009), Judgment, 8 June 2011, para. 44.

  15. 15.

    Shan and Wang (2019), p. 61.

  16. 16.

    Memorandum from China to U.S. on the Case of Huguang Railways Bearer Bonds, 2 February 1983, para. 2, in Duan (2011), pp. 35–36.

  17. 17.

    Duan (2011), p. 36. ‘So far there has not been enough evidence to prove that by State practice and opinio juris, this customary international law rule has changed’.

  18. 18.

    Xue (2012), p. 103.

  19. 19.

    Xue (2012), p. 100.

  20. 20.

    See for instance, Art. 8 Russia-China Joint Declaration on Promotion and Principles of International Law (2016) The Declaration placed the sovereign equality at the primary position of basic principles of International law. To their mutual understanding, the principle of sovereign equality should not only be weakened, but strengthened. In The Department of Treaty and Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China (2018), p. 5.

  21. 21.

    Xue (2011), p. 100.

  22. 22.

    The Department of Treaty and Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China (2018), p. 15.

  23. 23.

    Art. 8 Russia-China Joint Declaration on Promotion and Principles of International Law (2016).

  24. 24.

    United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (2004) (the UNCSI).

  25. 25.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 13th meeting (A/C.6/59/SR.13), 22 March 2005, p.8

  26. 26.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 45th meeting (A/C. 6/36//SR.45), 19 November 1981, p. 12. UN, A/47/326/Add.1, 16 July 1992, China, para. 2; UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 25th meeting, (A/C. 6/45/SR. 25), 19 November 1990, p. 4.

  27. 27.

    Yang (2012), p. 8.

  28. 28.

    United States, Court of Appeals, Victory Transport Inc. v. Comisaria General, (2d Cir. 1964), 35 ILR 110.

  29. 29.

    The Statement of Mr. Legal (France) in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 33rd meeting(A/C.6/49/SR.33), 14 November 1994, p. 2.

  30. 30.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 23rd meeting (A/C.6/53/SR.23), 20 November 1998, p. 2.

  31. 31.

    Ibid., p. 2.

  32. 32.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 39th meeting (A/C. 6/41/SR. 39), 17 November 1986, p. 6.

  33. 33.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 23rd meeting (A/C.6/46/SR.23), 13 November 1991, p. 20.

  34. 34.

    United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (2 December 2004) (the UNCSI).

  35. 35.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 29th meeting (A/C.6/48/SR.29), 22 December 1993, 17.

  36. 36.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 25th meeting, (A/C. 6/45/SR. 25), 19 November 1990, 2; UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 32nd meeting (A/C.6/47/SR/32), 3 December 1992, 4; UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 32nd meeting (A/C.6/49/SR.32), 5 December 1994, 6.

  37. 37.

    UN General Assembly, Report of the Working Group (A/C.6/47/L.10), 3 November 1992, 15.

  38. 38.

    UN General Assembly, Report of the Working Group (A/C.6/47/L.10), 3 November 1992, 14–15.

  39. 39.

    UN General Assembly, Convention on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property, Report of the Secretary-General (A/56/291), 14 August 2001, 3; UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 23rd meeting (A/C.6/53/SR.23), 20 November 1998, 2; UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 32nd meeting (A/C.6/49/SR.32), 5 December 1994, 6; UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 29th meeting (A/C.6/48/SR.29), 22 December 1993, 17.

  40. 40.

    UN General Assembly, Convention on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property, Report of the Secretary-General (A/56/291), 14 August 2001, 3. The special interest of a State under exceptional circumstances covers, such as the procurement of food supplies to relieve a famine situation, purchase goods to revitalize an affected area, or supply medicaments to combat a spreading epidemic.

  41. 41.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 39th meeting (A/C. 6/39/SR. 39), 19 November 1984, para.30.

  42. 42.

    UN General Assembly, Convention on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property, Comments and observations received from Governments, A/CN.4/410 (28 December 1987), 63, General Comments of China, para. 2.

  43. 43.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 32nd meeting (A/C.6/49/SR.32), 5 December 1994, para. 17.

  44. 44.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 39th meeting (A/C. 6/41/SR. 39), 17 November 1986, para. 17.

  45. 45.

    Cai (2019), p. 258.

  46. 46.

    The Second Letter from the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China in Hong Kong, in Democratic Republic of the Congo v. FG Hemisphere Assocs., [2011] 14 H.K.C.F.A.R. 395, 62, 502–12 (C.F.A.) (H.K.)., para. 3. UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 13th meeting (A/C.6/59/SR.13), 22 March 2005, p. 8.

  47. 47.

    Art. 54 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention).

  48. 48.

    Art. 55 ICSID Convention.

  49. 49.

    China has signed host agreements with some international organizations, such as the AIIB, the Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization, the international bank for reconstruction and development, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

  50. 50.

    Art. 46 Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Articles of Agreement (2015).

  51. 51.

    Convention on privileges and immunities of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (2004).

  52. 52.

    Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, ‘Interpretation of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Paragraph 1, Article 13 and Article 19 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China’ 2011 (6) Bulletin of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China 583–585.

  53. 53.

    Law of the People’s Republic of China on Immunity of the Property of Foreign Central Banks from Compulsory Judicial Measures (2005).

  54. 54.

    Art.21 Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Coast Guard (2021).

  55. 55.

    Art. 10 Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (1992).

  56. 56.

    Notably, in the courts of the United States. See the cases listed in footnote 2.

  57. 57.

    The Supreme People’s Court of China, ‘Notice on the relevant issues concerning the acceptance by the People’s Courts of civil cases involving privileges and immunities’, Fa [2007] No 69, ILDC 2756 (CN 2007), 22nd May 2007.

  58. 58.

    The Supreme People’s Court of China, ‘Notice on the relevant issues concerning the acceptance by the People’s Courts of civil cases involving privileges and immunities’, Fa [2007] No 69, ILDC 2756 (CN 2007), 22nd May 2007.

  59. 59.

    UN General Assembly, Convention on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property, Report of the Secretary-General (A/56/291), 14 August 2001, p. 3.

  60. 60.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 23rd meeting (A/C.6/53/SR.23), 20 November 1998, p. 2.

  61. 61.

    The special interest of a State under exceptional circumstances, such as the procurement of food supplies to relieve a famine situation, purchase goods to revitalize an affected area, or supply medicaments to combat a spreading epidemic.

  62. 62.

    UN General Assembly, Convention on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property, Report of the Secretary-General (A/56/291), 14 August 2001, p.3; UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 29th meeting (A/C.6/48/SR.29), 22 December 1993, p.17; UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 32nd meeting (A/C.6/49/SR.32), 5 December 1994, p. 6.

  63. 63.

    Art.2, para. 2 UNCSI (2004).

  64. 64.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 13th meeting (A/C.6/59/SR.13), 22 March 2005, p. 8.

  65. 65.

    Art. 14 and 25 Regulations of the People’s Republic of China Concerning Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities (1986).

  66. 66.

    Art. 14 Regulations of the People’s Republic of China Concerning Consular Privileges and Immunities (1990).

  67. 67.

    See cases for example, Sun Changbao v Bai Songyue. The Beijing Chaoyang District People’s Court, Jing0105 Min Chu No.448 [2018]. Richard Philippe Jean Michel v. Arman Darbo. The Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court, Yi Zhong Min Chu Zi No.11472 [2008]. Chuangchun yitu Environment Engineering Ltd v. Xu Dawei. The Beijing Third Intermediate People’s Court, Jing 03 Min Zhong No.10953 [2018].

  68. 68.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 25th meeting, (A/C. 6/45/SR. 25), 19 November 1990, 2; UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 32nd meeting (A/C.6/47/SR/32), 3 December 1992, 4; UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 32nd meeting (A/C.6/49/SR.32), 5 December 1994, 6.

  69. 69.

    Duan (2011), p. 7.

  70. 70.

    Cai (2019), p. 215.

  71. 71.

    According to Law of the People’s Republic of China on the State-Owned Assets of Enterprises (2008), The State Council and the local people’s governments shall in accordance with laws and administrative regulations perform respectively the contributor’s functions for state-invested enterprises and enjoy the contributor’s rights and interests on behalf of the state, including enjoy the return on assets, participation in major decision-making and selection of managers. The State Council and the local people’s governments shall base their operations on the principles of separation of government bodies and enterprises, separation of the administrative functions of public affairs and the functions of the state-owned assets contributor, and non-intervention in the legitimate and independent business operations of enterprises.

  72. 72.

    Art. 10.3 The UNCSI.

  73. 73.

    UN, A/47/326/Add.1, 16 July 1992, China, para. 3; UN General Assembly, Convention on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property, Report of the Secretary-General (A/56/291), 14 August 2001, pp. 3–4.

  74. 74.

    UN, Draft articles on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property. Titles and texts adopted by the Drafting Committee on second reading: articles 1 to 23—reproduced in A/CN.4/SR.2218 to SR.2221 (A/CN.4/L.457), p. 73, para. 69.

  75. 75.

    Covington Marine Corp. v. Xiamen Shipbuilding Indus. Co., 504 Fed. Appx. 298, 299, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26297, *1, 2013 AMC 294, 2012 WL 6643279. In Covington Marine Corp. v. Xiamen Shipbuilding Indus. Co. the Court held that, because the company was not an alter ego of the PRC, the company could not bind the PRC to an arbitration agreement that the PRC was not a party to, and thus could not bring it within the arbitration exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. First Inv. Corp. v. Fujian Mawei Shipbuilding, Ltd., 703 F.3d 742, 744, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26207, *1, 2013 AMC 273. In First Inv. Corp. v. Fujian Mawei Shipbuilding, Ltd., the court holds that the fact that the PRC was the sole shareholder of one of the companies, which was the majority shareholder of the other company, was insufficient to establish an alter ego relationship. The PRC was immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act as the arbitration exception did not apply; having failed to show an alter ego relationship, the petitioner did not establish that the PRC was bound to the arbitration agreement.

  76. 76.

    UN General Assembly, Report of the Working Group (A/C.6/47/L.10), 3 November 1992, pp. 14–15.

  77. 77.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 25th meeting, (A/C. 6/45/SR. 25), 19 November 1990, p. 2.

  78. 78.

    Zhu Zhu v the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Beijing Third Intermediate People’s Court, San Zhong Min Zhong Zi No.06823 [2014].

  79. 79.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 23rd meeting (A/C.6/46/SR.23), 13 November 1991, p. 20.

  80. 80.

    UN General Assembly, Report of the Working Group (A/C.6/47/L.10), 3 November 1992, p. 15.

  81. 81.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 25th meeting, (A/C. 6/45/SR. 25), 19 November 1990, p. 2.

  82. 82.

    Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Ger. v. It., Greece Intervening), 2012 IC.J. 1, 93 (Feb. 3); Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Belg.), 2002 ICJ. 3, 60 (Feb. 4) (‘Immunity from criminal jurisdiction and individual criminal responsibility are quite separate concepts. While jurisdictional immunity is procedural in nature, criminal responsibility is a question of substantive law’).

  83. 83.

    Weatherall (2015).

  84. 84.

    Goering et al (1946), p. 221. Recent developments have further sharpened the debate on the principle of immunity. For instance, the judgments rendered on 24 March 1999 by the House of Lords in the United Kingdom and on 13 March 2001 by the Court of Cassation in France in the Pinochet and Qaddafi, in which it contends that an exception to the immunity rule was accepted in the case of serious crimes under international law, have invoked more controversial issues on jurisdictional immunities of States and the scope of national jurisdiction. The Pinochet decision recognizes an exception to the immunity rule when Lord Millett stated that ‘[i]nternational law cannot be supposed to have established a crime having the character of a jus cogens and at the same time to have provided an immunity which is co-extensive with the obligation it seeks to impose’, or when Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers said that ‘no established rule of international law requires state immunity ratione materiae to be accorded in respect of prosecution for an international crime. The French Court of Cassation, in holding that, ‘under international law as it currently stands, the crime alleged [acts of terrorism], irrespective of its gravity, does not come within the exceptions to the principle of immunity from jurisdiction for incumbent foreign Heads of State’, the Court explicitly recognized the existence of such exceptions.

  85. 85.

    The Department of Treaty and Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China (2018), pp. 14–15.

  86. 86.

    Joint Communiqué of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People’s Republic of China, China-Japan (1972). http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/china/joint72.html. Accessed 15 April 2021.

  87. 87.

    Joint Communiqué of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People’s Republic of China, China-Japan (1972). http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/china/joint72.html. Accessed 15 April 2021, para. 5.

  88. 88.

    See Experts Advise Chinese WWII Laborers to File Class Action, People’s Daily Online (Jan. 15, 2002) http://en.people.cn/200201/15/eng20020115_88683.shtml. Accessed 15 April 2021.

  89. 89.

    Tang Liren v the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China. The Beijing Third Intermediate People’s Court, Jing 03 Xing Chu Zi No.94 [2018].

    Zhu Zhu v the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Beijing Third Intermediate People’s Court, San Zhong Min Zhong Zi No.06823 [2014].

  90. 90.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 39th meeting (A/C. 6/41/SR. 39), 17 November 1986, p. 7.

  91. 91.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 32nd meeting (A/C.6/49/SR.32), 5 December 1994, p. 6.

  92. 92.

    UN General Assembly, Convention on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property, Report of the Secretary-General (A/56/291), 14 August 2001, pp. 4–5.

  93. 93.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 25th meeting, (A/C. 6/45/SR. 25), 19 November 1990, p. 3.

  94. 94.

    UN General Assembly, Convention on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property, Report of the Secretary-General (A/56/291), 14 August 2001, pp. 4–5.

  95. 95.

    Ibid.

  96. 96.

    Memorandum from China to U.S. on the Case of Huguang Railways Bearer Bonds, 2 February 1983, para. 3. Duan (2011), pp. 35–36.

  97. 97.

    Art. 26 Regulations of the People’s Republic of China Concerning Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities (1986).

  98. 98.

    Art. 14 Regulations of the People’s Republic of China Concerning Consular Privileges and Immunities (1990).

  99. 99.

    See generally Art. 40 State Compensation Law of the People’s Republic of China (2012 Amendment); Art. 48 Export Control Law of the People’s Republic of China (2020); Art. 6 Foreign Trade Law of the People’s Republic of China (2016 Revision); Art.79 Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Coast Guard (2021); Art. 2 Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Handling Requests for Judicial Assistance in Service of Judicial Documents, Investigation and Taking of Evidence in Civil and Commercial Cases in Accordance with International Conventions and Bilateral Treaties on Judicial Assistance (2020 Revision).

  100. 100.

    Art. 3 Law of the People’s Republic of China on Judicial Immunity from Compulsory Measures Concerning the Property of Foreign Central Banks (2005).

  101. 101.

    The Supreme People’s Court of China, ‘Reply of the Supreme People’s Court on whether the People’s Court of my country should recognize and enforce the judgment of the Japanese courts on the content of claims and debts’, Min Ta Zi No.17 [1995], 26 June 1995.

  102. 102.

    Reciprocity could be established if the courts of the applicant’s home state have a record on recognizing and enforcing the awards of Chinese courts. There is no requirement on a formal inclusion of reciprocity on such matter in judicial assistance agreement or treaties alike. Kolmar Group AG v. Jiangsu Textile Industry (Group) Import & Export Co., Ltd, The Intermediate People’s Court of Nanjing, Su 01 Xie Wai Ren No.3 (2016).

  103. 103.

    The Supreme People’s Court of China, ‘Several Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Providing Judicial Services and Safeguards for the Construction of the Belt and Road by People’s Courts’, Working Documents of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Court, Fa No. 9 [2015], 16 June 2015.

  104. 104.

    Nanning Statement of the 2nd China-ASEAN Justice Forum (8 June 2017), para 7 https://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2017/06/id/2891257.shtml. Accessed 15 April 2021.

  105. 105.

    Kolmar Group AG v. Jiangsu Textile Industry (Group) Import & Export Co., Ltd. The Intermediate People’s Court of Nanjing, Su 01 Xie Wai Ren No.3 (2016).

  106. 106.

    The Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2017 Amendment) (27 June 2017), art. 282.

  107. 107.

    Xue (2012), pp. 54–55.

  108. 108.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 39th meeting (A/C. 6/39/SR. 39), 19 November 1984, p. 10.

  109. 109.

    Ibid., p. 9.

  110. 110.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 13th meeting (A/C.6/59/SR.13), 22 March 2005, p. 8.

  111. 111.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 20th meeting (A/C.6/58/SR.12), 23 October 2003, p. 4.

  112. 112.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 13th meeting (A/C.6/59/SR.13), 22 March 2005, p. 8.

  113. 113.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 32nd meeting (A/C.6/47/SR/32), 3 December 1992, p. 4; A/CN.4/410 (28 December 1987), para.1.

  114. 114.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 25th meeting, (A/C. 6/45/SR. 25), 19 November 1990, p. 4; UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 23rd meeting (A/C.6/46/SR.23), 13 November 1991, p. 19; UN, A/47/326/Add.1, 16 July 1992, China, para. 2; UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 29th meeting (A/C.6/48/SR.29), 22 December 1993; p. 17.

  115. 115.

    Morris v. People’s Republic of China, 478 F. Supp. 2d 561, 563, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20784, *1.

  116. 116.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 45th meeting (A/C. 6/36//SR.45), 19 November 1981, p. 12.

  117. 117.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 23rd meeting (A/C.6/53/SR.23), 20 November 1998, p. 2.

  118. 118.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China signed the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property. 16 September 2005, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/wjb_673085/zzjg_673183/t212432.shtml. Accessed 15 April 2021.

  119. 119.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 20th meeting (A/C.6/58/SR.12), 23 October 2003, p.4.

  120. 120.

    UN General Assembly, Summary record of the 13th meeting (A/C.6/59/SR.13), 22 March 2005, p.8.

  121. 121.

    Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China enacts its first law on enforcement immunity of foreign state asset, 2 March 2006, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/wjb_673085/zzjg_673183/t238012.shtml. Accessed 15 April 2021.

  122. 122.

    NPC Deputies Suggest Enacting a State Immunity Law, Beijing Business Today (28 May 2020). http://finance.sina.com.cn/roll/2020-05-28/doc-iirczymk3909801.shtml. Accessed 15 April 2021.

  123. 123.

    Zhanshu Li, Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, ‘Report on the work of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress at the third session of the 13th National People’s Congress on 25 May 2020’ (1 June 2020). http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c30834/202006/af401b4c055142179f1cea4a17ebfeb1.shtml. Accessed 15 April 2021.

  124. 124.

    NPC Deputies Suggest Enacting a State Immunity Law, Beijing Business Today (28 May 2020). http://finance.sina.com.cn/roll/2020-05-28/doc-iirczymk3909801.shtml. Accessed 15 April 2021.

  125. 125.

    For example, Wuhan Citizens Sued the U.S. Government, Guancha News (22 March 2020). https://user.guancha.cn/main/content?id=268255. Accessed 15 April 2021.

References

  • Cai CY (2019) The rise of China and international law taking Chinese exceptionalism seriously. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Duan JL (2011) International law in China: cases and practice (中国国际法实践与案例). Law Press, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  • Jia GD (2019) New China and international law: practice and contribution in 70 years. Chinese J Int Law 18:727–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qi DH (2008) State immunity, China and its shifting position. Chinese J Int Law 7(2):307–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shan WH, Wang P (2019) Divergent views on state immunity in the international community. In: Ruys T, Angelet N (eds) and Luca Ferro (ass. ed) Handbook on immunities and international law. OUP, Oxford, pp 61–78

    Google Scholar 

  • The Department of Treaty and Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China (2018) International law in China: selected cases and practice (中国国际法实践案例选编), Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang TY (1990) International law in China: historical and contemporary perspectives. Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherall T (2015) Jus Cogens and sovereign immunity: reconciling divergence in contemporary jurisprudence. Georgetown J Int Law 46:1151–1212

    Google Scholar 

  • Xue HQ (2011) Chinese Contemporary Perspectives on International Law: History, Culture, and International Law. Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law

    Google Scholar 

  • Xue HQ (2012) Chinese contemporary perspectives on international law: history, culture and international law. Brill, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang XD (2012) State immunity in international law. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Xi’an Jiaotong University School of Law, Xi’an, PR China

    Peng Wang

Authors
  1. Peng Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Sciences Po Law School, Sciences Po, Paris, France

    Régis Bismuth

  2. Faculty of Law, National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, Moscow, Russia

    Vera Rusinova

  3. Faculty of Law, National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, Moscow, Russia

    Vladislav Starzhenetskiy

  4. Department of Public and International Law, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Geir Ulfstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wang, P. (2022). From Diplomacy to Law: Half-Way in Institutional Transition of China’s Regime on State Immunity. In: Bismuth, R., Rusinova, V., Starzhenetskiy, V., Ulfstein, G. (eds) Sovereign Immunity Under Pressure. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87706-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87706-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-87705-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-87706-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation