Chronology of Practice: Chinese Practice in Private International Law in 2017

Abstract

This paper contains materials reflecting the practice of Chinese private international law in 2017. First, the statistics of the foreign-related civil or commercial cases accepted and decided by Chinese courts is extracted from the reports of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC), released in 2018, most notably the Report on the Work of the SPC in 2017. Second, two judicial interpretations of the SPC that took effect in 2017 are translated, i.e., the Provisions of the SPC on Issues Concerning Report and Approval of Cases Requiring Judicial Review of Arbitration and the Provisions of the SPC on Several Issues Concerning Trial of Cases Requiring Judicial Review of Arbitration. These two instruments contain provisions reflecting a pro-arbitration tendency in Chinese courts. Another document, the Nanning Statement of the Second China-ASEAN Justice Forum, is also introduced. It contains a commitment to judicial assistance cooperation, especially improvement of mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments. Third, since China signed the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements in 2017, but has not yet ratified it, one case selected in this paper cites the Convention as a reference in its assessment of the exclusivity of the applicable choice of court clause. Fourth, three representative cases with regard to independent guarantee, letter of credit and financial loan contract are examined. These cases from the SPC shed light on the independence principle of the guarantee and the credit, as well as the strict compliance principle. Fifth, three typical cases decided by various Chinese courts during 2017 are introduced. These cases involve issues relating to the law applicable to construction contracts and land contracts, as well as property relationships between spouses. As for the application of international conventions, two separate cases involving the application of the CISG and the Montreal Convention are reviewed. Finally, the paper examines three cases with different or inconsistent practices regarding reciprocity and other issues, given recent increases in the recognition and enforcement of monetary judgments by Chinese courts. In this regard, a unified practice is required in Chinese courts.