Conflictoflaws

Over the past 19 years, Professor Symeon C. Symeonides (Alex L. Parks Distinguished Professor of Law, Dean Emeritus) has been providing scholars, researchers, practitionners and student with a comprehensive and extensive compliation of Parivate International law bibliogrphy.

The 2024’s compilation (Private International Law Bibliography 2024: U.S. and Foreign Sources in English) includes 58 books and 427 journal articles, covering a wide range of topics within private international law (conflict of laws) and related fields.

The bibliography addresses key areas such as prescriptive jurisdiction, extraterritoriality, federal-state conflicts, and specific aspects of arbitration. It also encompasses legal issues related to foreign relations and international human rights, providing a valuable reference for those studying or working in these domains.

This compilation serves as a significant resource for legal scholars and practitioners, offering a thorough overview of the literature in private international law and its associated fields.

Access to the bibliography is available on Prof. Symeonides’ SSRN page here.

I would like to take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Prof. Symeonides for his unwavering commitment and remarkable contributions. His bibliography continues to be a cornerstone of legal research and a testament to the enduring importance of meticulous scholarship.

On Tuesday, January 7, 2025, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 4:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. (CET). Professor Joseph William Singer (Harvard Law School) will speak, in English, about the topic

“Conflict of Abortion Laws”

 

With the abolition of the constitutional abortion right in the United States come huge differences among the laws of the states, and that leads to questions about which state law applies when a person from an anti-abortion state travels to a pro-choice state to get an abortion. Can anti-abortion states apply their regulatory and tort regimes to their own residents who leave the state to obtain an abortion? Can they empower residents to sue abortion providers in other states to protect what they view as the “unborn child”? Can pro-choice states confer immunity from suit on abortion providers and on people who get abortions from suits filed in anti-abortion states? Does the United States Constitution limit the power of anti-abortion states to apply their laws in an extraterritorial manner, and, if not, how should courts revolve conflicts of law (private international law) questions about abortion?

 

The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.

If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.

The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts“ (IPRax) features the following articles:

 

W. Hau: Third countries and the revision of the Brussels Ibis Regulation: jurisdiction, parallel proceedings, recognition and enforceability (German)

The question of whether the provisions of the Brussels Ibis Regulation on international jurisdiction should be extended to defendants not domiciled in a Member State is to be considered in the upcoming round of revision (as expressly stated in Article 79). This paper discusses this question, but also whether the already existing provisions on the relevance of parallel proceedings in third countries have proven effective and whether the recognition and enforcement of third-country judgments should finally be put on the Brussels agenda.

 

Ch. Thomale: Ipso facto clauses in cross-border cases (German)

Ipso facto clauses or bankruptcy clauses present a controversial problem to both contract law and insolvency law. After a comparative overview of international substantive solutions to the problem, the article addresses associated conflict of laws issues, notably of characterisation. Special attention is given to “anticipatory” ipso facto clauses, cancelling the contract before the opening of insolvency proceedings.

 

A. Engel/R. Müller: Limits to the freedom of choice of law in the context of player agent services (German)

The article deals with a decision of the Rechtbank Limburg (Netherlands) (31 January 2024 – C/03/313729 / HA ZA 23–42, ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2024:524) concerning limits to the freedom of choice of law, in the context of player agent services in international football. The decision hinged upon the application of Section 297 No. 4 of the German Social Security Code III (SGB III). The relevant contract between the parties contained a clause according to which the claimant was exclusively authorised to represent the player during the term of the contract. The German provision would render the clause invalid.

While the parties had chosen Dutch law to be applicable to the contract, the court held that the German provision was applicable in view of Art. 3 para. 3 of the Rome I Regulation, which stipulates the application of mandatory provisions of the state in which the facts of the case are exclusively located if the law of another state is chosen. The article analyses this limit to party autonomy in the context of other limitations which could have been applied: Art. 9 Rome I, regarding overriding mandatory provisions, and Art. 6 Rome I, regarding the protection of consumers. The article pays heed in particular to the requirements of the domestic connections of the case.

 

J. M. Blaschczok: The assessment of arbitration agreements in competition law (German)

In recent years, arbitration agreements have come under the repeated scrutiny of competition law enforcers. By analysing a recent judgment of the CJEU, the Article finds that arbitration agreements are generally still regarded as harmless to competition in EU law. The Article subsequently discusses the exceptional cases in which arbitration agreements have been found to violate competition law. These cases include arbitration agreements which serve to cover-up other infringements of competition law as well as arbitration agreements by which a dominant undertaking imposes an unfair dispute resolution mechanism on a structurally disadvantaged party. The Article concludes that neither EU competition law nor other EU law require the place of arbitration to be located within the single market.

 

D. Fischer: § 40 KGSG as an overriding mandatory provision (German)

Erik Jayme stated incidentally in a conference report in 2018 that sec. 40 (1)–(4) Kulturgutschutzgesetz (KGSG) is an overriding mandatory provision. Haimo Schack makes the same qualification.  This finding can be confirmed for sec. 40 (1) and (2) KGSG. This article concentrates on the nature of these two paragraphs of sec. 40 KGSG as overriding mandatory provisions.

 

B. Kasolowsky/C. Wendler: German Courts confirm Anti-Suit Remedy against Sanctioned Russian Parties breaching Arbitration Agreements pursuant to Section 1032(2) GCPR (English)

Following last year’s landmark decision recognising the availability of declaratory anti-suit relief, the Berlin Higher Regional Court has again applied Section 1032(2) GCPR and broadened its scope of application. In its new decision, the court reiterated that sanctioned Russian parties remain bound to previously concluded arbitration agreements. In addition, the court offered even more hands-on protection for parties trying to serve proceedings in Russia.

 

L. M. Kahl: Security for legal costs before the Unified Patent Court compared to German and Austrian law (on UPC, Central Division Munich of 30 October 2023, UPC_CFI_252/2023) (German)

The article takes a decision of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) as an opportunity to examine the discretionary provision on security for costs, Art. 69 (4) UPCA, in more detail. According to this provision, both enforcement difficulties against third countries and the insolvency risk of the plaintiff can be considered. Among other things, the article deals with the effects of the attribution of UPC acts to the contracting member states pursuant to Art. 23 UPCA on the ordering of a security, how a so-called decision by default is to be interpreted when the claimant fails to provide a security and traces the line of previous case law. This can be seen as part of a general trend towards better protection of defendants.

 

J. Gibbons: Acceptance of English Notary Public Certificate of corporate representation without requirement of being a scrivener notary: recent decision of Regional Higher Court of Cologne (English)

The purpose of this article is to explain the professional standing, qualification, legal competence, regulatory equivalence, authority and evidential value of the acts of notaries public and scrivener notaries in England and Wales. This is considered necessary, as a number of German courts have, in recent years, rejected certificates of corporate representation issued by a notary public in England for use in Germany and elsewhere on the ground that they are not issued by a scrivener notary.

 

Ch. Thomale: Inheritance of limited partnership interests in cross-border cases (German)

The case note discusses a judgment rendered by the Higher Regional Court of Hamm, concerning the inheritance of limited partnership interest in a German partnership while the inheritance succession is governed by Austrian law. The note focuses on the company and partnership law exceptions according to Art. 1 para. 2 lit. h) and i) Regulation (EU) 659/2012 and places these in the overall context of EU conflict of laws.

 

S. L. Gössl: Birth registrations and (no) procedural recognition in Ukrainian surrogacy cases (German)

In two cases, the BGH dealt with the attribution of parenthood to a child born to a surrogate mother in Ukraine. Under Ukrainian law, the German intended parents would have been the legal parents. The BGH refused to recognise this allocation under both procedural law and conflict of laws. From a dogmatic point of view, her statements are well justifiable. The distinction between a ‘decision’ and other administrative acts in the sense of procedural recognition could have been explored further.

 

M. Andrae: Correction of the date of birth under civil status and social law based on foreign court decisions and public documents (German)

A person‘s identity includes their date of birth. In the area of social law, a person’s rights and obligations are partly dependent on their age. The date of birth is part of the social insurance number. If the person in question was born abroad, it is often the case that only the year of birth is given and, if necessary, proven. This has corresponding consequences for civil status certification and social law. The registration under civil status law is then limited to stating the year of birth. In the area of social law, July 1st of the year in question is fictitiously assumed. The insurance number contains blank spaces in this regard. Later, a specific date of birth is claimed and a foreign decision or documents are presented as proof. In other cases, a date of birth with a different year of birth is claimed in this way. The article discusses under which conditions the original civil status entry must be corrected and a different date of birth must be assumed for social law purposes.

 

N. C. Elsner: Review of OGH, order of 2.11.2023 – 5 Nc 22/23i: Enforcement of a British decision in Austria (German)

 

L. M. Kahl: Review of OGH, order of 31.1.2024 – 3 Ob 6/24i: Judicial conflict: Inadmissible non-application of the Hague Convention on Civil Procedure by Russian courts due to a Russian presidential decree (German)

 

A. Anthimos: UK Third Party Costs Orders Enforceable in Greece (German)

A UK third-party costs order (TPCO) is a totally unknown procedural concept in Greece. In the course of exequatur proceedings, the Piraeus first instance court and the Piraeus court of appeal were called to examine the issue for the first time in Greece, both declaring that no obstacles, especially those intertwined with procedural public policy, are barricading the path towards the declaration of enforcement of a TPCO issued by a judge in the UK.

Chinese Journal of Transnational Law will hold an online workshop on Cross-border Protection of Cultural Property on 28 Feb 2025. All are welcome to attend. A Zoom link will be provided closer to the event.

Tentative Programme

Keynote Speakers

•Prof. Christa Roodt, University of Glasgow

•Prof. Zhengxin Huo, China University of Political Science and Law

 

Speakers and Presentations

•Restitution of Cultural Objects Unethically Acquired During the Colonial Era: The Intersection of Public and Private International Law

Andreas Giorgallis (PGR), University of Glasgow

•The Contribution of Postcolonial Theory to the Cross-Border Protection of Indigenous Cultural Heritage

Eleni Moustaira, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

•From Freedom to Restitution (With Special Focus on Central and Eastern Europe and the Lusophone Community)

Miroslaw Michal Sadowski, University of Strathclyde

•Restitution of Cultural Property in China: In Search of a New Paradigm for Cross-Border Cultural Property Claims

Ruida Chen, China University of Political Science and Law

•Forfeiture and Freezing Orders in Trans-border Cultural Property Litigation

Maggie Fleming Cacot

•Restitution of Stolen Foreign Cultural Property and Hurdles in Choice of Law

Yehya Badr, Yamamah University

•The Issue of Applicable Law in Disputes Arising from Violations of Private Law Regulations on Cultural Properties: The Case of Türkiye

Ekin Hacibekiroglu, Kadir Has University

•Evolving Models of Restitution

Evelien Campfens, University of Amsterdam

•Moving People, Shifting State Borders and the Return of Cultural Property: The Case of Poland

Andrzej Jakubowski, Instytut Nauk Prawnych, Polska Akademia Nauk,

We invite those interested in this important discussion to mark their calendars. More information will be provided soon.

The editors of ConflictofLaws.net would like to wish you a year filled with happiness, health, and success, academically and otherwise.

2024 has been another great year for the blog, with close to one new post per day (bringing us to more than 5,500 posts in total) and record numbers of readers and subscribers. Our content, just like our readership, reflects the global scope of the blog, with popular posts including Saloni Khanderia & Shubh Jaiswal’s article on the application of the lex fori ‘by default’ in Indian courts, Mayela Celis’ note on Smith & Wesson v Mexico, Orji A Uka & Damilola Alabi’s contribution on service under Nigerian law, Yasmín Aguada & Laura Martina Jeifetz two-part piece on international judicial cooperation and technology in private international law, and Tobias Lutzi’s comment on the CJEU’s decision in Real Madrid.

In addition to our e-mail newsletter (which continues to be surprisingly popular), you can subscribe to our blog on LinkedIn, Twitter/X, and – from this year on – Bluesky.

Today (31-December 2024), FAMIMOVE 2.0. is coming to an end after having accomplished all of its goals and created a solid network of experts. The project’s full name is Families on the Move: The Coordination between international family law and migration law and is an international project co-funded by the European Commission under the JUST-2022-JCOO program. For more information, click here.

The project aimed to improve the protection of migrant children and families by bringing actual practice more in line with EU goals and values, such as the protection of fundamental rights and best interests of the child. It sought to provide more effectiveness to EU objectives through a better coordination of instruments in overlapping fields, such as Regulations in private international law in family law matters and migration law rules.

The project’s duration was 24 months, starting on 1 January 2023. Total Project Costs: €863,584.70, of which an EU contribution of €777,226.23. The consortium comprised the following universities: Maastricht University (the Netherlands – coordinator), University of Münster (Germany), University of Milano-Bicocca (Italy), University of Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (France), Lund University (Sweden), Eotvos Lorand University (Hungary) and Ghent University (Belgium).

The achievements of the project are the following (some of which are publicly available):

• Seven awareness raising seminars were held in each of the partners’ countries (in their official languages). These seminars brought together migration and child protection authorities, as well as private international law experts;
• Three transnational pilot projects / roundtables relating to key issues of international child protection in a migration context: cross border recognition of guardianship, kafala and child marriage. These roundtables were held in Milan, Paris and Münster and gathered experts from at least three countries each. See also the leaflets below for more information:
• The final conference took place in Brussels: some of the presentations are publicly available here. See also the blog post The role of judge: from compassion to rights
• A book: Children in Migration and International Family Law: The Child’s Best Interests Principle at the Interface of Migration Law and Family Law – open access available here. We have previously announced it on this blog here. The book has twenty chapters that have been divided into the following: Introduction, General Topics, Guardianship for Unaccompanied Minor Refugees, Early Marriage, Kafala and Additional Topics;
• Leaflets on the project and guidelines – Leaflets available in 6 languages can be downloaded here
• A FAMIMOVE website was created: https://famimove.unimib.it/. This website features a blog, which has approximately 40 entries, ranging from activities conducted under the project to the latest news on migration/refugee law as well as private international law. I would like to highlight the following entries:
  • Family reunification for beneficiaries of international protection: the EUAA overview
  • The new Early Marriages Act in Germany
  • The Court of Justice on the recognition of refugee status
  • The OJ publication of the new EU law on asylum and migration

Undoubtedly, FAMIMOVE 2.0 has contributed to a better alignment of migration law and private international law. This project’s legacy is well documented in the publications referred to above. It is to be hoped (at least in my view) that similar initiatives will emerge in the future, especially now that the application of the new Pact on Migration and Asylum is looming in the distance (scheduled for 2026), and which will certainly present new challenges and opportunities.

FAMIMOVE 2.0 is a continuation of an earlier requested grant to the European Commission. As part of FAMIMOVE 1.0, two documents were issued:

Children on the move: A private International Law Perspective

Private International Law in a Context of Increasing International Mobility

Views and opinions expressed in this project are however those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Commission. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

I.  Introduction

Foreign family law decisions can be recognized, and where necessary, enforced in Japan if they meet the prescribed requirements for this purpose. Prior to 2018, it was an establish practice to apply the same recognition and enforcement regime used for civil and commercial matters to foreign family law decisions. However, discussions existed in literature regarding whether constitutive family law judgments and decrees should be recognized following the choice of law approach, or whether the specific characteristics of foreign family law decisions might justify exceptions, such as the non-application of certain recognition requirements (see Mario Takeshita, “The Recognition of Foreign Judgments by Japanese Courts” 39 Japanese Annual of International Law (1996) 59-61).

Since 2018, the applicable regime has been significantly clarified, effectively putting an end to much of the prior academic debate on the subject. This development stems from the introduction of new provisions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign family law decisions in the Act No. 20 of 2018, which amends the procedural acts applicable to family law cases as it will be outline below (English translation can be found in 62 Japanese Yearbook of International Law (2019) 486. See also Prof. Yasuhiro Okuda’s translation in 50 ZJapanR/J. Japan.L (2020) 235).

This Act, which came into force on 1 April 2019, also introduces new detailed rules on international jurisdictional in family law disputes (for details, see Yuko Nishitani, “New International Civil Procedure Law of Japan in Status and Family Matters” 62 Japanese Yearbook of International Law (2019) 141; Yasuhiro Okuda, New Rules on International Jurisdiction of Japanese Courts in Family Matters, 50 ZJapanR/J. Japan.L (2020) 217).

Nonetheless, it has to be acknowledged that, in the context of the recognition and enforcement of foreign family law decisions, several issues remain open. In addition, since the entry into force of the new law, there have been relatively few reported cases that provide clear guidance on the application of the legal framework. In this respect, the Chiba District Court’s judgment of 19 July 2024 presented here, concerning the enforcement of a Singaporean divorce judgment component ordering the payment of child living expenses, offers valuable insights.

 

II. Facts

The case concerns X’s (ex-wife, Plaintiff) request for an enforcement judgment under Article 24 of the Civil Enforcement Act (CEA) to enforce a portion of a Singaporean judgment rendered in November 2010, requiring the Y (ex-husband, the Defendant) to pay, inter alia, living expenses for two of their three children until they reached the age of majority, along with accrued interest. X initiated the enforcement action in 2019. By the time of the action, one child had already attained the age of majority under Singaporean law (21 years), while the other reached the age of majority during the pendency of the case.

The parties in the case married in Japan in the early 1990s, where they lived and had two sons. In 1997, the Y relocated to Singapore, followed by the rest of the family in 1998. While living in Singapore, they had their third child, a daughter. In March 2007, X initiated divorce proceedings before Singaporean courts, with Y participating by appointing legal counsel and responding to the proceedings.

In accordance with Singapore’s two-step divorce process, the court issued a provisional judgment in October 2008 dissolving the marriage. The court then proceeded to address ancillary matters, including custody, guardianship, visitation, living expenses, and the division of joint assets. During these proceedings, Y permanently left Singapore and returned to Japan in June 2010. Following his departure, Y ceased to participate in the proceedings, and his legal counsel was subsequently granted permission to withdraw from representing him.

In November 2010, the Singaporean court issued a final judgment granting X sole custody and guardianship of the children, ordering the payment of living expenses, and dividing the couple’s joint assets. Prior to the hearing, a notice was sent to Y’s last known address, which he had provided during the proceedings. However, the judgment, as well as the summons for appeal, was not served on Y, leading to the expiration of the appeal period without the judgment being challenged.

In 2019, X sought enforcement of the Singaporean judgment as indicated above. Before the Court, the parties disputed most of the recognition requirements (article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure [CCP]). Y also challenged enforcement by raising a defense based on the existence of a ground for an objection against civil execution, notably the fact that the limitation period for the claims related to the payment of living expenses under the foreign judgment had expired. Finally, Y argued that X’s request to enforce the foreign judgment constituted an abuse of right or a violation of the principle of good faith.

 

III. Ruling

In its judgment rendered on 19 July 2024, the Chiba District Court largely dismissed Y’s arguments and granted X’s application, with two exceptions: the court rejected X’s claim for living expenses claim for the children beyond the age of 21. It did not also allow the enforcement of the portion of accrued interest on the living expenses, which the Court found to be extinguished under Singaporean statute of limitations.

Before addressing each of the issues raised, the court first outlined the general applicable principles, citing relevant Supreme Court cases where available. Although these parts are crucial, they will be omitted from the summary for brevity.

 

1. Whether the foreign judgment can be deemed final [Article 118, first sentence of the CCP]

According to the court, under Singaporean law, a judgment becomes effective on the date it is issued, and an appeal must be filed within 28 days from the judgment date, regardless of whether the judgment is served. The court observed that since no summons for an appeal was served within this period, the foreign judgment should be deemed final.

 

2. Whether the foreign court had jurisdiction [Article 118(1) of the CCP]

The court first noted that the foreign lawsuit involved X seeking divorce and addressing ancillary matters with Y. The court, then categorized the case as “personal status” case, and assessed the indirect jurisdiction of the foreign court by reference to the Japanese rules of direct jurisdiction in personal status cases as set out in the Personal Status Litigation Act (PSLA), article 3-2 et seq. For the court, article 3-2(i) of the PSLA allows that an action concerning personal status may be filed with the courts in Japan in when the defendant has domicile in Japan, and that jurisdiction is determined at the time the lawsuit is filed (article 3-12 of the CCP). The court then found that, at the time the foreign proceeding was initiated, both parties were domiciled in Singapore. Therefore, based on Japan’s rules on international jurisdiction in personal status cases, the court concluded that the Singaporean court had jurisdiction over the case. Furthermore, the court considered that there were no circumstances suggesting that it would be unreasonable, on the basis of the principle of jori (naturalis ratio), to recognize the foreign judgment issued by the foreign court.

 

3. Whether the procedure leading to the foreign judgment violates public policy (the lack of service of the foreign judgment on Y) [Article 118(3) of the CCP]

The court admitted that the foreign judgment was not served on Y, and that he was not aware of it within the appeal period. However, the court determined that, based on Y’s conduct during the proceedings, he had voluntarily waived his right to be informed of the judgment’s issuance. According to the court, Y knew a judgment on ancillary matters would be delivered and had the opportunity to receive it through proper procedures. The court also found that, while Y was not aware of the judgment within the appeal period, he had been given procedural safeguards and ample opportunity to become informed. Therefore, the court concluded that the lack of service of the foreign judgment did not violate the fundamental principles of Japanese procedural public policy.

 

4. Whether the content of the foreign judgment violates [substantive] public policy (the amount of living expenses for the children) [Article 118(3) of the CCP]

The court held that the foreign judgment’s calculation of the children’s living expenses was based on a reasonable evaluation of the parties’ financial capacity, rejecting Y’s argument that the calculation was unrelated to his financial situation or had punitive elements. The court further stated that the amount stipulated in the foreign judgment was not excessive or inconsistent with Japanese public policy, given the actual living expenses of the children. Moreover, the court emphasized that Y’s challenge, based on his decreased or absent income was not accepted by the foreign court, would constitute a prohibited review of the merits under Article 24(4) of the CEA.

 

5. Whether reciprocity is established (Art. 1118(4) of the CCP)

For the court, the requirements for recognizing a foreign judgment in Singapore are based on English common law, which broadly aligns with the conditions outlined in Article 118 of the CCP. Thus, the court determined that reciprocity exists between Singapore and Japan.

 

6. The applicability of the statute of limitations on the claim for living expenses under the foreign judgment

The court confirmed that the party opposing enforcement of a foreign judgment could raise in the exequatur proceedings defenses based on the extinction or modification of claims that occurred after the judgment was rendered. The court then determined that Singaporean law was applicable to the defense of extinctive prescription. Thereafter, the court compared the Singaporean limitation periods (12 years for claims based on the judgment and 6 years for interest) with Japan’s shorter periods (5 years or 10 years for claims confirmed by a final judgment). The court found that applying Singapore’s longer limitation periods did not clearly violate Japan’s public policy, upholding the validity of living expense claims filed within the 12-year period. However, it ruled that interest claims accrued before October 2013 had been extinguished due to the expiration of the 6-year limitation period.

 

7. Abuse of Rights or Violation of the Principle of Good Faith

The court addressed Y’s argument that X’s attempt to enforce the foreign judgment constitutes an abuse of rights or a violation of good faith. The court rejected this claim, stating that enforcing a judgment in accordance with the law does not breach good faith or constitute an abuse of rights. In addition, the court found no evidence to support Y’s argument.

 

IV. Comments

1. Significance of the Case

The Chiba District Court judgment of 19 July 2024 is significant for its treatment of various issues concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign family law decisions under the new legal framework. The court addressed key issues such as indirect jurisdiction, procedural and substantive public policy, reciprocity, and the ability to raise defenses during the exequatur process, including objections based on the expiration of limitation periods and the consistency of foreign law with Japanese public policy. Most of these issues are subject of ongoing academic discussion in Japan (for an overview, see Manabu Iwamoto, “Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Decisions on Personal Status Litigation and Family Relations Cases” 62 Japanese Yearbook of International Law (2019) 226).

 

2. Personal Status Cases v. Domestic Relations Cases

Japan’s legal framework for recognizing foreign judgments in general is governed primarily by domestic law. As far as foreign family law decisions are concerned, it is generally admitted that their recognition and enforcement depend on whether the family law relationship is classified as a “personal status case” or a “domestic relations cases.”

“Personal status cases” generally encompass “contentious” family law disputes concerning marital or parental relationships, such as divorce, which is a quintessential example of a “personal status case”. Family law matters in this category, as determined by article 2 of the Personal Status Litigation Act (PSLA), are governed by its provisions. Given the constitutive nature, foreign judgments on personal status cases typically do not require enforcement.

On the other hand, “domestic relations cases” groups family matters that are generally “non-contentious”, although certain cases, such as claims for custody or maintenance, can be highly adversarial. These matters are governed Domestic Relations Case Procedure Act (DRCPA), which includes appended tables listing cases classified as domestic relations cases. Unlike personal status cases, some types of domestic relations cases may involve elements that require enforcement, such as the payment of maintenance, return of a child etc.).

From the perspective of Japanese law, maintenance cases typically fall under this category (see Manabu Iwamoto, “International Recovery of Maintenance in Japan” 65 Japanese Yearbook of International Law (2022) 254).

 

3. Applicable legal regime

In this regard, the 2018 reform brought some significant changes. Indeed, a new provision was introduced in the DRCPA (new article 79-2) and article 24 of the CEA on the enforcement of foreign judgments was modified to accommodate these changes. However, no similar provision was introduced in the PSLA, since it was considered that contentious judgments in family matter are not different from contentious judgments in civil and commercial matters, therefore, they should be subject to the same legal regime.

Accordingly, depending on the type of case involved as outline above, foreign family law decisions can be recognized either (i) by direct application of article 118 of the CCP, when the foreign judgment in question pertains to “personal status cases”, or (ii) by mutatis mutandis application of article 118 of the CCP, when the foreign decision is rendered in a matter relating to “domestic relations cases” pursuant to article 79-2 of the DRCPA. The main difference between these two approaches is that, unlike foreign personal status judgments, the requirements of article 118 of the CCP would fully apply mutatis mutandis to foreign domestic relations decisions, provided that doing so “is not contrary to the nature” of the decision in question (article 79-2 of the DRCPA). In other words, for foreign domestic relations decisions, the requirements of article 118 of the CCP may apply partially, depending on the nature of the case.

In this context, since maintenance judgments is typically classified under “domestic relations cases”, their recognition is, as a matter of principle, governed by article 79-2 of the DRCPA, along with the mutatis mutandis application of the requirements of article 118 of the CCP. Whether recognition and enforcement of foreign maintenance judgments is subject to full or partial application of the recognition requirements under article 118 of the CCP is subject to discussion in literature. However, the general tendency among courts, as confirmed by the case presented here, is to apply all the recognition requirements.

 

4. Conjunction between personal status cases and domestic relations cases

A key challenge arises, however, when a foreign family law judgment combines elements of personal status (e.g., divorce) with issues categorized under domestic relations (e.g., child custody or maintenance). In this regard, while the Chiba District Court treated the foreign judgment as a single “personal status case” and applied article 118 of the CCP, without reference to Article 79-2 of the DRCPA, prevailing literature and case law suggest that each aspect should be treated separately.

Following this approach, the court should have proceeded as follows: first, it should have categorized the court order to pay child living expenses as pertaining to “domestic relations cases”. Under this categorization, the court would then have needed to assess, pursuant to article 79-2 of the DRCPA, whether all the recognition requirements of article 118 of the CCP should apply mutatis mutandis, or only partially, depending on the nature of the case. Finally, the court should have reviewed the indirect jurisdiction of the foreign court by reference to the jurisdictional rules set out in the DRCPA (specifically, article 3-10, which governs cases relating to maintenance obligation), rather than those set out in the PSLA.

That said, it has to be acknowledged, that the court’s ultimate conclusion would likely not have changed since the jurisdiction of the foreign court would also have been justified by the jurisdictional rules included in the PSLA, which allow actions for ancillary measures, including child custody and support, to be decided by the court exercising divorce jurisdiction (article 3-4 of the PSLA).

The last issue of RabelsZ 2024 has just been released. It contains the following contributions (which are all available Open Access: CC BY 4.0):

 

Holger Fleischer & Simon Horn, Unternehmensskandale und skandalgetriebene Regulierung: Die Stavisky-Affäre als Prüfstein (Corporate Scandals and Scandal-Driven Regulation: The Stavisky Affair as Touchstone), pp. 648–693, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsz-2024-0062

This article is an opening contribution to a new research program on corporate scandals and their legal treatment around the world. In addition to addressing civil and criminal sanctions, the main focus lies on the widespread but under-researched phenomenon of scandal-driven reform legislation. Selected case studies from the past and the present will help to create a better picture of the connections between business scandals and legal regulation. A first touchstone for such systematic comparative scandal-based research is found in early 1930s France with the Stavisky affair – a case that not only kept the business and financial world in suspense, but one that also shook the political foundations of the Third Republic.

 

Chukwuma Samuel Adesina Okoli & Richard Frimpong Oppong, Enhancing the Draft African Principles on the Law Applicable to International Commercial Contracts – Innovations for the African Context, pp. 694–733, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsz-2024-0050

This article examines the draft African Principles on the Law Applicable to International Commercial Contracts, evaluating current and proposed choice of law rules in numerous African countries and incorporating global comparative perspectives. It argues that the African Principles should not only largely echo regional/supranational and international instruments like the Rome I Regulation and the Hague Principles on the Law Applicable to Commercial Contracts but should innovate to address the specific needs of the African context. The article suggests reforms in several areas: the scope of the African Principles, protection of weaker parties such as consumers and employees, government contracts, non-state law, and in provisions for the law applicable in the absence of choice.

 

Béligh Elbalti, The Applicable Law in Succession Matters in the MENA Arab Jurisdictions – Special Focus on Interfaith Successions and Difference of Religion as an Impediment to Inheritance, pp. 734–759, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsz-2024-0057

This article examines the question of the law applicable in cross-border successions in the MENA Arab region, with a particular focus on the issue of interfaith succession. It shows that the private international law treatment of succession matters depends largely on derogative factors, in particular the involvement of Islam as the religion of one of the parties. In cases where all the parties are foreign non-Muslims, the conflict of laws approach is usually observed, and the foreign law is applied. However, if one of the parties is a Muslim, nationality as the connecting factor is effectively supplanted by the religion of the parties, and the lex fori is applied. Unlike the usual perspective, which typically examines this approach through the lens of public policy, this article argues that the practice, of substituting the lex fori for the ordinarily applicable law in disputes involving Muslims, is based on an »unwritten principle of private international law« that effectively designates the Islamic religion as a de facto connecting factor under the cover of public policy.

 

Martin Lutschounig, Eingeschränkte Anwendung des lex fori-Prinzips bei internationalen Verkehrsunfällen (Limited Application of the lex fori Principle for Cross-border Traffic Accidents), pp. 760–786, https://doi.org/10.1628/rabelsz-2024-0061

According to the principle of forum regit processum, a court deciding a dispute applies its own national procedural law even in cases which are substantively governed by foreign law. It is therefore crucial how the individual legal question is categorized, namely whether it is classified as substantive or procedural. According to the prevailing opinion, this decision is made applying the lex fori. The situation is different, however, under the Rome II Regulation, as also the scope of the applicable law (lex causae) is subject to an autonomous interpretation. The article argues that the question of whether a foreign rule is to be classified as procedural or substantive is, therefore, not a question of national but of autonomous European law. A classification according to the lex fori would, by contrast, bear the danger of leading to different scopes of application of the lex causae depending on the place of jurisdiction. These problems are illustrated with reference to traffic accident cases in which a litigant seeks recovery of a supplementary claim, such as the pretrial costs of an expert opinion, an out-of-court settlement, or lump-sum costs.

 

As always, this issue also contains several reviews of literature in the fields of private international law, international civil procedure and comparative law (pp. 787–828). The issue closes with an index covering all contributions of the year 2024 (pp. 829–854).

Edited by: 

Dr Chukwuma Okoli, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom

Dr Eghosa O. Ekhator, University of Derby, United Kingdom

Professor Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Professor Ralf Michaels, Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Germany

Hans van Loon, Netherlands 

OVERVIEW 

The Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy invites scholarly articles for publication in a special issue focusing on the theme “Private International Law and Sustainable Development in Africa.” This is an area with limited scholarship in Africa, as most research has traditionally emphasized substantive laws, often neglecting the critical role of private international law in sustainable development. Interested researchers should consider themes such as the ones explored in Michaels/Ruiz Abou-Nigm/Van Loon (eds.) (2021): The Private Side of Transforming our World – UN Sustainable Development Goals 2030 and the Role of Private International Law. Proposals should emphasise private international law and sustainable development issues that are of particular relevance to the African context.

We encourage researchers to explore the intersection of private international law and sustainable development in relation to issues such as environmental protection, corporate social responsibility, and the protection of vulnerable groups (for example, employees, consumers, migrants, and indigenous peoples). Interesting topics in private international law could include how multinational companies are held accountable to host communities in Africa regarding cross-border environmental issues including climate change, as well as social and economic sustainability. Researchers could engage with the regulatory framework for multinational companies in cross-border transactions affecting corporate social responsibility in Africa, and the enhancement of human rights standards and social justice in cross-border employment matters in Africa .They might also wish to reflect on the implications for Africa of the new EU Directive 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence, and of similar due diligence legislative initiatives deployed at the national level in different countries. Other relevant topics include the African Continental Free Trade Agreement and its relationship with private international law and sustainable development, as well as the harmonization of private international law in Africa and its relation with sustainability goals, regional economic integration, abuses of party autonomy in international commercial contracts, and the appeal of international commercial adjudication in Africa. These are all themes that can be explored from a sustainability perspective.

We are particularly interested in innovative academic approaches that address these themes within the African context. We welcome proposals from all approaches, including critical, doctrinal, analytical, conceptual, reflexive, interdisciplinary, post-critical and speculative traditions of law, that enable a serious scholarly reflection on private international law and sustainable development. Contributions will start filling a significant gap in the literature and promote a deeper understanding the relationships, the impact and the potential of private international law in sustainable development in Africa.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES 

Applicants are invited to submit a research proposal of up to 500 words, together with a short CV in the same document. Submissions should be sent to c.okoli@bham.ac.uk, and copy E.Ekhator@derby.ac.uk, andinfo@ogeesinstitute.edu.ng by 10 January, 2025 with the email subject clearly marked “Submission Proposal – Special Issue JSDP – PIL and Sustainable Development in Africa”.

Proposals will be reviewed by the editors and selected participants will be informed by the end of January 2025.

Full draft of selected papers of up to 8,000 words inclusive of footnotes should be submitted by 30 June 2025 following the ‘submission guidelines’ section of The Journal of Sustainable Development and Policy: https://www.ogeesinstitute.edu.ng/submissions.

The editors are seeking opportunities for funding to support a conference in late 2025 to discuss draft papers in advance of publication of the special issue in early 2026.

ABOUT THE PROJECT 

Read more about the project The Private Side of Transforming our World – UN Sustainable Development Goals 2030 and the Role of Private International Law here 

Since its inception in 2001, the annual survey on Chinese judicial practice in private international law, published by the Chinese Journal of International Law,  has served as a valuable source of information on Chinese practice in private international law, particularly during periods when case law was not readily available (notably prior to 2013). The first annual survery, titled ‘Private International Law in the Chinese Judicial Practice in 2001’, appeared in Vol. 2(1), 2003, and was prepared by Professors Huang Jin and Du Huangfang. However, in its early years, the survey was not published on a regular basis. Indeed, in addition to the 2001 survey, only three others were published between 2005 and 2014: the survey for the year 2002 (published in 2005), for 2003 (published in 2008), and for 2006 (published in 2009).

 

Since 2015, the regular publication of the survey has been ensured by Professor He Qisheng of Peking University Law School under the title “Chronology of Practice: Chinese Practice in Private International Law”. (For previous announcements on this blog, see the posts for 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. Annual surveys for the years 2013 to 2018 are also available on Professor He’s SSRN page.) Professor He’s dedication to maintaining and expanding the annual survey has been instrumental in ensuring it remains an indispensable resource for the field, while making information on private international law in China readily accessible to non-Sinophone researchers.

With that said, the  Chronology of Practice: Chinese Practice in Private International Law in 2023 is now available, marking the 11th consecutive annual survey since 2015. This year’s edition is particularly noteworthy as it includes English translations of recently enacted legal provisions, include among others:

• The new provisions on international jurisdiction (Chapter 24, “Jurisdiction” of the Civil Procedure Law (2023 Amendment), Arts. 276–282),
• Provisions on service of process and taking of evidence (Chapter 25, “Service of Process, Taking of Evidence, and Periods” of the Civil Procedure Law (2023 Amendment), Arts. 283–287),
• Provisions on foreign judgments (Arts. 293–296 of the Civil Procedure Law (2023 Amendment)), and
• The Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on Certain Issues Concerning the Application of the Law of the PRC on the Application of Law to Foreign-Related Civil Relations (II) (Arts. 1–13).

Like its predecessors, this year’s survey provides important updates and further enhances accessibility to key legal developments for researchers and practitioners of private international law.

 

The abstract of 2023 survey reads as follows:

The survey of the Chinese practices in private international law in 2023 highlights the following aspects: First, four new laws and two administrative regulations, three judicial interpretations by the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) have been formulated, and six groups of 44 typical cases have been selected by the SPC. Notably, China acceded to the Hague Apostille Convention this year. Additionally, Chinese courts concluded 24,000 foreign-related civil and commercial cases, 16,000 maritime cases, and 16,000 commercial arbitration judicial review cases. Second, Part IV of the Civil Procedure Law was amended to include new provisions addressing jurisdiction, service of process abroad, taking of evidence and periods, as well as recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards. These new rules and relevant cases are presented throughout the Survey. Third, the application of international treaties and practices has emerged as a significant topic, with new rules in the Foreign Relations Law and the SPC Interpretation of International Treaties and International Practices. Additionally, the SPC selected 14 representative cases in this regard. Fourth, concerning the ascertainment of foreign laws, the SPC issued two judicial interpretations and selected three relevant cases. Fifth, regarding the judicial review of arbitration cases, the SPC has selected several Typical Cases of Judicial Review of Arbitration, which serve as significant guiding examples.

 

The table of content of the paper is as follows:

I. Introduction

II. Overview

• II.A. Report on the Work of the SPC in 2023
• II.B. New laws and the SPC’s judicial interpretations
• II.C. Typical cases

III. Jurisdiction

• III.A. Rules in the Civil Procedure Law 2023
• III.B. Choice of court agreement
  • III.B.i. Standard terms and conditions
  • III.B.ii. Asymmetric choice of court agreement
• III.C. Forum non convenience

I.V. Choice of law

• IV.A. Characterization
• IV.B. Ascertainment of foreign law
  • IV.B.i. SPC Private International Law Interpretation II
  • IV.B.ii. SPC Decision on Amending the CICC Provisions
  • IV.B.iii. Cases on ascertainment of foreign laws
• ?IV.C. Extraterritoriality of Chinese laws

V. International conventions and international practices

• V.A. Foreign Relations Law
• V.B. SPC Interpretation of International Treaties and International Practices
• V.C. Cases on the application of international conventions
• V.D. Cases on the application of international practices

VI. Service of process, taking of evidence and periods

• VI.A. Rules in the Civil Procedure Law 2023
• VI.B. Service of process abroad
• VI.C. Evidence
• VI.D. Apostille

VII. Foreign Judgments

• VII.A. Rules in the Civil Procedure Law 2023
• VII.B. Cases about recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments

VIII. International arbitration and foreign arbitral awards

• VIII.A. Rules in the Civil Procedure Law 2023
• VIII.B. Judicial review of arbitration

The University of Edinburgh is looking to fill a new position in Global Law – which is understood to include private international law. More here.

The latest volume (Volume 4) of the Ius Comparatum series, which includes the general reports as well as the national and special reports from the General Congresses and Thematic Congresses of the International Academy of Comparative Law, along with other publications related to the Academy’s activities, has been published. This volume focuses on the Localization of Damage in Private International Law, edited by Prof. Olivera Boskovic (Université Paris Cité).

The book addresses the complex issue of the localization of damage in private international law, a challenge that has long puzzled legal scholars and practitioners. This comparative work brings together contributions from different jurisdictions to address the many issues raised, as outlined in the book’s blurb below:

 

Localisation in private international law of torts is a notoriously difficult question. How do you localize financial or moral damage? What about latent damage? Should damage in the context of cyber-torts be localized differently? The great variety of tortious actions gives rise to endless difficulties ranging from banal situations involving material damage to climate change. Trying to find suitable solutions requires answering many difficult questions, such as the very definition of damage within the meaning of private international law rules, the influence of various considerations such as foreseeability, protection of the claimant, and the remedy sought. The contributions in this volume address these questions and more from the perspectives of 17 different countries, from Austria to Venezuela.

 

The table of content features the following contributions:

 

PART 1 – General Report

La Localisation du Dommage en Droit International Prive?, Rapport Général 3

Olivera Boskovic

 

PART 2 – National Reports

Austria 71

Florian Heindler

Canada (common law) 96

Joost Blom

China 134

Zhengxin Huo and Zheng Sophia Tang

Colombia 147

Daniel Rojas-Tamayo

Czech Republic 160

Monika Pauknerová and Magdalena Pfeiffer

France 190

Par Ludovic Pailler

Germany 213

Wolfgang Wurmnest and Benedikt Wössner

Hungary 260

Tamás Szabados

Italy 275

Angelo Davì

Japan 334

Naoshi Takasugi

Poland 361

Micha? Wojewoda and Marcin Kostwi?ski

Romania 388

Serban-Alexandru St?nescu, Teodora-Maria Bantas-V?duva and Ana-Maria Dimofte

Quebec 423

Naivi Chikoc Barreda

Turkey 452

Cemile Demir Gökyayla and Candan Yasan Tepeta?

United Kingdom 476

Sirko Harder

United States 515

Patrick J. Borchers

Venezuela 530

Claudia Madrid Martíne

On Thursday, January 23, 2025, at 5 pm, the Société de législation comparée will present the Box Set Le droit étranger – Études de droit international privé comparé. The event will take place in 28 rue Saint-Guillaume – Amphitheater, 1st floor, 75007 Paris. Everybody is welcome to attend.

On the Box Set: Over the past ten years, the Société de législation comparée has conducted a series of collective studies on the theoretical, methodological, and practical issues related to accessing, understanding, and implementing foreign law. These issues are highly relevant today. Foreign law is playing an increasingly significant role in practice—not only for judges, of course, but also for other practitioners such as notaries, civil registrars, and lawyers. In France and elsewhere, when judges, notaries, or civil registrars are required to apply foreign law, understanding and implementing an unfamiliar legal system present numerous challenges. These challenges are even more daunting given that the treatment of foreign law retains a profoundly national dimension, despite the growing unification of conflict-of-law rules in Europe and in Americas.

The studies conducted by the Société de législation comparée aim to go beyond conventional analyses. By exploring the positive law of various countries and regions, they shed light on grey areas, shortcomings, and contradictions — abundant in what constitutes the very essence of Private International Law. Now gathered in a single volume they provide academics and practitioners with a comprehensive overview of the reflections carried out by jurists from diverse backgrounds on the most pressing issues in this often-neglected area of conflict of laws, along with their proposals to ensure the most accurate establishment of foreign law content.

The texts were compiled by Gustavo Cerqueira, professor at Université Côte d’Azur, and Nicolas Nord, Secretary General of the International Commission on Civil Status.

by Arvin LUO Fuzhong, Doctoral Candidate at Tsinghua University, Visiting Research Associate at HKU, LL.M. (Cornell), Bachelor of Laws (ZUEL).*

The doctrine of forum non conveniens is an important principle in civil procedure laws and frequently applied by courts in many legal systems, especially those of common law countries. According to this principle, when courts exercise their discretionary power to determine whether to exercise jurisdiction over the factual circumstances of a case, they primarily consider issues of efficiency and fairness to find the most appropriate forum to settle the dispute. If the acceptance of a case would lead to inefficient outcomes and consequences that are contrary to justice, the court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that it is not the appropriate forum.

Unrealized by many international scholars and practitioners,[1] China has been adopting (formally or informally) the doctrine of forum non conveniens for more than 30 years, first through a few court judgments, then provided in judicial interpretations issued by the Supreme People’s Court of PRC (“SPC”), which is binding for all Chinese courts, and finalized in the 2024 Civil Procedure Law of PRC. This article introduces the history of Chinese law adopting the doctrine of forum non conveniens in the past years, and the development of China’s law revision in 2023.

I. Judicial Practice Before Legislation or Judicial Interpretation

Chinese courts first applied the doctrine of forum non conveniens in a series of cases in the 1990s. For instance, in Jiahua International Limited, Ruixiang Limited v. Yongqiao Enterprise Limited, Zhongqiao National Goods Investment in 1995,[2] the SPC deemed it inappropriate for the original trial court to accept the case, though the connection factors are sufficient to establish jurisdiction, solely based on the appellants having representative offices and attachable property in the court’s location, thus dismissing the two plaintiffs’ lawsuits against the two defendants. Furthermore, in the case of Sumitomo Bank v. Xinhua Real Estate Limited in 1999,[3] the Supreme People’s Court explicitly applied the doctrine of forum non conveniens as a stand rule for the first time, though lacking any provision in Chinese laws back then: since both parties to the case were legal persons registered in Hong Kong, the place of signing and performance of the involved agreement was in Hong Kong, and the parties chose Hong Kong law as the governing law for the agreement, the Supreme People’s Court, considering the convenience of litigation, ruled that it was more appropriate for the Hong Kong court to have jurisdiction, and the Guangdong Provincial Higher People’s Court should not accept the case.

From these two early judicial practices, it can be seen that the courts correctly focused on whether the court was “appropriate” or suitable to accept the case, just as many foreign courts did, and seeing the “convenience” requirement in the doctrine of forum non conveniens as only one side of the coin. However, later legislation and academics misunderstood forum non conveniens, many Chinese scholars and practitioners did not realize the point is to determine whether the court is “appropriate” for the case mainly because of its name contains “conveniens”, but saw it as a tool to find whether other courts will be more “convenient” or economically efficient for the courts, ignored the fairness and justice requirements in this doctrine.[4]

II. Judicial Interpretations issued by the Supreme People’s Court of PRC

In Article 11 of the 2005 Minutes of the Second National Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trial Work Conference,[5] SPC provided seven conditions for applying forum non conveniens, focusing on whether the Chinese court would face “significant difficulties in determining facts and applying laws” and whether a foreign court would be more “convenient” for the trial. In 2014, the SPC issued the Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC,[6] which outlined six conditions for applying forum non conveniens in Article 532,[7] essentially consistent with Article 11 of the 2005 Minutes, still focusing on the convenience of the court in hearing the case rather than its appropriateness.

Such a provision on forum non conveniens caused four problems in practice.

First, based on the provisions of Article 532(4) of the 2014 Interpretations, once a case involves the interests of the Chinese state, citizens, legal persons, or other organizations, the court will rule to exercise jurisdiction over the case. The court over-applies this clause to justify its jurisdiction, without comparing the appropriateness (sometimes even nor the convenience) of Chinese courts with foreign courts, and even if the parties to the case are Chinese nationals or the facts are connected to China, the court tends to rule that it has jurisdiction over the case.

Secondly, due to the lack of clear explanation of the term “convenience” in the 2014 Interpretations, the court’s standards were vague when interpreting and applying forum non conveniens. There are cases where the court arbitrarily determines that it is “inconvenient” to hear the case because the applicable law is foreign law and the facts of the case occurred abroad, thus rejecting jurisdiction.[8] This approach not only fails to argue the appropriateness of foreign court jurisdiction but also unduly restricts one’s own jurisdiction. Different courts may apply this provision with a scope of discretion either too broad or way too narrow , hence failing to achieve the legislative purpose of “having the most appropriate court exercise jurisdiction”.

Thirdly, no matter whether in common law jurisdictions or civil law jurisdictions, when applying the doctrines of forum non conveniens or lis pendens, the foreign courts upholding the jurisdiction is an important consideration for domestic courts to reject the exercise of one’s own jurisdiction. However, Chinese courts have repeatedly exercised jurisdiction over cases even when foreign courts have already taken the cases or even delivered judgments, causing parallel litigation and multiple judgments.[9]

Finally, when the legal requirements in Article 532 of the 2014 Interpretations is met, the absolute rejection of the lawsuit is too rigid and inflexible , leaving no room for the court’s discretion in different cases. If the foreign court refuses to exercise jurisdiction, the parties who were rejected by Chinese courts must re-file the lawsuits, which may lead to an increase in costs and a significantly delay of justice.

III. The Development in the 2024 Civil Procedure Law of PRC

In response to the problems in practice, the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC which came into effect on 1 January 2024, introduced forum non conveniens in Articles 281 and 282.[10] Article 281 is about to find the more convenient court to hear the case, and Article 282 proposes five conditions for the application of forum non conveniens, which to some extent resolves the previous practical dilemmas and responds to the criticisms from the academia.

First, Article 282(1) of the 2024 Civil Procedure Law of PRC restricts the determination of “convenience” to cases where “it is evidently inconvenient for a people’s court to try the case and for a party to participate in legal proceedings since basic facts of disputes in the case do not occur within the territory of the People’s Republic of China”, avoiding the situation where courts determine that the doctrine of forum non conveniens should be applied merely because the parties agree to apply foreign law or there is evidence situated or disputes occurred abroad, thereby excessively narrowing jurisdiction.

Secondly, the new law deleted the over-broad exclusion standard in Article 532 (4) of the 2014 Interpretations by stating that “the national interest, or the interest of any citizen, legal person or any other organization of the People’s Republic of China”, instead, Article 282 (4) provides that “not involving the sovereignty, security, or public interest of the People’s Republic of China”, avoiding the situation where Chinese courts exercise jurisdiction merely because the parties are of Chinese nationality or the case facts are connected with China, and narrowing the exclusion from vague “national interest” to clearer “national sovereignty, security, or public interest”, thus better balancing the “fairness” requirements within the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

Lastly, Article 282 paragraph 2 adds that after the Chinese court applied the forum non conveniens exception to dismiss the action, if the foreign court refuses to exercise jurisdiction or does not take necessary measures to hear the case or does not conclude the case within a reasonable period, the Chinese court shall accept the case, safeguarding the procedural rights of the parties. This new provision resolves the problem reflected in Article 532 of the 2014 Interpretations and relevant practice where the party can only start over the action before the people’s court.

IV. Conclusion

Generally speaking, the 2024 Civil Procedure Law of PRC represents a successful improvement, it shows the balance of fairness and convenience in the new rules and serves the requirements of forum non conveniens. However, it still has room for further refinement to align more closely with the original intent of forum non conveniens.

On the one hand, in most common law jurisdictions, the fairness requirement of finding the most appropriate forum also includes the potential for oppressive or vexatious litigation, abuse of judicial process, or “real injustice” to the parties if the case is heard by the domestic court, rather than public interest provided in Article 282(4). A better approach seeks to identify the most appropriate forum for achieving justice in every single case.

On the other hand, due to the misunderstanding of finding the most “convenient” forum, even though Articles 281 and 282 consider both convenience and fairness requirements, they fail to synthesize these aspects into a single requirement of “appropriateness”. This leads to a fragmented consideration of “convenience” and “fairness” by the courts when applying the provisions, rather than understanding them as two sides of the same coin in the service of finding the most appropriate forum.

 

* Arvin LUO Fuzhong, Doctoral Candidate at Tsinghua University, Visiting Research Associate at HKU, LL.M. (Cornell), Bachelor of Laws (ZUEL). The author can be contacted via [arvinluo@outlook.com]. I extend the gratitude to Prof. Dr. Dr. CHEN Weizuo from Tsinghua University for his insightful observation regarding the misconception surrounding forum non conveniens in Chinese legislation, Prof. Dr. Matthias Weller and Prof. Dr. iur. Matthias Lehmann for their extraordinary lectures in the Hague Courses in Hong Kong and their guidance for me to draft this essay, and Mr. Achim Czubaiko for his detailed and thorough advice.

[1] The latest article regarding the forum non conveniens in Chinese law is published in 2024, gave a description of the development from judicial practice to legal provisions, but lacked theoretical analysis and comment on the reasons and consequences of the transformation of such development. Before that, only 2 articles were devoted to the practice of forum non conveniens in China until 2014. See Liang Zhao, Forum Non Conveniens in China: From Judicial Practice to Law, 11 The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law 1 (2024); Chenglin Liu, Escaping Liability via Forum Non Conveniens: ConocoPhillips’s Oil Spill in China, 17 U. PA. J.L. & Soc. CHANGE 137 (2014); Courtney L. Gould, China as a Suitable Alternative Forum in a Forum Non Conveniens Motion, 3 TSINGHUA CHINA L. REV. 59 (Fall 2010).

[2] Supreme People’s Court (1995) Jing Zhong Zi No. 138 Civil Ruling.

[3] Supreme People’s Court (1999) Jing Zhong Zi No. 194 Civil Ruling.

[4] Chinese theories and laws translated forum non conveniens as “Bu Fang Bian Fa Yuan”, which means “a court that is not convenient to settle the dispute”. Prof. Dr. Dr. CHEN Weizuo insists that it should be named as “Fei Shi Dang Fa Yuan”, which means “a court that is not appropriate to settle the dispute”.

[5] Fa Fa [2025] No. 26.

[6] Fa Shi [2015] No. 5.

[7] The number of which later changed to Article 530 after the judicial interpretation was revised in 2022, but the content remained unchanged. Article 532 stipulated that: “Where a foreign-related civil case falls under all the following circumstances, the people’s court may render a ruling to dismiss the plaintiff’s action, and inform the plaintiff to institute an action in a more convenient foreign court. (1) The defendant raises a claim that the case shall be subject to the jurisdiction of a more convenient foreign court, or raises an objection to jurisdiction. (2) The parties do not have an agreement specifying the jurisdiction of a court of the People’s Republic of China. (3) The case does not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of a court of the People’s Republic of China. (4) The case does not involve the national interest, or the interest of any citizen, legal person or any other organization of the People’s Republic of China. (5) The people’s court has great difficulties in the determination of facts and the application of laws since major facts of disputes in a case do not occur within the territory of the People’s Republic of China, and the laws of the People’s Republic of China do not apply to the case. (6) The foreign court has jurisdiction over the case and it is more convenient for it to try the case.”

[8] Schott Solar Holdings Ltd. v. Schott Solar Investment Ltd., Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court Civil (Commercial) First Instance No. S17, 2014.

[9] See e.g. Chen Huanbin et al. v. Chen Weibin et al., Beijing Second Intermediate People’s Court (2015) Civil (Commercial) Final No. 6718; Value Financial Services Ltd. v. Century Venture Ltd.& Beijing De Shi Law Firm, Supreme People’ Court (2014) Civil Final No. 29.

[10]  Article 281 provides that: “After a people’s court accepts a case in accordance with the provisions of the preceding article, if a party applies to the people’s court in writing for suspending the proceedings on the ground that the foreign court has accepted the case prior to the people’s court, the people’s court may render a ruling to suspend the proceedings, except under any of the following circumstances: (1) The parties, by an agreement, choose a people’s court to exercise jurisdiction, or the dispute is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of a people’s court. (2) It is evidently more convenient for a people’s court to try the case.

If a foreign court fails to take necessary measures to try the case or fails to conclude the case within a reasonable time limit, the people’s court shall resume proceedings upon the written application of the party.

If an effective judgment or ruling rendered by a foreign court has been recognized, in whole or in part, by a people’s court, and the party institutes an action against the recognized part in the people’s court, the people’s court shall rule not to accept the action, or render a ruling to dismiss the action if the action has been accepted.”

 

Article 282 provides that: “Where the defendant raises any objection to jurisdiction concerning a foreign-related civil case accepted by a people’s court under all the following circumstances, the people’s court may rule to dismiss the action and inform the plaintiff to institute an action in a more convenient foreign court: (1) It is evidently inconvenient for a people’s court to try the case and for a party to participate in legal proceedings since basic facts of disputes in the case do not occur within the territory of the People’s Republic of China. (2) The parties do not have an agreement choosing a people’s court to exercise jurisdiction. (3) The case does not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of a people’s court. (4) The case does not involve the sovereignty, security, or public interest of the People’s Republic of China. (5) It is more convenient for a foreign court to try the case.

If a party institutes a new action in a people’s court since the foreign court refuses to exercise jurisdiction over the dispute, fails to take necessary measures to try the case, or fails to conclude the case within a reasonable period after a people’s court renders a ruling to dismiss the action, the people’s court shall accept the action.”

Help draft a white paper on Addressing Conflict of Laws and Facilitating Digital Product Passports (DPPs) in Cross-border Value Chains to achieve legal coordination and establish traceability in global trade law. The White Paper aims to be published by the United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT), which is a subsidiary, intergovernmental body of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and serves as a focal point within the United Nations Economic and Social Council for trade facilitation recommendations and electronic business standards.

Aligned with regional and global initiatives, the White Paper seeks to address conflict of laws and foster legal harmonization essential for the implementation of DPPs across borders. The white paper will also ensure that DPPs comply with international standards, promoting interoperability and supporting a globally consistent approach. It will focus on the critical raw materials to EV batteries value chain, but will have broad implications on other industries.

The proposed White Paper will (1) present the status quo of conflict of laws in existing national and international laws relating to the implementation of DPPs, and (2) propose solutions for legal coordination and facilitate trade, especially:

 

1. Analyzing initial uptake of DPPs by industry stakeholders and anticipated impact;
2. Coordinating diversified national laws for cross-border data transfer involved in DPPs;
3. Obtaining mutual recognition of ESG certificates whose data are required by DPPs;
4. Promoting Interoperability between different DPPs; and
5. Incorporating the UN Transparency Protocol and other UN/CEFACT industry standards/good practices into international and national trade laws to address legal conflicts in the adoption of DPPs.

In your EOI, please provide your name/position/association/email contact, indicate your expertise, and choose the ways to participate (multiple choice):

1. Participate as an active contributor in the working group to draft the White Paper (The group will typically have a one-hour meeting every two-three weeks from January to May 2025),
2. Participate as an observer in the working group to draft the White Paper,
3. Participate in research interviews, and
4. Any other ways that you think you can contribute.

Please refer for UN/CEFACT Critical Raw Materials project website (Get involved with the White Paper)

This is not a paid job.

Deadline to express your EOI is Friday 17 January 2025. Please email your EOI to the project lead Dr. Jie (Jeanne) Huang (Jeanne.huang@sydney.edu.au) and forward your email to her research assistant Raven Yang (raven.yang@sydney.edu.au).

The American Branch of the International Law Association (“ABILA” or “the Branch”) seeks a dynamic individual with superb organizational and people skills and an interest in international law for the position of Chief Operating Officer (COO).  This part-time position will require approximately 80 hours/month, 20 hours/week on average. Workload will fluctuate throughout the year, peaking in late summer and fall during preparations for the Branch’s flagship event, International Law Weekend (ILW). Compensation is $26/hour, equivalent to approximately $26,000/year. Application deadline: January 15, 2025. See more here.

From 2 to 6 December 2024, the second edition of The Hague Academy of International Law’s Advanced Course in Hong Kong was held, co-organised by the Asian Academy of International Law (AAIL) with the support of the Department of Justice of the Government of the Hong Kong SAR. Once again, the Hague Academy of International Law brought distinguished speakers to the “fragrant harbour” to deliver lectures on the “Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters”. Just a stone’s throw from the Old Supreme Court Building (now the seat of Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal) at the premises of the Hong Kong Club, legal scholars, national judges, government officials and legal practitioners from over 20 jurisdictions as diverse as Laos, the People’s Republic of China, (francophone) Cameroon, The Netherlands, South Africa or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia came together to discuss their respective experiences and the prospects of the latest instrument in this field, the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention.

Following the opening remarks (Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Secretary-General of The Hague Academy of International Law and Lam Ting-kwok Paul, Secretary for Justice of the Government of the Hong Kong SAR), Teresa Cheng (Founding Member and Co-Chairwoman of the AAIL) proceeded to give the opening lecture on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the Hong Kong SAR.

 

In the afternoon, Pietro Franzina (Catholic University of Milan) focused on “Contemporary Approaches to the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments”. As part of a comparative overview, he developed a taxonomy of the legal frameworks for recognition and enforcement based on their operational context (simple/double instruments), their legal sources (unilateral-domestic, international, regional/supranational) and the type of decisions they are concerned with (final and conclusive judgments with res judicata effect, decisions on situations with an evolving character). He particularly emphasised that international as well as regional rules are fragmentary in nature. Hence, despite their designation, treaties such as the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention do not actually set out rules for the enforcement of decisions, but rather determine the criteria for the enforceability of a judgment, which must then be carried out according to the applicable rules of domestic law. Building on this foundation, Franzina’s second lecture on Thursday morning explored the doctrinal puzzle the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention presents with respect to “Preliminary Questions Outside the Scope and Judgments Consisting of Severable Parts”. Drawing on the notion of “complex judgments”, he masterfully illustrated the carefully drafted solutions the Convention offers to address borderline cases, but also the unavoidable gaps that nonetheless exist in this regard. The lecture culminated in a lively discussion regarding the ground of refusal for judgments on exemplary or punitive damages (Art. 10), which – according to Franzina – was designed not primarily with civil law systems in mind, but rather for common law jurisdictions, who were assumed to have difficulties in asserting the public policy exception (Art. 7 (1) lit. c)) against corresponding foreign judgments, due to the existence of comparable legal institutions in their own systems.

At Tuesday morning, Giuditta Cordero-Moss (University of Oslo) started her lecture on precisely on this topic: “Public Policy as a Limit to Enforcement and Recognition”. While reminding the audience of the importance of an autonomous interpretation (Art. 20) in line with the principles enshrined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), she presented the public policy exception as part of one important line of development within (see Art. 2 HCCH 1958 until Art. 22 HCCH 2007) and outside (e.g. Art. 34 Lugano 2007) the HCCH ecosystem. With particular focus on the parallels to the New York Convention, she raised the question of the appropriate intensity of public policy control. Under the former instrument, at least two levels of scrutiny have emerged: A “maximalist” theory, according to which the court assesses the matter de novo (e.g. Westacre Investments v. Jugoimport-SDPR Holdings, [1999] 3 All ER 864 , 885), and a “minimalist” theory, according to which a “manifest” breach can – in deference to the arbitral tribunal’s evaluation – only be reviewed to the extent that the issue has not yet been discussed by the tribunal itself (e.g. CA Paris, 18 novembre 2004, Thalès Air Defence, Rev arb. 2005 751). Later, Cordero-Moss turned to the perceived overlaps with other provisions of the Convention. Most significantly, the public policy exception can be combined with the other defences set forth in Art. 7 HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention in order to meet the threshold of “manifest incompatibility” with the essential policies of the requested State. Surprisingly, this reasoning according to the Explanatory Report does not apply to punitive damages exception in Art. 10 (Garcimartín/Saumier, paras. 265). The excellent and remarkably insightful presentation concluded on Wednesday afternoon with a discussion of pertinent substantive cases in the areas of competition, corporate and labour law. Among other things, the speaker discussed the complex case of the English “floating charge”, which allows for a security right in rem that is not attached to assets before it is “crystallised” at a specified future event, and thus could conflict with the numerus clausus principle of property rights, as found in many civil law jurisdictions.

Then, Shen Hongyu (Chief Judge of the Supreme People’s Court) dedicated her part of the course on “Unfolding the 2019 Hague Convention” to share “China’s Perspective on International Recognition and Enforcement”. Her remarks offered important insights into the drafting process of both, the recent amendments to the Chinese Civil Procedure Law and the new Law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on Foreign State Immunity (1 September 2023). As reported before on col.net, the latter provides for a fundamental shift in China’s stance towards the immunity of foreign States, moving from an absolute position to the adoption of a more restrictive approach. Presumably, this step is not unconnected to China’s endeavour to widen its economic influence via the Belt and Road Initiative. Furthermore, Judge Shen shed some light on the very peculiar approach to indirect jurisdiction in Art. 301 Civil Procedure Law (2023). By referring this question, on a first level, to the lex fori of the court of origin, China’s recognition rules at first appear to place a great deal of trust  in foreign law (though not so much in the originating court’s application of that law), only to then implement a second level of control by requiring the foreign court to have an “appropriate connection with the case” according to standards ultimately set by the requested court, explicitly including the violation of an exclusive choice of court agreement and the provisions of exclusive jurisdiction of the PRC. Thanks to Judge Shen’s well-founded explanations, it  became clear that the emergence of this rather complicated solution, which might be called “(modified) double control”,[1] was the result of a compromise between the proponents of a pure “mirror principle” and a simple “foreign law” approach. In this way, the new law, whilst being generally open to foreign law, is at the same time supposed to effectively prevent foreign courts from abusing their jurisdiction through “long-arm” statutes. Finally, the Supreme Court Judge also expressed the view that, if China were to become a party to the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, it would most likely utilise the option granted under Art. 17 to exclude from its material scope all matters for which it currently claims exclusive jurisdiction (see Art. 279 Civil Procedure Law), including disputes concerning some specific Sino-foreign joint venture contracts.

 

 

As a special treat for all participants, Matthias Lehmann (University of Vienna) gave two highly anticipated afternoon lectures on “Crypto Currency and International Law”. Despite the short time frame on Tuesday and Wednesday, he nonetheless expertly managed to explain the complex technical structures underlying and characterising the blockchain, as well as the resulting legal implications. Since all the nodes constituting the blockchain network are spread across different places around the world, digital assets based on this technology (such as Bitcoin or Ether) can hardly be localised in just a single place. While courts and legislators in several jurisdictions have taken on the challenge this decentralised structure is posing for the traditional mechanisms of Private International Law (e.g. Cheong Jun Yoong v Three Arrows Capital Ltd, (2024) SGHC 21), Lehmann, in a more radical approach, proposed to take the results of the innovative technology more seriously. Since the transfers recorded in the blockchain cannot be undone, the distribution of assets provided for by the technology should be presumed to be legitimate. In essence, this suggestion represents what in a legal context could also be understood as a uniform international rule of property law. However, as it is the case with real property, this does not mean that transfers according to that rule are necessary final. Rather, where it can be shown that the digital asset has been acquired illegally, the presumption is rebutted, and the traditional (conflict of laws) rules apply.

On Wednesday and Friday, the author of these lines added with two lectures on “The Jurisdictional Filters”. Positioned at the “heart” of the Convention in terms of function and policy, the positive requirements set forth in Arts. 5 and 6 HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention are intended to filter out decisions based on unacceptable assumptions of direct jurisdictions by the courts of the State of origin. After a short introduction to the general concept of indirect jurisdiction, as (first?) described by Etienne Bartin, there was a brief tour d’horizon of various approaches towards the standards of indirect jurisdiction, including general clauses (e.g. Canada’s “real and substantial connection” test), negative lists enumerating exorbitant grounds of indirect jurisdiction (e.g. Greek-German Agreement of 4 November 1961), the “mirror principle” (e.g. Spain’s Art. 46 de Ley de Cooperación Jurídica Internacional) or of course section 328 (1) no. 1 German Code of Civil Procedure – the mirror principle seems to be a “German” invention by Paul Johann Anselm Feuerbach in 1812) as well as the peculiar “(modified) double control” (see above for Art. 301 PRC Civil Procedure Law) or the (unsuccessful) proposal of a mixed convention, as developed by Arthur von Mehren (e.g. HCCH 1999 Draft of a Judgments Convention). This first lecture concluded with a discussion of elements common to all filters with practical relevance, inter alia, burden and standards of proof, as well as the admissibility of anti-enforcement injunctions based on a “better” interpretation of the Convention, the impact of the arbitration exception in Art. 2 (3) HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention or the role, if any, for anti-enforcement injunctions. On this basis, the second lecture approached the somewhat more than 20 jurisdictional filters and their modifications respectively, depending on the manner of counting, as provided for in the Convention. For this task, it appeared reasonable to distinguish between five groups of filters: 1. Personal connections of the defendant; 2. Forms of consent; 3. Connections of the subject matter; 4. Modifications for the protection of weaker parties; 5. Exclusive Filters. For the purpose of highlighting the pits and downfalls of each jurisdictional filter, the presentation was structured around short hypothetical case illustrations, which were actively discussed with the participants. For example, under Art. 5 (1) lit. d) it is not sufficient, that the branch from which the claim in dispute arose existed at that time, but not anymore when the proceedings where instituted in the court of origin. Furthermore, in light of Switzerland’s recent declaration to apply the HCCH 2005 Choice of Court Convention likewise to non-exclusive forum selection agreements, the precise delineation of the two instruments, as originally envisaged in Art. 5 (1) lit. m), might soon gain significantly more importance. Last but not least, a special emphasis was placed on “false friends” provisions that may look familiar to the legal practitioner from his/her own law, while in fact differing in detail. For instance, Art. 5 (1) lit. a) foresees jurisdiction at the place of the habitual residence of the “person against whom recognition or enforcement is sought”, while Art. 22 PRC Civil Procedure law is limited to the “defendant” in the original proceedings.

 

Besides the lectures, the Course’s unofficial theme became somewhat of an “autograph session”. Following a spontaneous idea on making use of “the book” (the only available copy at that time) that had emerged from the HCCH/University of Bonn Conference on the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention in 20023, all attendees here were again invited to sign a “commemorative copy”, this time the “Hong Kong edition”, thereby following the “Bonn edition”, and we of course hope that further editions might follow. We were happy to see that the trend was catching on, as Judge Shen joined in by inviting the audience to autograph a copy of  the “Annotated International Commercial Cases from the Supreme People’s Court”. Even more professionally, admittedly, there was even a prize awarded for the tenth person (a fortunate number in Chinese numerology, as it seems) putting his or her signature in the collection of cases.

 

Coming full circle, Teresa Cheng delivered the programme’s final presentation on “Arts. 22 and 25 of the HCCH Judgment Convention” focussing on the Mutual Arrangements between the Mainland and the Hong Kong SAR. Based on Art. 95 of the Hong Kong Basic Law, there are several legal frameworks in place that have drawn inspiration from the HCCH Conventions. Although Cheng expressed some doubts about the application of the notion of “territorial units” to Hong Kong, she was ultimately certain that these regional frameworks would remain unaffected by virtue of Art. 22 HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. This is, of course, subject to ratification by the PRC and extension of its effect to the Hong Kong SAR in accordance with Art. 25 of the 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention. As alluded to in the opening lecture, China’s special situation as a bi-jural legal system, with the Hong Kong SAR as the common law counterpart to civil law based legal system of the People’s Republic of China, lends itself to some legal innovations naturally arising from this coexistence. For example, Art. 4 of the recent Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters specifically excludes anti-suit injunctions from its scope. Likewise, Art. 3 (8) of the same legal framework wisely addresses “cases on the recognition and enforcement of judgments or arbitral awards of other countries or regions”, and thus excludes from its scope decisions that simply merge foreign judgments or arbitral awards into a domestic title according to the English doctrine of obligation. Especially the latter point could serve as a reasonable starting point for correcting the effects of the CJEU judgment in J. v. H. Limited as part of the upcoming reform of the Brussels Ibis-Regulation within the European Union.

On Friday afternoon, the last day of the programme, the participants received their certificates, and, after an academically exciting but of course also demanding week, rewarded with a closing reception featuring not only drinks and food but also inspiring views of Hong Kong’s Victoria Harbour.

 

[1] In their joint essay, Shen/Guo Zaiyu, “Review and Interpretation of the Amended Provisions of the Foreign Part in the Civil Procedure Law”, China Law Review 2023-06, pp. 70-80, prefer to speak of a model of “two-way combination” or a “hybrid approach”, for the English text see https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/n0iLTtkvEPfwwg8xWs6sJQ https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/a/thus-spoke-chinese-judges-on-international-civil-jurisdiction and for the Chinese version https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/n0iLTtkvEPfwwg8xWs6sJQ.

I. Introduction

It is not uncommon for scholars examining the interplay between the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention and the legal systems of countries based on or influenced by Islamic Sharia to raise concerns about the compatibility of the values underlying both systems. While such concerns are not entirely unfounded and merit careful consideration, actual court practice can present a very different reality.

Morocco’s engagement with the Hague Conventions, notably the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention and the HCCH 1996 Child Protection Convention, provides a particularly illustrative example. As previously reported on this blog (see here, here and here), Moroccan courts have thus far demonstrated a clear willingness to engage constructively with the HCCH instruments, effectively dispelling – at least to a significant extent – concerns about the existence of a so-called “Islamic exceptionalism” as an obstacle to resolving parental child abduction cases. The case presented here provides yet another compelling example of how Moroccan courts interpret and apply the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention in a manner consistent with Morocco’s international obligations. This is particularly noteworthy given the presence of elements often cited as indicative of “Islamic exceptionalism.”

Although the Supreme Court’s ruling was issued over a year ago (Ruling No. 198 of 25 April 2023), it has only recently been made available, bringing the total number of Hague Convention cases to eight (based on my own count and the available information. For an outline of the other Hague Convention cases, see here). Its legal significance and broader implications therefore warrant special attention.

 

II. The facts

The case concerned a petition for a return order to Switzerland for a child (a girl, in casu) who had been wrongfully retained in Morocco by her father. Although the text of the decision lacks sufficient detail to fully clarify the circumstances of the case, it can be inferred from the Court’s summary of facts that the child was approximately 8 years old at the time Moroccan courts were seized and that the father is likely a Moroccan national. However, the ruling does not provide details regarding the nationality (or religion) of the left-behind mother nor does it specify the time frame within which the application was made.

As previously noted, the legal proceedings were initiated by the public prosecutor, who petitioned for the return of the child to her habitual residence in Switzerland under the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention. The petition followed an official communication from the Ministry of Justice to the Office of the Public Prosecutor.

In response, the father contested the petition on two main grounds. First, he challenged the standing of the public prosecutor to initiate the proceedings, arguing that the petition should have been filed by the Ministry of Justice in its role of Central Authority under the Convention. Second, he invoked the child’s refusal to return to Switzerland, attributing her reluctance to emotional distress and physical abuse allegedly suffered while living with her mother. The father further asserted that the child had now settled into her new environment in Morocco, where she was continuing her education.

The Court of First Instance accepted the petition and ordered the return of the child to her habitual residence, a decision that was upheld on appeal. The father subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the father reiterated his earlier arguments, particularly challenging the public prosecutor’s standing to initiate such proceedings. He further invoked Article 12 of the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention, arguing that the child was now settled in her new familial and educational environment. In addition, he asserted that the child suffered from emotional distress and anxiety due to alleged domestic violence she experienced while living with her mother. The father referred to reports and certificates issued by Moroccan medical and psychological institutions which were submitted as evidence of the child’s state of mind and her strong resistance to being returned to Switzerland. The father also argued that the mother had not effectively exercised custody rights at the time the child came to live with him, and contended that the mother had consented to the child’s relocation.

 

III. The Ruling

In its Ruling No. 198 of 25 April 2023, the Moroccan Supreme Court rejected all the father’s arguments and upheld the order for the child’s return, providing the following reasoning:

Regarding the first argument, the Supreme Court referred to Article 11 of the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention, which mandates contracting states to take urgent measures to secure the return of abducted children. The Court also cited Law No. 33.17, which transferred the Minister of Justice’s responsibilities to the Public Prosecutor at the Supreme Court, in its capacity as Head Public Prosecutor Office. This transfer enables the public prosecutor to replace the Ministry of Justice in overseeing judicial proceedings and exercising appeals related to the cases falling under their competence.

As for the second argument, the Supreme Court emphasized that determining whether the exception in Article 12 of the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention applies is a matter for the trial court to investigate based on the evidence presented. Based on the lower courts’ finding, the Supreme Court concluded that the father’s retention of the child, who had been living with her mother in Switzerland, where the mother had been granted sole custody, constituted wrongful retention and a violation of the mother’s custody rights as stipulated by Swiss law. The Court also noted that the medical reports submitted did not provide evidence of mistreatment.

Finally, the Supreme Court found that the mother was actively exercising custody of her daughter, as confirmed by the Swiss court decision granting the appellant only visitation rights. The Court also dismissed the father’s claims, particularly those regarding the risk of physical or psychological harm to the child, finding them unconvincing and unsupported by sufficient evidence.

 

IV. Comments

The Supreme Court’s ruling is remarkable in many respects. It directly challenges the notion of “Islamic exceptionalism” in matters of custody and parental authority under the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention. Under traditional interpretation of Islamic law, which underpins the Moroccan Family Code of 2004 – known as the Mudawwana – (notably article 163 to 186 on custody), the father’s right to exercise legal guardianship (wilaya) over the child is often seen as prevailing over the mother’s right to custody (hadanah). For instance, a mother may lose her custody rights if she relocates to a distant place, especially a forign country. Similarly, the environment in which the child is to be raised is considered a critical factor, with particular emphasis on whether the child will grow up in an Islamic environment. This concern is even more pronounced when the custodial mother is not Muslim and resides in a non-Muslim country (Cf. M. Loukili, “L’ordre public en droit international privé marocain de la famille” in N. Bernard-Maugiron and B. Dupret, Ordre public et droit musulman de la famille (Bruylant, 2012) 137, 155-157).

What is striking in this case is that the Supreme Court did not consider these “traditional” concerns at all. Instead, it focused solely on the legal framework established under the Hague Convention. The Court simply observed that the mother had been granted sole custody of the child and concluded that the wrongful retention of the child in Morocco constituted a violation of those rights. This finding justified the return order under the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention.

Another noteworthy aspect of the ruling, which can also be observed in other Hague Convention cases, is that the Moroccan Supreme Court does not adhere rigidly to its traditional approach in assessing the admissibility of return orders requests or the revocation of the mother’s custody rights. Under Moroccan private international law, family law issues in general, including matters of parental authority and custody, are generally governed by Moroccan law whenever one of the parties is Moroccan (Article 2(3) of the 2004 Family Code). Traditionally, Moroccan courts have often concluded that public policy is violated when Moroccan law is not applied or a foreign judgment diverges from Moroccan domestic family law regulation (Loukili, op. cit., 150).

In the present case, however, the Supreme Court not only accepted that sole custody was granted to the mother under Swiss law, but also it did so although the application of Moroccan law would have led to a different outcome. Indeed, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the mother’s refusal to return with the children to Morocco deprived the father of his right to supervise and control the children under his legal guardianship (wilaya), thus justifying the father’s claim to have the mother’s custody rights revoked (Supreme Court, Ruling of 21 June 2011; Ruling of 23 August 2011). The Supreme Court took the same stance in a case involving child abduction, where the request for the return order, based on the French-Moroccan bilateral Convention of 1981 (article 25), was rejected on the ground that the issuing of such an order would contradict with Moroccan law on custody (Supreme Court, Ruling of 15 October 2003).

The Supreme Court’s approach in Hague Convention cases, including the one commented on here, marks a notable departure from this traditional stance. Not only has the Court repeatedly affirmed the primacy of international conventions over domestic law—though this issue was not explicitly raised before the Court in casu, it can be inferred from the absence of references to Moroccan law on custody—but it also approvingly referred to the law of the child’s habitual residence rather than Moroccan law, despite a literal reading of Article 2(3) of the Mudawwana suggesting otherwise.

The Supreme Court stance in dealing with the Hague Child Abduction cases reflects a growing willingness on the part of the Court to align its reasoning with international obligations and to prioritize the principles enshrined in the Hague Conventions over more restrictive domestic norms. In this sense, this approach challenges the perception of “Islamic exceptionalism” and highlights a progressive interpretation of Moroccan law within the framework of international child abduction cases.

The latest volume of the Yearbook of Private International Law has been recently published, marking the 25th anniversary of its significant contribution to outstanding legal scholarship in the field of comparative private international law.

Readers will undoubtedly appreciate the Editors’ Foreword as well as the insightful tributes dedicated to this milestone edition written by Professors Nadjma Yassari (A Quarter-Century of Excellence), Symeon C. Symeonides (A Tribute), and Ivana Kunda (Petar Šarcevic – The Intellectual Behind the Name). These contributions, which reflect on the Yearbook’s impact and achievements over the years, are freely available online, offering a fitting celebration of this remarkable anniversary.

 

The Yearbook’s latest volume features the following table of contents:

 

DOCTRINE

New Perspectives for the CIEC/ICCS and its Work

Hans Van Loon

 

Recent Developments of Japanese Laws on ADR – A Perspective of International Civil Procedure Law

Yasuhiro Okuda

 

From Past to Future – The Emergence and Development of Advance Choices

Adrian D. Ward

 

Child Marriages

Swedish Rules on Non-recognition of Foreign Child Marriages

Michael Bogdan

 

Early Marriage in Belgian Case Law – The Ever-Lasting Virtue of the Functional Approach of the Public Policy Exception

Marc Fallon and Stéphanie Francq

 

Early Marriages in German Law

Nadjma Yassari

 

Family Status, Identities and Private International Law

A Critical Assessment in the Light of Fundamental Rights

Elena C. Bargelli and Ilaria Pretelli

 

Reasonable Expectations of Unmarried Cohabitants

Guillaume Kessler

 

Recognition of Family Status and Same-Sex Partners – A Chinese Perspective

Yin Liu

 

Free Movement of Same-sex Spouses in the EU

Maria Caterina Baruffi

 

Lessons Drawn from the Commission’s Parenthood Proposal for Further EU Initiative on Personal Identity and Status Continuity

Johan Meeusen

 

The Recognition of Names Between EU Law and Human Rights Law – Recent Developments

Giulia Rossolillo

 

The ICCS’s Contribution to the Portability of Names

Nicolas Nord

 

Identity and Civil Status of Children Conceived through Cross-Border Procreation Contracts – Perspectives on Filiation and the Best Interests of the Child

Ilaria Pretelli

 

Digital Assets and Online Accounts

Digital Assets in English Private International Law

Uglješa Crusic

 

Online Accounts – Comparative and Private International Law Aspects

Nataliia Filatova-Bilous and Tetiana Tsuvina

 

Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in Comparative Perspective

The Application of the European Succession Regulation by the Courts of the Member States

Andrea Bonomi

 

Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in Austria

Matthäus Uitz

 

Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in Bulgaria

Stilyana Stavreva

 

Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in Croatia

Martina Drventic Barisin

 

Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in Cyprus

Konstantinos Rokas

 

Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in the Czech Republic

Magdalena Pfeiffer

 

Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in Germany

Jan Peter Schmidt and Leandra C.C. Koiike

 

Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in Greece

Konstantinos A. Rokas

 

Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in Hungary

Laura De Negri

 

Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in Italy

Giuseppe Mansour Agrelli

 

Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in Poland

Krzysztof Pacula

 

Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in Portugal

Afonso Patrão

 

Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in Slovakia

Elena Judova

 

Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in Slovenia

Neža Pogorelcnik Vogrinc and Filip Dougran

 

Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in Spain

María Gonzalez Marimon

 

Decisions on the European Succession Regulation in Sweden

Laima Vaige

 

National Reports

Surrogacy in Türkiye

Ceyda Sural Efecinar and Ba?ak Basoglu

 

Questions of Applicable Law as Regards Unpaid Wages of Turkish Employees under the Foreign Employment Contracts

Gülüm Bayraktaroglu-Ozcelik and Rifat Erten

 

Execution Measures Related to EU Procedural Regulations and Brussels IIbis in Bulgaria

Boriana Musseva and Nadia Rusinova

 

Forum

The Personal Relativity of Public Policy on Transnational Surrogacy in Switzerland – A Proposal

Lorène Anthonioz

 

Turkish Private International Law of Succession Revisited in the Light of the European Succession Regulation and Recent Developments in Swiss Law

Biset Sena Gunes

 

On 14 and 15 February 2025, the 5th iteration of the German Conference for Young Researchers in Private International Law will take place at the University of Heidelberg. The conference – which is being organized by Felix Berner, Andreas Engel, Aron Johanson, Markus Lieberknecht, Sophia Schwemmer, Ann-Kathrin Voß, Charlotte Wendland, and Anton Zimmermann –  is dedicated to the topic of ‘Digital transformation and Private International Law. Local connections in boundless spaces’:

After statute theory, Savignyan PIL and Europeanisation, digitalisation has the potential to initiate a fourth evolutionary stage in the history of conflict of laws, which is characterised by decentralisation and delocalisation. We may therefore be on the threshold of a PIL 4.0. At our conference, we would like to discuss how the conflict-of-laws problems arising from the boundless spaces of digitalisation can be solved in European and autonomous German, Austrian and Swiss private international law. At the same time, we would like to look at the possibilities for legal changes at national, European and international level.

A keynote will be given by Christiane Wendehorst (University of Vienna).

The programme can be found here; registration is possible here.

More information can also be found on the conference website.