| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
158330
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper is composed of materials reflecting the practice of private international law in China in 2016. First, this paper covers the report of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released in 2017, notably the Report on the Work of the SPC in 2016, which contains the statistics of the foreign-related civil or commercial cases accepted and concluded by Chinese courts. Second, the paper covers judicial interpretations that took effect in 2016. The important legal instruments that have been translated include: the Provisions of the SPC on Several Issues concerning the Trials of Independent Guarantee Cases and the Provisions of the SPC on Several Issues concerning the Adjudication of Cases Occurring in the Sea Waters under China’s Jurisdiction (I). Third, this paper focuses on typical cases decided by various Chinese courts during 2016 that dealt with the following issues: agent ad litem; jurisdiction (involving representative office and forum non conveniens); choice of law (classification of legal relationship, gambling debt, loan contract); proof of foreign law; recognition and enforcement of a Singapore judgment; validity of the dispute resolution clause containing both litigation and arbitration; recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards (involving the review at the request of the party or ex officio review by the court, procedure review, qualification of arbitrator, division of arbitration costs, excess of authority and division of an arbitral award, and public policy).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
166096
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The judicial review of government actions is often used as a bellwether of the government’s attitude towards the rule of law in China. Accordingly, in gauging the direction of legal reform in the Xi era, media reports have highlighted changes in litigation against government agencies as evidence of positive movement towards greater rule of law. We provide a selective review of changes in China’s administrative litigation system in the last few years, giving special attention to the amendment in 2014 of the Administrative Litigation Law (ALL), and a 2018 Supreme People’s Court Interpretation of the same statute. In our view, the question of whether lawsuits might be brought against the government has arguably been superseded in importance by the question of how courts will decide such lawsuits. And the generic notion of judicial independence itself no longer sheds sufficient light on actual and possible judicial responses. Using the purportedly expanded scope of review of informal policy directives as an example, we show that symbolism-motivated advocacy to improve the administrative litigation in China may come at the expense of protecting the non-symbolic functions of judicial review, e.g., the coherence of law and consistency in the delivery of justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|