Comments on the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation of the New Private International Law ACT in China
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
China adopted its first comprehensive and systematic private international law on 28 October 2010 (CPILA). As a product of haste and a certain ignorance of the academic’s efforts, the new law suffers some defects and ambiguities which need clarification from the Supreme People’s Court (SPC). Therefore, SPC issued its first interpretation on the new law (Interpretation (I)) which serves as guideline for the lower People’s Courts. Interpretation (I) focuses on the loopholes and ambiguities in Chapter One of CPILA, covering a wide range of issues, eg, the definitions of ‘foreign-related civil relationship’ and ‘habitual residence’, the application of international treaties and international customs, clarification of party autonomy doctrine, choice of law of arbitration agreements, the scope of mandatory rules, proof of foreign law, etc. This article comments on the interpretations and points out the problems still remain in Interpretation (I) which have to be resolved in judicial practice in future.
Abstract
China adopted its first comprehensive and systematic private international law on 28 October 2010 (CPILA). As a product of haste and a certain ignorance of the academic’s efforts, the new law suffers some defects and ambiguities which need clarification from the Supreme People’s Court (SPC). Therefore, SPC issued its first interpretation on the new law (Interpretation (I)) which serves as guideline for the lower People’s Courts. Interpretation (I) focuses on the loopholes and ambiguities in Chapter One of CPILA, covering a wide range of issues, eg, the definitions of ‘foreign-related civil relationship’ and ‘habitual residence’, the application of international treaties and international customs, clarification of party autonomy doctrine, choice of law of arbitration agreements, the scope of mandatory rules, proof of foreign law, etc. This article comments on the interpretations and points out the problems still remain in Interpretation (I) which have to be resolved in judicial practice in future.
참고문헌 (8)
- Weidong ZHU, "Who and Which Law Determines the Validity of Arbitration Agreement in China", Northeast Asian Law Journal, 6(1) (2012)
- Kuang Hyun Suk, "Some Observations on the Chinese Private International Law Act: Korean Law Perspective", ZChinR (2011)
- Mo Zhang, "Codified Choice of Law in China: Rules, Progress and Theoretic Underpinnings", North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 37(1), pp.83~
- Guangjian Tu, "China’s New Conflicts Code: General Issues and Selected Topics", Am. J. Com. L, 59, pp.563~ (2011)
- Weidi Long, "Act of the People’s Republic of China on Application of Law in Civil Relations with Foreign Contacts", pp.203~206 (2011), IPRax
- Zhengxin Huo, "Reshaping Private International Law in China: The Statutory Reform of Tort Conflicts", J. E.Asia ＆ Int’l L, 5, pp.93~
- Von Knut Benjamin Pissler, "Das neue Internationale Privatrecht der Volksrepublik China: Nach den Steinen tastend den Fluss überqueren", RabelsZ Bd, 76, pp.1~46 (2012)
- Weidong Zhu, "The New Conflicts Rules of Family and Inheritance Matters in China", Y.B. Private Int’l L, 14 (2012)