Parallel proceedings in China, Korea and Japan : a comparative analysis of the development of general international jurisdiction rules

In this new Era of globalization, the rules of Private International Law change from rigid to flexible, and the trends of modernization and codification begin to merge. The legal systems in a majority of Asian countries, however, are not as well developed as western countries due to historical reasons. To meet the increasing demands of international civil and commercial relationship, Asian Private International law has to be ameliorated. Jurisdiction is the first subject that a court must deal with when an international dispute is submitted before it. In the practice of international litigation, the plaintiff will bring dispute before his favorable court, usually in his resident country, in order to get a better result. To minimize the advantage of the plaintiff, the defendant will submit the dispute to a court in his own resident country. Therefore, the parallel proceedings running between these two courts will cause conflict of jurisdictions. In North America, the EU and the U.K., mechanisms dealing with parallel proceedings are more developed and are keeping ahead of Asian countries. Hence, this research provides an objective and comprehensive assessment of legal system dealing with international parallel proceedings in Asian countries, namely China, Korea and Japan. Through comparing them with the developed countries, such as the United States, Canada, the EU and the U.K., this thesis aims at finding a way to benefit the development of Chinese Private International Law, and to promote the unification of rules in international civil jurisdiction. This thesis proposes that, firstly, China should continue to improve the legislation of forum non conveniens, supplement and improve the definition of “more convenient court”, and relax the requirements that are too harsh. Secondly, China should implement the breakthrough judicial practice of intellectual property law on anti-suit injunction in the legislation or judicial interpretation, and strictly limit its application conditions and scope. Thirdly, it is suggested to adopt a dual mode system for lis pendens, and integrate first seized and recognition prognosis into the provisions of lis pendens in China. Fourthly, in terms of the choice of court agreement, we should expand its scope of application, reduce the restrictions on the choice of court agreement concerning substantive connection, “written method” and jurisdiction by level, and integrate the principle of protecting the rights and interests of the weak party into it. In order to better integrate Chinese courts into the international market of optional courts, China should actively promote the process of ratifying the 2005 Convention on the Choice of Court Agreement. Fifthly, in the field of recognition and enforcement, China in this regard is to reconcile the requirement of reciprocity at the enforcement level and facilitate the recognition procedure. China’s reciprocity at this stage is relatively conservative. It focuses more on the protection of national sovereignty rather than promoting the circulation of international judgments. Therefore, China needs to slowly transit from substantive reciprocity to formal reciprocity, and deal with foreign judgments with a more open mind. Finally, China should actively promote the process of acceding to the 2019 Judgment Convention.

Keyphrases: Forum Non Conveniens, Litispendance, Conflicts of Jurisdiction, Parallel Proceedings, Forum Non Conveniens, Lis Pendens, Choice of Court Agreement