LI Ting
Renmin University of China Law School
Tel: + 86-10-62515960

                                                 Editor,s Note

      We live in the era of globalization, which means that capitals, persons, labor, goods orservice cross national borders easily. Against this backdrop, it may be asked if judgmentsdelivered by national courts can also move across borders as persons or goods do. In theEuropean Union (EU), traditionally there are four freedoms, i.e. free movement of goods,capital,services, and labor. Now they are of no less interest in talking about freemovement of judgments. At the global level, we have Hague Conference on PrivateInternational Law, which is very enthusiastic about the judgments convention project, andthe big powers including US, China, Japan, EU and South Korea are all mobilized to thegreat cause. In short, the recognition issue becomes a very prominent practical matter ofglobal concern. In East Asia where several important world players are located — China,Japan and South Korea, there is no smooth movement of judgments. However, we onlyhave a lasting dilemma, especially between China and the other two powers. Therefore, aspecial seminar was organized on December 19, 2017 to address the perennial stalematebeneath the recognition and enforcement of judgments between the aforesaid threejurisdictions. This seminar drew the prominent scholars from the three jurisdictions andseveral articles presented in the seminar are included in this special issue of Frontiers ofLaw in China.

      The first article is from Prof. Yasuhiro OKUDA, “Unconstitutionality of ReciprocityRequirement for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Japan,” whichdiscusses the constitutionality of Japan’s reciprocity requirement against the repeatedrefusals of Chinese judgments over the years. This article puts forward a good andpersuasive perspective in the sense of resolving the long lasting reciprocity-centeredquarrel between China and Japan over recognition and enforcement of judgments.

      The second article is from Prof. Kwang Hyun SUK, “Recognition and Enforcement ofJudgments between China, Japan and South Korea in the New Era: South Korean Law Perspective,” which discusses the rules for recognition and enforcement of foreignjudgments in the Republic of Korea. This article presents an updated elucidation of SouthKorean legal regime on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, and alsointroduces very persuasive steps for breaking the recognition dilemmas among East Asiancountries.

      The third article is from Lecturer ZHU Lei, “The Kolmar v. Sutex Case on Reciprocity
in Foreign Judgments Enforcement in China: A Welcome Development or Still on theWrong Track?” which reflects on the emerging cases where foreign judgments wererecently recognized in China, especially the Kolmar v. Sutex case. This article well arguesthat de facto reciprocity adopted by Chinese courts is problematic due to the arbitrarinessof its criterion.
     The fourth is from Assistant Prof. ZHANG Wenliang, “Recognition and Enforcementof Foreign Non-Monetary Judgments in China.” This article explores an issue that has notyet aroused much discussion but is of no less significance, and it analyzes China’s legalregime and practice concerning recognition of foreign non-monetary judgments in China.It is submitted that for promoting the recognition thereof, China shall introduceindependent rules. Prior to any overhauling of the current legal regime, parties have tofollow China’s persisting general legal regime and judicial practice regarding recognitionand enforcement of all categories of foreign judgments.

      The fifth article is from Prof. DU Huanfang, “Choice of Court Agreement withForeign Elements in China: Shandong Jufeng v. South Korea Mgame.” This articleinvestigates the choice of law issue for China’s forum-selection clause by reference to aprominent case Shandong Jufeng Network Company, Ltd. v. South Korea MgameCompany. For future legislation or judicial practice, it is well suggested that forforum-selection clause, the law chosen by the parties shall apply or the law of the place ofthe chosen court shall apply if there is no choice of law.

        The focus are consisted of five articles:

FOCUS 1.pdf

FOCUS 2.pdf

FOCUS 3.pdf

FOCUS 4.pdf

FOCUS 5.pdf

© 2001-2014 中国人民大学法学院  地址:北京海淀区中关村大街59号  邮编:100872  京ICP备06009427号 网站管理 | 联系我们