This article deals with reciprocity requirement for recognition of foreign judgments in Japan. Following German law, Japanese law requires reciprocity to the rendering state in addition to the jurisdiction of the stat...This article deals with reciprocity requirement for recognition of foreign judgments in Japan. Following German law, Japanese law requires reciprocity to the rendering state in addition to the jurisdiction of the state, the service of process, and the compatibility with Japanese public policy. Although Japanese courts have rarely refused the recognition of foreign judgments for lack of reciprocity for a long time, some Chinese judgments recently have not been recognized for this reason. The author clarifies first with historical review what was the purpose of the Japanese legislator, when the original law of 1890 required the reciprocity by international treaties, and when later the reform law of 1926 required the simple reciprocity that is similarly provided in the current law. The author surveys then the Japanese case law concerning the reciprocity requirement after the reform of 1926. The author focuses further on the reciprocity between Japan and China and compares the Japanese practice with the German one that led to a different result. Last, it is concluded that the reciprocity requirement is contrary to the protection of human rights under Japanese constitution.展开更多
In December 2016, the Nanjing Intermediate People＇s Court in China issued its ruling in the Kolmar vo Sutex case, where a monetary judgment from Singapore was recognized and enforced against a local textile company. ...In December 2016, the Nanjing Intermediate People＇s Court in China issued its ruling in the Kolmar vo Sutex case, where a monetary judgment from Singapore was recognized and enforced against a local textile company. The case confirms that once a foreign country has taken the initiative, Chinese courts will follow up to enforce judgments from that country reciprocally. This is the doctrine of de facto reciprocity adopted by some Chinese courts. The paper surveys the judicial practice of Chinese courts and finds that this area of law is full of confusion and uncertainties due to the lack of applicable rules. Recent developments suggest that China may move away from this approach and adopt a relaxed version of reciprocity, which is worthy of close attention.展开更多
Transboundary recognition and enforcement of judgments is of increasing practical significance and it draws a great deal of efforts at various levels. However, the efforts already made are predominantly in relation to...Transboundary recognition and enforcement of judgments is of increasing practical significance and it draws a great deal of efforts at various levels. However, the efforts already made are predominantly in relation to cross-border movement of monetary judgments, leaving non-monetary judgments beyond recognizability. Investigation into China＇s legislation and adjudication reveals that there is no distinction made between recognition of monetary and non-monetary judgments, and practice also ignores such a distinction. Following the trend of embracing non-monetary judgments within the scope of recognizablility, China＇s standpoint seemingly appears to be desirable, although the long-standing non-differentiation of monetary and non-monetary judgments is not presumed to be originally out of promoting recognition and enforcement of foreign non-monetary judgments in China. It is submitted that for promoting recognition and enforcement of foreign non-monetary judgments, China shall introduce independent rules in order to facilitate the circulation of such judgments, which merits a special treatment. For parties to seek the recognition and enforcement of such judgments, prior to any overhauling of the current legal regime, they have to follow China＇s persisting general legal regime and judicial practice regarding recognition and enforcement of all categories of foreign judgments, and a special call is made for particular attention to the reciprocity requirement and due service requirement.展开更多
This article discusses the rules for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the Republic of Korea （hereinafter referred to as ＂South Korea＂ or ＂Korea＂）. Articles 217 and 217-2 of the Civil Procedure...This article discusses the rules for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the Republic of Korea （hereinafter referred to as ＂South Korea＂ or ＂Korea＂）. Articles 217 and 217-2 of the Civil Procedure Act of Korea and Articles 26 and 27 of the Civil Enforcement Act of Korea provide for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments respectively. Korea has not entered into any bilateral or multilateral treaties regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and is not a party to the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. The article also considers the current undesirable status of recognition and enforcement of judgments in the region consisting of China, Japan and South Korea （hereinafter referred to as ＂Region＂） and suggests a course of action to be taken to improve the situation. The author believes that the experts of the Region should embark upon a project to improve the current situation and that the first step should be to exchange and gather information on the current legal regime of the countries in the Region on the recognition and enforcement of judgments. The author looks forward to future cooperation among the experts in the Region on this topic and is confident that the reciprocity requirement, which currently is a major obstacle to the mutual recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the Region, will be overcome in the near future.展开更多
文摘This article deals with reciprocity requirement for recognition of foreign judgments in Japan. Following German law, Japanese law requires reciprocity to the rendering state in addition to the jurisdiction of the state, the service of process, and the compatibility with Japanese public policy. Although Japanese courts have rarely refused the recognition of foreign judgments for lack of reciprocity for a long time, some Chinese judgments recently have not been recognized for this reason. The author clarifies first with historical review what was the purpose of the Japanese legislator, when the original law of 1890 required the reciprocity by international treaties, and when later the reform law of 1926 required the simple reciprocity that is similarly provided in the current law. The author surveys then the Japanese case law concerning the reciprocity requirement after the reform of 1926. The author focuses further on the reciprocity between Japan and China and compares the Japanese practice with the German one that led to a different result. Last, it is concluded that the reciprocity requirement is contrary to the protection of human rights under Japanese constitution.
文摘In December 2016, the Nanjing Intermediate People＇s Court in China issued its ruling in the Kolmar vo Sutex case, where a monetary judgment from Singapore was recognized and enforced against a local textile company. The case confirms that once a foreign country has taken the initiative, Chinese courts will follow up to enforce judgments from that country reciprocally. This is the doctrine of de facto reciprocity adopted by some Chinese courts. The paper surveys the judicial practice of Chinese courts and finds that this area of law is full of confusion and uncertainties due to the lack of applicable rules. Recent developments suggest that China may move away from this approach and adopt a relaxed version of reciprocity, which is worthy of close attention.
基金This research is supported by National Social Science Foundation of China （Grant No. 15CFX069） and Beijing Social Science Foundation （Grant No. 17FXC031）.
文摘Transboundary recognition and enforcement of judgments is of increasing practical significance and it draws a great deal of efforts at various levels. However, the efforts already made are predominantly in relation to cross-border movement of monetary judgments, leaving non-monetary judgments beyond recognizability. Investigation into China＇s legislation and adjudication reveals that there is no distinction made between recognition of monetary and non-monetary judgments, and practice also ignores such a distinction. Following the trend of embracing non-monetary judgments within the scope of recognizablility, China＇s standpoint seemingly appears to be desirable, although the long-standing non-differentiation of monetary and non-monetary judgments is not presumed to be originally out of promoting recognition and enforcement of foreign non-monetary judgments in China. It is submitted that for promoting recognition and enforcement of foreign non-monetary judgments, China shall introduce independent rules in order to facilitate the circulation of such judgments, which merits a special treatment. For parties to seek the recognition and enforcement of such judgments, prior to any overhauling of the current legal regime, they have to follow China＇s persisting general legal regime and judicial practice regarding recognition and enforcement of all categories of foreign judgments, and a special call is made for particular attention to the reciprocity requirement and due service requirement.
文摘This article discusses the rules for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the Republic of Korea （hereinafter referred to as ＂South Korea＂ or ＂Korea＂）. Articles 217 and 217-2 of the Civil Procedure Act of Korea and Articles 26 and 27 of the Civil Enforcement Act of Korea provide for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments respectively. Korea has not entered into any bilateral or multilateral treaties regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and is not a party to the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. The article also considers the current undesirable status of recognition and enforcement of judgments in the region consisting of China, Japan and South Korea （hereinafter referred to as ＂Region＂） and suggests a course of action to be taken to improve the situation. The author believes that the experts of the Region should embark upon a project to improve the current situation and that the first step should be to exchange and gather information on the current legal regime of the countries in the Region on the recognition and enforcement of judgments. The author looks forward to future cooperation among the experts in the Region on this topic and is confident that the reciprocity requirement, which currently is a major obstacle to the mutual recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the Region, will be overcome in the near future.
