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
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.
