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 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
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 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.
