|
II.C.5. A Conclusion
After all, the establishment and enhancement of many bankruptcy rules still presses for a uniform and formal bankruptcy law, because the Rules is merely a juridical interpretation, and may be limited to the provisions of existing laws. Many theoretical issues such as the individual bankruptcy and foreign-related bankruptcy remain to be discussed further. However, the Rules has provided a good basis for the courts to implement the Bankruptcy Law and the Chapter 19 of the Civil Procedural Law systematically and effectively.
III. Statistics of Foreign-related Cases
The statistics and analysis of cases also must become an important method on studying private international law in China. Through the statistics and analysis of cases, we may melt abstract theory of private international law for concrete practical knowledge of private international law, thus turn arid rules of private international law into living rules of private international law. At the same time, through the statistics and analysis of cases, we can grasp actual operation situation of how the courts deal with foreign-related cases. It thus provides more nutrients for the fundamental research, and in turn, it can impel the judicial practice on private international law because such fundamental research can meet the practical needs.
In this section, we select and analyse principally 36 cases judged by the relevant courts in 2002, as to their choice-of-law methods and ascertainment-of-jurisdiction methods. For above objects, we have created three tables to show various useful data. These tables are as following:
Table 1: Statistics of Selected Cases
No. Case Name Country or Region Involved Jurisdiction Choice of Law
1 Hubei Technology Import & Export Co. v. Hubei Branch of Chinese People’s Insurance Co. Parties are all Chinese Common Jurisdiction Party autonomy
2 Hainan Industrial Co. v. Shangdong Weihai City Chemical Import & Export Ltd. China & Korea Special Jurisdiction Party autonomy
3 Nanjin Youzhi Chemical Ltd. v. Jintai Industrial (group) Ltd. and Qingdao Tengwei Development Co. China & Hong Kong Common Jurisdiction The principle of the most significant relationship
45 Pingxiang City Sanxin Fireworks Ltd. v. International Sanxin (Hong Kong) and Beitai Fireworks Export Factory China & Hong Kong Common Jurisdiction Two courts didn’t explain reasons on application of Chinese law .
Huashengchang Finance Ltd. v. Lifeng Industrial Ltd. and Haiwei Investment Ltd. Parties are all legal persons in Hong Kong Common Jurisdiction The principle of the most significant relationship
6 Jinbian Juyou Co. Ltd. v. Beijin Jin’e Furniture Engineer Ltd. Co. China & Hong Kong Common Jurisdiction Party autonomy
7 Hancity Branch of Bank of China v. Chinese Import & Export Handicraft Co. China & Korea Implied Jurisdiction Party autonomy
8 Finnish Shamo international Ltd. v. BeijingSilver and Advantage Import and Export Ltd. China & Finland Common Jurisdiction Party autonomy
9 Chongqing Marine Transportation Ltd. v. Liberian Bright Moonlight Shipping Stock Co. China & Liberia Common Jurisdiction Lex fori
10 American President Steamship Co. v. Philippines Electrical Equipment Factory, Filley Co. and the Great Wall Co. China & Hong Kong Implied Jurisdiction Party autonomy
11 Heilongjiang Dongning County Huabo Economical Trade Co. v. Shandong Weihai Co. of Chinese Foreign Shipment etc. Parties are all legal persons in China Special Jurisdiction Dépeçage Method
12 Zhanjiang Economic Development Zone Branch of Chinese Property Insurance Ltd. v. Yuhai Shipping Co. etc. China, Panama and Singapore Special Jurisdiction The principle of the most significant relationship
13 Dafei Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Shangdong Orient International Trade Co. China & France Special Jurisdiction The principle of the most significant relationship
14 Fanye Shipping Co. v. Suhao International (group) Co. Ltd. China & Japan Special Jurisdiction The principle of the most significant relationship
15 Haibei Fishery Co. v. Taihai Zhushi Huishe and Shanghai Xiangyun Sea food Co. Japan & Hong Kong The court did not explain this problem. The principle of the most significant relationship
16 Shangdong Weihai Ship Factory v. DS-Rendite-Fonds Nr.52 MS”Cape Charles” GmbH & Co Containe reschiff KG China & German Special Jurisdiction The principle of the most significant relationship
17 Hebei Shenglun Import & Export Co. v. Jingchuan International Shipping Co. China & Korea Presumptive Jurisdiction Presumptive party autonomy
18 Guangdong Branch of Chinese People’s Insurance Co. v. Guangdong Branch of Chinese Foreign Shipping and Orient Oversea Huogui (HK) Shipping Ltd. China & Hong Kong The court did not explain this problem. Party autonomy
19 Hubei Gnagying Furniture Ltd. Co. v. Hongkong United International Shipping Corp. China & Hong Kong Presumptive Jurisdiction The principle of party autonomy
20 Dalian Navigation Group Co. v. Hongkong Gelante Ltd. and Dalian Fengcheng Shipping Inc. China & Hong Kong The court did not explain this problem. The court did not explain this problem.
21 American Fortune Universal Inc. v. Dalian Jihang Shipping Agency Inc. China & America Common Jurisdiction The principle of the most significant relationship
22 Fuchang Trade Developing Co. v. Qingdao Future Shipping Agency Inc. China & Hong Kong Special Jurisdiction The court didn’t explain this problem.
23 Yuancheng (Qingdao) Trading International Corp. v. Xixia City Hengxing Trade Co. Ltd. Parties are all legal persons in China Selective Jurisdiction The principle of party autonomy
24 Germany Victory Shipping Co. v. Junye (Tianjin) Trading International Inc. China & Germany Presumptive Jurisdiction The principle of party autonomy
25 Sino-Add (Singapore) PTE. Ltd. v. Karawasha Resource Ltd. Singapore & Hong Kong Presumptive Jurisdiction The principle of the most significant relationship
26 Jinxi Industry Group Co. Ltd. v. Germany Rickmers Linie Co. China & Germany The court did not explain this problem. The principle of the most significant relationship
27 Shenzheng Industry Co. v. Jinxing Shipping Agency and Shenzheng Navigation Agency Co. Ltd. China, Hong Kong & Germany The court did not explain this problem. The parties selected Chinese law for applicable law in the process of hearing.
28 Guangzheng Industry Inc. etc. v. Xi’an Jiaotong University etc. China & Japan Common Jurisdiction The application of the lex fori
29 Shu Dongqing v. China.com.Corporation Ltd. China & Hong Kong Presumptive Jurisdiction The judgments didn’t explain this problem.
30 Shenzheng Branch of China Industrial and Commercial Bank v. Jiaxing Group Co. Ltd. China & Hong Kong Special Jurisdiction The principle of autonomy of the parties
31 Singapore Branch of China Bank v. Maikete Container (Huizhou) Inc., Maikete Building and Maikete (Group) Co. Ltd. China & Singapore Common Jurisdiction The principle of autonomy of the parties
32 Changzhou Huafa Huaxian Inc.v. Japan Green Stone Trading Huishe. China & Japan Common Jurisdiction The court didn’t explain this problem.
33 Rongtai Trading Huishe v. Alpes Medicine Industry Huishe and Qingdao Taidong Medicine Ltd. China & Japan Special Jurisdiction The principle of autonomy of the parties
34 Ural Potassium Co. Ltd. v. Jinan Huaiyin General Chemical Factory China & Russia Exclusive Jurisdiction The “lois d’application immédiate”
35 Hailongjiang Branch of China Bank v. Hongkong Huanyu Co. China & Hong Kong Special Jurisdiction The court didn’t explain this problem.
36 Dalian Huanong Group Inc. etc, v. Malaysia International Shipping Co. Berhad China & Malaysia Arbitration Clause excludes jurisdiction The application of the lex fori
Table 2: The Ascertainment-of-Jurisdiction Methods
Category Total Rate
Common Jurisdiction 11 30.5%
Special Jurisdiction 10 27.8%
Exclusive Jurisdiction 1 2.8%
Agreed Selective Jurisdiction 1 2.8%
Presumptive Jurisdiction 7 19.4%
No Reason 5 13.9%
Arbitration Agreement Excludes Jurisdiction 1 2.8%
Table 3: The Choice-of-Law Methods
Category (No Inclusion of Disputes over Jurisdiction) Total Rate
Principle of Party Autonomy 14 42.42%
Principle of the Most Significant Relationship 10 30.3%
The Dépeçage Method 1 2.1%
Direct Application of Chinese Law 1 2.1%
It May be wrong in application of law 1 2.1%
No Reasons 6 18.1%
IV. The Ascertainment-of-Jurisdiction Methods
|
