Author
Listed:
- Yun-cheng Zhao
- Qin-xuan Peng
Abstract
This paper explores the exclusive jurisdiction rule in Article 279 of the Civil Procedure Law (CPL) 2023 of the People's Republic of China (PRC), which introduces two newly covered types of disputes- those involving the establishment, dissolution, liquidation, and validity of resolutions of legal persons or other organizations, and those concerning the validity of intellectual property rights (IPRs). Through a comparative analysis with Article 24 of Brussels I Recast 2012, the study highlights key differences—the Chinese exclusive jurisdiction rule for legal persons or other organizations adopts a hybrid approach combining enumeration and generalization, while Brussels 2012 follows a strictly enumerative method. In addition, the exclusive jurisdiction rule for IPRs adopts the broad term “Intellectual Property” instead of specifying categories like patents or trademarks, as seen in Brussels 2012, and restricts its application to disputes over the validity of intellectual property, explicitly excluding registration disputes. An analysis of nine rulings from 2024 shows that Chinese courts strictly adhere to the scope of this exclusive jurisdiction rule. However, challenges remain in accurately identifying foreign elements and consistently citing Article 279. The findings suggest that China’s two new categories of exclusive jurisdiction in international civil procedure are legal transplants rather than flawed analogies. Consequently, concerns that the expansion of China’s exclusive jurisdiction is unfriendly to foreign companies or parties may be overstated. The article concludes with two recommendations- (1) Chinese courts should enhance their identification of foreign elements in cases before applying the exclusive jurisdiction rule; and (2) Chinese courts should explicitly clarify their obligation to apply the exclusive jurisdiction rule in judicial reasoning and cite Article 279 in the judgment’s result section.
Suggested Citation
Yun-cheng Zhao & Qin-xuan Peng, 2025.
"The Expansion of China’s Exclusive Jurisdiction in International Civil Procedure: Legal Transplant or False Analogies?,"
Journal of Politics and Law, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 18(2), pages 1-47, May.
Handle:
RePEc:ibn:jpl123:v:18:y:2025:i:2:p:47
Download full text from publisher
More about this item
JEL classification:
- R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
- Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General
Statistics
Access and download statistics
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:jpl123:v:18:y:2025:i:2:p:47. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.