administrative cases, bankruptcy law, NPC Reports

2026 Supreme People’s Court Work Report, Part II

Leave a comment

 

 

By Zhu Xinyue, edited and with further comments in italics by Susan Finder.  Unless otherwise indicated, references to “I” and “my” in this article refer to Susan Finder.

This is Part 2. It covers the following sections of the Report:

  • Promoting High-Level Opening-Up Through High-Quality Justice” (Foreign-Related Rule of Law);
  • Regulating the Exercise of Judicial Power;
  • Accepting Oversight from All Quarters; and
  • 2026 Work Plan.

Part 1 is here and covers:

  • What is New
  • Safeguarding High-Level Security with High-Quality Judicial Services
  • Supporting High-Quality Development Through High-Quality Judicial Services
  • Safeguarding a High Quality of Life Through High-Quality Justice.

The Report provides insights into the multifaceted role and operations of the Chinese courts.

IV. Foreign-Related Chapter

As noted above, the Report contains a separate chapter on foreign-related matters (涉外法治). This is a first and signals the growing importance of the foreign-related work of the SPC.  It emphasizes four themes: safeguarding national and people’s interests, ensuring equal protection for Chinese and foreign parties, making China a “preferred destination for international dispute resolution,” and shaping global norms. All of these are evergreen themes for foreign-related adjudication, as evidenced by the SPC’s 2022 specialized report to the NPC Standing Committee and other articles on this blog.

These themes track the Plan’s goals of aligning with high-standard international trade rules, expanding opening-up, and improving compatibility between domestic and international rules. Ch. 58 calls for accelerating China’s foreign-related rule-of-law system and capacity. The January 2026 Central Political-Legal Work Conference calls for a dedicated foreign-related rule-of-law plan as part of the Plan (编制法治保障体系和涉外法治能力建设“十五五”规划).  It is unclear whether this would be made public.

In the section on “resolutely safeguarding national and people’s interests,” courts concluded 159,000 foreign-related cases during the 14th Five-Year Plan period, a 66% increase over the 13th Five Year period. These included 49,000 foreign-related IP cases and 12,000 maritime cases, up 115.9% and 84.6% respectively.  The latter links to the more robust assertion of jurisdiction by the Chinese maritime courts. The Report stresses full implementation of the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, countering unlawful unilateral sanctions and “long-arm jurisdiction” (foreign extraterritorial jurisdiction), guiding outbound Chinese companies on compliance and risk management.  The latter phrase is a reminder of the unique role of the Chinese courts.  As one experienced judge told me: “It is part of our work to ‘serve the greater situation,’ and courts have performance indicators concerning judicial suggestions/advice. “So we take away a lot of business from lawyers by providing free legal advice.”

In the section on “equally protecting the lawful rights and interests of Chinese and foreign parties,” the Report invokes WTO-consistent principles, including national treatment.  This is intended to signal to foreign investors and international disputants that Chinese courts will apply internationally recognized norms despite geopolitical tensions.  The Report mentions that courts protected trade secrets developed abroad and accepted supplementary data in a pharmaceutical patent case (see Mark Cohen’s commentary). Beijing and Shanghai courts ranked among the world’s best for judicial fairness and credibility in the World Bank’s Business Ready benchmarking. This is linked to special action plans by the Shanghai government (here is the 2026 version) and an implementing special action plan by the Shanghai Higher People’s Court.

In the section on making “preferred place for international commercial dispute resolution,” the Report notes that the SPC issued Opinions on the High Quality Development of the International Commercial Courts. As that policy document flagged, the Chinese courts , including the Shanghai Maritime Court  (and Financial Court) have standard jurisdiction clauses on their websites. In 2025, a tiny number (23) cases with no substantial connection to China were submitted to courts based on parties’ jurisdiction agreements. Courts mediated 155 foreign-related cases through the one-stop international commercial dispute-resolution platform. In arbitration and international judicial assistance, courts handled 21,000 judicial review of arbitration, up 12.8%, (most domestic) and approved the recognition and enforcement of 108 foreign arbitral awards. Hainan courts supported Free Trade Port reforms and handled the first foreign-related ad hoc arbitration case. Courts processed 6,061 requests under treaties or reciprocity in 2025, up 7.4%, reducing civil and commercial service time by 12 days. Courts recognized and enforced 972 foreign judgments, doubling year on year. Chinese civil and commercial judgments gained recognition in more foreign courts.

In the section on “actively participating in global governance,” the Report highlights China’s contribution to international rulemaking, supporting Ch. 23 on Belt and Road co-construction and Ch. 24 on a shared future for mankind. Although the SPC has done so for many years, this work has become more important since the 2014 “Rule of Law Plenum. I found that the Report reiterated points I have made in recent presentations,  such as SPC participation in the drafting of the Beijing Convention on the Judicial Sale of Ships and Chinese courts training judges and judicial officials from 38 jurisdictions and hosting large-scale events, including the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Chief Justices’ Conference.

V. Upholding Fairness and Justice: Regulating the Exercise of Judicial Power

This section focuses on internal court operations: judicial training; internal supervision and management; technology; and Party supervision.

As mentioned earlier,  the Report highlights the [ongoing] publication of the Unified National Training Textbooks for Judges, edited by senior SPC judges and academics, with the participation of 413 experienced SPC personnel (审判骨干).  (Those further interested can follow the link to a detailed description of the textbook series’ content.  President Zhang described the textbook series as distilling Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, embedding 9,955 practical Q&As to “consolidate theoretical foundations and resolve practical dilemmas” for judges, or as I have said elsewhere,  intended to be politically correct and practically oriented.

In the Report, internal supervision and management incorporates a broad range of topics.  This section first addresses a notable concern of President Zhang Jun — senior court leaders’ supervision through the 阅核 (review) system.  (This article contains a video of him explaining the difference between the review system and the pre-form administrative review of cases.  The section then addresses SPC guidance of the lower courts in different forms. It issued 15 judicial interpretations in 2025 (note lower courts are not permitted to issue them), 20 guiding cases, and 641 typical cases in 101 groups.  As I wrote here, President Zhang Jun favors guiding the lower courts through typical cases. He has also created new forms of guidance.  The People’s Court Case Database (人民法院案例库) added over 5,300 entries (up from 4,700); the “FaDaWang  Court Answers Platform (法答网)” Q&A platform recorded over 890,000 responses (most not made public) (up from 694,000) and almost 11 million judgments were published online (+13.3%).

This section briefly addresses “empowering justice with technology,” highlighting another of President Zhang Jun’s initiatives, the establishment of 一张网 (unified platform for the courts,  enabling “full-process” supervision of each case.  The Report emphasizes that artificial intelligence remains auxiliary: judges retain sole judicial responsibility.

On court discipline, inspection teams audited eight high people’s courts. Nine SPC staff (干警) and 995 local court staff members were investigated and disciplined (the internal euphemism is “出了事情).

On grassroots capacity, the Report focuses on internal resource reallocation. The Report emphasizes the recent policy of hiring of retired judges as mediators. Over 3,700 retired judges now contribute “silver-haired” expertise to dispute resolution. A second batch of “weak courts” was strengthened and 100 “Fengqiao-style” tribunals serve as models.  The Report notes that the courts implement Party policies designed to support the development of  Western regions,  such as Fujian–Ningxia cadre exchanges and judicial secondments to frontier regions.

VI. Upholding Fairness and Justice: Consciously Accepting Oversight from All Quarters

This section highlights how multiple institutions, particularly the NPC and its Standing Committee, supervise the SPC and lower courts and how the SPC coordinates with other institutions.  This discussion is limited to the NPC (and its Standing Committee)  and the procuratorate

This section leads with a summary of how the SPC both accepts supervision by the NPC and its Standing Committee and seeks NPC support (about which my forthcoming article contains a more detailed overview) such as: the recording and review mechanism for judicial interpretations and normative documents; specialized reports, implementation of NPC Standing Committee views, and delegate suggestions, and involves NPC delegates in a variety of court activities.

Regarding prosecutorial supervision, courts heard 8,728 protest cases and revised 3,992 judgments, down 15.3% and 5.2% year on year and the two institutions jointly analyzed civil cases subject to prosecutorial supervision.  Procuratorial supervision of enforcement cases is next on the agenda.

VII. Work Plan for 2026

The Report provides a three-paragraph overview of the 2026 work plan, stressing implementation of Xi Jinping Rule of Law Thought, the spirit of recent Party Plenums, Party Center arrangements, and the Plan. This is consistent with the Reform Outline.

The first paragraph summarizes how the courts plan to “serve the greater situation” and “provide justice for the people.”   A broad range matters are emphasized: implementing the state security and social stability maintenance responsibility system; cyberspace governance; juvenile delinquency (although few juvenile cases go into the court system); and judicial protection of human rights (presumably in the criminal process). It reiterates supervising and supporting law-based administration (see the 2024 specialized report); and collaborating (with Party and administrative authorities) to promote comprehensive governance centers  Professor Wang Yuedan has a forthcoming paper on these centers, as does Liu Zhixing (who presented his findings in my class this spring).   This paragraph section reiterates resolving petitions and complaints and promoting the substantive resolution of conflicts and disputes.  As expected, the summary emphasizes judicial protection of intellectual property rights to support innovation-driven development and artificial intelligence-related developments,  anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition, further implementing the Law on Promoting the Private Economy by improving the long-term mechanism for regulating law enforcement and judicial work involving enterprises.

In a series of phrases, this paragraph flags many priorities for the courts, of which we mention a selection:  linking enforcement procedures with the bankruptcy system; improving judicial protection of the ecological environment (details released in a recent press release) improving the protection of the rights and interests of those from Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan, and overseas Chinese (see 2024-2025 developments);  issues involving the interests of women, children, the elderly, and people with disabilities.  Employment matters are flagged as well, as signalled last year.

The second paragraph focuses on implementing the Sixth Five-Year Reform Outline (see my related analysis)  by, among other matters, strengthening foreign-related and maritime adjudication, optimizing specialized courts, improving case management and litigation services, strengthening grassroots courts and tribunals, and deepening digital courts.

The third paragraph emphasizes how the courts will build a “steel army”  (铁军) of judges. This term has its roots in Party discourse and is also applied to the procuratorate. It otherwise continues familiar themes: strict Party governance, whole-process people’s democracy, supervision, capacity building, and work-style improvement. It also mentions cooperation with law schools in training specialists in foreign-related, finance, and environmental matters, specialized adjudication training, and the role of retired judges (particularly in mediation).

VIII. Concluding Remarks

The Report is a masterpiece of Chinese political-legal discourse, conveying how the SPC, under strengthened Party leadership, supports national and Party strategies and policies to better serve the dynamic needs of the Party and nation. Although the Chinese political and constitutional system considers the courts a subsidiary constituent institution in the Party and state’s governance system, the transformation of China domestically and internationally over the past 30 years, plus the greater importance of law in governance means that the SPC has an increasingly important, unique, multifaceted, and dynamic role domestically and internationally.  _____________________________________________

Many thanks to an anonymous peer reviewer for comments on an earlier draft of this article.

administrative cases, Answers Database, bankruptcy law, NPC Reports

2026 Supreme People’s Court Work Report: Part I

Leave a comment

 

 

By Zhu Xinyue, edited and with further comments in italics by Susan Finder.  Unless otherwise indicated, references to “I” and “my” in this article refer to Susan Finder.

This article reviews the Supreme People’s Court’s (SPC) 2026 Work Report (the “2026 Report” or the “Report”), delivered by President Zhang Jun. The Report has been carefully drafted and reviewed, first within the SPC and by multiple stakeholders, including by the senior Party leadership, to ensure that the apparently formulaic report summarizes SPC accomplishments in the previous year and goals for the upcoming year. It links to the Sixth People’s Courts Five-Year Plan Reform Plan Outline (2024-2028) (Reform Plan Outline 人民法院第六个五年改革纲要（2024—2028年）), the 15th Five-Year Plan for 2026–2030 (the Plan), and an 18 March 2026 article by SPC President Zhang Jun on providing judicial services for the Plan. The Report connects to the Reform Plan Outline and Plan in a way that harmonizes perfectly with the vision of the current SPC President (and Party Secretary), current Party and state policies, and issues current in Chinese society. Each example has been carefully considered. For these reasons, it uses a great deal of current political-legal terminology. For those not fluent in this language, decoding is challenging.

The Report incorporates comments from General Secretary Xi Jinping and other Party leaders on an earlier draft, who had reviewed the draft reports of the SPC and other major state institutions.  The Plan sets out the central leadership’s medium‑ to long‑term institutional design and strategic blueprint for the legal system, including the judiciary.  The Reform Plan Outline signals new or existing Party leadership and SPC priorities (see my (Susan Finder’s) analysis published in February).

This is Part 1 of 2 Parts and covers:

  • [What is New, our addition], the original is a brief review of the work of the courts in 2025;
  • Safeguarding High-Level Security with High-Quality Judicial Services
  • Supporting High-Quality Development Through High-Quality Judicial Services
  • Safeguarding a High Quality of Life Through High-Quality Justice.

Part 2 covers:

  • “Promoting High-Level Opening-Up Through High-Quality Justice” (Foreign-Related Rule of Law);
  • Regulating the Exercise of Judicial Power;
  • Accepting Oversight from All Quarters; and
  • 2026 Work Plan.

The title of each section of the Report highlights how the courts, as led by the SPC, “implement the spirit” of Party strategies and policies.  What that means is that the SPC and lower courts (within the outlines of SPC policies) consider the implications of Party strategies and policies and make or implement them within the framework of current law, sometimes for specific areas of law and other times for specific geographical areas.  Each section provides more details on what the courts have done. The Report provides insights into the multifaceted role and operations of the Chinese courts and the nature of Party leadership.

II.  What is new in the 2026 Report?

What is most strikingly new in the 2026 Report is a special chapter on foreign-related rule of law (涉外法治)–Chapter IV “Promoting High-Level Opening-Up Through High-Quality Justice.”  Other new content includes an independent section on “digital courts” (数字法院–the same terminology as in the Reform Plan Outline).  Although mentioned only once,  the highlighting of the Unified National Training Textbooks for Judges (全国法官培训统编教材), which must have been a major time commitment for 413 SPC judges and prominent academics,  is significant.

Other notable changes include:

  • a renewed emphasis on mediation；
  •  a new subsection on “law-based punishment of new types of crimes；”
  • a shift from a  “Beautiful China” framing to “serving a comprehensive green transition；” and an
  • Emphasis on SPC normative documents being incorporated into the NPC Standing Committee’s recording-and-review system.

Review of the work of the courts in 2025

This section leads with the 2025 Party Center issuance of the “Opinions on Strengthening New Era Judicial Work” ( New Era Judicial Work Opinions 中共中央关于加强新时代审判工作的意见).  President Zhang Jun described the New Era Judicial Work Opinions as fully demonstrating the great importance the Party Center attaches to the work of the people‘s courts (充分体现了党中央对人民法院工作的高度重视) and implementing it is a major political responsibility for the people’s courts now and in the near term  (当前和今后一个时期人民法院的重大政治任务).   The New Era Judicial Work Opinions is more authoritative than the Reform Plan Outline, but for the lower courts, the Reform Plan Outline is more detailed.

In 2025, the SPC accepted 29,154 new cases and concluded 31,958, down 16.5% and 1.8% year‑on‑year, respectively.  The Report does not provide a further breakdown.  The subsequent work report by the Supreme People’s Court’s Intellectual Property Court reveals that it accepted 4,679 cases in 2025 (see Mark Cohen’s analysis).   I surmise that a significant number of the cases that the SPC accepted are applications for retrial in administrative cases. According to my earlier research, the SPC accepts a small percentage of those applications for rehearing or other procedures. Liang Fengyun, the now-retired deputy head of the SPC’s Administrative Division, described the administrative caseload as an “inverted pyramid (“倒金字塔”),” one of the consequences of the failure of the reform of the four levels of the courts.  By contrast, courts nationwide accepted 37.486 million trial and enforcement matters and concluded or enforced 36.2 million, an increase of 10.8% and 8.9% over the previous year, see this chart.

2025 Distribution of types of cases in the Chinese courts: 61% are civil/commercial cases, with 29% enforcement cases. Criminal cases constitute 4%, while administrative cases constitute 2%.

II.  “Upholding Fairness and Justice, Safeguarding High-Level Security with High-Quality Judicial Services”

Although criminal cases constitute a small percentage of cases in Chinese courts, it is usual for matters relating to national security and criminal matters to take a prominent place.

For the first time, the 2026 Report introduces a dedicated section on “law‑based punishment of new types of crimes,” grouping cyber security, money laundering using virtual currencies, and online abuse. It links to Ch. 52, Section 4 of the Plan. The Plan sets out the larger political-legal framework, which includes improving national cybersecurity defense architecture, critical information infrastructure protection, ongoing clean internet campaigns, and deeper participation in global cyberspace governance. The Report cites a 158.9% cybersecurity-related cases concluded in the past five years and increased enforcement against money laundering and illegal foreign‑exchange evasion conducted using virtual currencies, likely reflecting Party and government policy concerns as well as the evolving nature of crimes committed in China. The mention of participation in global cyberspace governance is consistent with other sections of the Report, which contains a paragraph on participating in global governance.

On organized crime (sao e 扫黑除恶), the Report continues to stress the “normalization” of the campaign.  Defense counsel often post WeChat articles on how to deal with this normalization. On drug offenses, the Report notes a continued decline in traditional drug crimes while calling for tougher measures against new psychoactive substances and for clear distinctions between illegal trafficking in narcotic and psychotropic drugs and legitimate medical use.

The Report expands “financial security” to “preventing and defusing major risks in key areas,” extending beyond finance to real estate and other critical sectors, and “data‑chain‑based coordinated regulation (数据链条式协同监管).” This links to the Plan (Part XIV, Ch. 52, Sec. 3 ), which calls for a long-term mechanism to prevent and resolve major risks in key areas, i.e., real estate, local government debt, and small and medium‑sized financial institutions.

On what is described as human rights protection in the criminal process, the Report notes that 294 individuals were declared not guilty, and prosecutors withdrew charges against 1,235 individuals. The low number of persons declared not guilty has led to discussions among Chinese academics and defense counsel, such as this recent symposium by the well-known Hongfan Institute of Legal and Economic Studies. Courts disbursed 850 million yuan in judicial assistance to 38,000 litigants in hardship. (See related research by Wu Yuhao, my part-time colleague.) The Report cited a Henan case, previously selected as an SPC typical case mentioned on this blog,  in which a Henan court extended judicial assistance to three siblings whose parents had been killed and coordinated social assistance and tuition waivers. President Zhang frames this as improving relief-fund effectiveness and linking judicial and social assistance to maximize aid and defuse social conflicts.

III. Upholding Fairness and Justice: Supporting High-Quality Development Through High-Quality Judicial Services

This section of the Report illustrates, through seven examples, how the judiciary provides services and safeguards for national development priorities.

The chapter opens with the familiar call to fully and accurately apply the new development philosophy and build a “law-based” and “credit-based” economy. This is not new but echoes the 2025 Report’s plan to “Promote the development of a law-based and credit-based economy” (促推法治经济、信用经济建设). That policy is “codified” in Part I, Ch. 2, Sec. 2 of the Plan, which sets out the principle of “integrating an effective market with a proactive, capable government (有效市场和有为政府).”

(1) Supporting High‑Level Science & Technology Self‑Reliance

The Report contains dedicated segments on high‑level science and technology self‑reliance and the digital economy (数字经济).  The Plan elevates these areas to strategic priorities.  High-level science and technology self-reliance links to the Reform Plan Outline’s provision on “improving the judicial guarantee mechanism for the development of ‘new quality productive forces.'”   The Reform Plan Outline flags that the internet court rules will be amended to support digital economy developments. Because the Reform Plan Outline was issued to the lower courts, it provides more specific information about forthcoming technology-related rules that the SPC plans to issue in comparison to the Report.

This section on “serving high‑level self‑reliance and strength in science and technology” aligns with Part II, Ch. 5, Sec. 3 of the Plan, on building an institutional ecosystem for high-level scientific and technological self-reliance. The Plan covers stronger IP protection in emerging sectors, launching a “standardization pilot program” for new industries, efficient market entry for new business models, and tools such as “regulatory sandboxes” and “trigger-based regulation.” President Zhang Jun links this to macro‑policy and sectoral coordination. Courts are expected not only to strengthen IP protection but also to support the deeper integration of technology and industrial innovation. Reflecting the policy focus on mediation (see this related post), the SPC emphasizes that for disputes involving cooperative research and development (R & D)  and talent mobility, courts should combine mediation and adjudication to resolve disputes, facilitate transformation, and promote “win-win, multi-win” compliance-oriented outcomes.

In 2025, courts concluded 496,000 IP cases, with growth slowing to 0.3%; convicted 19,000 individuals for IP-related criminal offenses, up 6.2%; issued an updated policy document, entitled Opinions on Judicial Services and Safeguards for Scientific and Technological Innovation; and adopted mediation guidelines for technology-related IP disputes (full text is difficult to locate). The Report signals that courts hearing non-compete disputes should balance trade-secret protection concerns with talent mobility —using examples to signal that courts should penalize trade-secret misappropriation while confirming that reasonable employee mobility does not, by itself, breach non-compete obligations.

In cases involving artificial intelligence, courts pursued dual objectives: encouraging innovation while defining the boundaries of liability. One case introduced a “margin for error (“容错”空间)” standard: where a generative AI system produced inaccurate output, but the developer exercised due care and caused no harm, no tort liability attached.

(2) Building a Unified National Market

The second segment focuses on the evergreen issue of creating a unified national market.  The Report emphasizes the work of the courts in serving this policy by controlling administrative power.  The provisions in the Report are consistent with the themes emphasized in the 2022 SPC policy document on the unified national market,  align with the Reform Plan Outline’s provisions on constraining administrative/criminal intervention in economic disputes as well as the Plan’s unified market agenda. The Report presents judicial support for national unified-market policy as being implemented mainly through corrective, case-based adjudication, while Ch. 17 of the Plan goes further by seeking to remove barriers hindering the unified national market (破除阻碍全国统一大市场建设卡点堵点) and building ex ante frameworks on property rights, market access, credit systems, negative-list governance, fair-competition compliance guidelines in key sectors, lists of encouraged/prohibited local investment practices, dynamic updating of barriers, and accountability.

Courts in 2025 concluded 25,000 cases involving administrative licensing and administrative agreements affecting market players, up 4.7% year-on -year, likely reflecting national policy priorities. The Report targets “involution‑style” competition (“内卷式”竞争) and “pick/choose‑one‑of‑two” exclusivity in e‑commerce (the latter analyzed here). The Report also highlights personal bankruptcy pilots, consistent with the Reform Plan Outline and aligning with Part V, Ch. 17, Sec. 1 of the Plan on equal protection of property rights and “equal responsibility, equal offenses, equal punishment.”

(3) Stimulating the Vitality of All Types of Market Entities

This section links the courts’ work to broader economic developments.  The Report focuses on the accomplishments of the courts in adjudication and case-based protection, while Ch. 18 of the Plan assigns structural tasks outside the courts.

The Report mentioned that the SPC had issued 25 measures to implement the Private Economy Promotion Law. Some of those 25 measures include some of the typical cases mentioned in this blogpost. The Plan calls for full implementation of the Law, improving supporting regulations and equal access to factors, competition, and rights protection. See Yale Paul Tsai China Center’s Jamie Horsley’s 2025 analysis of that law.

On corporate governance, courts concluded 151,000 disputes involving capital contributions and equity transfers in 2025 (+39.5%), likely linked to changes in the Company Law, which imposes heightened requirements.

(4) Ensuring the Healthy Development of the Digital Economy

The 2026 Report consolidates data, personal information, and platform algorithm issues into a brief digital-economy section. The Plan situates digital economy issues within a broader framework spanning Digital China (Part IV), high‑level science and technology self‑reliance (Part III) and the socialist market economy (Part VI).  In 2025, courts adjudicated fewer than 1000 (908) disputes over data ownership and data transactions (+25.6%) and approximately the same number of  (915) personal information protection cases (+65%).

(5) Supporting a Comprehensive Green Transition

This section broadens the earlier “Beautiful China” narrative to incorporate carbon finance, carbon‑tax mechanisms and green industrial restructuring.  The Report makes explicit what has been the case: in the environmental area, the courts act as norm-generators when legislation lags behind.  Ch. 50 of the Plan expands on them to include green taxation, green finance and green certificate trading. The Report states that judicial practice “provided rich models” for the Ecological and Environmental Code: My forthcoming article, “The Evolving Relationship Between the National People’s Congress and the Supreme People’s Court in the Xi Jinping Era” provides more information about the SPC’s contribution to the drafting of the Ecological and Environmental Code.

Courts heard 115 carbon‑related cases in 2025 (+6.5%),  giving carbon-related adjudication greater visibility. This tracks Part XIII, Ch. 47 of the Plan on expanding the national carbon market and voluntary emissions-reduction market, and Ch. 48 on implementing the Ecological and Environmental Code, improving environmental accountability, and building environmental credit supervision. President Zhang further noted that disputes involving natural resources, biodiversity protection, and carbon‑emissions trading are increasingly policy‑ and expertise‑intensive.

(6) Improving law‑based administration

The 2026 Report highlights themes emphasized in the 2024 specialized report to the NPC Standing Committee on administrative litigation work, such as reducing and preventing administrative disputes through the 3+ N mechanism. Lawsuits challenging administrative compulsory enforcement dropped by 17.2% year on year. Among cases subject to administrative reconsideration, the losing rate of administrative agencies fell by 0.7%, while appeal and retrial application rates in administrative cases dropped by 3.6% and 2.6%, respectively.

(7) Serving National Defense and Military Development

The Report contains a brief section on serving national defense and military development, mentioning that the courts heard over 8000 military-related cases, both criminal and civil cases, but no breakdown between the two. It also signals that civil cases are increasing by mentioning that relevant jurisdictional rules between the military and local courts were improved, updating rules previously issued in 2020.  Those rules shed light on the variety of civil cases that frequently arise, such as medical malpractice involving military hospitals, employment disputes between civilian employees of military entities, and military-civilian divorces. The section also mentions the protection of “red” historic sites.

III. Upholding Fairness and Justice: Safeguarding a High Quality of Life Through High-Quality Justice

This section of the Report focuses on cases related to the lives of ordinary people (涉民生案件). A large variety of cases fall under this rubric.

The Report summarizes five years of civil adjudication under the Civil Code, linking to Ch. 58 and other chapters of the Plan. Over this period, courts concluded 1.752 million property‑rights disputes, 960,000 personality‑rights cases and 5.566 million tort liability disputes, with average growth rates of 0.7%, 5.1% and 7.1%, respectively. Under new Civil Code procedures, courts granted 33,000 personal safety protection orders, appointed 1,680 estate administrators, and resolved 1,743 disputes over virtual property, with average annual growth of 20%, 181.2% and 69.9%.  Courts have continued curbing exorbitant betrothal gifts, marriage-related extortion and abusive profit‑seeking by matchmaking agencies.

The Report also highlights harsher domestic violence penalties.  As this blog flagged earlier, the SPC issued domestic violence-related typical cases. In the area of the protection of the elderly, courts have targeted bogus cut-price tours and illegal health‑product promotions, with much more work required to provide appropriate protection, as this blog has discussed. Protection of post-retirement-age workers’ rights has finally received official attention, and is mentioned in the Report. In the consumer sphere, courts aim to foster “confident consumption (放心消费) ” by protecting rights to information, choice and fair transactions, and by targeting fake orders, fabricated reviews and other deceptive online merchants. On the practice of knowingly purchasing counterfeit goods, courts distinguish legitimate rights protection from abusive profit‑seeking and continue to punish extortion carried out under the banner of “anti‑counterfeiting.”   See my former colleague Lu Yi’s (Claudia Lu’s) related article. In 2025, the SPC issued a judicial interpretation on pre‑paid consumption addressing absconding with prepaid funds (卷款跑路) and unconscionable standard-form terms (霸王条款).

On “serving high‑quality and sufficient employment,” courts concluded 674,000 labor disputes in 2025, up 9.8%, heard 75,000 wage‑recovery cases and helped workers recover 24.12 billion yuan in unpaid remuneration. The SPC issued an interpretation on open‑ended labor contracts and liability in subcontracting and labor outsourcing.

On crimes against juveniles, courts maintain a “zero tolerance” stance. In 2025, they concluded 40,000 such cases involving 44,000 defendants, down 1.8% year on year.  The courts imposed occupational bans on 1,199 offenders. 2,356 juvenile offenders involved in serious violent crimes were sentenced to more than five years, while 5,822 juveniles in less serious offenses were treated leniently. In family and guardianship matters, courts revoked the guardianship rights of 997 severely neglectful parents and issued 435 civil protection orders against child abduction or concealment by parents.

On enforcement, courts handled 5.837 million preservation and enforcement cases, with the voluntary compliance rate for civil judgments rising by 2.7%, and total enforced amounts reaching 2.2 trillion reminbi. Cross-regional or hierarchical enforcement covered 268,000 cases. Courts convicted 4,461 individuals for refusing to comply with judgments or enforcement orders, and the national judgment-debtor list — after falling for the first time in 2024 — shrunk by another 5.2% in 2025.

In matters involving Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and overseas Chinese, courts concluded 31,000 cases, up 15.6% year‑on‑year.

THIS IS PART 1 OF TWO PARTS

_____________________________________________

Many thanks to an anonymous peer reviewer for comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Communist Party and the Courts

Central Inspection Group Inspects the Supreme People’s Court

Leave a comment

It is inspection time again for the Supreme People’s Court (SPC). Its principal websites feature a 14 April report of the Central Inspection Group (CIG) #10’s mobilization meeting to inspect the SPC’s Communist Party Group.  The same CIG is also inspecting the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP).  These inspections are part of the current (seventh ) round of routine disciplinary inspections.  The press report is relatively formulaic, with nuances that only those with high political consciousness (政治觉悟) can notice.

Senior SPC leaders (with a bureaucratic rank of deputy bureau chief and above 副局级以上干部) of the SPC and its institutions attended in person (as well as related personnel). Those in the SPC’s six circuit courts  (巡回法庭) attended by videolink. Among the attendees of the meeting were members of an SPC liaison group to the CIG. Reports on the earlier round of inspections did not mention such a s liaison group.   Chen Zhangyong (陈章永), who has almost 20 years of experience in the Party discipline system, primarily in Zhejiang, heads the inspection group.

As is usual, Chen gave a speech at the mobilization meeting, as did SPC President Zhang Jun. Zhang Jun served as a deputy secretary of the Central  Commission for Disciplinary Inspection (CCDI) from 2012-2017 and therefore has a deep understanding of the dynamics and operations of CIGs and the thinking of their members.

President Zhang Jun stated that the SPC’s Party Group fully supports the CIG’s work. He described accepting the inspection as a major political task and called for actively supporting and cooperating with the inspection group in carrying out its work. He also signalled that the work of the SPC in the service of Chinese-style modernization will continue during the inspection.

A CIG group last inspected the SPC about six years ago. Previous mobilization meetings and inspector results were previously mentioned on this blog.

As in the previous round, the CIG is inspecting the SPC for approximately two months. The inspection group has provided an email and telephone number for those wishing to provide further information.

Background on CIGs and how they operate can be found in a 2016 New York Times article (focusing on the Ministry of Public Security’s inspection) and this scholarly article by Professor Fu Hualing of the University of Hong Kong’s law faculty.  I also recommend this 2025 article by a professor in the School of Discipline Inspection and Supervision at Renmin University and her colleague, who had access to the Party disciplinary system unavailable to any foreigner.

____________________________________________

Many thanks to an anonymous peer reviewer for comments on an earlier draft of this article.

arbitration

Remarks on the Amended Arbitration Law at the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre

Leave a comment

At a 25 March 2026 Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) event on the amended Arbitration Law, featuring a keynote speech by Director Shi Hong (石宏)， Director of the Civil Law Department of the Legislative Affairs Commission, Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (not pictured). My fellow panelists were: Zhang Xi (章曦) , head of the HKIAC Beijing representative office, Mr. Liu Shihu (刘世虎), of the Ministry of Justice, Joanne Lau, Secretary-General, HKIAC, Arthur Dong （董箫), partner with Jun He Law Offices, and Secretary General Jiang Lili (姜丽丽) ， Beijing Arbitration Commission. I gave an abbreviated version of the Chinese speech below, which I originally drafted in English.

Many thanks for the kind invitation to make some remarks about the amended Arbitration Law. Because the Supreme People’s Court did not send an official representative to speak, I will focus my comments on what the amended Arbitration Law means for the work of the Supreme People’s Court and lower courts.

Why am I talking about this? For those who do not know me, I have been a member of the Supreme People’s Court’s China International Commercial Court’s International Commercial Expert Committee since 2018 and a long-term observer of the work of the Supreme People’s Court. So how I discuss this will be different from an official spokesperson, but based on their official statements and my own work.
The focus of my presentation will be on the implications of the amended Arbitration Law for the Supreme People’s Court and lower courts. I’ll use a minute or two to give a bit of background.


On the drafting of the Arbitration Law, as was stated in a recent press report, “The Supreme People’s Court has been deeply involved in the legislation and amendment work of major foreign-related laws such as the Foreign Relations Law, the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, the Foreign State Immunities Law, the Civil Procedure Law, the Arbitration Law, and the Maritime Law.” Additionally, the Supreme People’s Court issues judicial interpretations and guidance in other forms for the lower courts, to enable them to apply the law more consistently. Judicial interpretations, as I previously wrote, are not linked with a specific case but draw on many previous cases. They are a critically important way that the SPC unifies the application of law by the courts, although the extent to which they are binding outside the court system is unclear. The Legislative Affairs Commission of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee reviews them and may require amendments.

At a joint press conference with the Legislative Affairs Commission, hosted by the Ministry of Justice, the Chief Judge of the Supreme People’s Court #4 Civil Division said that the “Supreme People’s Court will conduct thorough research, widely solicit opinions from all sectors, and, with the strong support of the Legislative Affairs Commission of the National People’s Congress and the Ministry of Justice, comprehensively review existing judicial interpretations and normative documents related to the Arbitration Law to ensure the drafting and formulation of supporting judicial interpretations for the newly revised Arbitration Law, guaranteeing that the revised content of the Arbitration Law is effectively implemented in judicial practice.” So the future judicial interpretation will reflect the views of multiple institutions.

The “thorough research” (认真调研) will involve combing through hundreds of pages of judicial interpretations and other judicial documents linked to the Arbitration Law, the Foreign-Related Part of the Civil Procedure Law, plus the current draft interpretation of the foreign-related part of the Civil Procedure Law. The work involved, which will be invisible to those of us outside the Supreme People’s Court, will be to determine which interpretations or documents remain valid in whole or part, and what amendments are necessary. It was reported that the Supreme People’s Court as a next step, would conduct research on the Arbitration Law and other legislation (下一步开展仲裁法、外国国家豁免法司法解释调研工作). The Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress and the Ministry of Justice will review that comprehensive draft carefully and give detailed comments for the Supreme People’s Court to consider.

So, my understanding is that the judicial interpretation will be issued sometime in 2027. That is normal timing. The judicial interpretation drafting process is lengthy. The Supreme People’s Court needs time to review the old interpretations , and intends the interpretation to address issues that are unclear in practice and be effective for a considerable period.
In the meantime, the Supreme People’s Court is/will be monitoring issues that confuse the lower courts. Those lower courts are more knowledgeable than they were ten years ago. That is linked to measures that the Supreme People’s Court has taken in recent years to encourage local courts to establish international commercial tribunals 国际商事法庭, to handle foreign-related matters, including judicial review of arbitration more competently.

How does the Supreme People’s Court monitor what issues confuse the lower courts? It has several ways to do that. One way is to convene a judicial review of arbitration internal conference (会商会), as was done last year for maritime matters. Second, questions that confuse lower courts will also come through the 法答网 system to the Supreme People’s Court’s #4 Civil Division, or possibly through a request for instructions (请示).
How might the Supreme People’s Court provide guidance, pending the issuance of the judicial interpretation, and how could you follow it? Those guidance methods mirror the ways that it monitors the lower courts. One would be for the Supreme People’s Court to issue meeting minutes (会议纪要), as it has done after other internal conferences 会商会. These cannot be cited as the basis for a judgment, but lower court judges generally follow its provisions, as it expresses the position of the Supreme People’s Court. I am not sure whether those meeting minutes will be made public, as it does not always do so, but I expect a related press report. Because the current judicial reform plan outline(六五纲要 ) provides that the People’s Court Database (人民法院案例库) and the Court Answers Platform (法答网) will create an integrated guidance product, I recommend monitoring whether amended Arbitration Law-related questions will be answered through the 法答网 system. Recently, the Supreme People’s Court published two sets of questions and answers on judicial review of arbitration raised on the Answers Platform (法答网 ) in People’s Court Daily (人民法院报). The People’s Court Case Database (人民法院案例库) contains reference cases related to arbitration, including judicial review of arbitration. That database should be monitored too, as well as typical cases issued by the Supreme People’s Court or lower courts. I note that recently, the Xinjiang Higher People’s Court issued typical arbitration cases.
As to the reaction of the lower courts to the amended law, my understanding is that the most knowledgeable and experienced judges are not fazed by the amendments to the Arbitration Law, because the amendments do not change the standard of judicial review. As to what I expect could be some of those hot issues,–the first one to mention is the new provision permitting preservative measures for assets or evidence in an emergency situation before an arbitration case is filed, as was mentioned in a recent article in People’s Court Daily (人民法院报). However, in 2024, the Supreme People’s Court issued detailed guidance on pre-litigation preservative measures, entitled Opinions on Standardizing and Strengthening the Handling of Pre-litigation Preservation Cases (关于规范和加强办理诉前保全案件工作的意见), which mentions arbitration, so I surmise local courts will apply the provisions in this document pending specific guidance. Will the adoption of the concept of “seat” create major issues? I believe not, as it will not make a difference for the vast majority of cases.
Although the People’s Court Daily article mentioned some uncertainties connected with ad hoc arbitration , I believe, as a practical matter it will not be a major issue.
I hope my remarks are helpful. I look forward to your comments.

_____________________________________________

Chinese version

鉴于最高人民法院未安排代表出席本次研讨会，我想从法院的视角，重点剖析新《仲裁法》对最高人民法院及全国各级地方法院工作的意义，这也是我今天发言的核心。
有人可能会感到好奇：我为什么选择谈这个问题？事实上，从2018年起，我和在座的几位同仁一样担任最高人民法院国际商事法庭专家委员会委员。我长期研究最高人民法院的司法实践与涉外司法工作，对最高人民法院有所了解。需要说明的是，我今天并不是替官方发声。我只是基于最高人民法院已公开的权威信息并结合我自己的研究谈几点个人看法。我引用的材料与最高人民法院正式公开的官方信息保持一致。
我的发言围绕新《仲裁法》对最高人民法院及下级法院的影响展开。在进入核心议题前，我先简单谈一下相关背景。
关于《仲裁法》修订，最近有一家媒体报道称：“最高人民法院深度参与《对外关系法》《反外国制裁法》《外国国家豁免法》《民事诉讼法》《仲裁法》《海商法》等重大涉外法律的立法修法工作。”此外，最高人民法院还通过制定司法解释、发布规范性文件等多种形式为下级法院提供指导，确保法律适用的统一。正如我此前在相关研究中提到的，最高人民法院制定的司法解释并非依托单一个案，而是基于对大量司法案例的研究与总结，是最高人民法院统一法律适用的关键途径。不过，对于司法解释在法院系统之外有多大约束力，仍没有定论。全国人大常委会法工委依法审查最高人民法院的司法解释，并有权依法提出修改意见。
此前在司法部主办、全国人大常委会法工委共同参与的新闻发布会上，最高人民法院民四庭庭长表示：“最高人民法院将认真调研、广泛听取各界意见，在全面梳理既有仲裁法相关司法解释和规范性文件的基础上，在全国人大法工委、司法部的大力支持下，做好新修订仲裁法配套司法解释的起草制定工作，确保《仲裁法》修订内容在司法实践中落地落细。”“最高人民法院将进一步完善仲裁司法审查机制，尤其是细化司法审查的规范和工作流程，优化仲裁保全机制，以及审执衔接机制，也就是撤裁的审查机制和裁决执行机制相衔接，加大仲裁法培训力度，确保法律适用统一，不断提升仲裁司法审查工作质效和专业化水平。”可以预见，后续出台的仲裁法司法解释，将反映多家机构的意见。
这里提到的“认真调研”涉及对现行与仲裁法相关的大量司法解释、司法规范性文件、和民事诉讼法涉外编及其在起草当中的司法解释的梳理。最高人民法院系统外的人不清楚这项工作。这项工作的目的在于，辨别现行司法解释或规范性文件中的哪些是有效的，是全部有效，还是部分有效，哪些地方需要修订。据公开报道，最高人民法院下一步将推进《仲裁法》司法解释调研工作，全国人大常委会法工委和司法部也将细致审查《仲裁法》司法解释草案，并提出详细修改意见供最高人民法院参考。我预计，相关配套司法解释将2027年某个时间点出台。这很正常，因为司法解释起草工作非常耗时。第一，最高人民法院需要时间来审查旧的司法解释，第二，想法是司法解释比较稳定，在较长时期内持续有效，又能够应对司法实践中的疑难复杂问题。
与此同时，最高人民法院正在或未来将持续关注困扰下级法院的法律适用难题。相较于十年前，现在全国各地方法院涉外业务水平总体上提高了。这与最高人民法院近年来大力推动地方法院设立国际商事法庭、高标准办理仲裁司法审查等各类涉外案件密不可分（我曾就此写过一篇短文）。最高人民法院是如何掌握下级法院的实务困惑的呢？
这里有几种方法，我建议对此感兴趣的人关注一下：一是召开全国仲裁司法审查会商会，去年海事审判领域曾运用这一机制；二是下级法院面临的疑难问题可以通过“法答网”反映给最高人民法院民四庭，或者在某些情况下也可以按程序请示最高人民法院。
在配套司法解释正式出台前，最高人民法院如何为下级法院提供实务指引？我们又如何对其进行跟踪？相关路径与最高人民法院掌握下级法院实务困惑的渠道基本对应。
一是会议纪要。比如，最高人民法院在会商会结束后会发布会议纪要。此类会议纪要虽不能直接作为裁判依据，但下级法院的法官通常会参照适用，因为它表达了最高人民法院的立场。我不确定这些会议纪要是否会公开，因为这不是最高人民法院的一贯做法，但我预计相关媒体会报道。
二是法答网上面与仲裁相关的问答。现行的《人民法院第六个五年改革纲要》（六五纲要）明确提出，要“加强“库网”融合发展。“。我建议各位关注法答网上面有关仲裁疑难问题的答复。最近，最高人民法院在《人民法院报》上刊登了两批涉及仲裁司法审查的法答网问答。
三是人民法院案例库。人民法院案例库收录了涉及仲裁的参考案例，包括仲裁司法审查案例，也值得关注。
四是典型案例。 最高人民法院和地方法院会出典型案例。最近， 新疆高院发了仲裁典型案例。
至于地方法院对修订《仲裁法》的反应，根据我了解到的情况，见识最广、资历最深的那些法官并不为本次《仲裁法》修订感到忧虑，因为新《仲裁法》并未改变中国仲裁司法审查标准。
至于新《仲裁法》可能带来的热点，我认为，首先是新增的仲裁前保全制度，其明确当事人在紧急情况下，可在申请仲裁前依法向人民法院申请财产保全或证据保全。《人民法院报》刊登的一篇文章提到了这点。不过，最高人民法院在2024年发布的《关于规范和加强办理诉前保全案件工作的意见》已经提到仲裁，因此，我推测，在详细配套指引出台前，地方法院将参照该文件处理仲裁前保全申请。至于“仲裁地”概念引入新《新仲裁法》是否会引发重大问题？我认为不会，因为这对绝大多数案件不会产生实质影响。至于临时仲裁，尽管《人民法院报》相关文章提到了一些有待厘清的问题，包括临时仲裁的性质、程序管理（送达、仲裁记录、费用支付等）等人民法院仍需谨慎处理的实践难题，但我相信，这在实践中并不是什么大问题。
最后，希望我的发言没浪费大家的时间，也期待听到大家的评论。

——————————————————————————————————————

Many thanks to Peking University School of Transnational Law 2L student Duan Kun ( 段昆, Daniel) and China Academy of Social Sciences Assistant Researcher Fu Panfeng (傅攀峰) for their work in translating and transposing the spirit of the English version of this presentation into Chinese under time pressure. Without their work, the presentation would not have been possible. A special thanks to Duan Kun for traveling from Shenzhen to Hong Kong to attend the HKIAC event.

Communist Party and the Courts, Judicial Reform

Decoding China’s Sixth Five-Year Judicial Reform Plan

Leave a comment
photo of 6th Five-Year Judicial Reform Plan Press Conference

I recently (18 January 2026) published an article in the Zeitschrift für Chinesisches Recht/German Journal of Chinese Law entitled “Decoding China’s Sixth Five-Year Judicial Reform Plan.” The article can be downloaded from the journal website here and directly downloaded here or from the SSRN website.

 Many thanks to Benjamin Pissler and Holger Hanisch of the journal for their efficient and thoughtful editing. Special thanks to Maximus Sandler for his help with the references and Hu Changming (胡昌明) for his perceptive comments on earlier drafts of the article.

Wishing all followers and readers a very good year of the Horse! 马年吉祥！

 

foreign-related rule of law, international commercial court

China’s International Commercial Court Network: A Work in Progress

Leave a comment

I was honored to be invited by the New York University School of Law’s U.S. Asia Law Institute to contribute a short essay to the Institute’s Perspectives blog, entitled China’s International Commercial Court Network: A Work in Progress. 

 Many thanks to Katherine Wilhelm for her skillful editing!  The essay would not have been possible without the hard work of Sun Jinping (孙金苹) (Elsa), one of my Peking University School of Transnational Law students, who reviewed information related to all 16 international commercial tribunals and assembled this chart. On 4 February, the Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court announced that the Guangzhou international commercial tribunal had been established, so the total number of international commercial tribunals now stands at 17. Thanks also to several highly knowledgeable people who contributed their insights.

 

CICC, Maritime courts, mediation

Mediation and Other Policy Signaling in the China International Commercial Court

Leave a comment

Joint press conference announcing the 2026 joint SPC/Ministry of Transportation document & typical cases

In June 2025  the China International Commercial Court (CICC)  mediated a case brought by a Swiss company against several Chinese companies. Two months later, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) published it as a typical case. This case itself merits more attention than it has received thus far because of the facts of the case and the differing signals it sends to the domestic and foreign audience.  It also implicitly draws attention to two newly prominent priorities of the CICC and the SPC in foreign-related commercial cases–mediation and resolving the substance of disputes (实质性化解矛盾纠纷). It also shows how the SPC (including the CICC)  implements its “judicial responsibility to foster a first-class business environment characterized by market orientation, rule of law and internationalization.”

Facts of the case

According to information released by the SPC in June, 2025, the CICC has mediated approximately 20% of its cases, so resolving this case through mediation is typical.  As a mediation settlement, the original documents are not available on the CICC website, but some of the facts are set out in the “basic facts “(基本案情) section of the August, 2025 typical case.

The case involves liability for liquidation,  in this case related to a foreign arbitral award.  This press report states that liquidation liability cases have been increasing in recent years. A Swiss company was successful in London Metal Exchange arbitrations against a Shenzhen trading company and apparently sought to enforce the awards totaling over US $10 million in the Shenzhen courts.  However, a shareholder of Shenzhen trading company, a Henan Trading Company and the general manager of the Shenzhen trading company (one assumes related to the Henan company) deregistered the Shenzhen trading company without informing the Swiss company (which appears to be some type of fraud), following which the Swiss company filed suit in the CICC against the the  Henan Trading Company, that company’s parent, a Henan Coal-Fired Power Company, and others, demanding the Henan Trading Company pay the debts owing under the arbitration awards and the parent company be jointly and severally liable.

The five judge panel, headed by  Shen Hongyu, Chief Judge of the #4 Civil Division, used the pre-trial meeting procedure to identify the core issues through evidence exchange and came up with a settlement plan after multiple discussions with the parties.  It appears that for the Chinese parties, a major stumbling block was foreign exchange risks. The court organized a hearing of the case in court to engage in final mediation arrangements and sign the settlement agreement, with the Chinese parties performing the settlement agreement within a week.

Differing signals

This case sends two different signals to the domestic and foreign audience. On the one hand, it sends a signal to other Chinese parties about their legal obligations under the law and legally valid arbitration agreements, and on the other hand, illustrates to the foreign legal and business community the pro-arbitration stance of the SPC by upholding the ability of the foreign award creditor to recover against the shareholder (and shareholder’s parent) of the liquidated award debtor, with mediation an option that best enables voluntary and prompt recovery.  The case also demonstrates the strategic use foreign parties can make of the CICC. It shows that the CICC is fulfilling its judicial responsibility to “foster a first-class business environment characterized by market orientation, rule of law and internationalization” in its cases.

  Mediation

As to mediation in this case, the Chinese media and typical case reports have stated that the CICC “has consistently integrated mediation, an “Eastern experience,” into its case handling and has introduced measures to support mediation” (一直坚持将调解这项“东方经验”融于办案，并推出支持调解的举措).  This understates the subtle role of the CICC in mediating the case and accelerating internal (state-owned) company approvals for paying significant amounts of foreign currency abroad. This outcome was advantageous to the foreign award creditor because it better assured it would received what was owing under the arbitral awards.  With CICC holding the settlement signing at the court hearing and issuing documents to the parties immediately, it assured the foreign party of prompt payment.

More broadly, it signals that the SPC mediation policy extends to foreign-related commercial cases.  Documents and typical cases issued in 2025 and January, 2026 include:

  1. Opinions of the General Office of the Supreme People’s Court and the General Office of the Ministry of Transport on Promoting the Construction of “One-Stop” Dispute Resolution Centers on Waterways最高人民法院办公厅、交通运输部办公厅关于推进水上“一站式”解纷中心建设的意见 and the related typical Cases of one-stop dispute resolution on the water (水上“一站式”解纷典型案例) (see the photo above of the press conference);
  2. Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Advancing the High-Quality Development of International Commercial Courts to Serve and Safeguard a High Level of Opening Up (最高人民法院关于推进国际商事法庭高质量发展　服务保障高水平对外开放的意见), which contains a provision promoting mediation (as will be highlighted in one of my forthcoming articles;
  3. First Group of  Typical Cases Involving Foreign Commercial and Maritime Mediation Issued by the Supreme People’s Court  (最高法发布首批涉外商事海事调解典型案例;
  4. Second Group of Typical Cases Involving Foreign Commercial and Maritime Mediation (最高法发布第二批涉外商事海事调解典型案例), one of which is the CICC case.

Resolving the substance of disputes

Resolving the substance of disputes has been an SPC policy for some time, as illustrated in recent typical cases and many SPC documents and reports, such as:

  1. the SPC’s report on administrative litigation work;
  2. Guiding Opinions on Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Trial Work and Promoting the Substantial Resolution of Contradictions and Disputes （关于在审判工作中促进提质增效 推动实质性化解矛盾纠纷的指导意见;
  3. the 3+N Mechanism for resolving administrative disputes, mentioned in the SPC’s report.

The typical case stresses the importance of actually resolving disputes by using the phrase (定分止争) (one of the SPC’s top keywords of 2024) several times.  That phrase is derived from Xi Jinping guidance,  and according to this, from originally from Legalist thought.

Concluding Comment

For those monitoring the evolution of the CICC, this case also illustrates the way that the CICC implements SPC current policy in an understated way.

administrative cases, Answers Database, case database, socialist core values

2025 Year-End Supreme People’s Court Typical Cases

Leave a comment

Press conference announcing the joint SPC & SPP administrative public interest litigation typical cases

The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued or participated in issuing close to two dozen groups of typical cases from the beginning of November to the end of December, 2025.

These typical cases reflect the latest policies promoted by the SPC and  President Zhang Jun (张军)’s preference for conveying judicial policy through typical cases.

Shortly after taking office, President Zhang Jun made his new policy explicit:

compared with [edited] cases , judicial interpretations and normative documents take a relatively long time to formulate. For new situations and problems that arise in the economy and society, if typical cases can be issued in a timely manner, and after soliciting opinions from relevant departments, judgments can be made and published in accordance with the law, the content will be more accessible and easier to understand, and the normative and guiding effects will be better.  与案例相比，司法解释、规范性文件的制定时间相对较长；对于经济社会中出现的新情况新问题，如果能及时发现典型案例，征求相关部门意见后依法作出裁判、发布出去，内容更通俗易懂，规范和引领效果也会更好。

Conveying policy through typical cases is also consistent with the guidance of General Secretary Xi Jinping, who has stressed that “one case is better than a dozen documents (习近平总书记强调， “一个案例胜过一打文件”).  Each group represents an accomplishment for the division, bureau, or office that reviewed and edited (compiled) the cases and, in some cases, negotiated with other institutions to select cases that meet the needs of multiple institutions.   This post highlights some of the trends visible in these latest typical cases, but first provides a Chinese case law system refresher.

1993 collection of SPC Gazette typical cases & judicial interpretations

Quick Chinese case law system refresher

Typical cases are part of the SPC’s dynamic case guidance system. I am including a brief overview of the dynamic Chinese case law system to clarify the role of typical cases, as these two recent articles suggest confusion among journalists, and some of my own students have difficulty understanding the system.   I use the term “dynamic” because the elements of the case guidance system have changed under SPC President Zhang Jun 张军. My sense is that SPC judges in different substantive areas place different emphasis on case guidance as tools in their guidance toolbox, but that is a discussion for a different day and forum.

  1. The most persuasive type of cases in the case guidance system are guiding cases (指导性案例),  which have been approved by the SPC judicial (adjudication) committee.  Former Judge Guo Feng  described guiding cases here as “of  [an] authoritative, normative, exemplary, and uniformly applicable nature. They are de facto binding. The compilation of GCs has specific standards and standardized procedures and needs to meet requirements for high quality….Where a case being adjudicated is, in terms of the basic facts and application of law, similar to a Guiding Case released by the Supreme People’s Court, the court should refer to the “Main Points of the Adjudication” of the relevant Guiding Case in its ruling or judgment.” Judge Guo provides an authoritative explanation of the meaning of “refers to” and related issues in the same article linked above.  This earlier blogpost summarizes the 2020 SPC guidance on similar case search.
  2. The second most authoritative type of case is the reference case (参考案例).   As I wrote here, “reference cases” are a new type of edited case published in the People’s Court Case Database（人民法院案例库), which launched in early 2024.  The principal drafters of the People’s Court Case Database Work Procedures clarified in an authoritative article that “reference cases”  are “a new type of edited case created by the Case Database system. Their effectiveness is higher than other cases except for guiding cases.”  As of 23 December 2025, the  People’s Court Case Database contains 5216 reference cases.  My earlier post explains the selection process.
  3. Another type of guidance, which some SPC media describe as part of the case database system, is the Court Answers Platform, also translated as the “Judicial Q & A Platform,” which I analyzed in the earlier post.  The official intent, as evidenced in this article in SPC media, is for the People’s Court Database and the Court Answers Platform to be an integrated guidance product. This goal was mentioned in the SPC’s report to the NPC, as well as the latest court reform plan (about which I have a short article on its way to publication).
  4. The type of case guidance with the longest history is the typical (典型 model/exemplary/example) case. Typical cases too, are edited cases and are therefore “compiled.” The SPC Gazette started publishing typical cases in 1985, but I have earlier typical cases in other SPC publications in my research archives.
    As I wrote here, the SPC’s Gazette cases are generally considered to be the most authoritative of the typical cases, but there is no authoritative guidance on the definition or hierarchy of typical cases.  I have more details on typical cases in that article. Typical cases are considered to guide the lower courts as a form of case guidance and policy signaling.  Therefore, Chinese lawyers and in-house counsel also pay attention to typical cases. Typical cases are also used as a form of public legal education (普法, see here and here).
  5.  I am not further discussing the authoritativeness of judgments or rulings, but see my earlier discussion.

The rules derived from these cases are not static.  Provisions from typical cases may be incorporated into meeting minutes (conference summaries 会议纪要), for example,  while on 30 December 2025, the SPC issued a judicial interpretation that drew on questions raised on the Court Answers Platform. It is not unusual for provisions from guiding cases or judicial interpretations to be incorporated into legislation.

Overview of Recent Typical Cases

What the SPC has issued in the last two months of 2025 are typical cases (典型案例). The SPC issued several groups of typical cases with the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP), which serve to harmonize views on specific issues between the two institutions and sometimes with multiple institutions.  The SPC issued several with regulatory/administrative institutions, reflecting a policy trend of recent years. President Zhang Jun highlighted this policy in his 2024 specialized report to the NPC Standing Committee on administrative litigation (I have a draft article that touches on this policy trend).  This year’s year-end typical cases include several groups with the Women’s Federation and one group with the All-China Federation of Trade Unions.

Some groups of cases promote mediation (phrased as promoting the Fengqiao Experience 枫桥经验). (For those with the time to read academic articles, a recent article by Professor Benjamin Liebman and Liu Zeming has an extended discussion of this.

Some typical cases of note:

  1. A group of domestic violence cases 最高法发布2025年中国反家暴典型案例.  Jeremy Daum’s (Yale Law School’s Paul Tsai China Center/Chinalawtranslate.com) analysis of those cases is found here. He said “the release shows a generally positive direction, and was interesting in that the cases were presented as showing compliance with international legal norms.”

2.  Fourth Group of  Civil Cases That Embody Socialist Core Values 最高人民法院发布5起第四批人民法院大力弘扬社会主义核心价值观典型民事案例  These cases appear to be aimed at educating the general public and providing some guidance for less experienced judges on how socialist core values can be applied. Among the cases are: two cases involving employers: a workplace sexual harassment case and an employer that withdrew a job offer after the candidate accepted it and had provided evidence of terminating his previous job; a slip and fall case brought by someone who focused on his phone rather than his step.  The SPC issuing a typical case conveying that workplace sexual harassment is a violation of socialist core values is particularly significant.

For those with a greater interest in socialist core values and court judgments, I wrote a quick summary of the related SPC guiding opinion here and commented that “it can be seen as a part of the ‘socialist core valueization’ of Chinese law and the legal system, and in particular, the judiciary. It is one important piece of how the judiciary is being further transformed in the Xi Jinping era.” A 2024 student note by Liu Zeming in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law argues that through the project of integrating socialist core values into judgments,  the Party-state is effectively imposing a new conception of what Chinese law is.

3. Typical cases of application of model texts (third batch) (最高法发布示范文本应用典型案例（第三批）). These cases provide examples to the lower courts and public of how courts are using model texts (court forms), a project involving cooperation between the SPC,  Ministry of Justice, and All China Lawyers Association.  Bilingual versions of those forms are behind lawinfoChina.com’s paywall and Chinese versions are available in many places, such as here.    That link leads to a downloadable 900+ page document with the accompanying multi-institutional document and the court forms. The typical cases promote the use of those court forms. An experienced senior judge whom I contacted commented that “these forms are useful for some types of cases, such as traffic accident cases.”

4.  The SPC issued several groups of typical cases with the SPP. The two institutions issued a third group of administrative public interest cases 两高”联合发布第三批行政公益诉讼典型案例 .  The SPC contributed to the drafting of the procuratorate-led public interest litigation law.  Many of the cases involved a local procuracy providing a procuratorial suggestion to an administrative agency to enforce a provision of the law and filing suit when the suggestion was not taken seriously. One of the cases involved a county human resources bureau that did not properly supervise listings on a bureau-sponsored job platform, several of which restricted jobs to men only.  Another group of SPC and SPP typical cases involves corruption cases related to ordinary people (最高人民法院 最高人民检察院联合发布依法惩治群众身边腐败犯罪典型案例).  The cases involve embezzlement, fraud, and misappropriation of funds related to school meals, elderly and disabled person services, medical insurance, etc.  Another group focuses on job-related crimes in the financial sector (最高人民法院、最高人民检察院联合发布依法惩治金融领域职务犯罪典型案例), with cases of corrupt financial regulators and bankers.  The case descriptions provide insights into the many ways corruption can be performed. The fourth group relates to the courts and procuratorate joining forces to substantively resolve administrative disputes, also a policy promoted in recent years.   法检合力法治化实质性化解行政争议典型案例.

4. Typical cases with regulators include: cases with the National Financial Regulatory Administration promoting diversified dispute resolution (particularly mediation) 国家金融监督管理总局; typical cases with the National 最高人民法院联合发布金融领域纠纷多元化解典型案例 and the State Administration of Cultural Heritage 最高人民法院、国家文物局联合发布依法推进文物保护典型案例

5. The SPC issued typical cases with the Women’s Federation as well as with the Women’s Association plus other institutions.  All of these cases relate to women, children, and families. One group of typical cases with the Women’s Federation involving judicial assistance to minors (最高法、全国妇联联合发布保护未成年人权益司法救助典型案例).  The two institutions have jointly issued typical cases several years in a row, previously in time to coincide with Children’s Day. This year, two of the cases involved providing psychological services to the affected minors,  and all involved courts providing financial and other arrangements for minors who lost one or both parents.  It provides a glimpse into the difficulties faced by orphans, particularly in rural areas. The SPC, SPP, Women’s Federation, and Ministry of Justice issued the top 10 cases protecting women’s and children’s rights   Another group of typical cases with the Women’s Federation and Ministry of Justice promotes mediation in family disputes (最高人民法院与全国妇联、司法部联合发布婚姻家庭纠纷调解工作典型案例

6. The SPC issued two groups of typical cases promoting the protection of private enterprise, including one group on private enterprise property rights and retrial cases involving the protection of the rights of private entrepreneurs 最高法发布涉民营企业产权和民营企业家权益保护再审典型案例. Almost 10 years ago, I wrote about a document conveying many of the same points as these typical cases.  Unfortunately, it appears that protecting the rights of private entrepreneurs is an “evergreen” issue for the Chinese courts.

7.  Several groups of typical cases involve labor issues: one involving the evergreen issue of wage arrears of migrant workers (最高人民法院发布人民法院治理欠薪典型执行案例); another issued with the SPP and the All-China Federation of Trade Unions  on using “one letter and two documents”  to protect workers rights (最高法会同全国总工会、最高检联合发布 2025年劳动法律监督“一函两书”典型案例).

  Concluding comment

The primary purpose of these typical cases appears to vary, but all signal “people-centered.”  For the person with patience to wade through the initial political framing, they provide slivers of insight into current judicial policy,  and persistent issues in society, the operation of the judicial system.

The SPC also intends these typical cases to evidence that the SPC is implementing the Opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Strengthening Trial Work in the New Era  中共中央关于加强新时代审判工作的意见, the 2025 Party document guiding the work of the courts, which President Zhang Jun has described as “the major political task for the courts at present and the foreseeable future.”

______________________________________

Many thanks to Yuan Ye, PKU doctoral student, for his comments on this post.  This year, I will continue to focus on writing longer articles and trust that some of the articles stuck in the pipeline will see the light of day.  One hope I have for my own work is that I am able to spend some time inside the SPC, although I am doubtful that it will ever be possible in my lifetime.

arbitration, Arrangements

Supreme People’s Court’s 2024 Judicial Review of Arbitration Annual Report

Leave a comment

On December 28, 2025, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued its 2024 annual report on judicial review of commercial arbitration.   I am attaching the report in both PDF and its original Word format to enable readers outside to download the report easily.  The report includes 16 typical cases (典型案例). This report is Chinese only, and an English version is likely to be forthcoming.

The Chinese courts accepted 19422  judicial review of arbitration cases in 2024,  the vast majority of which were domestic.  Only 121 of those cases involved awards from outside China.  Most of those cases were applications to set aside arbitral awards (11576) ,  5768 cases were applications to confirm the validity of an arbitration agreement.

The number of cases reported to the SPC under its prior reporting system was 28, while 2023 was 29.  Of that number, three were Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan awards, while two were foreign awards.

For anyone interested in the role of the SPC in legislation (as I wrote about in my article on how the SPC supports the development of foreign-related rule of law (long/short version), the report mentions that in 2024, the SPC was deeply involved in the work to amend the Arbitration Law (2024年，最高人民法院深度参与《中华人民共和国仲裁法》（以下简称《仲裁法》）立法修订工作).

There is a great deal of interesting information for practitioners and academics, but competing obligations do not permit me to analyze the report in detail at this point.

case database, foreign-related cases, foreign-related rule of law, Maritime courts

Supreme People’s Court’s 2022-2024 Maritime Litigation Report

Leave a comment
Excerpt from the report. It does not clarify why the SPC accepted larger numbers of maritime cases in 2023 and 2024.

On 18 December 2025, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued a bilingual report on maritime litigation. (The first link is to the webpage on the SPC’s official website from which the report can be downloaded by scanning a QR code. The second link is to a copy of the report downloadable from my website). The report provides insights for those interested in the latest developments concerning the multiple goals of the Chinese maritime courts.

Excerpts from the press release (in machine translation):

From 2022 to 2024, the three levels of maritime courts nationwide accepted 98,726 maritime cases of various types and concluded 97,140 cases. Among these, 71,705 were maritime and commercial cases, with 70,759 concluded; 5,477 were maritime administrative cases, with 5,482 concluded; 21,359 were maritime enforcement cases, with 20,706 concluded; and 185 were maritime criminal cases, with 193 concluded. Of these, 6,823 cases involved foreign parties, and 6,071 were concluded; 1,226 cases involved Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan, and 1,134 were concluded. The cases involved 143 countries and regions. Over the three years, the eleven maritime courts seized 2,592 vessels, including 49 foreign vessels and 6 vessels registered in Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan; and auctioned 1,376 vessels, including 13 foreign vessels and 2 vessels registered in Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan.

…[.W]e will promote the modernization of maritime trials and create a preferred location for resolving international maritime disputes. We will improve the domestic maritime rules system and cooperate with the legislative body [NPC and its Standing Committee] to revise laws and regulations such as the Maritime Law. From 2022 to 2024, we released 33 typical maritime cases and 7 special guiding cases on maritime trials, and added 138 maritime cases to the People’s Court case database [人民法院案例库]. We actively participated in the formulation of international rules; the Beijing Convention on Judicial Sale of Ships was successfully signed, and the Convention on Transferable Documents of Goods is progressing in an orderly manner. We will improve the “one-stop” diversified dispute resolution mechanism for foreign-related maritime disputes, effectively enhancing the attractiveness of international maritime dispute resolution. We will strengthen the goal-oriented approach of substantively resolving conflicts and disputes, and adhere to the principles of “as if I were in litigation” and “settling disputes.” We will improve institutional mechanisms, strengthen talent training, and comprehensively improve the quality and efficiency of trials.

These excerpts illustrate some of the themes in my 2024 article, posts on this blog, and my presentations on the SPC and foreign-related rule of law:

  • the policy goal of making China a preferred location for resolving international [maritime] disputes;
  • the primarily domestic caseload of the maritime courts;
  • the SPC working closely with the National People’s Congress (SPC) in foreign-related rule of law-related areas;
  • although much is made of guiding cases in the academic world, it is apparent that the SPC uses typical cases and Case Database cases as preferred guidance tools;
  • the focus on substantively resolving disputes;
  • the SPC participating directly (or indirectly) in the drafting of international rules;
  • further developments related to the maritime courts hearing criminal cases (as highlighted in SPC documents from 2016);
  • although my article was finalized before sanctions-related cases became a focus of the foreign-related work of the Chinese courts, note that the report mentions several sanctions-related cases.

Some have asked about the status of reports such as this. My understanding is that this report is an official statement of the SPC, reflecting its current policies. It must have been internally approved at a senior level, but as a report, it has no legal effect.

arbitration, judicial interpretations

The Amended Arbitration Law and the Supreme People’s Court

Leave a comment
Press conference on the amended Arbitration Law, Judge Shen, second from left

Those involved in Chinese dispute resolution in any way know that the role of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) in advancing arbitration in China is crucial and irreplaceable. The question on many people’s minds is –what will the SPC do to support the recently amended Arbitration Law?

So I will summarize what is known about the SPC’s next steps in ensuring a smooth transition from the old to the new Arbitration Law and supplement that with some of my own predictions.

What do we know? There have been substantial changes to the Arbitration Law, some of which will have an impact on the courts. Chief Judge of the SPC’s #4 Civil Division Shen Hongyu (沈红雨) told a Ministry of Justice press conference that:

The Supreme People’s Court will conduct thorough research, widely solicit opinions from all sectors, and with the strong support of the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress and the Ministry of Justice, comprehensively review existing judicial interpretations and normative documents related to the Arbitration Law to ensure the drafting and formulation of supporting judicial interpretations for the newly revised Arbitration Law, guaranteeing that the revised content of the Arbitration Law is effectively implemented in judicial practice. (最高人民法院将认真调研、广泛听取各界意见，在全面梳理既有仲裁法相关司法解释和规范性文件的基础上，在全国人大法工委、司法部的大力支持下，做好新修订仲裁法配套司法解释的起草制定工作，确保仲裁法修订内容在司法实践中落地落细。)

Judge Shen said a great deal in this one very long sentence. The “thorough research” will involve combing through hundreds of pages of judicial interpretations and other judicial documents linked to the Arbitration Law, relevant sections of the Civil Procedure Law, and its judicial interpretation, plus the current draft interpretation of the foreign-related part.

The work involved, which will be invisible to those of us outside the SPC, will be to determine which interpretations or documents remain valid in whole or in part. If interpretations or documents are partially valid, do they need to be amended to conform to the amended Arbitration Law? Will a transitional document be necessary so that lower court judges (and SPC judges) will be ready to apply the amended law? I expect so, because the changes are significant and lower court judges need to have a reference document to hand so that they can efficiently handle arbitration-related matters, whether they are requests from arbitral tribunals to assist in collecting evidence, or judicial review of arbitration.

My best guess is that the SPC will issue a transitional document or documents in the run-up to March 1, 2026, when the Arbitration Law becomes effective, likely amending previous judicial interpretations or documents to be consistent with the new law and deleting inconsistent provisions, plus a document that clearly sets out the new arrangements, so that lower courts will be well prepared. I further surmise that the SPC will use much of 2026 to design a new comprehensive judicial interpretation to incorporate many of the provisions in the old ones. This is more complicated than it seems.

A new judicial interpretation will touch upon substantive and procedural issues. Some of those procedural issues need to draw on the specialized competence of other specialized institutions within the SPC, such as the case-filing division (tribunal) and the enforcement bureau. In the press conference mentioned above, Judge Shen flagged some of the important issues, such as:

  1. The concept of “the seat” in arbitration
  2. Judicial review of special arbitration (ad hoc arbitration);
  3. Arbitration service of process
  4. Arbitration preservative measures;
  5. Arbitration preservation system
    Those other specialized institutions will need to consider whether any of the new measures in the Arbitration Law require measures related to their work, such as case filing or enforcement procedures. Once their input is received, the institutions that Judge Shen mentioned earlier— the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (Legislative Affairs Commission 法工委) and the Ministry of Justice will review that comprehensive draft carefully. The Ministry of Justice and the Legislative Affairs Commission are sure to give detailed comments for the SPC to consider. The SPC will want to make sure that each provision is operable in practice before it is released. The procedure for drafting such an interpretation is time-consuming and as is said in the law firm world, “requires attention to detail.”

_________________________________________________________________

This post is a slightly revised version of a speech I gave on November 12, 2025, at the opening of the Beijing Arbitration Commission’s Hong Kong Center. My apologies for the long gap between posts.

administrative law, BRI, Case law, foreign-related cases, international commercial court, judicial documents, judicial interpretations

Supreme People’s Court Biweekly Developments: September 2025

Leave a comment

This post highlights judicial interpretations, policy documents, and guiding or typical cases issued since the middle of September (2025).

  1. Judicial interpretations and policy or other judicial documents

For an explanation of judicial interpretations, see this post; for an explanation of policy documents, see these posts or my 2024 article.

 

Title Type Analysis
Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on Some Issues Related to the Application of the PRC Company Law《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国公司法〉若干问题的解释（征求意见稿）》, issued evening of 30 September, open for comment until 20 October Judicial interpretation (draft) Draft interpretation has 90 articles, not yet aware of translation or analysis in English.  SPC has “already engaged in extensive preliminary research and preliminary consultation with experts, scholars, and relevant departments.”  Provisions include ones related to liquidation and dissolution of companies; disregarding legal personality of related companies; 10 draft provisions related to listed companies, including VAM agreements.  This article comments on the General Provisions, more to come.
Opinions On Promoting the High-Quality Development of the International Commercial Court
and Serving and Ensuring High-Level Opening Up, Issued 25 September (关于推进国际商事法庭高质量发展
服务保障高水平对外开放的意见) link is to text & press release		 Policy document

Also known as a “judicial document” ( 司法文件) or “judicial normative

document” (司法规范性文件), “judicial

policy document” or “judicial regulatory documents” 司法政策性文件).

 Not yet aware of analysis in English, see quasi-official analysis on the WeChat public account of the SPC’s #4 Civil Division. My own analysis is forthcoming. Provisions include promoting the use of international commercial courts; standardizing translations; further provisions on parallel proceedings; etc.  China Daily report here
Notice on Issuing Matters Concerning the Jurisdiction of First-Instance Civil and Administrative Intellectual Property Cases by Basic-Level People’s Courts 最高人民法院
关于印发基层人民法院管辖第一审知识产权民事、行政案件有关事项的通知In effect from 1 October		 Judicial normative document Not yet aware of analysis in English; the notice designates courts to hear civil and administrative intellectual property cases in the first instance. Note that many courts have limited jurisdiction in civil cases, depending on the amount in dispute. This could be seen as an assessment of the quality of that court. Shanghai and Beijing courts do not have amount in dispute limitations
 

Title Type Analysis
Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on Some Issues Related to the Application of the PRC Company Law《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国公司法〉若干问题的解释（征求意见稿）》, issued evening of 30 September, open for comment until 20 October Judicial interpretation (draft) Draft interpretation has 90 articles, not yet aware of translation or analysis in English.  SPC has “already engaged in extensive preliminary research and preliminary consultation with experts, scholars, and relevant departments.”  Provisions include ones related to liquidation and dissolution of companies; disregarding legal personality of related companies; 10 draft provisions related to listed companies, including VAM agreements
On Promoting the High-Quality Development of the International Commercial Court
Opinions on Serving and Ensuring High-Level Opening UpIssued 25 September (关于推进国际商事法庭高质量发展
服务保障高水平对外开放的意见) link is to text & press release		 Policy document

Also known as a “judicial document” ( 司法文件) or “judicial normative

document” (司法规范性文件), “judicial

policy document” or “judicial regulatory documents” 司法政策性文件).

 Not yet aware of analysis in English, see quasi-official analysis on the WeChat public account of the SPC’s #4 Civil Division. My own analysis is forthcoming. Provisions include promoting the use of international commercial courts; standardizing translations; further provisions on parallel proceedings; etc.  China Daily report here
Notice on Issuing Matters Concerning the Jurisdiction of First-Instance Civil and Administrative Intellectual Property Cases by Basic-Level People’s Courts 最高人民法院
关于印发基层人民法院管辖第一审知识产权民事、行政案件有关事项的通知In effect from 1 October		 Judicial normative document Not yet aware of analysis in English; the notice designates courts to hear civil and administrative intellectual property cases in the first instance

2.  Typical (典型 example, exemplary, model) cases

For an explanation of typical (model, exemplary, example) cases, see these posts.

Title Type Analysis
Ninth Batch of Cases on the Construction of People’s Tribunals in the New Era (2)新时代人民法庭建设案例（九） Typical cases Subtitle is “Building Fengqiao-style People’s Courts and Strengthening the Guidance of Professional and Industry-Specific Mediation Functions”—related to resolving enterprise-related and labor-related disputes [providing insights into SPC policies on the role of the local courts]
The Supreme People’s Court and the Ministry of Justice jointly issued typical cases on standardizing enterprise-related law enforcement, judicial administrative reconsideration, and administrative litigation最高人民法院、司法部联合发布规范涉企执法司法行政复议、行政诉讼典型案例 Typical cases Cases have multiple targets: promoting the  “Private Economy Promotion Law”, special actions to standardize administrative law enforcement and judicial work involving enterprises, administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation in serving high quality economic and social development
Fifth batch of typical cases involving the construction of the “Belt and Road”第五批涉“一带一路”建设典型案例 Typical cases See my earlier comments on Belt & Road typical cases; SPC states its hope that the cases not only provide exemplary guidance for the Chinese courts, but also provide regulatory guidance for the joint construction of the Belt and Road Initiative with the wisdom of Chinese judicial practice, injecting new legal momentum into promoting a fairer, more open, and more inclusive new international economic order; my own commentary forthcoming

________________________________

I’m focusing on preparing a long article for publication and several other long writing projects, therefore this abbreviated post.

About Me, Website, Wechat

Professor Jerome Cohen

3 Comments

I first met Jerry Cohen  (then Professor Cohen to me!) when I was 20 years old.  At the time, I was a Yale College senior, when “dinosaurs roamed the earth” (1975).  He helped to arrange for me to study Chinese in Taiwan during my last semester of college.  It was then impossible for me to study in Beijing. When I studied at Harvard Law School, I had the good fortune to take all his courses, attend East Asian Legal Studies lunch-time talks, and be a member of the East Asian Legal Studies group.   Many of my then fellow students are my good friends these many years later!   I believe he was responsible for my being a research fellow at the East Asian Legal Studies Center from September 1987 to November 1988.

I am one of his (many) students whose lives he changed–among those were enabling my move to Hong Kong, providing recommendations, supporting my blog, and encouraging my work on the Supreme People’s Court.

The English-reading world seems less aware of the tributes to Jerry in Chinese social media, so I’ll bring attention to some of the articles that have been published on WeChat:
Author Article
this article is a translated excerpt from his memoirs (by Chen Yu-Jie); 逝者｜孔杰荣：改革开放初期中外法律交流亲历记 (Those Who Have Passed: Kong Jierong: A Personal Account of Sino-Foreign Legal Exchange in the Early Years of Reform and Opening Up

 

 
 Li Qi (李骐), Partner of  JunHe 我所认识的科恩教授 (The Professor Cohen  I Knew)

 

 
Yu Ping （虞平） introduction to 法治流變及制度構建：兩岸法律四十年之發展：孔傑榮教授九秩祝壽文集. 缅怀 | 孔杰荣：冰心玉壶，德范长存 (In Memory of Kong Jierong: A Heart as Pure as Ice and a Jade Pot, His Moral Model Lasts Forever

)

 
Xu Xin (徐昕）the prominent defense counsel 纪念柯恩教授 (In Memory of Professor Cohen)
Peking University Law School Professor Zhang Qianfan (张千帆) 沉舟｜中国法治的“不老松”——追忆孔杰荣教授

(originally published in FT Chinese), translation available here
 Fudan University Professor Gao Lingyun （高凌云） 有些人注定不普通——怀念科恩老师
 Liu Guiming (editor in chief of the magazine Democracy and Legal System 民主与法制 刘桂明：这位美国教授，为何往返中国几百次 (Liu Guiming: Why did this American professor travel to and from China hundreds of times?)

 

 
China-America Law Review (student-led translation team) Translation of NYU obituary, 中文翻译首发 | 缅怀柯恩：第一位在北京执业的西方律师

 
Chen Hongyi (Albert Chen), Fu Hualing, and Huang Yue (Andrew Huang)) 陈弘毅 傅华伶 黄岳｜孔杰荣教授回忆篇（一）

(Chen Hongyi, Fu Hualing, Huang Yue | Professor Kong Jierong’s Memoirs (Part 1)

)

 

Lawyers and scholars have also posted tributes to him, while those within the System remember his good deeds privately.

斯人已逝，风范长存.  He still lives on earth in the acts of goodness he performed and in the hearts and lives of those who cherish his memory.

Judicial interpretation

2025 Labor Dispute Interpretation II and the Work of the Supreme People’s Court

2 Comments

Labor Dispute Interpretation II press conference

The August (2025) Supreme People’s Court (SPC) Judicial Interpretation on Labor Dispute Cases (II)  (Labor Dispute Interpretation II 最高人民法院关于审理劳动争议案件适用法律问题的解释（二) is one of the few SPC judicial interpretations to attract significant public and press attention in and out of China.  As the institution’s usual practice, the SPC also released a set of typical cases.  Rather than duplicate commentary on the substance of the judicial interpretation, which law firms and others are providing, this post focuses on three aspects of this interpretation that provide examples of the work and functioning of the SPC:

  • the link between Labor Dispute Interpretation II and the harmonization of administrative and judicial standards;
  •  Labor Dispute Interpretation II and SPC support for the work of the National People’s Congress (Standing Committee);
  • the role of typical cases (典型案例) (also translated as exemplary or model or representative)

(Each is linked to my ongoing research.)

1.  The harmonization of administrative and judicial standards

During the press conference announcing Labor Dispute Interpretation II, #1 Civil Division Chief Judge Chen Yifang 陈宜芳stated:

在多次征求立法机关、行政机关、有关社会团体等意见，并向社会公开征求意见后，对基本达成共识的问题作出规定…(After repeatedly soliciting opinions from legislative bodies, administrative organs, relevant social groups, and publicly soliciting opinions from society, it [the SPC] has made stipulations for issues on which consensus has been basically reached)

This bureaucratic language needs decoding.  It means that the legal positions taken by the SPC in Labor Dispute Interpretation II represent not only the views of the SPC, but also the relevant institutions regulating labor matters.  What “soliciting opinions from legislative bodies (立法机关)” means is that the SPC drafters sought comments on their draft multiple times from institutions of the National People’s Congress  (NPC) Standing Committee.  The Legislative Work Committee must have been one of the institutions with which the SPC discussed the draft. It is possible that the NPC’s Social Affairs Development Committee also commented. Additionally, the SPC solicited opinions multiple times from administrative agencies (行政机关)-likely referring to the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security and I surmise other administrative organs, such as the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice.  “Relevant social groups” is likely to mean the All-China Federation of Trade Unions and the China Association for Small and Medium Enterprises.  If the #1 Civil Division publishes an “understanding and application” article on this interpretation, it will provide more details on the institutions that commented on this interpretation.

This also illustrates one of the principles underlying the SPC’s work on labor law issues, harmonizing administrative and judicial standards, as shown in several policy documents, such as the Opinions of the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security and the Supreme People’s Court on Strengthening the Building of a Mechanism of Connection between Arbitration and Litigation of Labor and Personnel Disputes  (人力资源社会保障部最高人民法院关于加强劳动人事争议仲裁与诉讼衔接机制建设的意见), which states “standards for application of law in [labor] arbitration and litigation shall be gradually unified” (逐步统一裁审法律适用标准).

It is also consistent with rules governing the drafting of judicial interpretations. Those require the SPC’s Research Office, which reviews drafts before they are submitted to the judicial (adjudication) committee for approval to review whether the draft  “has sufficiently and objectively reflected the major opinions of the parties concerned” （是否充分、客观反映有关方面的主要意见). ”

2.  SPC support for the work of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee

Labor Dispute Resolution II also indirectly illustrates a poorly understood aspect of the SPC’s work–supporting the work of the NPC (and its Standing Committee), including in the NPC’s law enforcement inspection work, which, as the NPC Observer has pointed out, is emphasizing integrating oversight with legislation.  The relevant legislation is the Social Insurance Law, which is now on the legislative agenda.

As could be surmised from the NPC Observer’s overview of NPC Standing Committee law enforcement inspections, it is normal practice for the SPC to report to NPC Standing Committee law enforcement inspection groups.   The one related to Labor Dispute Resolution II was revealed at the November 2024 meeting of the NPC Standing Committee,  when the agenda included the Report of the Law Enforcement Inspection Group of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress Regarding the Inspection of the Implementation of the Social Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China (全国人民代表大会常务委员会执法检查组关于检查《中华人民共和国社会保险法》实施情况的报告).  This report contained one sentence that touched on the SPC.  It stated that at the first meeting of the Law Enforcement Inspection Group, responsible comrades (officials) from the SPC and other relevant institutions reported on the implementation of the Social Insurance Law  (6月4日，执法检查组召开第一次全体会议，王东明副委员长作讲话，部署执法检查工作；人力资源社会保障部、财政部、税务总局、国家医保局、最高人民法院负责同志汇报社会保险法的实施情况).

When preparing Labor Dispute Interpretation II, the drafters would have been aware of the serious problems with implementing the Social Insurance Law.  Some observers anticipate that the provisions in Labor Dispute Interpretation II relating to social insurance signal positions that will be incorporated into amendments to the Social Insurance Law.  If so, that would provide another example of the codification in legislation of a provision in a judicial interpretation (as discussed in my 2024 article).

3. Typical Cases

The SPC often issues a set of typical cases to accompany a judicial interpretation, as highlighted in previous posts, but their role appears to be underappreciated.  Analysis of these cases can be found here and elsewhere. At the SPC’s press conference, following the phrase quoted above, Judge Chen Yifang 陈宜芳 said:

对争议较大的问题将继续加强调研，通过发布典型案例等方式指导司法实践 we will continue to strengthen research on controversial issues and guide judicial practice by publishing typical cases and other means.

This bureaucratic phrase can be decoded to provide additional insights about the work of the SPC.  The first part signals that certain unspecified issues were omitted from the final draft of the interpretation because they were “controversial,” meaning the SPC did not reach a consensus with other institutions on those topics. The second phrase illustrates that the SPC uses typical cases as one of its tools to guide the lower courts, including on “controversial issues.”

Conclusion

The first two aspects provide discrete examples of the nuanced relationships between the SPC and other institutions, particularly the NPC Standing Committee (the subject of one forthcoming article) and administrative agencies (the subject of another forthcoming article), while the third is another example of those nuanced relationships as well as the use the SPC makes of “typical cases” (典型案例).

_______________________________________

Many many thanks to Dr. Ren Rongqing (任容庆) of Meituan’s legal department (and former post-doc at the China Institute of Applied Jurisprudence of the SPC) for her insightful comments on several drafts of this blogpost! A second thank you is due to a highly knowledgeable commentator for his post-publication contribution.

 

Communist Party and the Courts, Court Operations, Court Reform

Judge He Fan’s (何帆) Book: Guide to Finding SPC Materials

Leave a comment

For those researching the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) and able to read Chinese, Judge He Fan’s 2023 book  (pictured above) 积厚成势——中国司法的制度逻辑 (“Accumulating Strength: The Institutional Logic of Chinese Judiciary”) provides insights available nowhere else, or at least nowhere accessible to most of us outside of the System.  The book, which focuses on the courts (小司法) has a unique background and the writing is unusual for an academic book, for reasons with special characteristics. For those interested in the perspective of domestic reviewers, please see here and here.

Judge He’s Tsinghua Class

The book, which focuses on the court system and judges, draws on the lectures Judge He gave when he taught the class “Chinese Judicial System and Judicial Reform” at Tsinghua University, from the fall of 2014 until the pandemic. His class had an ever-expanding number of students, although he taught it according to a schedule that fit his work schedule– eight four-hour-long sessions over one semester.

The book is divided into twelve lectures, plus an introduction and an afterword.  The afterward provides glimpses of some of the personalities involved in judicial reform. Most of the book focuses on the court system.

  • Lecture 1: How the People’s Court System was formed (pre-Cultural Revolution;
  • Lecture 2: Judicial Reform (Part 1): Force of the  times and historical stages
  • Lecture 3: Judicial Reform (Part 2) Political Logic and Decision-Making Mechanism;
  • Lecture 4: People’s Courts in the Political-Legal System
  • Lecture 5: State Organs of Power and the People’s Courts
  • Lecture 6:  Judicial Hierarchy and the Four Levels Two-Instance System
  • Lecture 7: Specialized Courts and Specialized Tribunals
  • Lecture 8: Trial Organization (1): sole judge, collegial panels, and (state) compensation committees
  • Lecture 9: Trial Organization (2) Judicial (Adjudication) Committees
  •  Lecture 10: Judicial power operation mechanism and the judicial accountability (responsibility) system
  • Lecture 11: Judges System (1): Judges Law and the Quota Judge System
  • Lecture 12: Judges System (2):  Selection of Judges and Career Progression

Selected New Insights

Judge He’s book provides many details that may change what most people outside of China understand about the operation of the SPC and its interactions with other institutions.  The apparently minor details also provide insights to those wanting to decode how the System works.

On the operation of the SPC, for example,  Judge He provides a detailed backstory to the Second Five-Year Judicial Reform Plan Outline, describing the interactions between the SPC and the Party hierarchy.  He states that from 2003, reform measures could no longer be determined by the courts (i.e. the SPC) or the procuratorate (i.e., the SPP) themselves.  Having established that point, he describes the major steps leading to the approval of the Second Five-Year Judicial Reform Plan Outline.

The framework approval was linked to an April, 2003  request for instructions from the Central Political-Legal Committee to the Party Center concerning the promotion of judicial reform. The following month, the Politburo decided to establish a central-level judicial reform leading small group (中央司法体制改革领导小组) to lead judicial reform measures, following which the SPC established the Judicial Reform Research Leading Small Group, headed by SPC President Xiao Yang. Confirming the facts in my earlier blogpost, that leading small group was later renamed the Judicial Reform Leading Small Group. In July, 2004, the Judicial Reform Research Leading Small Group (with SPC Party Group approval) submitted a proposal for judicial reform along with an implementing plan to the central judicial reform leading small group,  for the first time,  systematically describing their proposed reforms.  Those reforms were partially, but not entirely adopted because there was no consensus about some of them, plus a significant number touched on personnel (组织 organization) and administrative matters, but the related analysis was useful for later reforms.  Issues included: SPC regional branches; promoting death penalty approval; differentiated trial levels;  retrial litigation procedures; enforcement structural reforms; labor reeducation; specialized courts; cadre administration; and funding reforms.

At the end of 2004, the Party Center issued its approval of the central judicial reform leading group’s policy document on judicial reform, setting out 35 reform matters, on which basis the SPC issued the Second Five-Year Judicial Reform Plan.   The approval document issued by the Party Center had only some overlap with the SPC’s original proposal.  Judge He’s descriptions of the drafting of the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Five-Year Judicial Reform plans lack such details. It could be surmised that the SPC’s Judicial Reform  Office (linked to the leading small grouop) coordinated ahead of time with the Central Political-Legal Committee to ensure that such mismatches did not occur, but at any rate, those details remain confidential.

Why No Clear Argument?

The casual reader might be mystified as to why Judge He does not set out a clear argument about the institutional logic of China’s judicial system. It contrasts with the writings of Judge Richard Posner, some of whose books Judge He has translated into Chinese.  However, Judge Posner wrote his books when working in a very different system, which does not have such strict demands on writings by judges. I recall seeing relevant regulations that detail these requirements, but they escaped me when writing this post.

 

administrative cases, Arrangements, conference summary, foreign-related cases, Greater Bay Area, judicial interpretations, Maritime courts, Role of the Supreme People's Court

Benchbooks (Judicial Handbooks) for the New Era

Leave a comment

A recent message in the WeChat public account of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC)’s Administrative Division was devoted to promoting its new book,  Supreme People’s Court Administrative Litigation User’s Guide (Administrative Litigation User’s Guide (2nd edition), 最高人民法院行政诉讼实用手册), shown in the photo above.   Had the SPC’s #4 Civil Division had a WeChat public account last year when they published 涉外涉港澳台民商事审判业务手册( Foreign-Related, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan Related Commercial Trial Work Guide — “Foreign-Related Judicial Handbook”), I am sure that I would have received a similar message.  I had previously thought that judicial handbooks were a historical artifact of the days before electronic databases.   In my 1993 article, I discussed the phenomenon of judicial handbooks:

..A …problem is presented when the lack of consistency in issuance and authority makes it difficult for the lower courts to know when an interpretation is no longer valid…The [SPC] tries to cure these problems by issuing handbooks for adjudication in various subject areas….The Research Office and other divisions of the Court compile adjudication handbooks such as Sifa Shouce [司法手册] (Judicial Handbook), many of which are internal publications.

Some of those historical handbooks can be found in my research library of Supreme People’s Court publications–see here and below:

Two Administrative Litigation Judicial Handbooks and the second volume of the Judicial Handbook

Why would specific divisions of the SPC return to the practice of issuing judicial handbooks in printed form?  How does it link with the role of the SPC? What sources have the editors included, and what could students, scholars, and practitioners learn from that?

Official reasons for publishing these print books

The authors of the  Administrative Litigation User’s Guide describe the reasons for publishing the book as follows:

the Supreme People’s Court, on the one hand, provides professional guidance (业务指导) by formulating judicial policies 司法政策), issuing guiding cases, and making judicial replies (司法答复); on the other hand, it strengthens research and collects problems, and formulates judicial interpretations based on the accumulation and maturity of judicial practice. At present, the comprehensive judicial interpretation of the Administrative Litigation Law, the judicial interpretation of administrative agreements, and the judicial interpretation of the appearance of administrative agency heads in court to respond to lawsuits have been formulated and issued…, and there are more and more normative documents and guiding cases related to administrative litigation. In addition, with the increase in the number of administrative cases, more judges have joined the administrative trial team. In the process of gradually becoming familiar with administrative litigation, they urgently need to master the  relevant provisions that have been issued and learn the relevant guiding cases. However, judicial replies are internal in nature, with a large volume and lack of a unified release mechanism. The channels for obtaining them from the outside world are limited, which is time-consuming and laborious.

According to the announcement, the audience for the Administrative Litigation User’s Guide is staff in administrative agencies, judicial practitioners, and researchers of administrative law [students and academics].  The editors note that to provide readers with reference materials and to make the book more practical, they have included guiding cases, SPC Gazette Cases, and typical cases from the last 10 years.

The #4 Civil Division authors/editors say their handbook is urgently needed by front-line judges and as a reference book for judges, arbitrators, lawyers, and other practitioners, and, I would add, to students and scholars seeking to decode the foreign-related and Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan-related operations of China’s judiciary.

Legal basis for publishing these books

Publishing these books is linked to Article 10 of the Organic Law of the People’s Courts and related documents, which authorize the SPC to supervise and guide（监督指导) the lower courts.

Comments on the content

Both books contain judicial interpretations and a range of SPC guidance documents such as meeting minutes/conference summaries (会议纪要), notices, and replies to requests for instructions, signaling to the reader that they are important sources of reference for judges and that “soft law” may understate the way that meeting minutes are understood within the Chinese court system.

The authors/editors of the Foreign-Related Handbook included many other types of legal provisions they considered relevant for hearing cross-border cases, such as relevant national legislation, administrative regulations, such as foreign exchange regulations, Chinese versions of international commercial rules (Incoterms, ICC Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees (URDG 758), ISP 98) ), Hague Conventions to which China has acceeded,  and civil judicial assistance treaties, as well as some of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee decisions related to some of the international conventions.  The #4 Civil Division did not include guiding, typical cases, and other types of cases it issues for reference.  In my view, it was a practical decision that does not imply that those types of cases are irrelevant to judges hearing cross-border commercial cases, but rather that including cases would make the book too long to be published as a single volume.

Comment

The underlying rationale for publishing these judicial handbooks has not changed much in the past 30 years.  Judges responsible for processing cases efficiently and correctly face similar challenges:  sorting out the current legal position on an issue quickly despite the piecemeal way that the SPC develops the law, locating and assessing the validity of historical documents, easily identifying special arrangements, and for cross-border cases, understanding how to correctly implement international conventions, treaties and practices and correspondingly arrangements or related provisions concerning cases involving Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan parties.

One experienced senior judge in a local court noted that judges are often asked to rotate among divisions (tribunals) periodically.  Senior judges recommend that new joiners read these handbooks to familiarize themselves quickly with a different (and complicated) area of law.

From the left, the 2024 Foreign-Related Handbook, a 2013 Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan Related Judicial Handbook, and the 1992 Foreign, Hong Kong, Taiwan-Related Civil Matters predecessor volume

 

 

 

 

intellectual property, inter-ministerial joint conferences

 The Supreme People’s Court and the 2025 plan for Promoting the Building of a Powerful Intellectual Property Nation

Leave a comment

Meeting of the Inter-Ministerial Joint Committee at which the Plan was approved

On 7 May 2025, the  Office of the Inter-Ministerial Joint Conference for the Building of a Powerful Intellectual Property Nation ( Inter-Ministerial IP Office) issued this year’s plan (Chinese /English) for promoting the building of a powerful intellectual property nation. (Many thanks to Adam Wininger and his colleagues affiliated with the China IP Law blog for the English translation of the plan itself.) The Inter-Ministerial IP Office circulated the plan with the following notice:

Notice of the Office of the Inter-Ministerial Joint Conference for the Building of a Powerful Intellectual Property Nationon the Issuance of the 2025 Plan for Promoting the Building of a Powerful Intellectual Property Nation
(National Intellectual Property Joint Office [2025] No. 5)

To all member units of the Inter-Ministerial Joint Conference for the Building of a Powerful Intellectual Property Nation, the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission, the Cyberspace Administration of China, the State Administration of Taxation, the Financial Regulatory Administration, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, the National International Development Cooperation Agency, the State Administration of State Administration of State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, the National Medical Products Administration, the China Association for Science and Technology, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China:
With the approval of the Inter-Ministerial Joint Conference on Building a Powerful Intellectual Property Nation, the ” 2025 Intellectual Property Rights Promotion Plan ” is now issued. Please organize its implementation conscientiously.

Office of the Inter-Ministerial Joint Conference on Building an a Powerful Intellectual Property Nation
April 29, 2025

The issuance of this plan gives me an opportunity to revisit one aspect of formal interactions between the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) and other institutions that I discussed in this blog post in 2021–inter-ministerial joint conferences.  As I mentioned in the post, the intellectual property inter-ministerial joint conference system is quite transparent.  In contrast to other inter-ministerial joint conferences, it has its own website.  This brief post will highlight a few recent developments before analyzing what the plan means for the SPC.

Development #1–Since 2021, the membership of the joint conference has expanded and its name has changed, linked with the issuance of the Outline for Building a Powerful Intellectual Property Nation (2021-2035).  The Party Center and State Council approved the expansion of the joint conference to 29 members.  Previously, the State Council had approved the expansion of joint conference members.  Perhaps the Party Center (党中央) and State Council approved the notice together because several Party institutions are involved.  This notice on the establishment of the expanded joint conference is likely derived from the official approval, specifying that the joint conference’s responsibilities are to :

coordinate the national efforts to build a strong country in intellectual property rights, and organize the implementation of the strategy of building a strong country in intellectual property rights. Strengthen macro-guidance on the work of building a strong country in intellectual property rights; study major policies and guidelines for strengthening the building of a strong country in intellectual property rights, and formulate an annual promotion plan for the building of a strong country in intellectual property rights; guide, supervise, and inspect the implementation of relevant policies and measures, monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of work; coordinate and resolve major issues in the building of a strong country in intellectual property rights; and complete other matters assigned by the CPC Central Committee and the State Council.

The SPC is a member of the joint conference, which is convened by the head of the National Intellectual Property Administration and the person in charge of copyright work at the Central Propaganda (Publicity) Department. The approval provides that the joint conference has an office located in the National Intellectual Property Administration to administer the work of the Joint Conference.  The head of the National Intellectual Property Administration directs the office, with two deputies, one from that administration and the other from the Central Publicity Department.   Justice Tao Kaiyuan is the designated liaison person from the SPC.   My understanding is that normal liaison work occurs at the staff level, with some staff members of the SPC’s #3 Civil Division meeting with their counterparts at other member institutions to coordinate and promote policies as well as to establish related mechanisms, subject to relevant leadership approval. The plan provides insights into near-term developments in intellectual property law.

Implications for the SPC

The plan allocates 13 specific tasks to the SPC, among which are:

9. Promote the revision of relevant judicial interpretations of the Trademark Law and Copyright Law. (Supreme People’s Court is responsible);…

23. Explore and improve the intellectual property protection rules for new fields and new formats such as big data, artificial intelligence, and blockchain. Improve the intellectual property protection rules in the Internet field. (The Central Propaganda Department, the Central Cyberspace Affairs Commission, the Supreme People’s Court, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the State Administration for Market Regulation, and the National Intellectual Property Administration are responsible for their respective duties)
24. Accelerate the improvement of judicial judgment rules for intellectual property rights in new technologies, new fields, and new formats, and judgment rules for e-commerce platform competition cases, and explore judicial rules for big data competition protection. (Supreme People’s Court is responsible)…

II. Strengthen intellectual property protection
(I) Strengthen judicial protection of intellectual property
30. Issue the “Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Serving and Safeguarding Scientific and Technological Innovation with High-quality Trials” and publish typical cases. (The Supreme People’s Court is responsible) [mentioned in this post]
31. Improve the national level intellectual property case appeal mechanism and strengthen the construction of a professional trial system. (The Supreme People’s Court is responsible)
32. Adhere to strict protection, improve and fully implement the punitive compensation system for infringement. Strengthen the overall coordination of batch litigation and increase the crackdown on manufacturers and other sources of infringement. (The Supreme People’s Court is responsible)
33. Formulate the “Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Intellectual Property Rights Infringement”. (The Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate are responsible)….

I understand this document to have multiple implications for the SPC.  First, the matters for which the SPC listed are targets that the SPC has agreed with the other constituent institutions, after inter-institutional discussions and coordination at a staff level and related approval within the SPC.  Second, I surmise that the targets are binding on the SPC through inter-institutional agreement, as reported here.  Therefore, the ones that are listed in this document are on the work plan of the SPC for this year and will involve multiple institutions within the SPC.   Third, it can be seen that for some matters, the SPC is solely responsible, while for others, the SPC works with the SPP or multiple institutions.  Third, it is likely that the SPC will be involved in other matters in which the SPC is not listed as a responsible institution. One of many examples is item 45, “continue to strengthen the protection of seed industry intellectual property rights,” for which the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs is responsible. As I wrote in a recent post, the SPC has a memorandum of understanding with that ministry to improve the protection of seed intellectual property rights.  Finally, this document provides insights into the complex and poorly understood topic of inter-institutional arrangements in China, their operation, and the role of the SPC in them.  As the introductory notice flags, multiple non-members of the inter-ministerial joint committee are notified so that their work can be harmonized with this plan.

_______________________________________________

Many thanks to a knowledgeable person for his comments on an earlier draft of this post.

 

 

CICC, Expert Committee, foreign-related cases, international commercial court

What’s New in SPC Support for Foreign-Related Rule of Law?

Leave a comment

CICC hearing in Shanghai

As most readers of this blog know, developing foreign-related rule of law is a priority for the Chinese government.  President Zhang Jun told Supreme People’s Court (SPC) leaders at the beginning of 2025 that the Party Center places a great deal of importance on the construction (development) of foreign-related rule of law (党中央高度重视涉外法治建设). What does that mean for the SPC?  What has the SPC done lately? This post briefly notes some of those developments.

  1. The SPC’s #4 Civil Division has recently established a WeChat public account entitled 中国涉外商事海事审判,  as a way of better conveying developments to the Chinese professional and academic legal world. The link is to the April 30 report on the China International Commercial Court’s circuit visit to Shanghai on 10-11 April.
  2. The China International Commercial Court (CICC) held a hearing in Shanghai’s #1 Intermediate Court on 10 April in a joint venture shareholder dispute (see the photo above). I could attend because I was scheduled to participate in a workshop at NYU Shanghai on 12 April and several people bound by protocol to remain anonymous helped workshop participants and me with the required formalities.   Many from Shanghai’s “foreign-related” legal community attended the hearing, including several foreign lawyers, senior members from the Shanghai International Arbitration Center, Shanghai Commercial Mediation Center, and academics from Shanghai’s law schools specializing in foreign-related matters.  Official reports on the event included the SPC’s official website, the Shanghai #1 Intermediate People’s Court WeChat account (bilingual), and the #4 Civil Division’s WeChat account. I have my views on the performance of the lawyers, but will withhold them until I know more about the length of time they had for preparation.

Unbeknownst to most, the hearing in Shanghai evidenced that the CICC was implementing part of Article 33 of the sixth judicial reform plan:

Deepen the reform of the circuit trial mechanism. Deepen the reform of the circuit court work mechanism of the Supreme People’s Court, strengthen the functions and roles of the Supreme People’s Court’s trial organs in shifting their focus downward, resolving disputes on the spot, and facilitating litigation for the parties. 强化最高人民法院审判机关重心下移、就地解决纠纷、方便当事人诉讼的功能作用。

Holding a hearing in Shanghai would be considered to be “shifting the focus of the SPC downward,” resolving disputes on the spot, and facilitating litigation for the parties.

  1. The SPC issued 《最高人民法院关于人民法院为西部陆海新通道建设提供司法服务和保障的意见” Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on the People’s Court Providing Judicial Services and Guarantees for the Construction of the Western Land-Sea New Corridor”  along with related typical cases. An explanation of the Western Land-Sea New Corridor is here.  The document designates the Chongqing High People’s Court to take the lead in establishing a “13+2” judicial cooperation mechanism among thirteen high people’s courts and two intermediate people’s courts along the corridor to cooperate in litigation services, substantive dispute resolution, enforcement linkage, application of law, talent training, etc.
  2. SPC Justice Wang Shumei published an article in China Trial (中国审判)  on foreign related matters in late 2024. Her article is a useful summary of current SPC policy on foreign-related commercial and maritime matters.   One part includes:

improve the rules for jurisdiction over foreign-related cases, and properly handle international conflicts of jurisdiction arising from parallel litigation involving multiple countries in the same dispute in accordance with the law; we must firmly maintain the international order based on international law, actively participate in the formulation of international rules, carry out in-depth international judicial exchanges and cooperation, strengthen confidence in the rule of law, actively explain to the world the concepts, propositions and successful practices of foreign-related rule of law with Chinese characteristics, promote the progress of international rule of law, promote global governance in a more just and reasonable direction, and help build a community with a shared future for mankind.

The above quotation summarizes what has been said in earlier documents: resolving parallel litigation is on the agenda; the Chinese courts should tell China’s story well; the SPC should actively participate in formulating international rules (actively participating in the negotiation of the Hague Judgments Convention as an example), and all is linked to the Chinese government’s vision of global governance and the international legal order.

3.  Typical cases

  1. In late April 2025,  the SPC issued a group of typical cases linked to the Western Land-Sea Corridor and the policy document mentioned above, signaling the importance of mediation, unifying standards, promoting the application of international treaties and conventions, etc.
  2. In March 2025, the SPC issued a second group of typical free trade zone cases第二批服务保障自由贸易试验区建设典型案例
  3. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the SPC issued typical cases protecting the rights and interests of foreign investors.
  4. As mentioned in an earlier post, in March, 2025, the SPC issued procedures to implement the Foreign State Sovereign Immunity Law.

Forthcoming attractions

Among the forthcoming attractions of which I am aware:

  1. The #4 Civil Division is drafting a judicial interpretation of the foreign-related part of the Civil Procedure Law, as reported in official media. Judge Guo Zaiyu, who was one of the judges of the CICC panel hearing the case at the #1 Intermediate People’s Court, chaired a meeting with scholars and experts, hosted by East China University of Political Science and Law, including some (domestic) CICC experts in Shanghai on April 11. I surmise the judicial interpretation will be issued sometime this year and it is unclear whether a draft will be released for public consultation.

2.   As mentioned earlier, the 6th judicial reform five-year plan outline was issued in late December.  Point 12 relates to foreign-related rule of law:

Improve the judicial guarantee mechanism for high-level opening up. Improve the foreign-related trial mechanism, strengthen international commercial trial work, and improve the connection mechanism with international commercial mediation and arbitration. Improve the judicial trial system in which the parties in foreign-related civil legal relations agree on jurisdiction and choose to apply foreign laws in accordance with the law. Improve the mechanism for accurate application of international treaties and international practices, and improve the mechanism for ascertaining foreign laws. Improve the maritime trial mechanism, promote the improvement of the maritime legal system, improve the rules for adjudicating disputes such as ship repair, cross-border logistics, shipping insurance, maritime finance, and compensation for damage to the marine ecological environment, and improve the coordination and linkage mechanism with maritime administrative law enforcement agencies. Improve the mechanism for mutual recognition and enforcement of cross-border arbitration awards and civil and commercial judgments. Improve the judicial protection mechanism for overseas interests and investments. Improve the judicial protection mechanism for overseas Chinese interests. Improve the talent training mechanism for foreign-related trials. Strengthen international exchanges and cooperation in the judicial field, and actively participate in the formulation of international rules.

It appears most of the content here is not new and has been incorporated in the policy documents previously analyzed on this blog. The major exception is the detailed stress on certain maritime case principles.  Why has this paragraph been incorporated in the judicial reform plan outline, when previously this type of content would more likely have appeared in a specialized policy document?  As I will comment in a future article, it is representative of many articles in this judicial reform plan outline, signaling that the Party and SPC leadership attach importance to those matters.

administrative cases, administrative law, alternative dispute resolution

What the 2024 SPC specialized report on administrative litigation work reveals

Leave a comment
Zhang Jun delivering the specialized report
In November 2024, Supreme People’s Court (SPC) President Zhang Jun delivered a specialized report on the court system’s administrative litigation work (关于人民法院行政审判工作情况的报告) to the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPC Standing Committee).  The report showcases the accomplishments of the courts in administrative litigation and related administrative dispute resolution over the past 10 years.  This blog post provides a  detailed summary of the most significant points of the specialized report.  My comments are italicized for the most part.

Why this report?

As I wrote last year, I surmise that the NPC Standing Committee requested the SPC submit a specialized report on administrative litigation to promote (the Chinese phrase is “倒逼 “) significant changes to resolving administrative disputes, that is, disputes between individuals or enterprises and government agencies, by agreeing to report on administrative litigation.   Administrative cases are more sensitive because as  President Zhang Jun reported: “administrative cases are connected to administrative organs on one end and the people on the other, and are directly related to the people’s trust in the Party and the government and their confidence in the socialist rule of law.” The introduction to the report captures the themes of  administrative litigation work of the court system in this excerpt from one anodyne sentence:
New era administrative adjudication work…tried administrative cases impartially and promptly, resolved administrative disputes, supported administration according to law, protected the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, and supervised administrative organs in performing their duties in accordance with the law, making positive contributions to the integrated construction of a country ruled by law, a government ruled by law, and a society ruled by law.
This group of slogans （提法）signals themes seen in the rest of the report: courts do only part of their work through hearing cases;  they are encouraged to resolve the substance of an administrative dispute; the judiciary supports and supervises administrative agencies; they protect the rights of individuals, legal persons and others; and these all actively contribute to the Party and state’s goal of a country governed by law, a government governed by law, and a society governed by law  (为一体建设法治国家、法治政府、法治社会作出积极贡献).

Overview and drafting

The report covers all types of administrative cases the Chinese courts hear. Underlying this report are hundreds of hours of drafting, soliciting data and comments from related offices and institutions. The Administrative Division of the SPC took the lead in drafting the report and must have solicited contributions from the Intellectual Property Court (Tribunal), #3 Civil Division (intellectual property), and the Natural Resources and Environmental Division.  Administrative divisions of Chinese courts, including the SPC, hear or consider a substantial portion of, but not all, administrative cases and matters.   For intellectual property (including anti-monopoly) and environmental and natural resources cases or matters, the relevant specialized divisions of the SPC (and local counterparts) are responsible.  The report incorporates the SPC’s response to a research report on administrative adjudication work prepared by the NPC Standing Committee’s Supervisory and Judicial Affairs Committee (as it would follow the requirements discussed in this earlier blog post).  In a forthcoming article, I will have more to say about specialized reports as a form of NPC Standing Committee oversight.

 Summary of the Report

The report’s structure is the usual one for specialized reports: highlights of the accomplishments of the Chinese courts in administrative cases since 2015,  when the SPC last reported to the NPC Standing Committee on the hearing of administrative cases, followed by a summary of outstanding challenges and suggestions to the NPC Standing Committee for future work. A single sentence in the introduction reveals information about the relationship between the Party leadership and the SPC in reporting to the NPC Standing Committee.  “In April 2024, the Party Leadership Group of the Supreme People’s Court submitted a special written report to the Party Center for the first time on the administrative trial work of the people’s courts.”  What this signals is that submitting a written report to the Party Center is now part of the SPC’s procedure in preparing such specialized reports but was not required in 2015, when the SPC last reported to the NPC Standing Committee on administrative litigation. It would have been part of the drafting process of the 2022 specialized report on foreign-related litigation work as well as the 2023 one on environmental and natural resources litigation work. Similar to the foreign-related adjudication report,  the introduction takes an inclusive view of accomplishments: judicial interpretations, policy documents, typical and guiding cases, as well as correctly deciding important cases.  My summary has omitted most case summaries included in the report. The first part of the report provides overall statistics. From 2016 to September 2024, people’s courts at all levels heard a total of 2.421 million first-instance administrative cases and handled 1.841 million administrative non-litigation enforcement cases  (see below for an explanation of these cases) (so many more than foreign-related cases  (384,000 from 2013-2022)).  Administrative cases account for a small proportion of the cases in the Chinese courts. See this excerpt from this year’s SPC report to the NPC, showing that only 2% of the cases in the Chinese courts were administrative. The causes of action that accounted for a relatively high proportion of the concluded first-instance cases were administrative penalties such as fines and administrative detention, administrative confirmation such as social security qualifications or work-related injury recognition, administrative rulings such as confirmation of natural resource ownership, and “non-performance of duties” such as requests for administrative agencies to perform their statutory duties. See this excerpt from the NPC report providing this information as a graph. distribution of 1st instance administrative cases

SPC Accomplishments

 1. Serving the overall situation and promoting high-quality development with fair justice

This section first highlights improving the business environment.  It reiterates one of the themes of the report: “we supervise and correct illegal administrative behaviors that infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of various business entities, and strongly support administrative agencies in performing their regulatory duties and maintaining market order according to law.”  Accomplishments include:
  • issuing typical cases on unified market administrative litigation; hearing 316,000 first-instance administrative cases related to business, such as administrative licenses, administrative agreements, administrative promises, and administrative penalties with an average annual growth of 23.3%.  The report does not explain the high growth rate.
  • serving the innovation-driven development strategy according to law (intellectual property and related issues). This section flags that the courts heard 138,000 first instance intellectual property administrative cases involving intellectual property rights with an average annual growth of 20.3%, also with no explanation. The remainder of this part flags the work of the SPC outside the courtroom (about which I am writing more):
On administrative cases in specialized areas, such as environmental and natural resource protection and real estate expropriation cases: 118,000 first-instance environmental and natural resource administrative cases, with an average annual increase of 14.9%, also without explanation； 425,000 first-instance administrative cases involving house and land expropriation and demolition, with an average annual growth of 8.8%, also with no explanation as to reasons.

2. Justice for the people and safeguarding the well-being of the people with fair justice

This section focuses on cases related to people’s livelihood (“民生”). Again, it reiterates the themes of support vs. supervision and substantive resolution of administrative disputes to maintain social stability.  Useful information in this section:
  1. The number of first-instance administrative cases has increased by an average of 5.3% annually since 2016.
  2. The SPC will improve its mechanisms for dealing with applications for the retrial of administrative cases, including pre-retrial resolution.  It can be surmised that the number of applications for the retrial of administrative cases at the SPC is close to pre-Covid numbers, but statistics are not available. Jiangsu will pilot legal aid in administrative litigation.  This signals the importance of legal advice for both efficient case resolution and better communication with litigants.
  3.  The SPC emphasizes that it supports administrative agencies in punishing illegal acts such as endangering food and drug safety, damaging the ecological environment, and withholding wages for migrant workers.  It also signals that the courts will supervise those  with the occasional [common?]  problem of “heavy penalties for minor offenses” [likely linked to profit-making administration].  The SPC signals that those issues should be handled outside the courtroom, through outreach to law enforcement, to promote fairness and openness, commensurate penalties, and combining penalties with education.
  4.  On the substantive resolution of disputes, the report uses as an example a case handled by the SPC and later provides an example of an analogous case handled by the military courts. For the outside observer, the SPC case provides an example of the SPC’s unique role. The cases involved three brothers surnamed Sun who filed 137 administrative lawsuits and applications for retrials related to social insurance and were long-term petitioners. The original trial court dismissed the cases because the statute of limitations had expired. After review [it is not explained how their case came before the SPC], the SPC took the view that the brothers’ demands were basically reasonable and could be resolved according to the current social security system, although the ruling by the trial court was not wrong.  The SPC notes that the dispute was unresolved and might even intensify. Therefore, mediation was organized together with the administrative authorities, and a package solution was reached. The case demonstrates the importance of substantive resolution of administrative disputes and for litigants, making a fuss to resolve a dispute.
  5. As an example of developing the “Fengqiao Experience” in the new era,  1,966 administrative dispute resolution centers were established.  (At least two have been established in Shenzhen, and I hope that they welcome foreign visitors.)
3. Organic Link Between Law Enforcement and the Judiciary
This section emphasizes that the courts have a statutory duty to supervise government action and that “supervision means support and support means supervision.”  Examples of supervision include:
  1. A limited number of cases (2664) in which courts engaged in an incidental review of normative documents.   That is consistent with academic research.
2.  Court supervision of administrative action by refusing to enforce certain non-litigation enforcement cases.  As explained in this academic article, when administrative agencies apply to courts to enforce an agency decision when the persons involved do not voluntarily fulfil the obligations required, a court will review the legality of the administrative decision.  The report states that 368,000 administrative non-litigation enforcement cases were handled by courts ruling either not to enforce or not to accept the enforcement case, accounting for 20% of the total number of administrative agencies’ applications for enforcement. This number is larger than what I have seen elsewhere. 3.  The SPC, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Justice established a “3+N” working mechanism with the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Natural Resources.  The goal of the mechanism to analyze and evolve measures to deal with frequently arising administrative disputes.  [These disputes are presumably related to housing demolition]. 4.  Eight courts in Beijing have established an administrative law training base for officials using case-based law teaching. Courts in several provinces have established a regular consultation mechanism with administrative agencies. 5. The rate of administrative agency heads appearing in court to respond to lawsuits in the first instance has steadily increased year by year.  For more on this system with Chinese characteristics, see these academic articles for more details. 6. As I wrote last year, the SPC works with the Ministry of Justice (and correspondingly, lower courts do the same with justice authorities) to encourage litigants to seek administrative reconsideration before going to court. 102,000 first-instance cases that have been reviewed after administrative reconsideration were heard. Last year the number of administrative reconsideration cases exceeded administrative litigation cases for the first time.

Administrative Litigation-Related Judicial Reform

This section, among other content, summarizes the administrative litigation reform measures the SPC has undertaken and the expansion of its “guidance toolbox” (监督指导的“工具箱”).  I will have more to say about the SPC’s guidance toolbox in an article to be published later this spring.
  1. The SPC has implemented the arrangements of the Party Center on jurisdiction in administrative cases and has established courts with cross-administrative jurisdiction, such as the Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People’s Court and the Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court. See related academic research (but behind the paywall).   The SPC issued procedures on simplified procedures, used in 149,000 first instance cases.  The military courts have implemented administrative litigation–see this summary of the authorizing  notice issued by the Central Military Commmission’s Political-Legal Commission.  However, related information is scarce.
  2. On trial supervision, 1.209 million administrative cases of second instance were heard in accordance with the law, with a retrial rate of 7.2%; 327,000 cases of various types of retrial applications were handled (unclear how many at the SPC), and 1,604 cases of protest by the procuratorate were heard.
  3. I’m personally glad to see the SPC use the phrase “guidance toolbox,” as that is how I have visualized it. That toolbox includes the platforms Court Answers Platform and the People’s Court Case Library, as well as the more traditional guiding and typical cases.
  4. President Zhang Jun thanked the NPC Standing Committee for supporting the administrative litigation work of the courts through promulgating legislation and authorizing pilot projects.

Challenges

  1. Law-based governance needs to be improved. The large number of cases in some areas (unspecified) is not only linked to the interests of ordinary people but also reflects that the link between administrative enforcement and the judiciary needs to be improved. Some judges deal with cases mechanically and are not easily able to resolve administrative disputes from the source by communicating with administrative agencies on solutions to avoid future cases.
  2. The courts need to improve joint efforts to resolve administrative disputes in substance. This is reflected in the high appeal rate and the high rate of application for retrial.  However, some [unnamed] administrative agencies are unwilling to resolve administrative disputes on their own initiative or correct illegal administrative behavior and do not implement court decisions adequately or in a timely manner.  Problems still remain with agency leaders appearing in court.
  3. The smooth connection between pre-litigation mediation, administrative reconsideration, and the administrative litigation of administrative disputes is lacking.
  4. Some disputes involve multiple regulators, and therefore, a plaintiff needs to sue each regulator separately rather than bringing a consolidated procedure.

Improvements Needed

  1. Uphold Party leadership of the judiciary.  This implies local people’s courts regularly reporting to local party committees, informing the government about administrative judicial work in their jurisdictions, closely relying on the leadership of the Party, and actively seeking government support to promote the resolution of complex contradictions and problems involved in administrative cases.  Zhang Jun stated: we must look at these cases from a political perspective and handle them according to  the rule of law, and act “if I were suing.” 
  2. Better serve the high-quality development of the economy and society. This means correcting agencies using administrative power to exclude and restrict market competition and to serve the strategy of constructing a unified national market. On the topic of profit-seeking administration,  it calls for local courts to supervise the illegal use of administrative means to intervene in economic disputes and protect property rights and strengthen judicial supervision of administrative measures such as sealing, seizure, freezing, and administrative compulsory execution. This was mentioned just as “deep-sea fishing”  by administrative agencies came to national attention. Finance, land, and employment administrative cases were highlighted.
  3.  The report reiterates the organic connection between administrative cases and other related procedures such as administrative reconsideration, procuratorate oversight of administrative matters, pre-litigation mediation of administrative disputes, and legalization of petition work.  This includes: improving legal aid for administrative litigation (as mentioned above),  requiring judges to clarify and guide litigants in administrative cases; implementing a pre-trial meeting system and other measures.  This section stresses the role of mediation and emphasizes improving the reasoning of decisions. On the trial quality management indicator system,  the SPC calls for implementing related trial management measures suitable for administrative cases and shifting the focus of trial work from “whether the case is closed” to “whether the dispute is resolved”.  Any reader who has made it thus far in this summary would not be surprised.
  4. On supervision and support,  the SPC has several suggestions:
    1.  regarding areas where analogous cases frequently arise, create an analysis and notification system to report to the local Party Committee cases that administrative agencies lose and their implementation of effective judgments [presumably those that they lose]; report typical cases to administrative agencies, and strengthen coordination.
    2. further promote the increase in the rate of administrative agency leaders appearing in court to respond to lawsuits, encourage administrative agency leaders to “appear in court and speak out.”
    3. On future SPC administrative litigation judicial interpretations and policies, the report mentions the drafting of judicial interpretations and judicial policies such on housing expropriation and compensation on state-owned land; regulatory documents for the review of administrative documents in the course of administrative litigation, and joint trial of civil disputes, and other measures for unifying legal standards in similar cases. Another issue that the SPC is considering is identifying and regulating abusive administrative litigation, similar to other areas of the law.

Concluding Remarks

President Zhang Jun concludes by suggesting the reform of the jurisdiction system of administrative cases, in which intermediate courts hear major and complex cases; basic level courts hear simple cases through centralized jurisdiction (concentrating them in one basic level court); and the role of the mediation system in resolving administrative disputes is improved.  He also suggests amending the Administrative Litigation Law to improve the linkage between administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation and improve alternative methods to resolve administrative disputes.

A Few Comments

This specialized report provides a useful glimpse into Chinese administrative dispute resolution in the New Era.  For the outside observer, many elements of administrative justice/administrative dispute resolution with Chinese characteristics are visible.  Among those, as stressed in the summary above, are the multiple mechanisms for supervising administrative agencies outside the courtroom and the growing importance of mediating administrative disputes.   _______________________________ Many thanks to Professor Chen Tianhao of the Tsinghua University School of Public Policy and Management for his comments on an earlier draft of this blogpost!
foreign state immunity cases, foreign-related cases

Supreme People’s Court Details Foreign State Immunity Procedures

Leave a comment

At the end of March, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued procedures to implement China’s Foreign State Immunity Law (the Law) in the form of a  “Notice on Procedural Matters in Civil Cases Involving Foreign State Immunity” (Notice) 关于涉外国国家豁免民事案件相关程序事项的通知. That law has been in force since the beginning of 2024.  Consistent with its practice, the SPC published a press release along with the text of the notice.  The press release, in the form of the head of the SPC’s #4 Civil Division’s answers to reporters’ questions, provides useful background. I surmise that the press release is an edited version of materials submitted to SPC leadership for approval (as described in my 2024 article). I had anticipated that the SPC would do so, after additional research and soliciting comments from both inside and outside the court system but had guessed that a notice would be issued in 2024.  Although the notice does not so state, I surmise that foreign state immunity cases will be considered “important and difficult” and therefore subject to special internal procedures.  See Professor William Dodge’s article for comparisons to US law and comments on the Law.  Professor Huo Zhengxin provides another perspective. This post summarizes the major points of the notice, with my comments.

  1.  The general rule is that foreign governments and their property have immunity, with exceptions as set out in the Foreign State Immunity Law.  The press release usefully makes clear that Article 1 of the Notice requires that a plaintiff filing a civil lawsuits against a foreign state as a defendant or third party, must list in the complaint the specific provisions of the Law the lawsuit is based on, and explain which exception it falls into for the court to review. The court also has the responsibility to clarify (释明) the complaint in the process of receiving the complaint. “Clarify/clarification” here is a term in Chinese Civil Procedure Law, analogous to a judge’s right in other civil legal systems–the “right to ask, suggest to or require the parties to clarify or supplement their ambiguous, insufficient or improper claims, submissions or evidence.” If the plaintiff still fails to set out the legal basis after the court’s clarifications,  the plaintiff should be deemed to not have met the court’s requirements, and the court should reject the case.
  2. For those first instance civil cases that fall into the exceptions to the Foreign State Immunity Law, certain intermediate courts in provincial capitals (or their equivalent in directly administered cities, etc) have jurisdiction, as well as financial and intellectual property courts.  The notice limits the number of courts that can hear foreign state immunity cases (as I had surmised), through centralizing jurisdiction (集中管辖), but permits financial courts and intellectual courts to hear them and requires other courts to transfer cases that they have accepted to ones with jurisdiction.
  3. Article 3 concerns service of process, which must be according to relevant treaties or conventions, or other means not prohibited by the law of the foreign country, or alternatively by diplomatic note (via the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) (Article 17 of the Law).  Service by announcement is prohibited.
  4. The court must serve the complaint and other documents with a translation accompanying the original Chinese.  The foreign government has three months to file a defense. The court has the discretion to permit an extension of time.
  5.  If the foreign state objects to the jurisdiction of the Chinese court, the court shall engage in a comprehensive review ex officio and may hear the views of the parties.  Participation in an objection procedure is not deemed acceptance of Chinese jurisdiction (also Article 6 of the Law).  If the foreign state does not respond or participate in the Chinese proceedings, the Chinese court must proactively review whether the  foreign state has immunity and can hear the views of the parties.  (Article 18 of the Law). The press release provides guidance to lower courts on the review:  first, the people’s court should examine whether the reasons put forward by the foreign country for enjoying jurisdictional immunity are valid; second, if the reasons put forward by the foreign country are not valid, the people’s court should also conduct a comprehensive review on its own initiative, that is, in addition to the reasons, examine whether the foreign country really enjoys jurisdictional immunity and does not fall into the exception to jurisdictional immunity.
  6.  If a court requires a certificate  on factual issues of state behavior from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (further to Article 19 of the Law), it shall report to the Supreme People’s Court level by level （逐级报)  to consult and request (商请) the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to issue a certificate.  This one sentence conveys the bureaucratic operation of the Chinese court system and the nuances of inter-bureaucracy relations.

An attachment to the notice lists the authorized courts. The SPC has approved some of these courts to establish international commercial tribunals (courts).  It is likely that those tribunals will hear sovereign immunity cases:

  1. Beijing Fourth Intermediate People’s Court (with an international commercial tribunal)
  2. Tianjin No.3 Intermediate People’s Court
  3. Shijiazhuang Intermediate People’s Court of Hebei Province
  4. Taiyuan Intermediate People’s Court of Shanxi Province
  5. Hohhot Intermediate People’s Court of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region
  6. Shenyang Intermediate People’s Court, Liaoning Province
  7. Changchun Intermediate People’s Court of Jilin Province
  8. Harbin Intermediate People’s Court of Heilongjiang Province
  9. Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People’s Court (with an international commercial tribunal)
  10. Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province (with an international commercial tribunal)
  11. Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court, Zhejiang Province (with an international commercial tribunal)
  12. Hefei Intermediate People’s Court, Anhui Province
  13. Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Fujian Province
  14. Nanchang Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangxi Province
  15. Jinan Intermediate People’s Court, Shandong Province
  16. Zhengzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Henan Province
  17. Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court, Hubei Province
  18. Changsha Intermediate People’s Court of Hunan Province
  19. Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court, Guangdong Province
  20. Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Nanning Intermediate People’s Court
  21. Hainan Provincial First Intermediate People’s Court
  22. Chongqing First Intermediate People’s Court
  23. Chengdu Intermediate People’s Court of Sichuan Province
  24. Guiyang Intermediate People’s Court, Guizhou Province
  25. Kunming Intermediate People’s Court, Yunnan Province
  26. Lhasa Intermediate People’s Court of Tibet Autonomous Region
  27. Xi’an Intermediate People’s Court of Shaanxi Province
  28. Lanzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Gansu Province
  29. Xining Intermediate People’s Court of Qinghai Province
  30. Yinchuan Intermediate People’s Court of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region
  31. Urumqi Intermediate People’s Court, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region

__________________________________

A blog discussing China's highest court