Category Archives: Hong Kong

Soft and Hard Law Arrangements & Other Agreements Between the Mainland Authorities and the SAR Governments

1st Joint conference meeting on the Hong Kong BRI Arrangement

If you have never heard of hard and soft law  Arrangements (安排) and other agreements between Mainland authorities and the Hong Kong and Macau Special Administrative Region (SAR) governments, do not be surprised.  The classification is my own and I see it as useful to capture the types of Arrangements and other soft law agreements that have been signed between certain Mainland authorities and the Hong Kong SAR and the Macau SAR, as well as Arrangements between the two SARs. This blogpost highlights several of the more important soft law Arrangements and other agreements between the mainland authorities and the SAR governments.  

This classification harmonizes with the analysis of Professor Wang Heng of the University of New South Wales concerning Belt & Road Initiative Agreements.  

Definition of Arrangements

Although I have written previously about Arrangements between the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government, I have not seen an official definition of “Arrangement.”     It appears to be used as a form of agreement between certain Mainland authorities  (intended to include institutions such as the Supreme People’s Court and the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress as well as ministries and commissions under the State Council ( and it seems some counterparts at the provincial level) and the government of the Hong Kong or Macau SAR.  Some are between the two SARs. I have not seen an equivalent to the Law on the Procedure for the Conclusion of Treaties.  Perhaps guidance exists internally. I surmise (from my blogpost on the recent SPC Arrangement) that the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office supervises Arrangements.

What I had not realized until recently that Arrangements are far more numerous and cover a broader range of areas than most legal professionals outside of China (including me) are generally aware of.   Both types of Arrangements can include affiliated measures, such as joint [steering] conferences 联席会议 (related to one of my recent posts ) and yearly implementation measures, such as agreed areas for cooperation.   

Hard and Soft Law Arrangements

 The “Hard Law Arrangements” often have content that is somewhat analogous to a treaty between sovereigns-that is, they have normative content, while the “Soft Law Arrangements” have more soft law content, some more analogous to the ones Professor Wang Heng discussed in the BRI content, while others have language found in domestic Chinese government documents.  I will borrow the definition that Professor Wang Heng uses in his article: soft law refers to quasi-legal obligations or law-like promises that are not legally binding but may affect state behavior.  His definition draws on earlier work, such as that of my colleague Professor Francis Snyder.  (My colleague has a forthcoming book chapter on soft law.)

Professor Wang Heng describes Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) primary agreements (soft law agreements) as largely emphasizing project development rather than rule development. This is also seen to some extent with “soft law Arrangements.” 

“Hard Law” Arrangements

“Hard Law Arrangements” and other “hard law” agreements between mainland authorities and the Hong Kong and Macau SARS are well-known, so this section only mentions a few of the most prominent: 

Professor Henry Gao noted in an article that during the negotiations leading to the conclusion of the CEPAs, it had been suggested that they should be called free trade agreements (FTAs) but they were named  “Closer Economic Partnership Arrangements” instead. He commented that in substance, the two CEPAs are no different from the other FTAs around the world.

For those interested, the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) has a webpage that consolidates the related Macau supplemental agreements.

  •  Dispute Resolution Arrangements

Hong Kong’s Ministry of Justice has a webpage (available in multiple languages) with links to arbitration-related Arrangements as well as recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments Arrangements.  The webpage also links to Arrangements involving other Hong Kong SAR government departments. It appears that some agreements mentioned on that webpage may be soft law documents, but I have not seen the full text of some of these documents and so cannot confirm.

An Arrangement on the Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Supreme People’s Court and the Macau SAR Government also exists.

Many other hard law Arrangements have been signed, but I have not seen a single repository of these documents. It is my hope that the Hong Kong Government can do so.

Soft Law Arrangements and Other Soft Law Agreements

It appears that less attention has been paid to soft law Arrangements and other soft law agreements.  There are also memoranda of understanding (MOU), with analogous usage to those in BRI projects. A number of the important ones are highlighted below.

  • July, 2017 National Development and Reform Commission, People’s Government of Guangdong Province, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Government of the Macao Special Administrative Region Framework Agreement  on Deepening Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Cooperation in the
    Development of the Greater Bay Area Greater Bay Area (GBA Framework Agreement)

This Framework Agreement is a soft law agreement that links hard and soft law content. In discussing BRI soft law agreements, Professor Wang Heng mentions Project-Linked Agreements and Mechanism-Creating Agreements and mentions that some combine both. The GBA Framework Agreement mentions some of the above hard law Arrangements, with a great deal of new soft law content aimed at promoting the development of the GBA.  It flags what was then forthcoming BRI Arrangements. Among the goals cited:

deepen co-operation between the Bay Area and related countries and regions in… legal and dispute resolution services… and to build an important support area for pursuing the Belt and Road Initiative.for Hong Kong…

establish a centre for international legal and dispute resolution services in the Asia-Pacific Region…

This is the document that attracted my interest in “soft law Arrangements.”  Several articles relate to developing Hong Kong’s role in dispute resolution, such as:

2.To support Hong Kong in developing high value-added maritime services, including…maritime law and dispute resolution,

26. To support Hong Kong in establishing itself as a centre for international legal and dispute resolution services in the Asia-Pacific region to provide relevant services for the Belt and Road Initiative.

The Hong Kong BRI  Arrangement links to Article 34 of the SPC’s 2019  Opinion On Further Providing Judicial Services and Guarantees by the People’s Courts for the “Belt and Road” Initiative (BRI Opinion #2). That article contains language about supporting the Hong Kong SAR to develop as a regional legal service and dispute resolution center and Hong Kong playing a more important role in jointly developing the BRI:

The development of the regional legal service and dispute resolution center of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“Hong Kong SAR”) shall be further supported, the cooperation between arbitration institutions in Hong Kong such as Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre and arbitration institutions in the Mainland, the arbitration institutions in the Hong Kong SAR shall be introduced to the construction of the “one-stop” dispute resolution platform of international commercial courts… and the Hong Kong SAR shall play a more important role in the joint development of the “Belt and Road” Initiative. 进一步支持香港特别行政区区域法 律服务和纠纷解决中心的建设,支持 香港国际仲裁中心等仲裁机构与内地 仲裁机构的合作,在国际商事法庭 “一站式”纠纷解决平台建设中适当 引入香港特别行政区仲裁机构…不断发挥 香港特别行政区在共建“一带一路” 中的重要作用。

The Arrangement establishes a joint conference mechanism (that features in a number of Arrangements) comprising responsible officials from the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council and other relevant departments as well as senior representatives of the HKSAR.  The SPC has participated in at least two of these meetings, but from the reports on the meetings, does not appear to be a joint conference member institution.

The  Hong Kong BRI Arrangement could be linked to the 2019 Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the 2020 Supplemental Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong SAR. Although  BRI Opinion #2 explicitly restates the Chinese government’s desire that more international commercial disputes (including BRI ones) be resolved in China, this clause is also a recognition that the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre is often selected in contracts between Chinese companies and foreign companies, including in BRI disputes, as evidenced in Professor Matthew Erie‘s recently published article.

Under the Arrangement, the two sides have agreed, in related documents, upon major areas of work and in 2020, allocation of responsibilities and have established an annual joint conference. It is unclear whether a similar set of documents exist for the Hong Kong BRI Arrangement.

The Macau and Hong Kong BRI Arrangements are quite different from one another and deserve further analysis. Under the Macau BRI Arrangement, for example, the Macau SAR Government undertakes to be a platform for liaison with Lusophone countries.

It is unclear why there is no courtesy English translation of this Arrangement (as there is for the Hong Kong BRI Arrangement). The content of this Arrangement provides insights into plans for Hong Kong and the Mainland to cooperate in the area of science and technology, but time does not permit further analysis.

A final comment is that it appears to be difficult to locate the full text of some of the soft law Arrangements reported.

More to Come?

I surmise that the Hong Kong and Macau SARs’ futures will involve more hard and soft law Arrangements and other agreements with the Mainland.  The topic of these agreements deserves closer attention. I hope that someone with an interest, the time, and the language skills can take this research forward. 

 

Arrangements and the Supreme People’s Court

SPC Press conference following the Supplemental Arrangement signing, Judge Si 2nd from left

On 27 November, the Supreme People’s Court and the Hong Kong SAR Government held a ceremony in Shenzhen at which the two sides signed the Supplemental Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region” (the Supplemental Arrangement (关于内地与香港特别行政区相互执行仲裁裁决的补充安排). It supplements the original Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the HKSAR which was signed on 21 June 1999 and came into effect on 1 February 2000 (1999 Arrangement). The SPC also issued 10 related typical cases (典型案例) in both Chinese and English versions, the first time the SPC has done so for an arrangement.

SPC arrangements with the Hong Kong SAR are considered  judicial assistance documents.  As Hong Kong is part of China (one country-two systems),  the view is that judicial assistance between the Mainland and Hong Kong can be broader and closer (and so differs from international judicial assistance).

After the Supplemental Arrangement becomes fully effective, it will ease the implementation of a number of arbitration-related matters between the Hong Kong SAR and the (mainland) Chinese courts.  Herbert Smith Freehills and other law firms and barristers’ chambers) have published insightful summaries of the Supplemental Arrangement. 

This blogpost discusses some issues related to SPC arrangements (with the Hong Kong and Macao SARs), drawing on the remarks made by Judge Si Yanli, one of the deputy heads of the SPC’s Research Office at the press conference following the ceremony.  The Research Office is a unique institution of the SPC.  It does not directly hear cases, but is often involved in a broad range of issues.  A 1995 SPC document describes it as a  “comprehensive operational department.”

Judge Si is responsible for handling Hong Kong and Macau related matters , who would have headed the team negotiating with the HKSAR Department of Justice on these arrangement Judge Si is well-known to the Hong Kong international arbitration community.  She has spoken at Hong Kong Arbitration Week events in recent years, impressing all who have heard her speak with her insightful presentations.

Legal Framework for Arrangements

The legal framework for this arrangement, and the other previous ones concluded between the two jurisdictions is Article 95 of the Hong Kong Basic Law:

Article 95
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may, through consultations and in accordance with law, maintain juridical relations with the judicial organs of other parts of the country, and they may render assistance to each other.

Fitting Arrangements into the Chinese legal landscape

A single sentence in Judge Si’s press conference called attention to a procedure that is rarely discussed, at least in English–fitting arrangements into the Chinese legal landscape.  Judge Si mentioned that for the Supplementary Arrangement to be effectively implemented on the mainland, it must be transformed into a judicial interpretation. Although Judge Si did not set out the reasons that the SPC does so, it is understood that if implemented in this way,  judges in local Chinese courts who need to implement an arrangement can issue rulings or judgments  that cite the relevant provisions of an arrangement that have been transformed into a judicial interpretation.  

The effective implementation of the Supplementary Arrangement in the Mainland needs to be transformed into judicial interpretation, and for its effective implementation in Hong Kong, it needs to be transformed into local legislation. In the Mainland, on November 9, the 1815th meeting of the judicial committee of the SPC passed the “Supplementary Arrangement” and agreed to transform it into a judicial interpretation;补充安排》在内地的生效实施需要转化为司法解释,在香港的生效实施需要转化为本地立法。在内地,11月9日,最高人民法院审判委员第1815次会议已审议通过《补充安排》,并同意将其转化为司法解释;

Drafting 

The drafting of the Supplemental Arrangement involved input from relevant authorities, among them the Legislative Affairs Commission (LAC) of the National People’s Congress.  That is clear from this statement in Judge Si’s press conference. 

The successful signing of the “Supplementary Arrangement” is due to  the strong guidance of the Legislative Affairs Commission, of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the Hong Kong Basic Law Committee, the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council and other relevant central authorities, as well as the strong support of the judicial and legal circles in the two places.《补充安排》的成功签署离不开全国人大常委会法制工作委员会、香港基本法委员会,国务院港澳事务办公室等中央有关部门的大力指导以及两地司法法律界的有力支持.

Soliciting views from relevant authorities is usual practice when the SPC drafts judicial interpretations. In this way the judicial interpretation that the SPC issues draws on specialist knowledge in the relevant authorities and enables the judicial interpretation to reflect a harmonized approach.  As to the importance of the SPC consulting the LAC of the National People’s Congress, that institution will review the final version of a judicial interpretation after the judicial committee of the SPC approves it and files it with the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. Again, it enables the judicial interpretation to reflect an approach harmonized between the SPC and the LAC.

Further thoughts

As the Chinese court system evolves to become increasingly integrated with international treaties and conventions, we are likely to see aspects of international conventions or bilateral judicial cooperation documents converted into or implemented through judicial interpretations, and the strong guidance of the LAC, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and other relevant central authorities making it possible.

Supreme People’s Court’s New Policy on Cross-border Commercial Issues and Covid-19

Screenshot 2020-06-18 at 7.32.24 AM
From left, Li Guangyu, SPC spokesperson; SPC Vice President Justice Luo Dongchuan; Judge Wang Shumei, head of #4 Civil Division

On 16 June, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) held a news conference (pictured above), to announce that it had issued “Guiding Opinion on the Proper Handling of Civil Cases Involving the Novel Coronavirus Outbreak in Accordance with the Law (III)” (SPC Guiding Opinion III).” SPC Guiding Opinion focuses on the most important cross-border commercial issues that have arisen in the Chinese courts this spring as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.  This brief blogpost provides some comments and an overview of the document, leaving the detailed analysis to the law firms that are sure to analyze it.

What is this document?

SPC Guiding Opinion III is a judicial policy document (司法政策性文件). As this blog has often commented, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) must serve the greater situation and deal with practical legal issues, so that the SPC itself and its senior leadership are correct, politically, and professionally. One of those ways is by providing properly calibrated guidance to the lower courts and other related authorities with the appropriate political signals.  For this document, Justice Luo Dongchuan provided the political background and signals in his introductory remarks at the SPC news conference. The document itself is practically oriented (as those in the system say “problem-oriented”–“问题导向”)(and the practitioners say “干活”).

From the photo above it is clear that the #4 Civil Division, headed by Judge Wang Shumei, which focuses on cross-border commercial and maritime issues, took the lead in drafting. That division is one of the smaller divisions of the SPC and “punches above its weight.”

A judicial policy document is not a judicial interpretation but as the SPC editors of a collection of these documents noted, “it is generally recognized that they have an important guiding impact on the trial and enforcement work of the courts at every level.”  SPC Guiding Opinion III is one example of the many types of SPC “stealth” guidance to the lower courts.  I describe it as “stealth guidance” because it affects how cases are handled, heard, and decided, but cannot be cited in a court judgment or ruling. For that reason, only the highly observant will note the impact of judicial policy documents.

I anticipated that the SPC would issue further Covid-19 pandemic guidance when I spoke [links to video] in April at a virtual event sponsored by Berkeley Law School’s Center for Law & Technology. Some of the guidance reveals frequently used litigation tactics of Chinese parties.

Selected comments on the content

The document is divided into four sections:

  1. Civil procedure mechanics–parties, evidence,  deadlines, and statutes of limitations (Articles 1-5): This section draws on the recently amended and effective civil evidence rules

Article 1 directs Chinese courts to approve applications for extensions for foreign (cross-border) parties who are delayed in being able to provide notarized and authenticated documents to evidence the identity.  Delays in obtaining notarized and authenticated powers of attorney are to be treated similarly. If China had acceded to the 1961  Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, for all of China, this requirement would no longer be necessary. The Convention is applicable to Hong Kong because of UK-PRC handover arrangements, which enabled conventions originally applicable to Hong Kong pre-1997 to continue in effect.

Article 3 reveals one of the frequently used litigation tactics of Chinese parties in cross-border litigation in China–that is disputing the authenticity of a document because it has not been properly notarized and legalized. The SPC Guiding Opinion III advises lower courts to notify parties that they may reserve their arguments concerning these formalities, and focus their arguments on relevance and persuasiveness of the evidence.

      2. Ascertainment (determination) and application of law

These articles remind Chinese courts to use the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Law Applicable to Foreign-Related Civil Relationships to determine governing law (assuming a contract does not designate a governing law), and to look to the SPC Guiding Opinion I for guidance on force majeure under Chinese law.  The SPC also reminds lower court judges not to substitute Chinese law if foreign law governs.  This is not the first time that this type of reminder has appeared in SPC policy documents, indicating this is an ongoing problem.  This section also includes guidance on the application on the UN Convention on the Sale of Goods.

Articles 8 and 9 relate to letters of credit, standby letters of credit, and demand (independent) guarantees. It reminds lower courts to correctly apply the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)’s UCP 600 (Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits), the ICC’s URDG 758(demand guarantee rules), and the related SPC judicial interpretation concerning demand guarantees.

This likely means that Chinese contractors who have provided independent guarantees or standby letters of credit for construction projects overseas are seeking to prevent the owner of the projects from drawing on these guarantees through litigation in the Chinese courts. This case decided by the SPC in April, 2020, reverses the judgment of the Shandong Higher People’s Court in favor of the Chinese contractor.  The dispute relates to a Shandong Electric Power Company (SEPCO) project in India. Previous reporting in the Indian press seen here.

3. Transport contracts

Articles 11-17 relate to various types of transportation contracts as well as shipbuilding contracts.

4. Green channel.

This last section reminds courts to use online procedures and cross-administrative region arrangements if convenient and that Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan related commercial cases should be handled with reference to this guidance.

How was the document drafted?

As to how the SPC determined the FAQs of the lower courts, it did what all corporates and institutions around the world do these days–convened a video conference. The participants presumably came from the maritime courts and the foreign-related civil divisions of the provincial courts.

Why did the SPC issue it?

The number of cases directly affected by this guidance is relatively small. According to statistics released with President Zhou Qiang’s report to the NPC in May, there were 17,000 first instance foreign-related commercial cases and 16,000 foreign-related maritime cases in the Chinese courts in 2019, compared with 31.5 million cases in the Chinese courts overall.

However, foreign-related cases tend to be more sensitive because, as Zhou Enlai said “外事无小事” (foreign matters are never small matters” –foreign-related matters, because they involve relations with other countries and the prestige of the Chinese state, are sensitive. That means that judges hearing cross-border cases have a particular pressure to handle these disputes in a way that is consistent with the law (of course), acceptable to the leadership of their court & to the outside world.  One important aspect of SPC Guiding Opinion III  is the impact on Belt & Road projects, In many of these projects Chinese companies are often contractors, or also contractors and equipment suppliers (and Chinese banks provide financing). On the civil/commercial side cross-border cases possibly involve treaty/convention obligations (or treaty-like arrangements, in the case of Hong Kong).

As issues dealt with in SPC Guiding Opinion III relate to the most important Chinese cross-border commercial issues that have arisen during the pandemic, it has an impact on the Chinese (and foreign) business community, far beyond the number of foreign-related cases in the Chinese courts, and is likely to have an impact on related arbitrations governed by Chinese law.

Supreme People’s Court strengthens judicial review of arbitration

liu guixiang at arbitration summit
Judge Liu Guixiang speaking at the China Arbitration Summit

At China’s Arbitration Summit in late September, Liu Guixiang, Chief Judge of the #1 Circuit Court, called attention to a notice that the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued earlier this year to strengthen judicial review of arbitration. The notice (Notice concerning some questions regarding the centralized handling of judicial review of arbitration cases关于仲裁司法审件归口办理有关问题的通知) is linked to the likely increasing number of cases involving judicial review of arbitration matters, linked to the increasing number of arbitrations involving Chinese parties (and the One Belt One Road initiative) both in China and elsewhere in the world, including Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre.  (The notice highlights data collection problems).

The notice, reproduced below, is not an SPC judicial interpretation. Unlike judicial interpretations, notices are not required to be published. It seems that the SPC itself has not officially published it, but several official websites have published it, as have a number of Wechat accounts.

A quick search reveals that the notice drew on  a 2014 study by the Guangdong courts summarizing the results of pilot projects  (including Shenzhen) that the SPC commissioned, involving cooperation with the now independent Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration. As is usual, Guangdong and Shenzhen have led the way as pilot areas for judicial reform. The study highlighted a list of problems with the way lower courts review arbitration related issues, including lack of consistency in reviewing cases. The study also highlighted problems in tracking case data.

As Judge Liu also mentioned (as has this blog), the SPC is working on a comprehensive judicial interpretation on that subject).  That judicial interpretation is still being drafted, with the #4 Civil Division of the SPC taking the lead.

A very rough translation and some comments written in italics follow. (Many thanks to an anonymous and well-informed follower of this blog for bringing the notice to my attention and for some thoughts.) Please call translation glitches/mistakes to my attention.

最高人民法院
关于仲裁司法审查案件归口办理
有关问题的通知

法[2017]152号

Supreme People’s Court

Notice Concerning Some Questions regarding the centralized handling of judicial review of arbitration cases

Fa (2017) #152

各省、自治区、直辖市高级人民法院,解放军军事法院,新疆维吾尔自治区高级人民法院生产建设兵团分院:

To the provincial, autonomous region, directly administered municipality higher people’s courts, People’s Liberation Army Military Court,  Production and Construction Corps Branch of the Xinjiang Autonomous Region Higher People’s Court:

为依法正确审理仲裁司法审查案件,保证裁判尺度的统一,维护当事人的合法权益,促进仲裁事业健康有序发展及多元化纠纷解决机制的建立,现就各级人民法院办理仲裁司法审查案件的有关问题通知如下:

To try correctly judicial review of arbitration cases according to law and guarantee a unified yardstick for judicial decision-making, protect the legal rights of parties, promote the healthy and orderly development of arbitration matters and the establishment of a diverse dispute resolution mechanism, we notify the various levels of the people’s court handling judicial review of arbitration cases of the following:

一、各级人民法院审理涉外商事案件的审判庭(合议庭)作为专门业务庭(以下简称专门业务庭)负责办理本通知规定的仲裁司法审查案件。

I.  The trial divisions (collegial panels) trying foreign-related commercial cases shall be the specialized trial divisions (below, “specialized trial divisions) responsible for undertaking the judicial review of arbitration as set out in this notice.

This means that SPC is requiring trial divisions (or collegial panels, in smaller courts) handling foreign-related commercial matters to be responsible for reviewing the arbitration related matters described in the next paragraph. It is a plus for competency/consistency in arbitration-related matters.

二、当事人申请确认仲裁协议效力的案件,申请撤销我国内地仲裁机构仲裁裁决的案件,申请认可和执行香港特别行政区、澳门特别行政区、台湾地区仲裁裁决的案件、申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决等仲裁司法审查案件,由各级人民法院专门业务庭办理。

II.  In cases in which a party applies to have the validity of an arbitration agreement recognized, cases in which application is made to cancel a domestic arbitration commission’s award, cases in which application is made to recognize (认可) and enforce a Hong Kong SAR or Macau SAR arbitration award, recognize (认可) and enforce a Taiwan area arbitration award, application is made to recognize (承认) and enforce a foreign arbitral award, shall be handled by the specialized trial divisions of each level of court.

This paragraph describes the types of cases covered by the notice–the types of judicial review of arbitration matters and that these cases should be handled by the specialized trial division of each level of court designated in the paragraph I. There is a difference in terminology (bolded above, but not in the original Chinese) when referring to the recognition of arbitral awards from Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan as distinguished from foreign arbitral awards, emphasizing that awards from these jurisdictions are considered part of “one country.”  Notice that cases involving domestic arbitration awards or disputes over the validity of an arbitration agreement to submit a dispute to domestic arbitration are also to be reviewed by the specialized trial division.  A big plus for consistency and competency in judicial review of arbitration matters.

专门业务庭经审查裁定认可和执行香港特别行政区、澳门特别行政区、台湾地区仲裁裁决,承认和执行外国仲裁裁决的,交由执行部门执行。

When a specialized trial division, after review, has ruled to recognize and enforce a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Macau Special Administrative Region, Taiwan Region arbitration award, recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award, the enforcement shall be transferred to the enforcement departments for enforcement.

三、一审法院作出的不予受理、驳回起诉、管辖权异议裁定涉及仲裁协议效力的,当事人不服该裁定提起上诉的案件,由二审人民法院专门业务庭办理。

III.  When the first instance court makes a ruling which relates to the validity of an arbitration agreement relating not to accept, to reject a filing or objection to jurisdiction, and a party  disagrees with the ruling and appeals, the specialized trial division of the second instance court should handle it.

This  provision channels appeals relating to arbitration matters to specialists in the second instance courts, again a plus for competency and consistency.

四、各级人民法院应当建立仲裁司法审查案件的数据信息集中管理平台,加强对申请确认仲裁协议效力的案件,申请撤销或者执行我国内地仲裁机构仲裁裁决的案件,申请认可和执行香港特别行政区、澳门特别行政区、台湾地区仲裁裁决的案件,申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决的案件,以及涉及确认仲裁协议效力的不予受理、驳回起诉、管辖权异议等仲裁司法审查案件的信息化管理和数据分析,有效保证法律适用的正确性和裁判尺度的统一性。此项工作由最高人民法院民事审判第四庭与人民法院信息技术服务中心具体负责。

IV. Each level of people’s court should establish a centralized administrative platform for the judicial review of arbitration awards, to strengthen the informatized management and data analysis of cases regarding applications to confirm the validity of an arbitation agreement, cases regarding applications to cancel or enforce arbitration awards of our domestic arbitration institutions, applications to recognize and enforce Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Macau Special Administrative Region, Taiwan Region arbitration awards, cases regarding applications to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards, and cases relating to the judicial review of arbitration such as refusal to accept, reject the filing, or objection to jurisdiction and others relating to the confirmation of the validity of an arbitration agreement; the effective guarantee of the correct application of law and of a unified yardstick for judicial decision-making.  The #4 Civil Division of the Supreme People’s Court and the People’s Courts Information Technology Service Center shall be specifically responsible for this work.

IV. This paragraph requires a platform to be established to enable better data collection of arbitration related cases. Data collection appears to be an ongoing issue for the courts.  2015 SPC rules on case file numbers (thank you to Chinalawtranslate.com for this translation), are aimed to create more consistency in filing numbers for cases, and will also be helpful in this process. Inconsistency in case files numbers was identified as a problem in the Guangdong study.) The SPC’s #4 Civil Division (in charge of cross-border civil and commercial matters) and the Information Technology Service Center are the ones responsible for ensuring this platform works.  The notice does not require data results to be made public. The legal and professional public (in China and elsewhere in the world) would look forward to regular big data reports on this.

最高人民法院

2017年5月22日

Supreme People’s Court

May 22, 2017

_______________________________________

If you like this blogpost, please join the East Asian Legal Studies Center of Harvard Law School in supporting the Supreme People’s Court Monitor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advisory committee on cross-border legal issues for Hong Kong?

My article below was published in the 17 March edition of the South China Morning Post:

P1050083

To solve the many specific cross-border legal issues affecting the people of Hong Kong and the rule of law in  the special administrative region, an independent and non-partisan advisory committee on cross-boundary legal issues should be established.

The committee, which ideally would draw its membership from current or retired senior members of the legal profession,  would provide policy guidance to a working group drawn from the legal community. The idea would be to draw together people familiar with  the Hong Kong and mainland legal systems.  They would work together to propose options for practical solutions to problems involving  complex legal issues.

These problems could be issues in the news, such as parallel trading, and other serious problems not in the news such as cross-boundary pollution, criminal justice or domestic violence. The members of the working group must be able to reach out to those with the right expertise or background, regardless of political views.

One example of an important issue not in the news is domestic violence. Grenville Cross SC has recently written about the need for improving Hong Kong domestic law on this front.  I have  written about domestic violence on the mainland, highlighting new guidance by the Supreme People’s Court and others for dealing with this serious social problem.  Hong Kong social trends, such as cross-border marriages and Hong Kong elderly people settling on the mainland, mean that cross-border domestic violence is  an unrecognised problem.

Another issue concerns cross-border cooperation in criminal matters. The South China Morning Post reported last  autumn that the Supreme People’s Procuratorate had announced that it would focus on establishing ways to bring suspects home, including extradition and repatriation, with Hong Kong as the first target.  If the government is being asked to conclude a rendition agreement or criminal law judicial assistance arrangement, this touches on a broad range of legal issues for individuals, companies and other organisations.

A Hong Kong foundation  can consider investing some resources to fund the necessary research and analysis on which the advisory committee will need to rely. Such  foundations have been generous in funding research on law and Chinese studies in universities elsewhere.  The proposed advisory committee and working group are intended to provide practical results and are sure to provide value for money.

©SCMP