Comments on the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on the New Private International Law Act in China

Abstract

China adopted its first comprehensive and systematic private international law on 28 October 2010 (CPILA). As a product of haste and a certain ignorance of the academic’s efforts, the new law suffers some defects and ambiguities which need clarification from the Supreme People’s Court (SPC). Therefore, SPC issued its first interpretation on the new law (Interpretation (I)) which serves as guideline for the lower People’s Courts. Interpretation (I) focuses on the loopholes and ambiguities in Chapter One of CPILA, covering a wide range of issues, eg, the definitions of ‘foreign-related civil relationship’ and ‘habitual residence’, the application of international treaties and international customs, clarification of party autonomy doctrine, choice of law of arbitration agreements, the scope of mandatory rules, proof of foreign law, etc. This article comments on the interpretations and points out the problems still remain in Interpretation (I) which have to be resolved in judicial practice in future.

Keywords: CPILA; Interpretation (I); choice of law; mandatory rules; proof of foreign law