scholarly journals Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in China: Promising Developments, Prospective Challenges and Proposed Solutions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Huang
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
Traditional Practice ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
One Belt One Road ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement

Consistent developments since 2016 demonstrate that China is determined to depart from its traditional practice – rejecting reciprocity-based judgment recognition and enforcement (JRE). This is strongly endorsed by China’s ‘One Belt, One Road’ Initiative. To develop the Chinese system of reciprocity-based JRE, China will make two efforts. First, it is likely to propose unbinding memos, like the China-Singapore Memo, to the supreme courts in countries alongside the OBOR. Second, Chinese Supreme People’s Court will issue a judicial interpretation to clarify the scope, requirements of, and defences against reciprocity-based JRE.

scholarly journals Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in China: Promising Developments, Prospective Challenges and Proposed Solutions

2019 ◽  
Vol 88 (2) ◽  
pp. 250-279
Author(s):  
Jie (Jeanne) Huang
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
Traditional Practice ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
One Belt One Road ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement

Consistent developments since 2016 demonstrate that China is determined to depart from its traditional practice – rejecting reciprocity-based judgment recognition and enforcement. This is strongly endorsed by China’s ‘One Belt, One Road’ (obor) Initiative. To develop the Chinese system of reciprocity-based judgement recognition and enforcement (jre), China will make two efforts. First, it is likely to propose unbinding memos, like the China-Singapore Memo, to the supreme courts in countries alongside the obor. Second, Chinese Supreme People’s Court will issue a judicial interpretation to clarify the scope, requirements of, and defences against reciprocity-based jre.

State Constitutional Law in 1931–32

1932 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 660-682
Author(s):  
Charles G. Haines
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Public Utility ◽  
State Supreme Courts ◽  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Due Process Of Law ◽  
State Constitutional Law

Law as it is made by the courts, interstitially as suggested by Mr. Justice Holmes, and interpreted in the cases that arise during a year, covers only a portion of the law-making process of the American states. Judicial interpretation and judicial legislation are determined largely by the types of controversies which arise involving the interpretation and application of constitutions and laws, and by the personnel of the courts before whom the issues are litigated. It is difficult to discover the tendencies or trends which are in the molding during a decade or more of legal history; for such a short term as a year, generalizations or conclusions may be attempted only with great caution and with well understood reservations.The significant decisions affecting state constitutional law in 1931-32 in the state supreme courts or courts of appeal and in the inferior federal courts may conveniently be grouped under the following headings: (1) the separation and delegation of powers; (2) the protection of civil rights; (3) due process of law and equal protection of the laws; (4) due process and public utility regulations; (5) due process and the police power; (6) taxation; and (7) miscellaneous decisions.

scholarly journals Arbitration and Protest in Hong Kong

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Huang
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Mainland China ◽  
Special Administrative Region ◽  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
Mutual Assistance ◽  
First Case ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
One Country Two Systems ◽  
Interim Measures

Following the promulgation of the judicial interpretation by the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) on 26 September 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 (“Arrangement”) signed by Mainland China and Hong Kong on 2 April 2019 came into effect in Mainland China from 1 October 2019. This Arrangement provides mutual recognition and enforcement of interim measures between Hong Kong and Mainland China. It has generated broad coverage. This post tries to add to the discussion by providing the first case decided under the Arrangement on 8 October 2019, and more broadly, the reflections on the continuing protests in Hong Kong and arbitration under “One Country, Two Systems’.

Malpractice & Negligence: State Supreme Courts Limit Therapists’ Duties to Third Parties

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 204-205
Author(s):  
Megan Cleary
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Abuse ◽  
Child Sexual Abuse ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
New Hampshire ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
State Supreme Courts ◽  
Recovered Memories ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Repressed Memory ◽  
University Of Colorado

In recent years, the law in the area of recovered memories in child sexual abuse cases has developed rapidly. See J.K. Murray, “Repression, Memory & Suggestibility: A Call for Limitations on the Admissibility of Repressed Memory Testimony in Abuse Trials,” University of Colorado Law Review, 66 (1995): 477-522, at 479. Three cases have defined the scope of liability to third parties. The cases, decided within six months of each other, all involved lawsuits by third parties against therapists, based on treatment in which the patients recovered memories of sexual abuse. The New Hampshire Supreme Court, in Hungerford v. Jones, 722 A.2d 478 (N.H. 1998), allowed such a claim to survive, while the supreme courts in Iowa, in J.A.H. v. Wadle & Associates, 589 N.W.2d 256 (Iowa 1999), and California, in Eear v. Sills, 82 Cal. Rptr. 281 (1991), rejected lawsuits brought by nonpatients for professional liability.

The Treaty of Northampton (1290): A Scottish Charter of Liberties?

2007 ◽  
Vol 86 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendy B. Stevenson
Keyword(s):  
Sense Of Community ◽  
Written Expression ◽  
Traditional Practice ◽  
Detailed Consideration ◽  
Constituent Part ◽  
Community Or ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Edward I

Although little detailed consideration has been given to the Treaty of Northampton of 1290 by Scottish historians, it seems to have been implicitly accepted as the sort of treaty which might have been expected in connection with the marriage of two independent rulers at that time. This is in spite of the fact that throughout the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the traditional practice of the rulers of the Angevin and Plantagenet dominions was to rule each constituent part according to its own law and customs. This article examines the reasons why the Scots were not prepared to rely on tradition but insisted on a written promise from Edward I that Scotland would remain independent of England. It also suggests that the treaty is more than a written expression of traditional practice. It has a number of specific clauses which, it is argued, give the treaty the character of a charter of liberties. These were intended to prevent the imposition on the Scots of particular aspects of Plantagenet rule in England which burdened its subjects much more severely than the rule of Scottish kings had burdened the Scots. The Scots' wish to remain independent after the proposed union of the crowns and their struggle to maintain that independence after the death of the Maid are generally seen as manifestations of a sense of community or regnal solidarity. The terms of the Treaty of 1290 suggest that it was not just from a desire to be a separate political entity per se that the Scots fought during the so-called Wars of Independence but also because the Scots were anxious to avoid the more oppressive aspects of Plantagenet rule even before they had experience of this after Edward I's conquest of 1296.

ANALISIS YURIDIS NORMATIF PUTUSAN PERKARA MAHKAMAH AGUNG KONSTITUSI RI No. 004/PUU-II/2004

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 7
Author(s):  
Doni Budiono
Keyword(s):  
The Body ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
State Administration ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Directorate General ◽  
The Government ◽  
Government Rules ◽  
The Right ◽  
Tax Court

The  authority  of justice in Indonesia  is executed by  the Supreme Courts and  the  justice  boards/body under the Supreme Courts, including  the general  justice, religious affairs justice, military justice,  state administration  justice,  and  the Constitution Court. According to  certainty in  the Act of  Tax Court, Article1, clause  (5),  tax  dispute   refers to the legal dispute arising in the  taxation  affairs between the  tax payer or the  body  responsible for the  tax with   the government   executives  ( Directorate General of Tax) as the consequence of   the issue of  the decree for the  appeal  to the Tax  Court in accordance with the  tax Act, including the  charge  against the  execution of collection   in accordance with the  Act of Tax Collection by force. The  formation of Tax Court is  designed by  the Executives, in this case, the  Department of Finance, specifically  the Directorate   General  of Tax  which has the right to issue  law  more technical about  tax accord to Article 14,  letter A,  President Decree  no. 44  year 1974,  concerning the  basic  organization of the Department.  Based on  it,  it  is clear that  in addition to execute the government  rules and policy,  this body  has to execute judicial   rules and policy. This is against the  principles of  Judicative  Power/Authority in Indonesia,  which   clearly states that this body  should be under the Supreme Court.   Therefore. It is suggested that   the Act  No UU no.14 Year 2012 concerning  Tax Court   be revised  in accordance with the system of  Power Division  of Justice  as  stated in 45 Constitutions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document