Abstract
This annual survey of Chinese judicial practice in private international law in 2006 opens with an analysis of several significant judicial interpretations which will serve as guidelines for Chinese courts at various levels in charge of cases involving foreign elements, and which may give rise to problems calling for further improvements. A statistical analysis follows, examining 50 trans-jurisdictional civil and commercial cases before Chinese courts in 2006, and advocating reasonable invocation of the tool of evasion of law, the doctrine of ordre public and mandatory rules. The judgment rendered by the Supreme People's Court in Starflower Investment Service, Ltd. v. Hangzhou Jinma Real Estate, Ltd. and Hangzhou Future World Recreation, Ltd. is then discussed, with focus on choice of law for guaranties to foreign companies. Finally, after dealing with several cases in point, the authors suggest that the internet should be consulted more frequently in proving foreign law.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
