Notes to Chapter Four
1.See FRIEDRICH K.JUENGER,CHOICE OF LAW AND MULTISTATE JUSTICE 15 (2000).
2.See id.,at 157.
3.PETER NORTH & J.J FAWCETT,CHESHIRE AND NORTH’S PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 106 (13th ed.,1999).
4.Richardson,130 Eng.Rep.at 303.
5.Michael Mousa Karayanni,The Public policy Exception to the Enforcement of Forum Selection Clause 34 DUQ.L.REV.1009 (1996).
6.See John B.Corr.,Modern Choice of Law and Public Policy: The Emperor Has the Same Old Clothes 39 U.MIAMI L.REV.647,693 (1985).
7.Michael Mousa Karayanni,The Public policy Exception to the Enforcement of Forum Selection Clause 34 DUQ.L.REV.1009 (1996).
8.See Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Minshi Susongfa[Civil Procedure Law] art.259 (1991,revised in 2012) (PRC).
9.See GUOJI SIFA [PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW] 147 (Han Depei ed.,2000); XIAO YONGPING,XIAO YONGPIN LUN CHONGTUFA [XIAO YONGPING ON CONFLICT OF LAWS] 104 (2002).
10.Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Shewai Minshi Falvguanxi Shiyongfa [Act on the Application of Laws over Foreign-related Civil Relationships] (2010) (PRC); Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Zhuxi Ling [Order of the President of The People’s Republic of China,No.36],www.npc.gov.cn/huiyi/cwh/ 1116/2010-08/28/content_1593162.htm,last visited on November 20,2016.
11.See Zhongguo zhu A’genting Dashiguan Lingshichu Wenjian [Consular Department of Chinese Embassy in Argentina Document] No.70 (1984),dated October 32,1984.
12.Zuigao Renmin Fayuan Guanyu Lvju A’genting Zhongguo Gongmin Fenju Xieyi de Xiaoli de Fuhan [Answer of Supreme People’ Court to Validity of the Legal Separation Agreement concluded by the Chinese Citizens domiciled in Argentina],Answer No.14 (1984),dated December 5,1984.
13.FRIEDRICH K.JUENGER,CHOICE OF LAW AND MULTISTATE JUSTICE 40 (2000).
14.See Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Hunyinfa[Marriage Act]art.2 (1980)(PRC).
15.Zuigao Renmin Fayuan Gongbao[2 Bulletin of Supreme People’s Court]63-65 (1993)(PRC).
16.Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Minfa Tongze [GPCL] art.150 para.2.(emphasis added).(1986) (PRC).
17.See RAY AUGUST,INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW 679 (3rd ed.,2000).
18.FEI ZONGWEI & TANG CHENGYUAN,ZHONGGUO SIFA XIEZHU DE LILUN YU SHIJIAN [THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE IN CHINA] 80-90 (1992).
19.Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,28 U.S.C.§1608 (1976).
20.XU HONG,GUOJI MINSHI SIFA XIEZHU [INTERNATIONAL CIVIL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE] 180-182 (1996).
21.TABORDA FERREIRA,RAPPORT EXPLICATIF DE M.TABORDA FERREIRA,(1966).Hague Conference on Private International Law,http：//www.hcch.net/e/conventions/expl14e.html.
22.See Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo he Falanxi Gongheguo Minshi he Shangshi Sifa Xiezhu Xieding [Convention on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters between The People’s Republic of China and The Republic of France] arts.11 and 18 (1987).(https://www.daowen.com)
23.CHENG DEJUN,WANG SHENGCHANG & KANG MING,GUOJI GUANLI HE SHEWAI ZHONGCAI SHIWU [INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE AND ARBITRATION INVOLVING FOREIGN ELEMENTS] 258-259 (1993).
24.See Zuigao Renmin Fayuan zhi He’nan Sheng Gaoji Renmin Fayuan de Pifu [Supreme People’s Court Answer to He’nan Higher People’s Court] dated November 6,1992.
25.Yang Rong,a/k/a/Yeung Yung Rhea Yeung,and Broadsino Company Ltd.v.Liaoning Privincial Government,C.Cas.03-1687RBW (D.C.2003).
26.See www.siongpo.com/20031026/intlc.htm.
27.Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,28 U.S.C.§1608 a (2) (1976).
28.See http：//www.travel.state.gov/judicial_assistance.html,last visited on March 1,2017.
29.See http：//travel.state.gov/china_legal.html,last visited on March 1,2017.
30.LU JUN,GUOJI SIFA ZHI LILUN YU SHIJIAN [THEORY AND PRACTICE OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW] 75-81 (1936).
31.See DICEY & MORRIS ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS 89 (Lawrence Collins ed.,13th ed.,1999).
【注释】
[1]It is generally believed that common law judges used public policy in a purely defensive manner to bar the application of foreign rules,whereas civil law jurisdictions also seize upon this reservation to justify the application of forum law.
[2]The Legislative Committee of the Central People’s Government discharged the legislative function at that time since the National People’s Congress was not established until 1954.
[3]Though these provisions do not speak of “ordre public” directly,they are labeled as typical ordre public reservation rules in Chinese Legislation since state sovereignty,security and socio-public interests (etc.) are usually listed as the core elements of the doctrine which are embraced by Chinese judges and scholars.See XU HONG,GUOJI MINSHI SIFA XIEZHU [INTERNATIONAL CIVIL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE] 181 (1996).
[4]Divorce was prohibited under Argentina Law at that time.
[5]At that time,Hai Kou Maritime Court was not established; therefore,Guangzhou Maritime Court had jurisdiction over this case.
[6]The Eighteenth Session of the Seventh National People’s Congress ratified the Hague Service Convention on March 2,1991; The United States ratified the Convention in 1969.See LI SHUANGYUAN & XIE SHISONG,AN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL CIVIL PROCEDURE 413 (2001); GARY B.BORN,INTERNATIONAL CIVIL LITIGATION IN THE U.S.COURTS 197 (3rd ed.1997).
[7]A stated-owned enterprise is defined as the agency or instrumentality of a foreign state.See Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,28 U.S.C.§ 1603 (1976).
[8]Under subsection (e) of § 1608 of FSIA,judgment by default may be entered by a United States federal court against a foreign state,a political subdivision thereof,or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state if the claimant establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court.
[9]However,it should be noted that China could have achieved the same outcome by later raising improper service of process as a defense,in which case the court would then have power to free China from the remaining litigation,as discussed in the following paragraph.
[10]It should be mentioned that the National People’s Congress of China ratified the Hague Evidence Convention on July 3,1997,therefore,this case did not fall under the Convention.
[11]Yang Rong was listed as one of China’s 100 richest business people by Forbes in 2002.Yang’s wife obtained US citizenship and went to live in the United States in June 2002.In October 2002,the Liaoning Provincial Procuratorate ratified the arrest of Yang Rong as an appropriator of State-owned assets.On September 29,2003,Bo Xilai,governor of Liaoning Province,stated that Yang Rong was not a private entrepreneur at all,but an agent entrusted by the government to run state-owned assets in the group,thus refuting Yang’s private entrepreneur identity.
[12]On March 3,2005,the U.S.District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Yong’s claim on the ground that the Court was without subject matter jurisdiction and therefore could not entertain the Plaintiff’s claim.