Skip Navigation


Chinese Journal of International Law Advance Access originally published online on September 15, 2009
Chinese Journal of International Law 2009 8(3):621-636; doi:10.1093/chinesejil/jmp019
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
8/3/621    most recent
jmp019v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by FEI, L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved

BRIEF COMMENTS, ESSAYS AND NOTES

Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between Hong Kong and Mainland China: A Successful Model?

FEI Lanfang*

Correspondence: * PhD candidate, Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong, LLB, LLM, China (email: h0798510{at}hkusua.hku.hk). I am grateful to my PhD supervisor, Professor Katherine Lynch, at the University of Hong Kong, for her instructions. This paper was completed on 10 March 2009.

After the handover in 1997, the Supreme People's Court of Mainland China and the Department of Justice of Hong Kong concluded in 1999 a bilateral Arrangement to resolve the problem of enforcing arbitral awards. The Arrangement provides a unique implementation instrument. This paper examines a number of court rulings in Hong Kong and the Mainland and evaluates how the Arrangement has played out in reality. The author observes that both the Mainland and Hong Kong share certain basic intentions for applying the Arrangement, including exclusion of reviewing merits, a cautious attitude towards public policy, and relaxed procedural requirements. On the other hand, there are also some differences in judicial practice revealed in the cases. Some of these differences, such as the scope of the Arrangement's application and double enforcement, are derived from the ambiguity of the Arrangement itself and must be clarified. Others, such as the validity of the arbitration agreement and the difficulty in applying foreign law, arise from the different statutes and legal traditions and may be eliminated through the development of law and further legal assistance between the Mainland and Hong Kong.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.