Research On The Reservation Problem And Countermeasure Of Ratifying The Convention On The Choice Of Court Agreement In China

When a court of one country makes a judgment on a dispute,how to get the recognition and enforcement of the court of another country is the concern of the parties involved in international trade disputes,which is really related to the interests of the parties of all countries.In order to solve this problem,the Hague Convention on The Choice of Court,as a judgment convention based on the exclusive choice of court agreement between parties,came into being in 2005.China has participated in the whole process from the formation,formulation to adoption of the Convention on The Choice of Courts agreement,and officially signed the Convention in 2017.At present,China is facing the problem of how to ratify the Convention and how to make the Convention applied in China’s judicial practice.This paper starts with the analysis of the key provisions of the Convention of the Agreement on the Choice of Courts,analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of China’s ratification of the Convention,and combines with the study of Singapore,which is the world’s first application of the convention,to put forward how China should make reservations or unilateral declarations on the key provisions.This paper adopts the methods of comparative study,systematic study and empirical study to study the problems existing in China’s ratification of the Convention on The Choice of Court Agreement and its countermeasures.The author first introduces the background,the process and the basic content of the 2005 Hague Convention on The Choice of Court agreement,and then introduces the basic situation of the Convention and its relationship with China.This paper analyzes the necessity of ratifying the Convention on The Choice of Court agreement in China,analyzes the positive significance and negative impact on China after ratifying the applicable convention from the perspective of the countries and practices that have signed the Convention,and draws a conclusion that the advantages of China’s ratification and application of the Convention outweigh the disadvantages.It is also discussed that the reservation made by China at the time of ratification can avoid the possible risks caused by some issues in the Convention.After that,the author discusses in detail the legal problems faced by China’s ratification of the Convention on The Choice of Court agreement,and analyzes the differences between the Convention on the Choice of Court Agreement and the existing domestic law from the three key points of the choice of court agreement,the determination of jurisdiction,and the recognition and enforcement of judgment.Finally,based on the issue of China’s ratification of the Convention on The Choice of Court Agreement,the author combined with the case of Singapore’s first application of the ruling of the Convention with a detailed analysis and summary to propose specific countermeasures.The author’s attitude towards the issue of appeal is as follows: First,the exclusive choice of court agreement should be limited.Second,the determination of jurisdiction in the Convention on The Choice of Court Agreement The author believes that the hierarchical jurisdiction is the result of the distribution of state power in China and should be adhered to,while the exclusive jurisdiction system should be open and applied in some areas,and should not be overused.As a result,the author believes that the principle of practical connection should also be adhered to,and reservations should be made while ratifying the Convention.However,the wording of this principle should also be amended in China’s domestic law to make it explicit.Thirdly,the recognition and execution of the judgment.The author believes that our country should adhere to the legal system of punitive damages,in some areas to increase the application of punitive damages,but also should give full consideration to the scope of application and conditions,should not abuse punitive damages.At the same time,it is considered to make up for the procedural problems of recognition and enforcement of judgments by adding relevant domestic laws.