Research On The Legislation Of Anti-Suit Injunctions In Foreign-Related Civil Litigation In China

Recently,along with the resurgence of trade protectionism,countries have been issuing injunctions as a way to protect the development of their own industries,and the right to judicial discourse and initiative in international parallel litigation.The issuance of anti-suit injunctions and anti-anti-suit injunctions are increasingly frequent.In the process of international economic interactions involving civil and commercial subjects in China,foreign courts continue to issue anti-suit injunctions,China’s courts have to protect the interests of domestic parties in such litigation.Under the circumstances of legal lacunae,expanding the interpretation of Behavior Preservation to issue anti-suit injunctions,triggering theoretical concerns and discussions.As a domestic method from the United Kingdom to resolve the conflict of jurisdiction,with the parties to regulate the abuse of litigation and effective solution to the function of international parallel litigation,but there is interference with the judicial sovereignty of other countries and lead to the "war of anti-suit injunctions" of the drawbacks.China’s academic field,although early contact and research on the injunction,but whether China needs to build the anti-suit injunction system has been more controversial.In recent years,with the civil procedure law in the act of preservation measures established,China’s courts gradually appear similar to the judicial practice of anti-suit injunction measures,issues of anti-suit injunctions deserve attention.At the same time,China’s legal system does not have the relevant provisions on anti-suit injunction,is still in a blank state,in the relevant system construction and practice still has a large space.This paper will analyze the aforementioned problems,explore the reasons for China’s foreign-related civil litigation injunction legislation,clarify the legislative barriers to China’s injunction system and put forward corresponding proposals.The first chapter is the analysis of the reasons why China should establish anti-suit injunction in foreign-related civil litigation,mainly involving the practice of anti-suit injunction in China and the feasibility of China to legislate anti-suit injunction.Through the introduction of China’s court practice,and the existing legal system in China and the analysis of its implementation effect and impact,finally analyze the feasibility legislative reasons of anti-suit injunction.The second chapter introduces the obstacles in anti-suit injunction legislation in China.First,through the historical origins of anti-sit injunction,from its essence to understand the connotation of anti-suit injunction and its close ties with the common law system,summarizing its underlying logic;second,the limitations of anti-suit injunction itself,as a regulation of international parallel litigation,the termination of the unilateral relief measures of other countries’ court proceedings,the restrictions on the parties’ right to sue,the impact on other judicial sovereignty and the conflict with the principle of international comity;third,the analysis of the main obstacles that anti-suit injunction may have in the process of construction in China,mainly its compatibility with China’s legal system.The third chapter mainly introduces how other countries issue anti-suit injunctions.First,review the practice of courts from different counties in the application of anti-suit injunctions,followed by an analysis of the main paths can be drawn from,including: how Germany issued anti-injunction countermeasures,the process of equitable considerations and the full weighing of individual justice and the conservative mode of issuing injunctions prudent attitude.The fourth chapter is about the conclusion of how China should legislate anti-suit injunction in foreign-related civil litigation.First,it is clear that the legislation must clarify basic guidelines,that is,the issuance of injunctions must adhere to the principle of prudence,based on individual cases to weigh the interests of justice;second,courts should consider substantive factors.