The Expansion of China’s Exclusive Jurisdiction in International Civil Procedure: Legal Transplant or False Analogies?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the exclusive jurisdiction rule in Article 279 of the Civil Procedure Law (CPL) 2023 of the People's Republic of China (PRC), which introduces two newly covered types of disputes: those involving the establishment, dissolution, liquidation, and validity of resolutions of legal persons or other organizations, and those concerning the validity of intellectual property rights (IPRs). Through a comparative analysis with Article 24 of Brussels I Recast 2012, the study highlights key differences—the Chinese exclusive jurisdiction rule for legal persons or other organizations adopts a hybrid approach combining enumeration and generalization, while Brussels 2012 follows a strictly enumerative method. In addition, the exclusive jurisdiction rule for IPRs adopts the broad term “Intellectual Property” instead of specifying categories like patents or trademarks, as seen in Brussels 2012, and restricts its application to disputes over the validity of intellectual property, explicitly excluding registration disputes. An analysis of nine rulings from 2024 shows that Chinese courts strictly adhere to the scope of this exclusive jurisdiction rule. However, challenges remain in accurately identifying foreign elements and consistently citing Article 279. The findings suggest that China’s two new categories of exclusive jurisdiction in international civil procedure are legal transplants rather than flawed analogies. Consequently, concerns that the expansion of China’s exclusive jurisdiction is unfriendly to foreign companies or parties may be overstated. The article concludes with two recommendations: (1) Chinese courts should enhance their identification of foreign elements in cases before applying the exclusive jurisdiction rule; and (2) Chinese courts should explicitly clarify their obligation to apply the exclusive jurisdiction rule in judicial reasoning and cite Article 279 in the judgment’s result section.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".