|
Evidence located in the HKSAR, the MSAR or the Taiwan Region should also be certified according to the relevant procedure. But, what is the “relevant” procedure? The Rules doesn’t point this out. In the present sources of Chinese interregional judicial assistance, it is only the Arrangement on the Service of Judicial Documents Abroad and the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters Between Mainland China and the Macao Special Administrative Region that regulates the taking of evidence, but it too does not contain the rules of procedure of certification. Therefore, it fails to regulate this “relevant” procedure. We propose that the procedure of certification of evidence relating to the HKSAR, the MSAR or the Taiwan Region should be “proved by the agency of public certification of the place of evidence” according to the above rules of evidence located abroad.
III. Statistics and Analysis of Cases Involving Foreign Elements
According to information of the Supreme People’s Court, the number of all cases accepted by all courts in Mainland China in 2001 was 8,704,401, and the number of cases handled by the courts was 8,723,593. On the other hand, the total number of cases relating to foreign countries, the HKSAR, the MSAR and the Taiwan Region accrued to10,888. The number of cases relating to foreign countries was 5,695, the number of cases relating to the HKSAR was 2,953, the number of cases relating to the MSAR was 392, and the number of cases relating to the Taiwan Region was 1,848. According to above data, the number of cases relating to foreign countries regions, the HKSAR, the MSAR and the Taiwan Region in 2001 was greater than that in year 2000, but these cases consisted of only 0.124% of the total cases handed by all courts in 2001.
In this section, we select and analyze principally 50 cases judged by the relevant courts in 2001 as to their methods of choice of law, application of law and establishment of jurisdiction, and then arrive at some primary conclusions. We have created several tables to show various useful data. These tables are as follows:
Table 1: Statistics of Cases
Category Name of Case Country or Region Involved Applicable Law The Method of Choice of Law
Contracts Qindao Pingdu Import & Export Co. v. (Korea) Seoul City Farming and Fishing Industry Korea Chinese law The principle of the most significant relationship (doesn’t demonstrate the most significant connections.)
(Korea) National People’s Bank v. Shanghai Suhao International Trade Ltd. and Shanghai Branch of Belgium United Bank Korea &Belgium Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 500) Party autonomy.
Korea Dayu v. Shandong Lining Shoes-Making Ltd. Korea Chinese law The principle of the most significant relationship with the method of characteristic performance.
Trade Arbed Private Ltd. v. Zhenjiang Luda Foreign Trade Co. Luxembourg Chinese law The final judgment applied to the Principle of the most significant relationship, but the 1st judgment didn’t explain application of Chinese law.
Taiping Commercial Co. v. Jiangsu Nantong International (Group) Dress Import & Export Co. Japan Chinese law The judgments didn’t explain application of Chinese law.
Guangzhou Futian Automobile Equipment Co. Ltd. v. Darong Automobile Inc. Japan Chinese law The judgments didn’t explain application of Chinese law.
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Quanfa Inc. v. Jiangxi Yudu People’s Government Hong Kong Chinese law The judgments didn’t explain application of Chinese law.
Hong Kong Antuo (China) Ltd. v. Chengdu Shudu Mansion Co. Ltd. Hong Kong Chinese law The judgments didn’t explain application of Chinese law.
Fujian Xiamen Xiayou Container-Making Ltd. v. Korea Modern Comprehensive and Commercial Co. Ltd. Korea Chinese law The judgments didn’t explain application of Chinese law.
Admiralty Yu Xiaohong v. (Panama) Goodhill Navgation S.A. Panama Chinese law (1974 International Convention on the Safety of the Life is taken into account) The judgment applied to the conflict the rule of lex loci dilicti.
Guanyun Economic and Trade Co., v. Compagnie Maritime d’ Affretement and Burns Philp Agencies (Hong Kong) Ltd. France & Hong Kong Chinese law The judgment applied to the conflict the rule of lex loci dilicti.
Emarat Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Zhang Hanjin, Chen Muming and Chen Xiexing St. Vincent & the Grenadines Chinese law (1972 International Rules on Evasion of Collision at Sea is taken into account) The judgment applied to the conflict the rule of lex loci dilicti.
Hebei Branch of Chinese People’s Insurance Co. v. Vysanthi Co. Ltd. Cyprus Chinese law The principle of the most significant relationship.
Xinhui Xinyuan Metal Product Co. Ltd., v. Apc Asia Pacific Cargo (HK) Ltd., and P&O Nedlloyd B.V. Hong Kong & Holland Chinese law The judgment applied to the conflict the rule of lex loci dilicti.
Huangpu Branch of Guangzhou Foreign-ship Accommodation Co. Ltd. v. Castelli Holding Inc. Panama Chinese law The principle of the most significant relationship.
Maritime P&O Nedlloyd B.V. and P&O Nedlloyd (China) Ship Ltd. v. Adilan S.A. Holland & Uruguay Chinese law The final judgment applied the principle of the most significant relationship despite the provision of B/L selecting United Kingdom law.
Azoil Bunkering Ltd. v. Rydbergs Shipping Ltd. Greece & Malta (both parties are foreigners) United Kingdom Sales of Goods act 1979 The parties selected foreign law.
(Panama) Woodtrans Navigation Corp. and Sanwai Navigation S.A. v. Angang (Group) International Economic and Trade Corp. Panama & Taiwan Chinese law and Panama law Parties selected Chinese law presumptively, but the problems about ownership of the ship were subjected to Panama law.
South Sea Guanqiu Furniture Ltd., and Xiangjian Ltd. v. Asia Cargo Shipping Inc. Hong Kong Chinese law The judgment applied to the conflict the rule of lex loci dilicti.
Jiangsu Light Industry Product Import & Export (Group) Co. Ltd. v. Jiangsu International Round-The-World Shipping Inc. and Briliant International Corp. U.S.A America USA Uniform Commercial Code The principle of party autonomy and the principle of the most significant relationship.
|
