There are two different modes of application of the court first seised rule(CF SR)as a method of coordinating international parallel proceedings(IPP)between common and civil legal systems.While the Chinese mode of CFSR for IPP established by Article 281 of Civil Procedure Law demonstrates Chi-na's co-operative position of expressing moderate comity towards foreign courts in the transnational allo-cation of civil jurisdiction,the theoretical advantages of coordinating IPP contained in Chinese CFSR are difficult to realize due to the neglect of transformation of the applicable field.The CFSR escape clause aimed at reducing the rigidity of CFSR not only neglects the rectifying function of the Chinese foreign-re-lated civil procedure rule system,but also blurs the relationship between CFSR and the doctrine of forum non conveniences(FNC).In view of the relevance between the"first seised court"and the"appropriate court"in international civil litigation,FNC is eligible to replace the function of CFSR.There are differ-ences between domestic law and international law in the regulation of IPP.CFSR in relevant treaties can provide the path of transnational judicial cooperation for China to coordinate IPP,and IPP not regulated by treaties can be resolved in accordance with FNC in Chinese domestic law.The effective regulation of IPP ultimately depends on the accumulation and promotion of judicial mutual trust among different coun-tries.China's basic position on and method of coordinating IPP should be participating in the negotia-tion of relevant treaties,fulfilling treaty obligations in good faith,and actively applying FNC in domestic law in the determination of the"appropriate court"of competence.
court first seised ruleforum non conveniensinternational parallel litigationappropriate forumJurisdiction Program
NETL
NSTL
万方数据
