Research On The Resolving System Of Parallel Proceedings

The reasons for causing the parallel proceedings are many-sided, and its applicable rules are changing. But until now there hasn't been an authoritative international institution or general international treaty to make it clear and normative. Also the applicable rules for parallel proceedings in each country's judicial organs and judicial practice are all different.Looking from domestic legislative practice and judicial practice in each country, there are three modes on dealing with parallel jurisdiction conflicts: (1) The mode of Britain, America, Canada, etc., that is to cease the native lawsuit or external lawsuit according to the different circumstances; (2) The mode of Swiss, German, Austria, etc., that is generally to admit the lawsuit being carried on by a foreign country has the effectiveness to pause the native lawsuit, but it needs some certain condition to pause the native lawsuit; (3) The mode of India, Pakistan, Burma, etc., that is to insist that the international civil case should be heard by one country and it won't be influenced because the object of litigation was indicted in the external court by the party.In recent years, as the further opening to the outside world of our country and the spread of foreign economic activities the parallel proceedings on our country's parties are springing up constantly. But our country has neither relevant systems nor the regulations of the legal precedent about this kind of question at present. Such circumstances not only go against protecting the party's legal advantages in our country, but also make the court have no temporization on facing such a question. This situation needs to be settled after entering into the WTO.So, first this essay adopts comparison method and summarizes the basic principle on solving the problems about parallel proceedings in theoretical practice of each country, that is Principle of International Comity, Principle of International Harmonization, Principle of Party Autonomy and Principle of Effectiveness. Second combining with each country's beneficial judicial practice it states the basic system on settling the problems of parallel proceedings based on above basic principle, that is court received the first, Contractual Jurisdiction, The Inconvenient Court System, Abatement of Action System and Forbiddance of Action System. Finally, we should keep the dialectical materialism attitude to face the legislative status of our country on solving parallel proceedings problems objectively and enforce the rationality of the present system, conquer the defect, so as to build a system of parallel proceedings that make court received the first and abatement of action system primary and contractual jurisdiction and doctrine of foram non convenience secondary, which accords with the situation of our country and has a Chinese character.