On Legal Regulation Of International Parallel Proceedings

One common phenomenon of positive conflicts of international civil jurisdictions is parallel proceedings. On one hand, parallel proceedings provide litigants more routes to obtain legal remedy, on the other hand, it causes a series of problems, such as a waste of judicial resources and an increased litigation cost. Generally speaking, most countries in the world place restrictions on parallel proceedings and the two main regulating patterns adopted by them are rule-guidance method and elastic analysis method. In respect of concrete institutions, the former pattern includes first-seised court approach and recognition prognosis principle; the latter pattern includes forum non convenience, lis abili pendens, anti-suit injunction and so on.The thesis adopts both methods of positivism and comparative research approach to analyze the historical course of different countries' institutions and make a research on their differences. It first makes a positivistic analyzing research on legislation and judicial practices of different countries. Then, the author discusses the applications of relevant institutions in particular cases and pays special attentions on the legislation and practice in China. Meanwhile, the author does an overall comparison of the two regulating patterns' advantages and disadvantages and draws a conclusion based on the actuality of China. This thesis is composed of five chapters:The introduction gives a general overview of parallel proceedings. It defines the implication of parallel proceedings and its composing factors, demonstrates the necessity of regulating parallel proceedings.Chapter 1 introduces the "rule-guidance methods" which are adopted mainly by civil law countries to restrict parallel proceedings. The institutions of first-seised court approach and recognition prognosis all fall into this regulating pattern. This chapter introduces the legislations and judicial practices of several countries, make an analysis of the feasibility of the above institutions and present a relief introduction of the draft "Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgment in Civil and Commercial Matters".Chapter 2 introduces the regulating pattern of "elastic analysis method" which is adopted by common law countries to restrict parallel proceedings. The author first discusses three concrete institutions of this pattern, "forum non convenience", "lis abili endens" and "anti-suit injunction". Then, applications of these institutions in the U.K.'s and U.S.'s judicial practices have been investigated and the limitation of "elastic analysis method" has also been discussed in this chapter.Chapter 3 focuses on the construction of regulating model to restrict parallel proceedings. It makes a comparative analysis of the two different regulating patterns, introduces the contents of 2005 "Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements", gives a clear explanation of the relevant elements which should be considered when restricting parallel proceedings and points out the developing trends of the parallel-proceeding-regulating pattern.Chapter 4 is about the legislation, judicial practice in China and suggestions. The author first analyzes the legislations and judicial situations concerning parallel proceedings in China. Then, based on the above chapters' researches, a series of suggestions for the regulation of parallel proceedings are brought up in this chapter.