China's Jurisdiction Agreements In The Standardization Of Convention On Choice Of Court Agreements

At its 20th Diplomatic Conference,the Hague Conference on International Private Law passed the 2005 Hague Choice of Courts Agreement Convention,which provided the blueprint for the practice of the first international convention for the jurisdiction of foreign litigation and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.The Chinese government signed the Convention on September 12,2017 and will step up its endeavor on the ratification of the Convention.This article takes the 2005 Hague Choice of Courts Agreement Convention as background and introduces the relevant contents of the selection of the court agreement and the exclusive jurisdiction of the chosen court in the Convention as the starting point,focusing on the commonality,variability and communicability between the above content of the Convention and the agreement jurisdiction of China.The conclusions are divided into two main directions.One is the provisions or systems that our country's agreements still need to retain and adhere to after we accede to the convention.The other is to adapt to the Convention,and what adjustments should be made to our country's agreement jurisdiction system.The main content of the article is composed of five parts:the introduction,the relationship between the convention and the Chinese agreement jurisdiction,the comparison and analysis of the content of the convention and the agreement jurisdiction of China,the suggestion and conclusion of the contents of the Chinese agreement jurisdiction from the perspective of the convention.By analyzing the similarities and differences between China's domestic jurisdictional rules and the Convention,China has studied the countermeasures for China's ratification of the "Convention on the Choice of Court Agreements",while minimizing the negative impact of the Convention on China's jurisdictional system and exploring the operability.This article argues that there is no fundamental conflict between the Convention and China's jurisdictional system.A few differences can be avoided by declaration.The differences between China's current agreement jurisdiction system and the contents of the Convention are mainly reflected in the fact that there are fewer formal requirements for jurisdictional agreements in China than in the Convention,and there are differences between the provisions on statutory invalidity terms of the Convention and the relevant provisions of Chinese laws,and the legal application laws of jurisdictional agreements.The provisions between the Convention and our countrys regulations on application laws are inconsistent.And China laws rarely provide how to define exclusive jurisdiction.The modification of these differences is a supplement and improvement to China's contractual jurisdiction system.Therefore,clarifying the requirements of the existing laws on the selection of court agreements,improving the rules governing the choice of court agreements,clarifying the legal application of the agreement,determining the legal requirements for exclusive jurisdiction,and adhering to the principle of "actual contact" are China's adaptation to the convention,which is a necessary adjustment to the Convention.