First-seized Court Rule And The Settlement Of The Parallel Proceedings Between The Mainland And Hong Kong

Parallel proceeding between the Mainland and Hong Kong is the result of conflict between the jurisdictions of the two regions.To resolve the issue of parallel proceeding between the two regions,we must firstly realize that there are three obstacles when coordinating the conflict of jurisdictions between the two regions: the jurisdictional systems in two regions are different,the coordination of jurisdiction in two region are different and insufficient mutual trust between the two regions.It is true that a unified jurisdiction system can solve the parallel proceedings problem once and for all,but this method is not feasible in the short term.Therefore,It is necessary to provide a method of coordination of jurisdiction to deal with parallel proceedings.In this regard,from the perspectives of judicial efficiency,mutual trust,foreseeability,and legislative technology,the first seized court rule has its advantages over other methods,and the rule has indirect provisions in the field of judgment recognition and enforcement in the Mainland and Hong Kong.In addition,the first seized court rule has its shortcomings.Firstly,the rule does not consider the situation that the second seized court has exclusive jurisdiction and conventional jurisdiction,secondly,the rule does not consider Possibility of the acceptance and enforcement of the first seized court ’s judgment.Therefore,we need to set exceptions and restrictions when rule apply.In the international community,there are two models of first-seized court rules,including the Brussels Convention model and the Hague convention model.Since the free flow of judgments is basically achieved within the EU,the Brussels Convention model does not take second flaw of the rule into account.Only stipulates that first seized court rule.The Hague Convention model is faced with an international society with a relatively weak foundation for judicial cooperation,so it stipulates the first seized court rule which is limited by recognition prognosis rule.To deal with the first flaw of the rule,both models stipulate that when the second seized court has exclusive jurisdiction or conventional jurisdiction,the first seized court rule shall not be applied.Considering the actual situation of the Mainland and Hong Kong,we can follow the implementation of route: cases—the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Jurisdiction Coordination Agreement—the jurisdictional arrangement between the Mainland and Hong Kong.In the case stage,since the goal of free flow of judgments between two regions has not been achieved,the Hague Convention model can be used,and enhancing mutual trust between the two places is most important thing in this stage.In the latter stages,the judgment recognition and enforcement system of the two places should run smoothly and Brussels can be used to improve the judicial efficiency.At the end of the article,from the perspective of the same parties,the same cause of action,seized,result of application and exceptions,design the provisions of the first seized court rule.