BILATERAL TREATY ON MUTUAL ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS BETWEEN JAPAN AND CHINA: A DISCUSSION ON LEGAL STRUCTURE

[...]there is both certainty and uncertainty regarding the enforcement of judgments between the two countries: certainty over the need for judgment enforceability, and uncertainty over judgment unenforceability under the current enforcement regimes of both countries. [...]Section E concludes that a treaty based on the framework suggested herein is legally viable and would serve the economic interests of both countries. [...]there is no bilateral treaty between China and Japan so enforcement of a Japanese judgment in China has to rely on the default rule of reciprocity. Since this was the first ever reported enforcement case in China,22 and one endorsed by the SPC, it appears that Chinese courts adopted an ultra-conservative view in interpreting the reciprocity requirement. [...]according to recent research by the author, no enforcement of a foreign judgment succeeded in China expressly on the basis of reciprocity until December 2017.23 As far as Japanese judgments are concerned, a Beijing court restated the lack of reciprocity between China and Japan in 2004.24 In that case, the defendant of a trademark infringement case in China tried to cite a Japanese judgment as evidence of its authorized use of the trademark.25 However, again without giving a definition, the court declared that there was no reciprocity between the countries and went on to rule the Japanese judgment inadmissible as evidence.