The judgments of the elected court must be recognized in all states where the convention is applicable. Clearly, Chinese judicial practice is different from the convention. In China, the answer is lex fori. In general, Chinese courts consider the validity of the decision to be a procedural matter governed by traditional international private lex fori law. On the other hand, under the convention, the law in force is the right of the state of the elected jurisdiction (Article 5, paragraph 1, s. 6 a), Article 9, point a). I understand that, according to Justice Song`s idea, after China`s ratification of the convention, if the parties agree on a tribunal that has no connection to the dispute, the Chinese courts will probably find the agreement valid and decide whether they accept the case on the basis of the agreement. The Hague Judicial Convention, formally the 30 June 2005 Convention on the Election of Judicial Conventions, is an international treaty concluded in the framework of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. It was completed in 2005 and came into force on October 1, 2015.

The European Union (for the European territory of all Member States except Denmark), Denmark, Mexico, Singapore and the United Kingdom[a] are parties to the convention. [2] China, Northern Macedonia, Ukraine and the United States signed the convention but did not ratify it. Song J.A. noted that if the parties agree to elect a tribunal that is not substantially connected to the litigation, even if the States Parties still stick to an essential principle of liaison, their courts cannot invalidate the choice of judicial agreement, but they may refuse to accept the case. On the basis of my observation, China`s initial intention to adopt the principle of the essential link is to prevent the parties from taking a Chinese case to a foreign court, which leads to the flow of business. If the Chinese courts are sufficiently competitive, the abandonment of the principle will not lead to such a flow, but will lead to an influx of foreign affairs. Whether China should abandon this principle therefore depends on the confidence of its own competitiveness. The question is when and how China would ratify the convention.

Justice Song commented on the potential impact of the agreement on China. In short, with respect to consensual jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgment, the convention is very different from current jurisprudence in China, particularly with regard to the law applicable to the choice of judicial agreement, the exclusivity of the choice of judicial agreement and the essential binding principle that may affect China`s ratification process of the convention. The Convention is the first multilateral international convention for the association of judicial provisions relating to the election of jurisdiction and the enforcement of the sentence in civil and commercial matters. In accordance with the Convention, the recognition and execution of a foreign judgment generally conforms to the following requirements: how to deal with differences is a problem that must be resolved when China discusses the ratification of the convention. Justice Song requests that the consensual court demonstrate the autonomy of the party in dispute resolution proceedings, and that it not be unduly disturbed and limited. In 2020, Shanghai Second Intermediate People`s Court implemented the judgments of the Minsk City District Court, the Republic of Belarus, in October.