Weixia Gu on All Flowers Blossom: The New Dynamic of Arbitration in Asia (Asian Dispute Review)

"All Flowers Blossom: The New Dynamic of Arbitration in Asia"

Weixia Gu

Asian Dispute Review

Published online: July 2025

Abstract: This article sets out the results of a study which examines and compares dispute and caseload data from six leading Asian international arbitral institutions over the period 2018-2024, updating the results of a study of 2018. The findings reveal that several Chinese institutions, notably the Shanghai International Arbitration Centre (SHIAC) and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), have outpaced their Singaporean counterpart, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), by a significant margin, in terms of (1) percentage growth in both total and average amounts in dispute and (2) what this means as to their role and influence in developing arbitration in the Asia region.

Weixia Gu comments on the establishment of the International Organization for Mediation

"Hong Kong hits a high with global legal body, but now comes the hard part"
Jess Ma, Jeffie Lam, Harvey Kong
South China Morning Post
31 May 2025

Hong Kong made a groundbreaking move on Friday (30 May 2025) when it became the headquarters for a new intergovernmental mediation body but the unit’s real tests will be in the types of substantive cases it handles and whether more countries will join the convention, experts have said.

While the China-led International Organisation for Mediation launched on Friday with 33 signatories, and the conspicuous absence of major Western countries, leading lawyers said they expected more nations would join once the body’s work was promoted.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi was front and centre at a high-level ceremony for countries to formally sign as founding members of the organisation…

Asked about the participating countries, former justice minister Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah stressed that each one was an equal entity that should not be judged as “big or small”…

Hong Kong’s traditional rival Singapore had earlier spearheaded the formation of the Singapore Convention on Mediation, a treaty which came into force in 2020 and governs the enforcement of mediation outcomes in international commercial disputes.

The two world superpowers – China and the United States – were among the 46 nations that signed the multilateral treaty in 2019, alongside countries such as Britain, Japan and Australia.

Gu Weixia, an associate professor of the University of Hong Kong’s law faculty, said that the Singapore convention was a treaty led by the UN Commission on International Trade Law and acted as an enforcement tool for mediation outcomes.

“Its scope of application is comparatively restrictive,” she explained.

“It only targets international commercial mediation, and it only affects enforcement [of mediation settlement agreements].”

Gu, a dispute resolution specialist, also highlighted that more than 40 countries had signed the treaty, but only 18 had ratified it. Singapore and Japan are the only developed nations to have ratified the convention.

She said the International Organisation for Mediation has a wider scope of application, including interstate and investor-state disputes. It also offers additional options for legal services in the city.

“Most international legal capitals are in the West, such as The Hague, Geneva, New York and Washington,” Gu said. “The International Organisation for Mediation established in Hong Kong is a big booster for the city’s status in international law.”

Click here to read the full text on SCMP website.

Weixia Gu spoke at International Arbitration Symposium at Cornell Law School

International Arbitration Symposium Provides Better Understanding of International Arbitration

Pictured (from left to right): Dr. Yuh-Ming Yan, Dr. Weixia Gu, Bianca Lin, and Professor Yun-chien Chang

On 18th April 2025, the International Arbitration Society, in collaboration with the Clarke Program in East Asian Law and Culture, hosted the Cornell International Arbitration Symposium at the Cornell Law School. This event brought together leading experts in the field to discuss various aspects of international arbitration in the East and the West. Dr. Weixia Gu, a leading scholar on international arbitration at our Law Faculty, has been invited to speak at this eminent event.

The symposium began with a morning panel featuring experts with Sinophone backgrounds. Dr. Yuh-Ming Yan, Associate Professor from Taiwan’s leading law school, National Chengchi University Law School, shared insights on arbitration developments in Taiwan. Dr. Weixia Gu, Associate Professor from Hong Kong’s top law school, The University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law, then provided law and development insights into international arbitration in Hong Kong. Dr. Wei Gao, Associate Professor from mainland China’s top law school, Peking University Law School, analysed mainland China's arbitration landscape, and Bianca Lin, Partner from Allegaert Berger & Vogel, shared her experiences combining East Asian background with her legal practice in the U.S. The panel emphasized on how international arbitration frequently involves cross-border collaboration, and how understanding the practices and contexts of different jurisdictions is crucial. Moderated by Yun-chien Chang, Jack G. Clarke Professor in East Asian Law and Culture at Cornell Law School, the morning panel laid the groundwork for a deeper understanding of international arbitration in a cross-border and cross-cultural context.

The discussions continued in the afternoon panel, which focused more on American perspectives of international arbitration. Lee Caplan, leader of Arent Fox Schiff’s international arbitration practice group and a former assistant attorney at the State Department Office of the Legal Adviser, discussed the politics of investment arbitration in the U.S.. Afterwards, Ted Lynch, Partner of International Arbitration at Jones Day, talked about the enforceability of international arbitral awards in US. Stephen Anway, global co-chair of International Dispute Resolution at Squire Patton Boggs, compared arbitration practices in mainland China and the U.S., and finally Muna Ndulo, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of International & Comparative Law and Director of the Berger International Legal Studies Program, outlined global efforts to reform international arbitration laws and practices. Justice Gambino 26′, President of the Cornell International Arbitration Society at Cornell Law School, moderated the afternoon panel.

The Cornell International Arbitration Symposium provided better understanding of international arbitration, highlighting the importance of collaboration and understanding diverse legal contexts of international arbitration in today's globalized world.

The official news report from the Cornell Law School is available here.

Weixia Gu comments on Hong Kong's rising significance for international arbitration in China

"As Chinese firms expand overseas, legal spotlight turns on cross-border disputes"
Alyssa Chen
South China Morning Post
6 October 2024

Chinese enterprises setting up overseas are navigating a minefield of legal challenges, making effective dispute resolution through arbitration more crucial than ever...

International arbitration is a preferred method for resolving cross-border commercial disputes outside traditional court systems and involves parties from different jurisdictions submitting their conflicts to a neutral arbitration centre...

Experts cautioned that Chinese companies face significant hurdles in international arbitration because of limited understanding, language barriers, the selection of arbitration venues and differences in legal systems – obstacles that require additional support and guidance from the Chinese government...

Chinese firms might find themselves at a disadvantage because of differences between the civil law system they are accustomed to in China and the common law systems prevalent in many Western countries, particularly regarding the handling of document requests and evidence procedures...

In the realm of international arbitration, Hong Kong was increasingly proving to be an indispensable bridge between Chinese legal practices and global standards, leveraging its unique position under the “one country, two systems” principle, Weixia Gu said.

Hong Kong’s legal system presented multiple strengths in international arbitration, such as the robustness of its common law, a deep-seated legal culture, abundant bilingual legal talent and the judicial reasoning embedded in its case law system, according to Gu.

“The city – the only place in China practising common law – brings a wealth of case law and a distinctive legal thinking that provides significant learning opportunities for arbitration institutions in mainland China,” Gu said...

Click here to read the full text.

Weixia Gu on China’s Modernization of International Commercial Arbitration and Transnational Legal Order (JITCL)

"China’s Modernization of International Commercial Arbitration and Transnational Legal Order"

Weixia Gu

The UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2024

Published online: October 2024

Abstract: China’s interaction with international commercial arbitration (ICA) norms reveals a trajectory from initial resistance to gradual alignment and potential emergence as a rule contributor. This early resistance manifested in its unique dual-track arbitration mechanism and institutional arbitration monopoly. Reforms signal a shift towards global standards, driven by pro-arbitration judicial efforts and institutional competition in China’s vibrant arbitration market. As China’s global influence expands, it is innovating to shape the ICA landscape through initiatives like the China-Africa Joint Arbitration Centre, the China International Commercial Court’s one-stop dispute resolution platform, and the International Commercial Dispute Prevention and Settlement Organization. The role of transnational legal elites in China further facilitates this evolution.

Weixia Gu became the first Chinese scholar to be appointed to the Academic Council (AC) of the Institute for Transnational Arbitration (ITA)

Congratulations to Prof. Weixia Gu on her appointment as the Academic Council of the Institute for Transnational Arbitration.

In June 2024, Weixia became the first Chinese scholar to be appointed to the Academic Council (AC) of the Institute for Transnational Arbitration (ITA), which is comprised of the top academics in the field of international arbitration. You can view the AC’s current membership online here.

Weixia Gu and Robin Hui Huang on China’s recognition and enforcement of foreign securities judgments against overseas-listed Chinese companies (OUP)

“China’s recognition and enforcement of foreign securities judgments against overseas-listed Chinese companies”
Robin Hui Huang, Weixia Gu
Journal of International Economic Law, Volume 26, Issue 3, September 2023, Pages 577–594
Published online: 26 May 2023

Abstract: Over the past decades, a growing number of Chinese companies have been listed overseas, notably in the USA and Hong Kong. They are subject to the securities regulation of listing places and can be sued thereunder against their securities misconduct. As overseas-listed Chinese companies usually have their main assets located in China, it is important that Chinese courts recognize and enforce foreign securities judgments. However, there are many difficulties in this area, which undermine the efficacy of the regulation of cross-border securities transactions. In quest of solutions, this article assesses the possibility of suing Chinese companies in the offshore financial centres where they are incorporated, finding that there would be similar issues with judgment enforcement in China. It also examines the viability of using arbitration as an alternative, arguing that arbitration may only supplement, rather than substituting, court litigation for resolving securities disputes. China should consider signing a bilateral treaty with the USA, clarifying the principle of reciprocity, and ratifying the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention and even the 2019 Hague Judgment Convention. Hong Kong is also advised to expand its current judgment recognition arrangement with Mainland China to cover securities judgments and join the relevant international conventions.

Yating Lin Awarded the 2nd Runner-up of the 2024 Young ITA Writing Competition and Award

Congratulations to Yating Lin (PhD candidate), whose one chapter of her doctoral thesis was awarded the 2nd Runner-up of the 2024 Young ITA Writing Competition and Award by the Institute for Transnational Arbitration, Young ITA. The thesis was supervised by Professor Weixia Gu and co-supervised by Professor Yun Zhao. 

     Background on the prize: The writing competition organized by Young ITA is a unique opportunity for young professionals to contribute actively to the research of international arbitration and to be recognized as qualified voices in this area, as well as to get involved in the activities of the Institute for Transnational Arbitration. 

Weixia Gu & Jacky Tam on the Global Rise of International Commercial Courts: Typology and Power Dynamics (Chicago J Int'l L)

"The Global Rise of International Commercial Courts: Typology and Power Dynamics"

Weixia Gu & Jacky Tam
Chicago Journal of International Law, 
Volume 22, Issue 2, pp. 444-493
Published in 2022

Abstract: Over the past decade, there has been a proliferation of International Commercial Courts (ICCs) across the globe. ICCs are specialized tribunals within the domestic court hierarchy tailored for the adjudication of complicated cross-border commercial disputes. Most ICCs share similar features, such as a set of flexible procedural rules comparable to those in international arbitration, multilingual court proceedings, and the recruitment of overseas judges or foreign legal experts.

     The global phenomenon calls for a systematic comparative study of the different generations of ICCs and their power dynamics. This Article will offer a unique typological framework to study the evolution of ICCs. In particular, emphasis will be placed on the power dynamics among the ICCs such as horizontal power dynamics among the ICCs inter se, and diagonal power dynamics between the ICCs and international arbitration. This Article argues that the most apt characterization of the two dimensions of power dynamics is “co-opetition,” a combination of “cooperation/collaboration/complementarity” and “competition.” While a race for cases and foreign litigants is inevitable, we argue that there is significant room for inter-regional cooperation and coordination to allow for and capitalize on different ICC niches and specialties.

New Book edited by Anselmo Reyes & Weixia Gu: Multi-Tier Approaches to the Resolution of International Disputes: A Global and Comparative Study (CUP)

Multi-Tier Approaches to the Resolution of International Disputes: 

A Global and Comparative Study
Editors: Anselmo Reyes & Weixia Gu 

Cambridge University Press 

Published in December 2021

Book Description: 

Multi-tier dispute resolution (MDR) entails an early attempt at mediation followed by arbitration or litigation if mediation is unsuccessful. Seemingly, everyone acknowledges MDR's attractiveness as a means of resolving disputes due to its combination of the flexibility and informality of mediation with the rigour and formality of arbitration or litigation. Yet, the question is why, except in China and some Asian jurisdictions, MDR is not resorted to around the world and MDR clauses in commercial contracts remain relatively uncommon. This book responds to that question by (1) surveying global regulatory approaches frameworks for MDR, (2) comparing MDR trends in Asia and the wider world, (3) identifying MDR's strengths and weaknesses, and (4) prescribing ways to address MDR's weaknesses (the enforceability of MDR clauses, the difficulties arising when the same person acts as mediator and decision-maker in the same dispute, and the enforcement of mediated settlement agreements resulting from MDR).
Review: 

'International arbitration is suffering from resurgent costs and delays (or formalization), underpinning the growth of multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses – requiring parties first to attempt mediation. The 2019 Singapore Convention should promote this by facilitating cross-border enforcement of settlements, despite few ratifications so far. But growth also depends on whether and how local legal systems allow enforcement of the mediation or other agreed step before arbitration. This timely and authoritative book examines 11 jurisdictions, mostly in the vibrant Asia-Pacific region, and wider developments across two other regions (OHADA and the EU). Some chapters also discuss Arb-Med, where an arbitration is – still somewhat controversially – combined with active settlement facilitation. The experienced editors assemble an impressive team of 16 other experts, mostly professors but often considerable experience in practice, to offer an invaluable and unique resource for researchers, practitioners and policy-makers.'

Professor Luke Nottage - Professor of Comparative and Transnational Business Law, University of Sydney & Williams Trade Law  

'This book provides a rich and insightful comparative analysis of the treatment of multi-tier dispute resolution clauses, a topic previously under-examined in the literature. These clauses are both practically significant and raise important questions of principle regarding the interaction between different modes of dispute resolution, and this very welcome book will be an invaluable reference point for practitioners and academics alike.'

Professor Alex Mills - Professor of Public and Private International Law, University College London

'Multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses are the new norm: and this is the one book you have to turn to if you want to understand them, and this irrespective of where you practice.'

Professor Franco Ferrari - Director, Center for Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, and Commercial Law, NYU School of Law

‘Anselmo Reyes and Weixia Gu give to us a precious gift on a topic which is becoming more and more common and increasingly challenging. The global perspective of the book with a standing point of observation in Eastern Asia is as unique as it is fascinating. This region has much to teach about its diverse experience of multi-tier dispute resolution. Furthermore, the team of authors gathered by the editors is simply outstanding. They have been capable of combining in their contributions useful data with theoretical thoughts and attractive proposals. Sincerely, none interested in the theory and practice of dispute resolution should ignore this wonderful book!’

Professor Diego P. Fernández Arroyo - Professor of Law at Sciences Po and Secretary-General, International Academy of Comparative Law

‘Multi-tier dispute resolution (MDR) may give rise to profound conceptual and practical challenges. Through offering comprehensive and delicate analysis of the MDR, this book has made an unparalleled contribution to the cross-disciplinary study of dispute resolution, societal legal studies and international law. The insights of Judge Anselmo Reyes, Professor Weixia Gu, and a group of leading scholars and practitioners make this book an indispensable reference and a rich source of inspiration for anyone interested in the cutting-edge topic of MDR.’ 

Professor Manjiao Chi - Professor at University of International Business and Economics and Founding Director, Center for International Economic Law and Policy

New Issue: HKU Law's SSRN Legal Studies Research Paper Series (May and June 2021)

                                                                     

UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG FACULTY OF LAW LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER SERIES

Vol. 11, No. 3: May 24, 2021

DOUGLAS W. ARNER, EDITOR

SIMON N. M. YOUNG, EDITOR

Table of Contents

Digital Finance, COVID-19 and Existential Sustainability Crises: Setting the Agenda for the 2020s

Douglas W. Arner, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

Ross P. Buckley, University of New South Wales (UNSW) - Faculty of Law

Andrew M. Dahdal, Qatar University - College of Law

Dirk A. Zetzsche, Universite du Luxembourg - Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf - Center for Business & Corporate Law (CBC), European Banking Institute

Can Hong Kong Remain a Liberal Enclave within China? Analysis of the Hong Kong National Security Law

Cora Chan, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

Dispute Resolution in China: Litigation, Arbitration, Mediation and their Interactions

Weixia Gu, University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

‘Hub-and-Spoke’ Bid-Rigging and Corporate Attribution Under Hong Kong Competition Law

Kelvin Hiu Fai Kwok, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG FACULTY OF LAW LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER SERIES

Vol. 11, No. 4: June 21, 2021

DOUGLAS W. ARNER, EDITOR

SIMON N. M. YOUNG, EDITOR

Table of Contents

AFI Innovative Regulatory Approaches Toolkit

Douglas W. Arner, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law
Ross P. Buckley, University of New South Wales (UNSW) - Faculty of Law
Dirk A. Zetzsche, Universite du Luxembourg - Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf - Center for Business & Corporate Law (CBC), European Banking Institute
Eriks Selga, The University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Law, Students
Ghiyazuddin MohammadJaheed Parvez, Independent
Roberta Consiglio, University of Luxembourg, ADA Chair in Financial Law (inclusive finance)

Regulating Artificial Intelligence in Finance: Putting the Human in the Loop

Ross P. Buckley, University of New South Wales (UNSW) - Faculty of Law
Dirk A. Zetzsche, Universite du Luxembourg - Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf - Center for Business & Corporate Law (CBC), European Banking Institute
Douglas W. Arner, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law
Brian Tang, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

Judicial Responses to the National Security Law: HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying

Johannes M M Chan, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

Patent Responsibility

Haochen Sun, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

Wexia Gu on China's Law and Development: a Case Study of the China International Commercial Court (Harvard International Law Journal)

"China's Law and Development: A Case Study of the China International Commercial Court"

Weixia Gu

Harvard International Law Journal, Volume 62, Special Issue
Published in 2021

Abstract: Established in 2018, the China International Commercial Court (CICC) represents a major step of China’s top-down effort in its capacity-building in terms of its national dispute resolution infrastructure, judicial personnel, as well as the ambition to create a Belt and Road lex mercatoria and legal harmonization.

Through a close examination of the legal framework of the CICC, this paper argues that the establishment of the CICC has showcased a shift in the paradigm in the Beijing Consensus in the context of law and development via a more active top-down, institutional and hard-law approach. The article argues that the shift in paradigm does not mean that China is necessarily moving away from or abandoning the norm-based soft-law approach. Instead, it is likely that both Yin (soft power) and Yang (hard power) of China’s law and development will be a complementary attempt in its overriding “Rule of Law China” (fazhi zongguo) vision. It is further argued that the establishment of the CICC will represent a reshaping and readjustment of the Beijing Consensus amidst the tension between Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative and Washington’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, signifying a more determined and proactive mindset in the ideological tug of war in the realm of legal architecture and the international rule of law discourse.

RGC Awards $5.96 Million in Research Funding to HKU Law 2021/22

Congratulations to our 9 colleagues who were successful in the 2021-2022 round of research grant funding by Hong Kong's Research Grants Council (RGC). Eight General Research Fund (GRF) projects were funded to study the development of investor dispute prevention mechanisms in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative, the concept of “best interests” for the purpose of decision-making on behalf of individuals lacking mental capacity in Chinese jurisdictions, the role of peace movements in the 1899 creation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the proliferation of International Commercial Courts across the globe, modern legal education reforms undertaken by three East Asian countries—Japan, Korea and China—meant to improve their legal professions by emphasizing postgraduate legal education, neighborhood governance in urban China, the emerging phenomenon of self-governance in the digital economy in China, and a medieval legal bestseller, the 'Statuta Vetera' Manuscript, c. 1280-1520.  An Early Career Scheme (ECS) project was funded to study the receptivity of socialist legal systems to the common law notion of precedent. 

    The details of the new funded projects are as follows:

GRF:

Professor Shahla Ali 

Is an Ounce of Prevention Worth a Pound of Cure? Assessing the Development of Dispute Prevention Mechanisms along the Belt and Road, HK$780,059

Ms Daisy Cheung

Deciding what is best for you: Best interest determinations on behalf of persons without capacity in the Chinese context, HK$443,426

Dr James Fry

The Role of Peace Movements in the 1899 Creation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, HK$291,904

Dr Weixia Gu

The Global Rise of the International Commercial Courts: Power Dynamics and Transnational Legal Order, HK644,385

Dr Jed Kroncke

The Modern Re-Engineering of East Asian Lawyers, HK$540,881

Professor Shitong Qiao

The Authoritarian Commons: The Co-Evolution of Law and Social Norms in China's Urban Residential Neighborhoods, HK$1,255,474

Dr Angela Zhang

Decentralizing Platform Governance: Innovations from China, HK$656,825

Dr Anya Adair (cross appointed with Faculty of Arts)

The 'Statuta Vetera' Manuscript, c. 1280-1520: Production and Use of a Medieval Legal Bestseller, HK$599,209

ECS:

Dr Ben Chen, 

The Socialist Reception of Precedent: A Computational Analysis of Guiding Cases in the People’s Republic of China, HK$746,320

Weixia Gu on Multi-Tier Approaches and Global Dispute Resolution (Japanese Yearbook of International Law)

"Multi-Tier Approaches and Global Dispute Resolution"

Weixia Gu
Japanese Yearbook of International Law
Published in 2020, Volume 63, pp. 147-166

Introduction: There are many ways disputes in the commercial world can arise, and as many ways they can be resolved.   Just as different methods of alternative dispute methods have attracted more and more attention.

     The Queen Mary University of London and White & Case LLP 2018 International Arbitration Survey ("QMUL Survey 2018") findings reveal that "there has been a significant increase in the combination of arbitration with ADR.   Nearly half of the participants to the 2018 survey preferred the hybrid approach, as compared to just 35 percent in the 2015 survey findings.   This is unsurprising in view of the benefits of using mediation as a prerequisite to starting arbitration.   The mediation step allows for a "cooling off" period for parties, thereby avoiding the escalation of disputes for adversarial resolution as an immediate recourse.   It also has a filtering effect: only the "truly" contentious issues in dispute proceed for resolution by arbitration.   Overall, thus, the mediation prerequisite increases the prospects of preserving the parties' commercial relationship.  Indeed, the QMUL Survey 2018 findings support the general dispute-avoidance mentality of business parties.  Within the in-house counsel sub-group, it is reported that there is "a clear preference" for the twinning of international arbitration and ADR (60 percent) over international arbitration as a stand-alone mechanism.

        As the 2018 Pound Conference Report further reveals, there is now a global interest in using mixed mode of dispute resolution.  Hybrid dispute resolution usually features a combination of mediation and arbitration into a dispute resolution framework with multiple stages.  These multi-layered modes of dispute resolution can thus be called "multi-tier dispute resolution" ("MDR").  However, despite its widespread popularity, the development of MDR has followed different pathways around the world.  This essay aims to provide a global survey of the development of MDR.  The essay comes in four parts.  Part I would first introduce the concept and procedure of MDR.  Part II then explores how MDR is developed around the world from a regulatory perspective.   Afterwards, Part III would turn to examine the specific situation in some of the world's most prominent legal jurisdictions in the East and West.  Last but not the least, Part IV provides some comparative observations on the trend in the global future of MDR.   

New Book by Weixia Gu: Dispute Resolution in China: Litigation, Arbitration, Mediation and their Interactions (Routledge)

Dispute Resolution in China:Litigation, Arbitration, Mediation and their Interactions
Weixia Gu

Routledge

Published in February 2021, 288 pp.

Description: China's ever-expanding commercial influence has attracted global attention on how its civil and commercial disputes are resolved. This compelling new book, Dispute Resolution in China, offers a detailed examination of the elements in the Chinese legal system and the relevant reforms to the multiplicity of approaches to civil and commercial disputes in China today. This book reveals how civil litigation, commercial arbitration, mediation, and their hybrid dispute resolution have distinctly responded to, reformed, and developed in the context of China’s transformational economic growth, societal development, and international interaction in the last two decades. It situates these developments and continued experimentation within a unique hybrid of empirical, contextual, and comparative analytical framework, while paving productive pathways towards the future.

    This book argues that, rather than being a legal project, China’s civil and commercial dispute resolution system is essentially a social development project, which distinguishes the Chinese approach to civil justice reform from contemporary civil justice movements elsewhere. Among the primary methods of dispute resolution, commercial arbitration in China today uniquely transcending the traditional socio-political constraints, its reform has developed in favor of market-oriented considerations and shaped by China’s socio-economic dynamics and internationalization needs. By contrast, civil litigation and mediation being more instrumentalist in nature, their reform is socio-politically embedded and continues to prioritize social stability. This book also shines a fresh light on comparative assessments of top-down and bottom-up changes in China’s dispute resolution discourse, as well as on how China speaks to international dispute resolution systems. Original and rich in its analysis, this book will be essential reading and invaluable reference tool for scholars with a focus on Chinese law, comparative and international dispute resolution, and on broader legal, institutional, economic, social, political and cultural dimensions of dispute resolution development.

Praise: 

"One of the best works on dispute resolution in China, this timely and insightful study offers an unrivalled account of the changing landscape of commercial dispute resolution in China. Against the background of China's ever-expanding commercial influence, it offers an invaluable and impressively informed guide to the multiplicity of approaches to civil disputes in China, formal and informal, and shines a fresh light on topics which often seem mysterious, and are often misunderstood. Original and rich in its analysis, it is stimulating reading for anyone interested in comparative law, civil procedure, and in how legal institutions are shaped by their social, political and economic context. The author deserves congratulations on a fascinating work, which is scholarly and absorbing and assured of its place in the literature."

    -Richard Fentiman QC (Cambridge Law Faculty) – Professor of Private International Law and Former Dean

"This is an impressive study of dispute resolution in China covering litigation, arbitration, mediation and mixed processes. A particular strength is its extensive research and its academic contribution and impact on the topic of civil and commercial dispute resolution in China from a comparative, empirical and contextual perspective. There are also law and society and law and economics assessments. This is most certainly now the most comprehensive and definitive analysis on the topic."

  -Loukas Mistelis (Queen Mary University of London School of Law) – Clive M Schmitthoff Professor of Transnational Commercial Law and Arbitration

"Professor Gu has produced the state-of the-art study of civil dispute resolution in China. Covering the entire dynamic landscape, it chronicles changing developments and continued experimentation, while providing an intelligent roadmap for productive reforms. The book will be essential reading for China law scholars, but also for practitioners and business leaders who work with Chinese partners."

  -Tom Ginsburg (Chicago Law School) – Leo Spitz Professor of International Law and Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences

"Gu’s book is a must for scholars and practitioners who really want to understand the development on commercial dispute resolution in China: insightful, resourceful, exhaustive. One of the best works on dispute resolution in China."

  -Franco Ferrari (NYU Law School) – Professor of Law and Director, Center for Transnational Litigation, Arbitration and Commercial Law

"One of the finest works on dispute resolution in China, this book is essential reading for everyone interested in the evolution of civil and commercial dispute resolution in China. The　book blends　empirical analysis with a thorough understanding of the economic and social transformation of dispute resolution　in China. It highlights China’s salient divergence from international dispute resolution systems. Gu’s outstanding book is both a　compelling manifesto and an　indispensable　pathway into the future."

  -Leon Trakman (UNSW Law School) – Professor of Law and Former Dean

"Dr Weixia Gu has produced a highly valuable work that examines the current regime for resolution of civil commercial disputes in China. Dr Gu goes well beyond the existing English language treatments of the subject to fully examine the legal principles, literature and practice relating to dispute resolution in China. The book also considers the topic through the prism of law and development and the immense recent changes in Chinese society.　 It is an impressive book."

   -Richard Garnett (Melbourne Law School) – Professor of Law

"Professor Gu’s Dispute Resolution in China: Litigation, Arbitration, Mediation and their Cross-Interactions is an outstanding study of how civil litigation, commercial arbitration, and mediation have responded to, reformed, and developed in the context of China’s transformational economic growth and societal development of the last two decades. Gu analyzes the different degrees to which mediation and litigation remain politicized and continue to prioritize social stability, often at the expense of rights; the extent to which civil litigation has evolved to address public interest objectives, especially with respect to environmental and consumer issues; and the way in which commercial arbitration, uniquely among the three principal methods of dispute resolution, has transcended traditional socio-political constraints in favor of market-driven international standards, with the support of the Chinese judiciary. Gu offers invaluable comparative assessments of "top down" versus "bottom up" changes in China’s dispute resolution discourse, along with compelling empirical analyses in support of her arguments. An indispensable comprehensive study, Gu’s book makes an exceptional contribution to the literature on contemporary dispute resolution　in China. It is a "must read" for legal scholars, social scientists, lawyers, policymakers and business leaders alike who focus on Chinese law and dispute resolution."

  -Philip J. McConnaughay (Peking University School of Transnational Law) – Dean and Professor of Law

"Professor Gu’s wonderful study of dispute resolution processes in China explores important issues of procedural law, including the substantial reforms attempted in recent years in response to the economic transformation and social changes that have been taking place in China. The insightful analysis offered by Professor Gu locates developments in the legal and institutional framework of civil litigation, arbitration, mediation and mixed dispute resolution in their social and cultural contexts. Among other key themes, this important book argues that the system which has emerged is more a project of social transformation than it is of legal development, especially in areas of dispute resolution that are less directly linked to the functioning of the economic system."

  -Michael Palmer (University of London School of Oriental and African Studies) – Emeritus Professor of Law and Former Head

Weixia Gu on Arbitration in Comparative Perspective (new book chapter)

"Arbitration in Comparative Perspective"
Weixia Gu
in Comparative Dispute Resolution  edited by Maria Federica Moscati, Michael Palmer, and Marian Roberts (Edward Elgar, 2020), Chapter 21

Abstract: This chapter explores various arbitration issues from East-West and common law-civil law comparative viewpoints. The term “East” refers generally to certain prominent Asian jurisdictions (e.g., China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan and Korea); while the “West” represents some of the major Continental European civil law jurisdictions (e.g., France, Germany and Switzerland), as well as the main Anglophonic jurisdictions traditionally viewed as main players in the common law world in the “West” (e.g., the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Australia).

     Three driving forces, as argued in this chapter, exert varying degrees of influence and account substantially for variations in the arbitration issues considered: (1) cultural dissimilarities between the East and the West; (2) operational differences in the practice of common law and civil law legal systems; and (3) variances in dispute resolution traditions among jurisdictions (e.g., a longstanding preference for using mediation rather than litigation and arbitration).

     Various arbitration issues will be examined. First, the relationship between alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and arbitration at a conceptual level in differing legal cultures is discussed. Next, the different permutations underlying the formation and operation of the arbitral tribunal across the surveyed jurisdictions will be analyzed, before examining the issue of juridification of arbitration tribunal processes. Finally, dispute resolution traditions are discussed and the diverse attitudes toward med-arb among legal systems and cultures are analyzed. In each section, this chapter explores whether and to what extent the aforementioned three driving forces contribute to the jurisdictional differences.

Weixia Gu on China’s Approach to the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Civil and Commercial Judgments (Journal of Comp Law)

“China’s Approach to the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Civil and Commercial Judgments and International Litigation Capacity Building” 

Weixia Gu
The Journal of Comparative Law
2020, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp. 264-291

Introduction: The unparalleled economic growth of the People’s Republic of China (hereafter China, or the PRC) has resulted in a paradigm shift in its legal regime. Once a comparatively closed market to the world, China now faces an unprecedented surge of international business and movement of global capital into its domestic market in light of its immense economic growth in the past forty years. As a result of this growth, the internationalisation of business in China requires the domestic courts to accommodate private international law practices such as allowing foreign judgments to be recognised and enforced in the domestic courts: a clear indicator of globalization1 and the development of China’s economy.

      An important step China has taken in the past few years is to improve efficiency in recognising and enforcing foreign judgments. Specifically, the salient shift to a more liberal application of the reciprocity principle, the signing of the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention (2005 Hague Convention) and the growing number of bilateral treaties on judicial assistance are clear indicators of China’s recent willingness to improve commercial certainty for the parties involved, to promote fairness for both domestic and foreign litigants, and to ensure the global movement of judgments, resulting in increased investor confidence and further economic growth in China.

      This article analyses current theory and practice with respect to the recognition and enforcement of foreign civil and commercial judgments in China. There are three regimes that will be analysed: (1) the existing Sino-bilateral judicial assistance treaties on civil and commercial matters; (2) in the absence of a bilateral treaty, the application by the Chinese courts of the principle of ‘reciprocity’ while taking account of procedural and substantive concerns specific to China; and (3) the potential impact of the 2005 Hague Convention signed by the Chinese government in September 2017.

      This article argues that while China’s recent reforms in the judicial recognition and enforcement of foreign civil and commercial judgments (hereafter, JRE) are encouraging, due to the growing demand of international litigation in context of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Chinese JRE regime should be comprehensively reformed to build legal capacity. For that purpose, the author has put forward three proposals: (1) the ratification of the 2005 Hague Convention; (2) the Model Law on JRE to be adopted by China’s Supreme People’s Court; and (3) potential reference to the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention. Finally, this article examines the extent to which such proposals can actually help China promote the legitimacy and competence of the Chinese international litigation system in light of her ambitious BRI development.

Weixia Gu on Harmonizing the Public Policy Exception for International Commercial Arbitration along the Belt and Road (new book chapter)

"Harmonizing the Public Policy Exception for International Commercial Arbitration along the Belt and Road"
Weixia Gu
in New Frontiers in Asia-Pacific International Arbitration and Dispute Resolution
edited by Luke Nottage, Shahla Ali, Bruno Jetin, Nobumichi Teramura (Kluwer Law International, 2020), Chapter 7 

Abstract: Following the Introduction, in subsequent sections, international commercial arbitration ("ICA") – and in particular, the public policy exception – are identified as prime initial targets for harmonization efforts. This chapter then considers the practical mechanics of harmonizing the public policy exception, proposing designation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (“AIIB”) as a coordinating authority for the drawing up of common standards and normative regulations. The possible substantive contents of a public policy exception, utilizing a “negative list” approach, are considered, with reference to similar harmonization efforts of the European Union (“EU”) and the Organization for the Harmonization of African Business Law (“OHADA”) evaluated as comparative case studies. The far-reaching implications of China’s BRI upon a steadily evolving global landscape will also be considered.

HKU Law Research Output Prize Winners 2019-20

Congratulations to the following University and Faculty of Law Research Output Prize Winners 2019-2020:

• Dr Eric Ip has been awarded the University’s Research Output Prize 2020 (Faculty of Law) for his book “Hybrid Constitutionalism: The Politics of Constitutional Review in the Chinese Special Administrative Regions” (Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-288, 2019).
• Dr Gu Weixia has been awarded the Faculty’s Research Output Prize 2020 for her work Hybrid Dispute Resolution Beyond the Belt and Road: Towards A New Design of Chinese Arb-Med(-Arb) and Its Global Implications (Washington International Law Journal, 29 (1), pp. 117-172, 2019) .
• Mr. Kelvin Kwok and Dr Ernest Lim have been awarded the Faculty’s Research Output Prize 2020 for their work Optimal Deterrence, the Illegality Defence, and Corporate Attribution (European Business Organization Law Review, pp. 1-24, 2019).
• Dr Haochen Sun has been awarded the Faculty’s Research Output Prize 2020 for his work Copyright Law as an Engine of Public Interest Protection (Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 16 (3), pp. 123-188, 2019).

The Selection Panel, comprised of the members of the Faculty Research Committee, was deeply impressed with the quality of the research that went into each of these outputs.

Gu Weixia on A Conflict of Laws Study in Hong Kong–China Judgment Regionalism: Legal Challenges and Renewed Momentum (Cornell Law School Journal)

"A Conflict of Laws Study in Hong Kong–China Judgment Regionalism: Legal Challenges and Renewed Momentum"

Gu Weixia

Cornell International Law Journal

Winter 2020, Volume 52, Issue 4, pp 591-642

Abstract: With the intensifying economic and social dynamics between Hong Kong and Mainland China since the handover in 1997, a comprehensive and effective cross-border judgment recognition and enforcement mechanism is imperative in order for Hong Kong to reinforce its role as a dispute resolution center in the perspective of judgments, in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative, and in the Greater Bay Area. This Article examines in detail the achievements and inadequacies in the current Hong Kong statutory and common law regimes, particularly the Mainland Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 597), and reveals their tensions and inconsistencies with Mainland regimes and the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. Then, the Article provides an exhaustive statistical analysis on cases involving the MJO and explains the evolution to a more pro-enforcement judicial approach towards Mainland judgments in Hong Kong recently. It concludes by looking at the breakthroughs and outstanding issues of the new 2019 Arrangement between Hong Kong and the Mainland, as well as the prospects of Hong Kong in acceding to the 2005 and 2019 Hague Conventions and developing an interregional judgment recognition and enforcement framework. Click here to download the full article.