Regulation Schemes for Parallel Proceedings under the Hague Jurisdiction Project and China’s Responses

海牙国际私法会议“管辖权项目”的数次会议聚焦于国际平行诉讼问题，向我们展现出平行诉讼规制方法的变化与谈判各方的分歧。在此背景下，2023年修订的《民事诉讼法》首次在立法中兼采先受理法院原则与更适合法院方法，明确了国际平行诉讼的处理规则。这一方面是我国涉外法治发展的巨大进步，具有立法技术的先进性，另一方面也存在不利于我国法院获取涉外管辖权的隐忧。为此，我们不得不考虑更具有进攻性的“禁诉令”制度的构建，它具有规制当事人滥诉和有效解决国际平行诉讼的功能，但也存在干预他国司法管辖权行使进而引发“禁诉令的战争”之虞，因此禁诉令的签发应在个案正义与国际礼让的法理之间寻求平衡点。本文以期在海牙“管辖权项目”背景下，完善我国应对国际平行诉讼之策略，为我国参与构建国际民商事新秩序贡献中国智慧和中国方案。The Hague Conference on Private International Law’s “Jurisdiction Project” has repeatedly focused on the issue of international parallel proceedings, revealing shifts in regulatory approaches and divergences among negotiating parties. Against this backdrop, the 2023 revision of China’s “Civil Procedure Law” for the first time incorporates both the first-seized court rule and the more appropriate forum approach in its legislation, clarifying the rules for handling international parallel proceedings. While this represents a significant advancement in China’s development of foreign-related rule of law and demonstrates sophisticated legislative technique, it also carries the hidden concern that it might hinder Chinese courts from acquiring jurisdiction in foreign-related cases. Consequently, we must contemplate constructing a more robust anti-suit injunction regime. While such a system can curb vexatious litigation and effectively resolve international parallel proceedings, it carries inherent risks of interfering with foreign jurisdictional authority, potentially igniting a “war on anti-suit injunctions”. Therefore, the issuance of anti-suit injunctions should seek a balance between the legal principles of individual justice and international comity. This article aims to refine China’s strategy for addressing international parallel proceedings within the context of the Hague “Jurisdiction Project”, contributing Chinese wisdom and solutions to the construction of a new international civil and commercial order.