In Mainland China, a foreign civil or commercial judgment is commonly recognised and enforced under an applicable treaty or, if no treaty applies, under the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (the ‘CPL’) on the basis of reciprocity.

• As to multilateral conventions, China has signed but not ratified the Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (the ‘Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005’). It is neither a signatory nor a Contracting Party to the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (the ‘Hague Judgments Convention 2019’). Accordingly, neither convention currently supplies an enforcement route in Mainland China.
• As to bilateral treaties, China has concluded bilateral civil and commercial judicial-assistance treaties with a number of countries. As of April 2026, China has concluded bilateral civil and commercial judicial-assistance treaties with 41 countries, 40 of which are in force. Of those 40 treaties, 37 provide for the recognition and enforcement of judgments; the treaties with South Korea, Singapore and Thailand do not.

The 37 treaty states are listed below.

• Where no applicable treaty exists, the CPL permits recognition and enforcement on the basis of reciprocity; the test is explained in Question 3. The absence of treaty coverage therefore does not mean that no route is available. Singapore illustrates the distinction between the treaty route and the CPL reciprocity Its bilateral treaty with China does not cover judgments. The Memorandum of Guidance Between the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and the Supreme Court of Singapore on Recognition and Enforcement of Money Judgments in Commercial Cases (the ‘Money Judgments Memorandum’) is not legally binding, but indicates a judicial-cooperation consensus. The legal basis for recognition in a non-treaty case remains reciprocity. In (2021) Hu 74 Xie Wai Ren No. 2, the Shanghai Financial Court referred to the Money Judgments Memorandum and reciprocity, recognised the monetary portions of Singapore judgments, and did not recognise the separate non-monetary obligation to deliver share certificates.

China has not ratified the Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005 and is not a party to the Hague Judgments Convention 2019. It therefore has no reservation under either convention that is applicable in China.

The 37 treaties identified in Question 1 do not share one reservation regime. Any reservation, declaration, territorial limitation or subject-matter limit must be checked in the treaty relied upon.

Where no applicable treaty or arrangement exists, a foreign civil or commercial judgment may be recognised and enforced in Mainland China under the CPL, provided reciprocity is established. Article 44 of the Supreme People’s Court’s National Courts’ Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trial Work Conference Summary, issued on 24 January 2022 (the ‘2022 Conference Summary’) identifies three circumstances in which reciprocity may be found:

• where the law of the foreign state permits recognition and enforcement of Chinese civil and commercial judgments;
• where China and that state have reached a reciprocal understanding or consensus;
• where either state has made a reciprocal commitment through diplomatic channels, provided there is no evidence of a prior refusal by the foreign state based on lack of reciprocity. Reciprocity is assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Reciprocity consensus may be reflected in bilateral memorandums. For example, in (2023) Su 05 Xie Wai Ren No. 8, included in the fifth group of Belt and Road typical cases released by the Supreme People’s Court (the ‘SPC’), the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court recognised and enforced a Singapore default judgment. The Court considered the Money Judgments Memorandum as a reflection of reciprocity consensus and, on that basis, found that there exist precedents of reciprocity between China and Singapore for mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments.

A prior foreign judgement recognising a Chinese judgment is not a precondition for reciprocity. In Guiding Case No. 235, S Shipping Co Ltd applied for recognition of judgments, orders and costs certificates issued by the High Court of Justice and Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The Shanghai Maritime Court found legal reciprocity because English law allowed Chinese judgments to be recognised and no contrary English decision was identified. Thus, the Court recognised the English decisions.

The basic standard is that the foreign judgment must be a legally effective foreign judgment or ruling capable of recognition and enforcement under the PRC framework. Article 298 of the CPL provides that a party may apply to a competent intermediate people’s court for recognition and enforcement of a legally effective judgment or ruling rendered by a foreign court. Article 299 further provides that the Chinese court will review the foreign judgment under an applicable treaty or, in the absence of a treaty, on the basis of reciprocity.

Provided that there is no applicable treaty, as to the types of decisions covered, Article 41 of the 2022 Conference Summary provides that judgments, rulings, decisions and orders rendered by foreign courts on substantive civil or commercial disputes, as well as civil compensation awarded in criminal proceedings, may qualify as “judgments or rulings” for the purposes of the PRC recognition-and-enforcement regime, while preservation orders and other procedural instruments are expressly excluded. The court is therefore required to examine the substance of the foreign court document, rather than its formal title, in determining whether it falls within that regime.

Recognition and enforcement are not expressly confined to money judgments. Article 544 of the SPC Interpretation provides that, once recognised, a foreign judgment is enforced under Part III of the CPL, which includes measures for non-monetary obligations, such as transfer of title and performance of specified acts. Non-monetary relief therefore does not appear to be excluded in principle, although published examples of its actual enforcement remain limited. That said, the scope of recognition may be narrower where the applicable bilateral arrangement is confined to monetary judgments. As illustrated by (2021) Hu 74 Xie Wai Ren No. 2, the Shanghai Financial Court only recognised money-payment items in the Singaporean judgment per the Money Judgements Memorandum.

Even if the judgment falls within this framework, it must still pass the statutory review under Articles 300 and 301 of the CPL. The Chinese court may refuse recognition and enforcement if, among other things, the foreign court lacked jurisdiction, the respondent was not lawfully summoned or was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, a party without capacity was not properly represented, the judgment was obtained by fraud, there is a conflicting Chinese judgment or a previously recognised foreign judgment, or recognition would violate the basic principles of PRC law or harm China’s sovereignty, security or public interest.

Article 298 of the CPL allows two possible routes: the judgment creditor may apply directly to a competent intermediate people’s court, or the foreign court may request recognition and enforcement through the channel specified in the applicable treaty.

The applicable treaty determines which route is available, the competent transmitting and receiving authorities, and the required documents. These documents commonly include the application, the foreign judgment or a certified copy, evidence that the judgment has taken legal effect, evidence of lawful service in default-judgment cases, and a Chinese translation, subject to the wording of the relevant treaty.

For example, the China–Spain treaty permits a party to apply directly to the competent court of the requested state for recognition and enforcement. It specifies the required documents, including a certified copy of the judgment, proof that the judgment is final and enforceable, proof of lawful summons in default cases, and a certified translation. It also sets out treaty-specific refusal grounds and provides that the recognition and enforcement procedure is governed by the law of the requested state.

The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) is China’s central authority for international civil and commercial judicial assistance. Its channel is relevant where a request is transmitted by a foreign court or authority under a treaty. It is not a mandatory preliminary step where the treaty permits the judgment creditor to apply directly to a Chinese court.

Where recognition and enforcement are sought under the general law, the applicant may apply for recognition alone or for recognition and enforcement together. Article 298 of the CPL provides that the application is made to a competent intermediate people’s court. Article 299 of the CPL provides that, in the absence of an applicable treaty, the court will examine the foreign judgment on the basis of reciprocity. As to territorial competence, Article 34 of the 2022 Conference Summary provides that, where the applicant seeks recognition only and the respondent has neither domicile nor property in China, the application may be filed with the intermediate people’s court at the applicant’s domicile.

The application materials are governed principally by Article 541 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law (the ‘SPC Interpretation’). The applicant should submit an application, the original foreign judgment or a certified true copy, and a Chinese translation. Under Article 35 of the 2022 Conference Summary, the applicant should also submit evidence that the judgment has taken legal effect and, in a default-judgment case, evidence that the respondent was lawfully summoned, unless the judgment itself records the relevant fact.

The court procedure is governed by Article 546 of the SPC Interpretation. The court must form a collegiate panel, serve the application on the respondent and give the respondent an opportunity to make submissions. Under Article 49 of the 2022 Conference Summary, in a reciprocity case, before making a ruling, the court must submit its proposed disposition to the competent high people’s court for review; if the high people’s court agrees, it submits its review opinion to the SPC, and the court may rule only after receiving the SPC’s reply. Separately, after the court concludes a party’s application for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment, the ruling must be reported level by level to the SPC for filing within 15 days.

If recognition and enforcement are granted, enforcement proceeds under the domestic enforcement rules. If the applicant sought recognition only, enforcement must be sought separately after the recognition ruling takes effect.

Under Article 541 of the SPC Interpretation, the applicant must submit an application, the original foreign judgment or a certified true copy, and a Chinese translation. Under Article 35 of the 2022 Conference Summary, the applicant should also provide evidence that the judgment has taken legal effect and, in a default-judgment case, evidence that the respondent was lawfully summoned, unless the judgment itself records the relevant fact.

Where authentication is required, the form depends on the state of origin and any applicable treaty or convention. Apostille is therefore not required in every case. For a qualifying public document issued by a State in relation to which the Apostille Convention is in force for China, an apostille normally replaces consular legalisation. For documents from non-Contracting States, or where another treaty provides different requirements, consular legalisation or the treaty-specific formalities may apply.

An apostille authenticates public-document formalities, such as the signature, seal or capacity of the signatory. It does not by itself establish the judgment’s finality, enforceability or substantive correctness.

PRC law provides no separate registration system or summary procedure for foreign judgments. The court applies the CPL framework for recognition and enforcement.

There is no generally applicable statutory deadline for a recognition ruling. Timing turns principally on the treaty or reciprocity analysis, service, proof of legal effect, the respondent’s objections and any reconsideration application.

The six-month rule is not a deadline for recognition. Article 237 of the CPL provides a supervisory remedy where the receiving court has not carried out enforcement within six months after receiving the enforcement application. Separately, the SPC’s rules on time limits in enforcement cases state that cases with available executable assets should generally be concluded within six months.

After the court has accepted an application for recognition and enforcement, the applicant may seek preservation of assets in China. Under Article 39 of the 2022 Conference Summary, the court may apply the Chinese preservation rules by analogy.

The applicant must provide security; otherwise, the preservation application is to be dismissed. The application should identify the assets to be preserved or provide specific asset leads. The form and amount of security, and the scope of the order, remain case-specific. In practice, security may be provided by property-preservation liability insurance where the insurer issues a guarantee and undertakes liability for losses caused by wrongful preservation.

The limitation period for applying for enforcement is generally two years. It runs from the last day of the performance period stated in the judgment; for instalments, from the expiry of the final instalment period; and, if no performance period is stated, from the date on which the judgment becomes legally effective.

Article 545 of the SPC Interpretation applies that period to an application for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment. If recognition alone is sought first, the limitation period for applying for enforcement runs again from the effective date of the Chinese recognition ruling.

A late application is not automatically rejected at filing. The court may decline enforcement if the respondent raises a well-founded limitation objection. Suspension and interruption of the limitation period must be assessed under the applicable rules.

The enforcement of foreign judgments can be challenged on both threshold and statutory refusal grounds. As threshold matters, the applicant must establish an applicable treaty or reciprocity basis under Articles 298 and 299 of the CPL, and show that the judgment has taken legal effect under the law of the state of origin.

The main statutory refusal grounds are set out in Articles 300 of the CPL. The Chinese court may refuse recognition and enforcement if:

• the foreign court lacked jurisdiction;
• the respondent was not lawfully summoned or was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard;
• a party without litigation capacity was not properly represented;
• the judgment was obtained by fraud;
• a Chinese court has already rendered a judgment on the same dispute or has recognised a judgment or ruling of a third state on the same dispute; or
• recognition would violate the basic principles of PRC law or harm China’s sovereignty, security or public interest.

Article 301 further provides that the foreign court will be treated as lacking jurisdiction where, among other things:

• the dispute lacked an appropriate connection with the foreign court;
• the case infringed the exclusive jurisdiction of Chinese courts; or
• the proceedings breached an exclusive choice-of-court agreement.

In addition, under Article 47 of the 2022 Conference Summary, a default judgment may also be refused if it was rendered despite a valid arbitration agreement that the absent party did not expressly waive.

If proceedings concerning the same dispute are already pending before a Chinese court, Article 302 of the CPL allows the Chinese court to stay the domestic proceedings while it reviews the foreign judgment, and then resume or dismiss the domestic proceedings depending on whether recognition is refused or granted.

The Chinese court does not retry the foreign dispute or reassess the foreign court’s findings of fact or substantive law.

The court may examine the treaty or reciprocity basis, legal effectiveness, jurisdiction, service and opportunity to be heard, fraud, conflicting judgments, an exclusive choice-of-court agreement and public policy. These are the limited recognition issues specified in the CPL, not a reconsideration of the merits.

Article 301 of the CPL specifies three circumstances in which a Chinese court must treat a foreign court as lacking jurisdiction:

• the foreign court lacks jurisdiction under its own law or, despite having jurisdiction under its own law, the dispute lacks an appropriate connection with that court;
• the proceedings infringe the CPL’s rules on exclusive jurisdiction; or
• the proceedings breach an exclusive choice-of-court agreement.

The first circumstance requires two distinct inquiries: whether the foreign court had jurisdiction under its own law, and whether the dispute had an appropriate connection with that foreign court for the purposes of Article 301 of the CPL. The Chinese court will therefore need the foreign jurisdiction rule, the relevant connecting facts and any choice-of-court agreement.

A treaty may prescribe more specific criteria for determining appropriate connection with that foreign court. For example, Article 21 of the China–Spain treaty treats the foreign court as having jurisdiction in defined circumstances, including the defendant’s domicile or residence, submission to jurisdiction, a contractual link to the forum, a tortious act or result there, or the location of immovable property there.

The decisive issue is whether the respondent was lawfully summoned and given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. A default judgment is not excluded merely because it was entered in the respondent’s absence.

The applicant must normally provide evidence of lawful service unless the judgment itself records it. The court will consider the applicable treaty, the law of the state of origin and the particular service method.

The MOJ’s Frequently Asked Questions on International Civil and Commercial Judicial Assistance summarises that a foreign judicial authority or individual may not directly serve documents on a person in China by international post, fax or email. Article 294 of the CPL requires judicial-assistance requests to proceed through the channel prescribed by an applicable treaty or, if no treaty applies, through diplomatic channels. It permits a foreign diplomatic or consular mission to serve documents on its own nationals only if no coercive measures are used. China has also made reservation to Article 10 of the Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters for similar consideration. Direct service outside those routes therefore creates a material recognition risk if it means that the respondent was not lawfully summoned or was denied a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

A Chinese court does not have an unrestricted discretion to grant or refuse recognition. It must apply the treaty or reciprocity test and the statutory conditions.

That said, the court must make legal assessments on fact-sensitive issues, including reciprocity, the foreign court’s jurisdiction, the connection between the dispute and the foreign forum, fraud, procedural fairness and public policy. In non-treaty cases, reciprocity is assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Interim preservation measures and other purely procedural orders or directions do not fall within the ordinary foreign-judgment recognition and enforcement framework. A judgment that triggers a statutory refusal ground, including public policy, may also be refused.

Punitive or multiple damages are not automatically excluded in full. Under Article 45 of the 2022 Conference Summary, where damages awarded by the foreign court manifestly exceed the actual loss, the court may refuse recognition and enforcement of the excessive portion. The assessment is fact-sensitive and does not create an automatic formula for separating compensatory and punitive components.

A recent illustration is (2021) Hu 74 Xie Wai Ren No. 2, in which the Shanghai Financial Court partly recognised Singapore judgments. The application sought the money-payment items under the Money Judgements Memorandum; the court recognised those items but did not extend recognition to the separate share-certificate delivery obligation. The case shows that, where a foreign judgment is divisible, a non-monetary obligation may fall outside the portion recognised and enforced; it does not establish a general exclusion of non-monetary relief.

Recognition and enforcement depend on whether the judgment has taken legal effect under the law of the state of origin. An ordinary appeal pending in the state of origin prevents recognition and enforcement if the judgment has not become legally effective. If the judgment remains legally effective or enforceable despite the appeal, the applicant will need to provide evidence of that effect and of any stay or suspension of enforcement. If an application is dismissed because legal effectiveness cannot be established, a fresh application may be made once that condition is satisfied.

A party dissatisfied with a ruling recognising, enforcing or refusing recognition and enforcement may apply to the immediately higher people’s court for reconsideration within ten days after service of the ruling.

Article 303 of the CPL describes this as a statutory reconsideration procedure, rather than a full appeal or a new hearing of the underlying foreign dispute.

Two distinct interest components must be kept separate. First, interest already awarded in the foreign judgment may form part of the recognised judgment debt and may be enforced together with the principal amount, unless it falls within a refusal ground, such as the rule under Article 45 of the 2022 Conference Summary where the damages awarded by the foreign court manifestly exceed the actual loss.

Separately, PRC law may impose additional interest for delayed performance if the debtor fails to perform within the period specified in the relevant enforceable legal instrument. This additional interest is governed by Article 264 of the CPL and the Application of Law in Calculating Interest on Debts During Delay in Performance in Enforcement Proceedings (Judicial Interpretation [2014] No. 8, the ‘2014 Interpretation’) on interest on debts during delay in performance in enforcement proceedings.

PRC law does not require the principal amount of a foreign judgment to be converted into local currency, namely renminbi (‘RMB’), as a condition of recognition or enforcement. If the foreign judgment awards a sum in a foreign currency, the currency of the judgment debt is generally respected, subject to the practical requirements of the enforcement court and the payment channel.

Currency conversion may arise at the enforcement stage, for example where payment is made through a court account, where assets are realised in RMB, or where delayed-performance interest is calculated. Article 5 of the 2014 Interpretation concerns the calculation of additional interest for delayed performance where the monetary obligation is denominated in a foreign currency; it does not create a general requirement to convert the principal judgment debt into RMB. The Official Reply of the Supreme People’s Court Regarding the Basis of Calculation for the Interest on Overdue Payments in a Foreign Currency or Hong Kong, Macao, or Taiwan Currency addresses the calculation of overdue-payment interest in foreign currencies and Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan region currencies, and likewise does not impose a general RMB-conversion requirement for the principal amount.

An application to recognise and enforce a foreign judgment attracts an application fee, not an ordinary case-acceptance fee. The applicant usually prepays the fee, subject to any applicable judicial-aid arrangement, and the fee is ultimately allocated by the court under the Measures for the Payment of Litigation Fees.

Preservation fees are generally paid by the party seeking preservation. Translation, notarisation, authentication, appraisal, auction, storage and similar expenses are subject to their own payment and allocation rules. Article 12 of the Measures for the Payment of Litigation Fees provides that specified procedural expenses, including translation, appraisal, auction and storage, are paid directly to the relevant institution as the court determines under the ‘who asserts, who bears’ principle; they are not automatically recoverable from the debtor.

The above statutory allocation rules do not themselves provide a general basis for shifting Chinese lawyers’ fees. Any recovery of such fees requires a separate contractual, statutory or recognised-judgment basis. They should be kept separate from costs awarded in the foreign judgment.

There is no specific statutory prohibition or licensing regime for third-party funding of a foreign-judgment enforcement action in Mainland China. However, China also has no generally applicable statutory regime confirming the validity or regulation of such funding arrangements.

That said, there is no general rule making a non-party funder liable for the other side’s costs merely because it provides funding. Liability may depend on the agreement, the funder’s conduct and control, its procedural position, and any professional-regulation issue. Funding arrangements may therefore be assessed under general contract law, public-policy principles and, where lawyers or legal-service providers are involved, professional-regulation rules.

The bilateral network is likely to remain the clearest route to predictability. As of April 2026, China had concluded bilateral civil and commercial judicial-assistance treaties with 41 countries, 40 of which were in force; 37 of those in-force treaties cover judgments.

For non-treaty cases, the more significant development is a more structured reciprocity analysis. Guiding Case No. 235 and the recent model case concerning a Singapore judgment show greater use of legal reciprocity, reciprocity consensus and foreign-law ascertainment.

The SPC’s 2026 Work Report issued in March recorded 972 foreign judgments recognised and enforced in 2025 on the basis of international treaties or reciprocity, a year-on-year increase of 200 per cent. It also refers to expanded cross-border judicial services and foreign-law ascertainment. The published figure does not provide a country or case-type breakdown, so it should not be used as a success-rate statistic or a prediction of future outcomes.

China signed the Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005 on 12 September 2017, but has not ratified it. The Hague Conference on Private International Law (the ‘HCCH’) status table records no entry into force for China as at 26 August 2026.

China has continued to expand treaty-based and reciprocity-based mechanisms for cross-border judgment recognition, but ratification of the Convention would require further policy assessment and coordination with the existing CPL framework, the 2022 Conference Summary and China’s bilateral treaty practice.

China is not listed by the HCCH as a signatory or contracting party to the Hague Judgments Convention 2019, and no ratification, accession or entry-into-force date is recorded for China as at 26 August 2026. The official status information supports no reliable prediction as to whether or when China may join the Convention.

China has shown increasing openness to recognising and enforcing foreign judgments, particularly through bilateral treaties, the CPL reciprocity framework and judicial cooperation instruments. However, joining the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 would require broader assessment of jurisdictional filters, refusal grounds, public-policy control and interaction with China’s existing treaty network.