On April 1, 2014, pursuant to the Loan Agreement entered into between Zhao and Singaporean citizen Ye Mouguang, Zhao paid Ye Mouguang a loan of HK$10 million. As Ye Mouguang failed to repay the loan on time, Zhao brought an action before the High Court of Singapore. On June 16, 2023, the Ordinary Division of the High Court of Singapore rendered a judgment: (1) rendering a final judgment against Ye Mouguang, ordering him to pay the outstanding sum of HK$9,307,585.62, together with interest at an annual rate of 5.33% from the date of the judgment until full payment; and (2) requiring Ye Mouguang to reimburse Zhao costs in the amount of SGD 2,500 (excluding disbursements). Zhao stated that, following the aforementioned judgment, Ye Mouguang has failed to comply with his obligation to make the payments as ordered. Upon investigation, it was found that a property located in Xuhui District, Shanghai, is registered in Ye Mouguang’s name; accordingly, Zhao applied to the No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court of Shanghai for recognition and enforcement of the aforementioned judgment of the High Court of Singapore.

On January 8, 2025, the No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court of Shanghai rendered Civil Ruling No. (2023) Hu 01 Xie Wai Ren 28: Recognition and enforcement of the judgment rendered by the High Court of Singapore, Ordinary Division, in this case on June 16, 2023.

Pursuant to Article 299 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, there are two avenues for the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments. First, Pursuant to the international treaties on the mutual recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments concluded between the two countries or to which they are parties, Second, If the two countries have not concluded a treaty on the mutual recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments, such matters shall be reviewed in accordance with the principle of reciprocity.

As of April 2026, China has concluded judicial assistance treaties with 35 countries providing for the mutual recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments rendered by the courts of those countries. However, with respect to countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Singapore, the Republic of Korea, Japan, the United States, Germany, and Australia—where China maintains frequent commercial transactions and close economic and trade ties—China has yet to conclude bilateral judicial assistance treaties on the mutual recognition and enforcement of court judgments. In practice, applications by parties seeking recognition and enforcement of judgments issued by the courts of these jurisdictions are quite common. Accordingly, with respect to judgments rendered by the courts of such foreign countries, Chinese courts shall examine them in accordance with the principle of reciprocity. If a reciprocal relationship exists between that country and China, and if the judgment does not contravene the fundamental principles of Chinese law nor undermine China’s national sovereignty, security, or public interests, then the judgment may be recognized and enforced. With regard to the circumstances and criteria for determining reciprocal relationships, Chinese law does not provide clear statutory provisions, and judicial practice has long remained rather ambiguous. This case aims to elucidate the various scenarios and review standards governing reciprocal relationships, thereby providing the people’s courts with a clear procedural framework for applying the principle of reciprocity in recognizing and enforcing foreign court judgments.

The principle of reciprocity, also known as the principle of equality, is an ancient legal principle and a fundamental principle of international law. Developed on the basis of the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius’s “theory of international comity,” it embodies the principles of national sovereignty, independence, and equality. Its fundamental meaning is this: if a state invokes an international legal norm to assert rights against another state, that same state must likewise be bound by that norm. The application of the principle of reciprocity has fostered mutual cooperation among states in recognizing and enforcing foreign court judgments, thereby safeguarding, to a greater extent and degree, the legitimate rights and interests as well as the long-term benefits of the parties involved.

In judicial practice, there are five common scenarios for determining the existence of a reciprocity relationship: treaty reciprocity, statutory reciprocity, factual reciprocity, reciprocal commitments, and mutual consensus.

➣ Treaty reciprocity: Namely, the reciprocity whereby States, in treaties they have concluded, undertake to recognize and enforce the judgments of the courts of the other State. ➣Legal reciprocity: Based on the judgment, a legal assessment is made as to whether a Chinese court’s decision can be recognized and enforced within that country, thereby determining the existence of a reciprocity relationship. As long as the essential conditions prescribed by the laws of both countries are identical, the reciprocity requirement is deemed satisfied. ➣ Reciprocity of facts: There are precedents in the judicial practice of both countries recognizing and enforcing judgments rendered by the courts of the other country; ➣Reciprocity Commitment: Where a foreign court seeks recognition and enforcement of its judgment in China, and no relevant judicial assistance treaty has been concluded between that foreign country and China, the reciprocal commitment made by that country in its diplomatic note. ➣ Reciprocal Consensus (Presumed Reciprocity): An indicative document on the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments has been reached between the two countries. For instance, as stipulated in the “Several Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Providing Judicial Services and Guarantees for the Belt and Road Initiative,” with respect to countries jointly building the Belt and Road, judicial assistance may be extended in advance to parties from those countries, taking into account factors such as international judicial cooperation and exchanges.

For a long period, China’s judicial practice has adhered to the criterion of factual reciprocity, namely, whether foreign courts have previously recognized and enforced Chinese civil and commercial judgments. From 1994 to 2020, based on data from the China Judgments Online database, the Supreme People’s Court Case Database, and academic literature, a review of 19 cases involving the principle of reciprocity revealed that in seven instances, the existence of a precedent—namely, the recognition and enforcement of Chinese court judgments by courts in the other country (i.e., factual reciprocity)—was deemed sufficient to establish a reciprocal relationship, thereby justifying the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments. In one case, the basis for recognizing a reciprocal relationship was not explicitly stated. Meanwhile, in eleven cases, recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments were denied on the grounds that no judicial assistance treaty or reciprocal relationship existed.

Against the backdrop of China’s ongoing efforts to deepen high‑level opening-up, international exchanges between China and countries around the world have become increasingly frequent. The previously stringent requirement of “mutual reciprocity” has gradually fallen out of step with contemporary trends. In its “Guiding Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Judicial Services and Guarantees for Further Expanding Opening-Up,” the Supreme People’s Court explicitly stated that it should “adopt a more open and inclusive judicial approach in recognizing reciprocal relationships.” On December 31, 2021, the Supreme People’s Court issued the “Minutes of the National Symposium on Foreign‑Related Commercial and Maritime Trial Work” (hereinafter referred to as the “Minutes”), which, in Article 44, clearly set forth three parallel circumstances under which a reciprocal relationship may be deemed to exist: The first scenario That is, a legal relationship of reciprocity exists; The second scenario There exists mutual understanding or consensus between the two countries; or The third scenario There exists a reciprocal commitment, and there is no evidence that the country where the court is located has ever refused to recognize or enforce judgments or rulings rendered by the people’s courts on the ground of the absence of reciprocity.

Reciprocity of facts is not expressly listed among the criteria; accordingly, it does not constitute an independent ground for determining the existence of a reciprocal relationship, but rather serves as a supplementary factor for reference. When reviewing reciprocity, priority should be given to determining whether the aforementioned legal reciprocity, consensus on reciprocity, or commitment to reciprocity exists. If the country rendering the judgment has a precedent of recognizing and enforcing judgments rendered by Chinese courts, such factual reciprocity may serve as corroborating evidence for establishing the existence of a reciprocal relationship. Even in the absence of such a precedent, if any one of the three aforementioned circumstances is present, Chinese courts may nonetheless extend reciprocity on a case-by-case basis.

Accordingly, following the issuance of the “Minutes of the Meeting,” as illustrated below, the standard for reviewing reciprocity has been revised to: Does any one of the legal reciprocity, mutual consensus, or reciprocal commitments referred to in Article 44 of the Minutes of the Meeting exist?

In judicial practice, out of an abundance of caution, courts typically conduct a supplementary review of the other country’s recognition and enforcement of Chinese judgments to ascertain whether, following the establishment of legal reciprocity, a mutual understanding, or a reciprocal commitment between the two countries, there remains any refusal to recognize or enforce Chinese judgments. If such refusals exist, the existence of a reciprocal relationship between the two states becomes questionable and should be submitted for case-by-case examination and review.

The standard of legal reciprocity entails assessing, under the law of the state where the judgment was rendered, the likelihood that a judgment issued by a Chinese court will be recognized and enforced within that jurisdiction, thereby determining whether a reciprocal relationship exists. In the absence of an international treaty, the conditions for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments between two countries are unlikely to be entirely identical; therefore, under the “substantive equivalence” doctrine, as long as the key requirements prescribed by the laws of both countries are the same, the reciprocity requirement is deemed satisfied.

Reciprocal understanding or consensus refers to an instrument of intent concluded between the supreme courts of two countries regarding the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments. In 2015, the Supreme People’s Court issued the “Several Opinions of the People’s Courts on Providing Judicial Services and Safeguards for the Construction of the Belt and Road,” which proposed the principle of “preemptive reciprocity”: for countries jointly building the Belt and Road, judicial assistance may be extended in advance to parties from those countries, taking into account factors such as international judicial cooperation and exchanges. In 2017, the Second China–ASEAN Chief Justices Forum adopted the “Nanning Statement of the Second China–ASEAN Chief Justices Forum,” reaching consensus on the “presumed reciprocity” advocated by the Chinese side. Such documents may all be regarded as evidence of a reciprocal relationship between the two countries.

On August 31, 2018, the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and the Supreme Court of Singapore signed a Memorandum of Guidance, setting forth the specific requirements and procedures for Chinese courts to recognize and enforce judgments rendered by courts of the Republic of Singapore, as well as for Singaporean courts to recognize and enforce judgments rendered by Chinese courts. This constitutes a mutually agreed‑upon arrangement of reciprocity and falls under the second scenario described in Article 44 of the Minutes of the Meeting, which permits the determination of a reciprocal relationship. To ensure prudence, judicial practice typically involves further verification—by examining whether the other country recognizes and enforces Chinese judgments—in order to confirm that, following the signing of the Memorandum of Guidance, no situation exists in which the other country refuses to recognize or enforce Chinese judgments. In this case, given that China and the Republic of Singapore also have a prior practice of mutually recognizing and enforcing judgments, this factual reciprocity may serve as corroborating evidence for establishing a reciprocal relationship. Accordingly, the court held that a reciprocal relationship exists between China and the Republic of Singapore and ruled to recognize and enforce the judgment rendered by the Singaporean court.

A reciprocity undertaking refers to a commitment made by a foreign country, in a diplomatic note, to recognize and enforce judgments rendered by its courts in China, provided that no relevant judicial assistance treaty has been concluded between that foreign country and China. In practice, China has, through judicial assistance channels, submitted requests for the recognition and enforcement of judgments to countries with which it has no treaty relationship, accompanied by a commitment to reciprocity. Such a commitment to reciprocity is a unilateral undertaking that takes effect upon its issuance; accordingly, if a Chinese court receives an application from a party in the other country, and provided that the other country does not refuse to recognize and enforce the Chinese court’s judgment on the ground that no reciprocal relationship exists, China is bound to honor its commitment.