In international civil disputes, enforcing domestic court judgments across borders presents significant legal challenges. Consider this case: Chinese citizen A successfully sued foreign citizen B in a Chinese intermediate court for contract breach. Now A must enforce this judgment in B's home country. This scenario illustrates the fundamental principle that domestic judgments have no automatic effect in foreign jurisdictions, requiring specific legal mechanisms for cross-border enforcement.
Option A proposes that the judgment creditor can directly apply to a foreign court with competent jurisdiction for recognition and enforcement. This approach is legally feasible under international comity principles, where courts may recognize foreign judgments as a matter of courtesy between nations. Most jurisdictions do allow direct applications, though they maintain discretionary power to refuse recognition. However, this method presents practical challenges including language barriers, unfamiliarity with foreign procedural requirements, and varying recognition standards across different legal systems.
Option B involves the Chinese court facilitating international judgment enforcement through established treaties or reciprocity principles. This approach leverages bilateral judicial assistance treaties, multilateral conventions, and reciprocal arrangements between nations. The institutional framework provides significant advantages including official government backing, established procedures, and access to diplomatic channels when needed. This method is both legally sound and practically effective, making it the preferred approach in international enforcement cases.
Options C and D propose using administrative and diplomatic channels for enforcement. Option C suggests judicial administrative departments handle the request, but these agencies lack judicial enforcement powers in civil matters, which require court action. Option D proposes diplomatic channels, but diplomatic cooperation primarily applies to criminal matters and extradition, not civil judgment enforcement. Civil disputes remain within judicial jurisdiction, making both administrative and diplomatic routes inappropriate for this type of enforcement.
Based on our comprehensive analysis of international judgment enforcement mechanisms, we can now determine the correct answers. Option A is correct because direct application to foreign courts is legally valid under international comity principles. Option B is also correct as Chinese courts can assist through established treaties and reciprocity arrangements. Options C and D are incorrect because administrative departments and diplomatic channels lack proper authority in civil judgment enforcement matters. Therefore, the correct answers are A and B, representing the two primary legal pathways for cross-border judgment recognition and enforcement.