中华人民共和国反外国不当域外管辖条例

Strategic Objectives and Legal Foundation

The primary objective of these regulations is to establish a robust "working mechanism" to address the challenges posed by foreign states that implement laws and measures with effects beyond their own borders in a manner that harms Chinese interests. According to Article 2, the efforts are guided by a holistic view of national security, emphasizing the coordination of domestic and international security concerns. The regulations explicitly state that China adheres to an independent foreign policy and opposes any form of hegemony or interference in its internal affairs.

The legal architecture relies heavily on the principle of reciprocity. Article 4 clarifies that China reserves the right to exercise its own extraterritorial jurisdiction based on international treaties or the principle of reciprocity to protect its national interests. This suggests that the Chinese government will not only block foreign measures but may also apply its own laws to overseas acts that have a significant connection to China. In cases where jurisdictional overlaps occur, the regulations suggest a preference for resolution through diplomatic channels or bilateral treaties, provided such resolutions respect international law.

Chronology of China’s Counter-Sanctions Legal Development

The promulgation of Guoling No. 835 is the culmination of a multi-year effort by the Chinese leadership to build a "legal toolbox" for foreign struggles. This trajectory began in earnest several years ago as trade tensions and geopolitical rivalries intensified.

1. January 2021: The Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) issued the "Rules on Counteracting Unjustified Extra-territorial Application of Foreign Legislation and Other Measures." This was the first formal "blocking statute" designed to prevent Chinese entities from complying with foreign laws that restricted normal trade with third parties.
2. June 2021: The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC) passed the "PRC Law on Countering Foreign Sanctions." This law provided a high-level legal basis for the government to place individuals and organizations on a sanctions list, seize assets, and deny visas.
3. July 2023: The "PRC Foreign Relations Law" came into effect, centralizing the authority over foreign policy and providing a broad mandate for the state to take "necessary countermeasures" against acts that threaten China’s sovereignty.
4. April 2026: The current "Regulations on Countering Improper Extraterritorial Jurisdiction" are promulgated. These regulations provide the granular administrative procedures necessary to implement the broader mandates of the 2021 and 2023 laws, shifting the focus from general principles to specific enforcement mechanisms.

The Identification and Injunction Mechanism

A central feature of the new regulations is the role of the State Council legal affairs department in identifying "improper" foreign measures. Article 6 outlines four specific criteria for this identification:

• Whether the foreign measure violates international law or basic norms of international relations.
• Whether there is an "appropriate connection" between the foreign state and the conduct it seeks to regulate.
• The extent of the danger posed to China’s national sovereignty, security, and development interests.
• The impact on the lawful rights and interests of Chinese citizens and organizations.

Once a foreign measure is identified as improper, the State Council legal affairs department will issue a public announcement. Crucially, Article 6 prohibits any organization or individual in China from implementing or assisting in the implementation of these identified measures. While exemptions can be applied for in "special circumstances," the default position is one of non-compliance with the foreign order.

Under Article 13, the department has the authority to issue "injunctions" (blocking orders). These are legally binding mandates requiring entities to stop complying with foreign extraterritorial laws. Failure to comply with an injunction can lead to severe administrative penalties, including fines and restrictions on business operations.

The Malicious Entity List and Countermeasures

Article 8 of the regulations introduces a powerful enforcement tool: the "Malicious Entity List." Organizations and individuals found to be implementing or participating in the enforcement of improper foreign extraterritorial measures can be blacklisted. Once an entity is placed on this list, the Chinese government can deploy a suite of countermeasures, including:

• Denial of visas, entry bans, and deportation of personnel.
• Seizure or freezing of movable and immovable property within Chinese territory.
• Prohibition of data transfers or personal information sharing with the blacklisted entity.
• Restrictions on trade, investment, and cooperation with Chinese organizations.
• Fines and other "necessary measures."

Importantly, these countermeasures extend to organizations that are controlled by or associated with the listed entities, creating a significant "ripple effect" for multinational corporations with complex corporate structures.

Private Litigation and Civil Remedies

In a move that mirrors "blocking statutes" used by other jurisdictions, such as the European Union, the Chinese regulations provide a private right of action. Article 14 allows Chinese citizens or organizations whose rights have been infringed upon by the implementation of foreign extraterritorial measures to sue the infringing party in Chinese courts.

Plaintiffs can request that the court order an end to the infringement and seek compensation for losses. This creates a significant legal risk for multinational companies that comply with foreign sanctions (such as U.S. export controls) at the expense of their Chinese partners. If a company stops supplying a Chinese entity to comply with a foreign law that Beijing has labeled "improper," that company could face a lawsuit in China for damages, with the potential for its Chinese assets to be seized to satisfy any judgment.

Compliance and Support for Chinese Entities

Recognizing the difficult position these regulations place on businesses, the State Council has mandated support mechanisms. Article 15 requires provincial-level governments to provide guidance and services to help citizens and organizations respond to foreign jurisdiction. Furthermore, Article 16 tasks industry associations and chambers of commerce with a coordination role, helping members navigate the conflicting legal requirements of different jurisdictions.

However, the burden of compliance remains heavy. Article 17 warns that those who refuse to implement Chinese countermeasures or injunctions can be barred from government procurement, restricted from importing or exporting goods, and hit with substantial fines.

Fact-Based Analysis of Implications

The promulgation of these regulations signals a "new normal" in international trade and legal compliance. Several key implications arise from the implementation of Guoling No. 835:

1. Increased Conflict of Laws: Multinational corporations operating in both China and Western markets face an increasingly impossible "choice of law" dilemma. Complying with U.S. or EU sanctions may lead to blacklisting and litigation in China, while complying with Chinese blocking orders could lead to massive fines and criminal liability in Western jurisdictions.

2. Legalization of Geopolitical Tensions: By codifying these procedures, China is moving away from ad-hoc retaliatory measures toward a systematic, law-based approach. This provides more predictability in terms of process but also suggests that the use of economic statecraft and legal "warfare" is now a permanent fixture of Chinese policy.

3. Protection of the Domestic Supply Chain: The regulations are clearly designed to prevent the "hollowing out" of Chinese tech and industrial sectors due to foreign export controls. By making it illegal for firms to comply with foreign "long-arm" restrictions, Beijing is attempting to maintain the integrity of its domestic supply chains.

4. Potential for Retaliatory Asset Seizures: The provisions regarding the freezing and seizing of assets (Article 8) provide a clear legal path for China to respond to the freezing of its own overseas assets. This adds a layer of risk for foreign investors holding significant physical or financial assets within the PRC.

5. Impact on Global Governance: Article 2 mentions the promotion of a "more just and reasonable system of global governance." These regulations represent China’s attempt to challenge the current international legal order, which Beijing views as being unfairly dominated by Western jurisdictional standards.

Official Responses and International Context

While official statements from foreign ministries are pending the immediate practical application of the law, legal experts note that the 2026 regulations are more specific than their 2021 predecessors. Inferred reactions from the international business community suggest a period of intense "de-risking" and legal auditing as firms attempt to insulate their Chinese operations from their global compliance frameworks.

The Chinese government maintains that these measures are defensive and necessary. State media outlets have frequently argued that "long-arm jurisdiction" is a tool of American "judicial hegemony" used to suppress foreign competitors. By framing these regulations as a defense of "international law as its foundation" (Article 1), Beijing seeks to position itself as a defender of sovereign equality against unilateralism.

As these regulations take effect immediately upon their April 7, 2026, promulgation, the global legal landscape enters a more contentious phase. The efficacy of these measures will depend on the frequency with which the "Malicious Entity List" is updated and the willingness of Chinese courts to award significant damages in Article 14 litigations. For now, the PRC Regulations on Countering Improper Extraterritorial Jurisdiction by Foreign States stand as a definitive assertion of China’s intent to enforce its jurisdictional boundaries in an era of heightened global friction.