China: Comity And State Compulsion: What Is The Difference And Why Should It Matter?

Last Updated: 15 January 2018
Article by Frank Fine
Most Read Contributor in China, March 2019

As the reader probably knows, the US Vitamin C cartel litigation, culminating in a judgment by the 2nd Circuit federal court on 20 September 2016, was a watershed case—not with regard to cartel law, but rather, whether the US courts had jurisdiction under the circumstances.   The 2nd Circuit court overturned the decision of the federal district court by holding that the international law principle of comity prevented the assertion of jurisdiction.  

The purpose of this brief paper is to explain what the concept of comity is, how it differs from the defense of State compulsion, and how Chinese companies, in particular SOEs, may benefit from this knowledge.

Comity is a principle of public international law.  In a legal context, comity traditionally refers to the recognition by the courts of one country (or legal system) of the laws and judicial acts of another, but this concept may also extend to recognition by administrative bodies of enforcement actions taken by administrative bodies of other countries or legal systems. 

In Vitamin C, the the 2nd Circuit held that the principle of comity bound it to accept the argument of MOFCOM, which had filed an amicus curiae brief supported by a court appearance (the first time any foreign government had done so in a US federal court), that Chinese law required the defendants to fix prices. It should be noted that the 2nd Circuit did not differ with the district court on whether the defendants were, in fact, compelled by Chinese law to fix prices, but rather, that the lower court had abused its discretion by finding that compulsion existed.  In other words, the principle of comity prevented an assertion of jurisdiction which would have led to the district court making such evidentiary findings.

Instead, the 2nd Circuit applied a 10-factor balancing test to determine whether comity applied, and consequently whether the district court was authorized to adjudicate.  These factors were:  (1) whether there was a true conflict between US and Chinese law; (2) where the parties had their principal place of business;  (3) the relative significance of the illegal behavior in each jurisdiction; (4) the likelihood of Chinese legal enforcement and an effective remedy; (5) any effects on US commerce;  (6) and potential adverse effects on foreign relations if US jurisdiction were asserted; (7) if legal enforcement occurred, would it cause the defendants to commit an illegal act in the other country or submit it conflicting legal obligations; (8) whether the US court was in a position to impose effective relief; (9) if China imposed similar relief, would it be acceptable to the US; and (10)  whether a treaty between the two countries already dealt with the comity issue. 

In the case at bar, the 2nd Circuit found that the balancing of factors led inexorably to the conclusion that jurisdiction was inappropriate as a matter of international law.   Manifestly, the main reasons for this conclusion were that the US and Chinese views differed on whether the defendants were compelled to fix prices, and that if the US district court found that the defendants were guilty of price fixing and thereafter legally bound not to fix prices, they would have violated their obligations to MOFCOM, perhaps resulting in liability in China. 

It is also worth noting that the cooperation agreements between the US and Chinese antitrust authorities did not include any provisions on comity (the 10th factor above).  

Curiously, the Competition Directorate of the European Commission never opened a cartel investigation regarding Vitamin C, and apparently, this position has never been publicly explained.  The Commission was perhaps influenced by the political sensitivity of such an investigation and preferred to defer to the US courts because the class action there, if judgment were rendered for the plaintiffs, would have resulted in potentially enormous damages against the Chinese defendants—and a sufficient deterrent effect.   

However, how would DG Competition have hypothetically handled the Vitamin C investigation?  And how would the issue of comity have been dealt with? 

As an initial matter, DG Competition would have examined the 2012 cooperation agreement between the EU and the NDRC.  Here, it would have found an absence of comity provisions.  Indeed, the agreement confirms that does not create legal rights or obligations under international law.  But then, the Commission would have had regard to the principle of comity under public international law.  Immediately, it would have found that neither the Commission nor EU Courts had previously applied the principle of comity in an antitrust case to nullify jurisdiction.  The Commission would have had at its disposal the 1988 judgment of the European Court of Justice in Wood Pulp (Cases 89/95), in which the Court held that there was no legal conflict between the US and EU justifying the application of comity.  The Webb-Pomerene Act relied upon by the defendants did not compel them to fix prices; rather, the Act exempted export cartels from the application of US antitrust laws.   Enforcement of EU antitrust laws did not cause the defendants to violate US antitrust laws. The Commission's more recent decision in LCD (Case COMP/39.909 of 12 August 2010) also considered the application of comity.  In that case, Article 5 of the cooperation agreement between the Korea and the EU provided for "negative" comity, i.e. that each party would give careful consideration to the "important interests" of the other party.   However, the EU concluded that the KFTC never claimed any important interests. 

Despite the lack of clarity in EU decisions, it is arguable that the same or similar application of comity applied by the 2nd Circuit would have occurred if the European Commission investigated the Chinese Vitamin C producers.   It is not that the EU refutes the legitimacy of comity, but rather, has not had an appropriate case in which to apply the principle.

As suggested earlier, the concept of State compulsion is quite different from comity. First, State compulsion is not a principle of public international law.  It arises from the notion that companies should not be liable for acts that are not autonomous, but rather, required by the State.   Secondly, the concept of State compulsion, if applicable, does not result in the non-assertion of jurisdiction, but rather, in a finding that the company did not commit an antitrust infringement.  Indeed, one asserts State compulsion as a defense, and it is considered along with all the evidence on the issue of liability.

But how is State compulsion proven?  As the European Court of Justice held in Ladbroke Racing (Cases C-359-95P of 1997), the defense applies when a company is required to violate EU antitrust law by national legislation.  Alternatively, this case held that the defense applies when the national legislation creates a "legal framework" which eliminates competition.  As the Court more recently held in Deutsche Telekom (Case 290/08P of 2010),  it is no defense that the behavior in question was simply encouraged or made easier by the State. 

Finally, it is worth noting that until now, the EU has not applied the defense of State compulsion in any investigation involving compulsion from non-EU jurisdictions.  But there is certainly no legal impediment preventing the Commission from doing so, particularly with regard to Chinese companies.  There are at least four cases in which the defendants argued that third countries compelled the conduct in question, but the EU found that they had not satisfied the compulsion requirement—there was no issue that if compulsion existed, the defense would have been appropriate.   See e.g., Aluminium Imports from Eastern Europe (OJ L 92/1 (1985)); Franco-Japanese Ballbearings (OJ L 343/19 (1974)); French-West African Shipowners' Committees (OJ L 134/1 (1992)); and Compagnie Maritime Belge Transports (Cases C-395-96P of 2000).   On this basis, one may foresee in an appropriate EU case, Chinese companies may be successful in asserting the State compulsion defense.

As regards the Vitamin C case, one cannot foresee, if this cartel were investigated by DG Competition, whether it would have concluded that the companies in question were compelled by the Chinese government to engage in price-fixing.   It is also an open question whether MOFCOM officials would been allowed by DG Competition to put their argument orally in European Commission offices in a live investigation involving third parties.  However, there are no procedural mechanisms or niceties that would prevent this from happening, and in the current climate of bilateral cooperation, DG Competition should be given the benefit of the doubt.   Even if there were no bilateral meeting as such,  DG Competition would

almost certainly have welcomed written submissions from MOFCOM.  

The Vitamin C litigation has clearly generated a lot of controversy and public interest about the principle of comity and the defense of State compulsion, particular when Chinese law and companies are involved.   For Chinese SOEs in particular, they would be well-advised to inform themselves of their foreign legal rights when following PRC directives in other countries, especially when those directives may lead directly to antitrust violations in those countries.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions