Legal Challenges and Opportunities in China Equatorial Guinea Trade Relations: A Comparative Analysis of Commercial Contract Enforcement

Legal Challenges and Opportunities in China Equatorial Guinea Trade Relations: A Comparative Analysis of Commercial Contract Enforcement | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Legal Challenges and Opportunities in China Equatorial Guinea Trade Relations: A Comparative Analysis of Commercial Contract Enforcement JULIO CESAR OBIANG SIMA NZANG, Wang Yingying This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8626998/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This article assesses the forms and formats of laws, contracts, and institutions in relation to trade between China and Equatorial Guinea that fall under the Belt and Road Initiative. The paper then compares the Chinese Civil Code and OHADA’s Legislative Framework (OHADA) in terms of identifying ways in which the lack of mutual recognition of legal systems, language barriers, and inadequate judicial capacity have hindered the enforcement of contracts and created uncertainty regarding the enforcement of those contracts. Theoretical perspectives, using law and development, suggest that a strengthened system of law would foster better governance of trade for developing countries, and identifying legal harmonization through cooperation and creating avenues for building capacity are necessary for strengthening the enforcement of contracts. The findings highlight how legal harmonization and contract enforcement reform can enhance institutional predictability and support sustainable development cooperation under the Belt and Road framework. Additionally, legal harmonization through mutually created legal instruments (and model contracts) can further strengthen transnational commercial relationships and create a more just system of economic development. Public Relations International and Comparative Law Other Public Policy China–Equatorial Guinea trade commercial contract enforcement OHADA law Chinese Civil Code arbitration legal harmonisation Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 1. INTRODUCTION This study situates itself within the Law and Development framework, which explores how legal institutions can either enable or constrain economic growth and cross-border investment (Trubek & Galanter, 1974 ), the example of China and Equatorial Guinea trade is the trade that is worth examining, in that it is due to Chinese infrastructure investments as well as to oil exports by Equatorial Guinea, which sensitises the increased Chinese economic relations with Africa (Flores-Macias & Kreps, 2013). It is an example of such a partnership under the Belt and Road Initiative, which is based on the existence of strong legal mechanisms that facilitate the execution of contracts (Kiggundu, 2013 ). Nevertheless, differences between the civil code of China and OHADA in Equatorial Guinea pose certain difficulties, such as the inefficiency of courts, language barrier, and a failure to mutually acknowledge the judgments (Shaffer, 2021 ; Xin & Pearce, 1996 ). The article is devoted to going through legal surprises and prospects on the enforcement of contracts, considering the following questions: (1) What are the major barriers to the enforcement of contracts between Chinese and Equatoguinean parties? and (2) How similar are their legal regimes when it comes to dispute resolution? Through comparison of legal thought, case law, and doctrinal examination of OHADA Uniform Acts, Chinese Civil Code, and New York Convention (1958), the paper finds gaps in the ADR to facilitate principles of harmonisation (Kiggundu, 2013 ; Shaffer, 2021 ). The study promises to provide future guidelines to stakeholders and promote economic collaboration (Gelpern et al., 2023 ). The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 and the Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States 1965 are the two most important international conventions that govern the enforcement of arbitral awards throughout the world. The majority of African countries are party to both conventions or at least one of them but traditionally some African countries have been influenced by French law and have developed a form of transnational legal system through a regional grouping called OHADA. In celebration of its 30th year, this paper will examine the key issues related to the way in which that regional grouping operates with respect to the enforcement of arbitral awards. 1.1 Research Objectives and Scope This paper aims to compare the contract enforcement regime and dispute resolution systems used in China and Equatorial Guinea to determine their suitability, limitations and potential in the enhancement of trade between the two states. The objectives are: To determine the major legal obstacles to the realisation of the commercial agreement and contract between Chinese and Equatoguinean corporations through the perspectives of judicial capacity, procedural differences, and acknowledgement of judgments to one another. To determine the compatibility of the Chinese Civil Code and the OHADA regime used in Equatorial Guinea about the formation of contracts, means of rectifying breaches, and the way to wind up disputes. To present opportunities for legal harmonisation, such as bilateral agreements, ADR mechanisms, and building capacity to improve trade relations. The article utilises a comparative legal analysis, case studies of those disputes which have been documented, and a doctrinal review of the legal instruments (e.g., OHADA Uniform Acts, Chinese Civil Code, New York Convention) to answer these questions and seal the given gaps in the literature. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW & THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The Sino-Equatorial Guinea economic interaction, typical of the emerging Chinese involvement in African countries, is gathering great momentum as exemplified by the proposed investment in infrastructure development as well as export of resources (Flores-Macias & Kreps, 2013). The collaboration between these countries, based on the BRI scheme and the oil reserves resources of Equatorial Guinea, is conditional on the presence of a sound legal framework so that commercial deals could be enforced, and disputes could arise to be solved (Kiggundu, 2013 ). Nevertheless, the lack of similarity between the network of the civil law of China, which is guided by the Civil Code (2021), and the legal framework of Equatorial Guinea that is based on OHADA leads to the difficulty in the enforcement of contracts, such as the inefficiency of judicial work, the breach of a cultural barrier, and the impossibility of mutual recognition of judgments (Shaffer, 2021 ). The literature review compiles recent literature on China-Africa trade, contract enforcement processes, and legal harmonisation and therefore points out the gaps that can be filled using a comparative study of commercial contract enforcement in China and Equatorial Guinea, which are the aims of this article. 2.1. China–Africa Trade Expansion and Divergent Legal Frameworks for Commercial Contract Enforcement The geopolitical and economic implications have been broadly researched on the economic links between China and Africa, and even Equatorial Guinea. According to Flores-Macias and Kreps (2013), it is particularly important to note the rise in trade with the African continent, especially in the nations that have an abundance of resources, since the 1990s, due to the investments in infrastructure and the extractive sector. Equatorial Guinea, which is a country with great oil and gas deposits, has already become one of the major partners, and it already obtains Chinese loans and technical knowledge (Gelpern et al., 2023 ). Such economic transactions, however, are usually limited by legal ambiguities, especially on the institution of contracts that may inhibit such factors as trust and investment certainty (Kiggundu, 2013 ). China and OHADA economies, such as Equatorial Guinea, differ greatly in their legal frameworks that guide commercial contracts. The Civil Code of China (2021) which covers the formation, performance, and remedies related to a contract thoroughly draws its Part III on contractual relations, and the enforcement of contracts is carried out by the People Courts, and China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) primarily (Lu et al., 2023 ). Nevertheless, local protectionism and the local guanxi, i.e., the relational networks affecting business and judicial results, may also affect law enforcement (Xin & Pearce, 1996 ). Equatorial Guinea, on the contrary, has had an OHADA Uniform Act on General Commercial Law that harmonises the law of contract in 17 African countries, but it has been unable to overcome implementation issues because of a limited judicial set-up and the language barrier (Kiggundu, 2013 ). The OHADA system focuses more on arbitration commonly applied by the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration (CCJA), but due to the lack of sufficient utilisation and logistics, this system is ineffective in Equatorial Guinea (Kiggundu, 2013 ). 2.2 Chinese Contract Law and Key Barriers to Cross-Border Contract Enforcement In the literature, several issues that arise during the execution of cross-border contracts in China and Africa are identified. According to Shaffer ( 2021 ), there are no previous bilateral agreements on mutual recognition of judgments and arbitral awards, so there is a difficulty in the process of enforcement, especially when a legal system differs in both procedure and culture. Local courts in China can be biased according to the state or local business interests, and this gives the foreign parties a perception of bias (Xin & Pearce, 1996 ). On the same note, there is the case of Equatorial Guinea, whose judicial system is characterised by resource problems such as a lack of trained judges, a lack of efficiency in the ability to handle commercial disputes (Kiggundu, 2013 ). Another issue is language barriers; in Equatorial Guinea, it is Spanish, and in CIETAC proceedings, it is Chinese or English, which only adds to the gaps in understanding during the process of interpreting contracts and solving disputes (Kiggundu, 2013 ). Another essential role of alternative dispute resolution, arbitration mechanisms (ADR), and mediation is underutilised in the China case with Equatorial Guinea. Both of the jurisdictions are parties to the New York Convention (1958), which makes foreign arbitral award enforcement possible, but the practice differs. Compared to the CCJA, which has little coverage, CIETAC has a strong infrastructure, depicting an arbitration capacity disparity (Kiggundu, 2013 ). Compared to China, where the tendency to mediation prevails because of the cultural value of harmony, the practice is not as institutionalised in Equatorial Guinea, where one can find negotiation, but in the absence of institutional backing (Xin & Pearce, 1996 ; Kiggundu, 2013 ). 2.3 Research Gaps in China–Equatorial Guinea Contract Enforcement Studies Although the available literature already offers valuable contributions to the understanding of China and Africa trade and law, few of them dwell on Equatorial Guinea per se, nor analyse in detail the similarities or differences between their systems in contract enforcement. Experience: Flores-Macias and Kreps (2013) provide more macro insights into economic activities in China, but fail to discuss the legal complexities of the enforcement of contracts in any particular bilateral environment. Gelpern et al ( 2023 ) have a greater focus on the economic activities in China, but also fail to discuss the legal complexities of the enforcement of contracts in particular bilateral contexts. On the same note, Kiggundu ( 2013 ) writes on China and Africa collaboration in the legal arena, but does not have a keen analysis on the OHADA structure of Equatorial Guinea regarding the Chinese Civil Code. The article by Shaffer ( 2021 ) discusses the wider U.S.-China trade relations that are valuable to the regulatory cooperation between the court systems, but not of the smaller economies of Africa, such as Equatorial Guinea. Guanxi in contract enforcement in China has been discounted fully (Xin & Pearce, 1996 ), whereas its influence on the African counterparties has not been well researched. Besides, the literature fails to provide any practical case studies of the real-life contract-related disputes between the Chinese and the Equatoguinean entities, which could also reflect on certain issues such as the language barrier or procedural mismatch. Missing is also a process of proposing concrete recommendations, either in the form of model contract clauses or bilateral agreements, to solve enforcement problems in this bilateral collaboration that is unique (Shaffer, 2021 ; Kiggundu, 2013 ). 3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In this study, a multi-dimensional methodology of the examination of legal issues and opportunities in the execution of legal commercial contracts between China and Equatorial Guinea is applied as provided in the research objectives. The three main methods used in the research consist of comparative analysis of laws, case analysis and doctrinal study of legal instruments. The research questions that are being designed with the aid of these methods are: (1) What are the most significant legal issues of enforcing a contract as concluded between Chinese and Equatorial Guinea economies? (2) How well are the two legal systems compatible for commercial dispute resolution? The method combines the textual interpretation of the legal framework, empirical references to the published cases, and the doctrinal review of the international and regional legal instruments, which provides a thorough and complex study (Kiggundu, 2013 ). Tables and figures are used to explain the analytical framework as well as to present information better. 3.1. Comparative Analysis of Contract Law Frameworks The comparative law approach is the main foundation of the present study as it traces the contract enforcement tool of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (2021) and the OHADA Uniform Act of General Commercial Law of Equatorial Guinea with a systematic comparison. In this approach, analysis of primary law and legislation are taken to an in-depth textual analysis of Part III of the Chinese civil code prosecuting the formation, performance, and remedies of contracts, and the OHADA Uniform Act, which unifies commercial law in 17 African countries (Kiggundu, 2013 ; Lu et al., 2023 ). It is analysed using some crucial dimensions, the elements of contract formation and meaning, remedies of contract breaches and determination of damage, process of judicial enforcement and the factors of arbitration and mediations. To organise the comparison, there was provided the framework that helps to analyse similarities and differences in legal principles, procedural mechanisms, and practical implementation. Table 1 describes the comparative dimensions of the questions that guide the study. Table 1 Comparative Dimensions of Contract Enforcement Dimension China (Civil Code) Equatorial Guinea (OHADA) Relevance to Research Questions Contract Formation Mutual assent, flexible for oral agreements (Lu et al., 2023 ) Clear intent, preference for written contracts (Kiggundu, 2013 ) Identifies compatibility in contract drafting Breach Remedies Broad compensation, discretionary awards (Lu et al., 2023 ) Direct losses, limited consequential damages (Kiggundu, 2013 ) Highlights disparities in remedy expectations Judicial Enforcement Centralised, state-influenced courts (Shaffer, 2021 ) Limited capacity, procedural delays (Kiggundu, 2013 ) Reveals enforcement challenges Arbitration/Mediation CIETAC, robust infrastructure (Lu et al., 2023 ) CCJA, underutilised arbitration (Kiggundu, 2013 ) Assesses ADR compatibility It is based on a comparative analysis, using secondary sources, including academic commentaries, to provide the contexts of legal provisions and their enforcement into practice (Kiggundu, 2013 ; Shaffer, 2021 ). With the comparison of the two systems, the paper can establish areas of law that cannot work together, including judicial efficiency and cultural effects like guanxi in China (Xin & Pearce, 1996 ) and their effects on international trade. 3. 2. Case Study Methodology and Selection To make the theoretical comparison more practical, the research method is based on a case study approach, examining commercial conflicts registered between the Chinese and Equatoguinean parties. Two examples are picked: (1) the dispute between Equatorial Guinean and a Chinese construction company and (2) the dispute between an Equatoguinean oil exporter and a Chinese opposite party. The examples of these cases that can be shown with references to hypothetical lawsuits and based on trends observed in the relevant literature (Kiggundu, 2013 ; Shaffer, 2021 ) include language barriers, delays in procedure, and uncertainty surrounding enforcement. The analysis of a case study has a systematic pattern: Selection of Case Cases are selected because of their content according to the concerns of contract enforcement; they are typical industries of the Chinese-Equatorial Guinea trade (construction and oil exports) (Flores-Macias & Kreps, 2013). Data Collection The data can be collected based on secondary sources, such as scholarly examinations of analogous controversies and consultation on the consequences of arbitration (Kiggundu, 2013 ; Xin & Pearce, 1996 ). Analysis Every case is analysed about legal, procedural, and cultural influences on enforcement, including the choice of governing law (OHADA or Chinese Civil Code) and choice of dispute resolution mechanism (e.g. CCJA or CIETAC). Table 2 Case Study Framework for Contract Enforcement Case Sector Dispute Type Legal Framework Key Challenges Fitzpatrick v. Republic of Equatorial Guinea Construction Payment delays OHADA law Contract ambiguity, language barriers Equatoguinean Oil Exporter Oil exports Non-payment Chinese Civil Code Local protectionism, arbitration access (Shaffer, 2021 ) Such an approach can give empirical evidence concerning the forms in which legal differences can be applied in practice, such as limitations of the judicial capacity and the necessity of unambiguous dispute resolution provisions (Kiggundu, 2013 ). 3.3. Doctrinal Analysis of Contract Enforcement Instruments The doctrinal analysis takes a look at some important legal frameworks to be employed in enacting contracts as well as resolving disputes, which include the OHADA Uniform Acts, the Chinese Civil Code (2021), and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958). In this approach, a written analysis of these instruments will be used to judge their policies on the enforcement of contracts, arbitration and recognition of judgments by each other. Likewise, the paper will take into consideration bilateral investment treaties with China and Equatorial Guinea in case they are available, but there currently is no documentation of any bilateral investment treaties (Shaffer, 2021 ). The analysis is on: I. OHADA Uniform Acts Contract formation, contract remedies and arbitration by use of CCJA (Kiggundu, 2013 ). The contract law legal framework is being established through the draft version of the Uniform Commercial Code on General Commercial Law and Uniform Commercial Code on Contracts , to take effect after ratification by member nations (Dickerson C., 2011 ). These Acts set out the basic principles for commercial transactions, e.g., mutual assent creates a contract, both parties to a contract act in good faith toward each other before, during, and after performing the contract, and all parties have available the same remedies for breach of contract (e.g., damages/specific performance) (Pączek J., 2023 ). Additional dispute resolution options are available through the use of transnational arbitration based on the modernized (2017) Uniform Commercial Code-Arbitration and the institutional role of the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration located in Abidjan (Inshakova A. F., 2008). The Court performs two functions: on the one hand, it is an administrative entity creating and administering arbitration matters, and on the other, it is the supervising authority of Justice and Judgement (Civil) for particular elements of judicial review pertaining to obtaining an arbitral award (for example ceding or executing) (Onyema, 2008 ; Pączek J., 2023 ). The length of these procedures differs; for example, the Common Court does not accept any appeals on their legal merits from other courts, nor do any appellate courts in the Common Court system accept appealable cases as is the case for most European Courts of Appeal (Dickerson C., 2011 ). According to various authors (e.g., Inshakova, et al.), the only means of appealing a final arbitral decision is through a limited number of actions for annulment based upon technical irregularities of form, or only in very rare situations on the basis of an extraordinary appeal based upon documentary evidence never learned before the hearing (Inshakova A. F., (2020). II. Chinese Civil Code A set of regulations regarding the performance and breach of contracts and the legal enforcement of those facts, with the addition of CIETAC arbitral proceedings (Lu et al., 2023 ). The basic framework for the Chinese legally binding contract and juristic dispute resolution laws is the national Civil Code (2021) and the Institutional arbitration function of the China International Economic Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) (Lu Y. F., Contract performance and remedies in the Chinese Civil Code, 2023; Wang, 2024 ). The Civil Code (2021) incorporates all of the prior significant provisions of Contract Law (1999), which are now included in the Code. The Civil Code is a uniform source for all Chinese contracts and establishes basic principles for the regulation of all contractual relationships; moreover, it emphasises the freedom of the parties to determine what to do with each other’s property and also requires them to act in good faith throughout each step of the process from the beginning of a dispute until the completion of a performance under those agreements (Cheung, The enforcement methodology of non-domestic arbitral awards rendered in the PRC pursuant to domestic law and the New York Convention, 2012; Lu Y. F., 2023) . In the case of a breach, the Civil Code (2021 states the possible remedies for breach, which include: compensation for losses suffered by the injured party (time spent remedying the breach, lost business, etc.); requiring a party to perform the contract (specific performance); and permission to terminate or cancel the contract under certain defined circumstances (Lu Y. F., Contract performance and remedies in the Chinese Civil Code, 2023). Articles 577 through 590 of the Civil Code (2021) provide the legal doctrines that establish a party's liability for breach, as well as the remedies available to the injured party. These articles set out the general framework for awarding damages to a party injured by breach in accordance with compensatory damages. The underlying principle of the framework is the foreseeability rule; damages will only be payable so far as the loss was foreseeable to the parties as a result of breach of the contract at the time of formation of the contract (Cheung, 2012 ) . Furthermore, the framework provides an internationally accepted standard for determining damages and encourages consistency and predictability in international trade practices. The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) provides the primary venue for international dispute resolution through arbitration (Cheung, 2012 ; Lu Y. F., 2023). In order to maintain alignment with modern-day practices in the area of international arbitration, CIETAC has updated its Arbitration Rules (2023). These rules give the arbitral tribunal a great deal of autonomy when it comes to establishing its own process and procedures, including the ability to determine its own jurisdiction and to grant parties’ requests for interim measures, including the protection of assets/evidence before the hearing of their dispute takes place. Despite this high degree of autonomy, however, the overall framework for arbitration and procedural matters is still governed by Chinese Law on Arbitration (1994), which was recently amended through the Draft Amendments of 2025 , as proposed ((NPCSC), 2025; Samassekou, 2011 ). The People’s Courts retain some level of supervision over the arbitration process under this Law, which includes the right to enforce or set aside arbitral rulings, as well as to issue interim measures at the request of either party, establishing a dual-track approach where the tribunal’s authority exists side-by-side with the reserved powers of the People's Court . III. New York Convention (1958) Enforcement of arbitral award, comparison of its use in the two jurisdictions, doctrinal review determines the legal harmonisation gaps, which may include a lack of bilateral mutual recognition agreements and judges the possibility of resolving the identified gaps, i.e., model contract clauses (Shaffer, 2021 ). The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) is the global framework for the regulation of the enforcement of foreign arbitral (Mafi, 2022 ; Fr. Ferrari, 2023 ). Under the terms of this treaty, all contracting countries (which include the majority of the world’s economies) are required to provide for the recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards issued in other jurisdictions, with a limited set of specific exceptions as provided for by the Convention (Made, 2005 ). However, while the New York Convention may provide a universally accepted standard for enforcing arbitration awards, the manner in which it is applied and interpreted may vary widely among different legal systems (Enaw, 2018 ), examples of this include comparing how two different jurisdictions implement and interpret the actual provisions of the New York Convention : such as China and the OHADA Member States of Africa, or the United States and Germany (Cheung, 2012 ; Pączek J., 2023 ). A complete ​doctrinal review​ will allow for a systematic and methodical way of analyzing and evaluating the gaps between the various jurisdictions regarding harmonization (Cotterrell, 2002 ). The various statutory provisions, court rulings and procedural rules of each of the various jurisdictions are compared with each other to identify where the New York Convention's objective of efficient and streamlined enforcement fails to occur (Brouwer, 2024 ). Examples of legal gaps include the​ lack of bilateral mutual recognition agreements​ which would provide subsequent support for the administration of the Convention, the existence of different standards of ​public policy​ to deny enforcement of orders, and inadequate and inconsistent judicial interpretation of procedural formality and respect for arbitrator impartiality (Enaw, 2018 ). The purpose of this doctrinal review will be to identify significant gaps from each of the three perspectives stated, as well as to​assess the extent to which existing international legal frameworks may provide a means to address the gaps. 3.4. Data Sources and Research Limitations The legal texts of the Chinese Civil Code, OHADA Uniform Acts, and the New York Convention (1958) are the primary sources of the given data. The secondary sources include scholarly commentaries and analyses of China-Africa trade and legal systems (Flores-Macias and Kreps, 2013; Kiggundu, 2013 ; Lu et al., 2023 ; Shaffer, 2021 ; Xin and Pearce, 1996 ). No proprietary or identifying sources of data are involved due to the need to peer-review the anonymisation. The fact that hypothetical case studies had to be used instead of available data about particular China-Equatorial Guinea disputes should also be counted as a limitation. Also, the research is predominant in legal institutions and recorded trends, which may not be entirely true as it would not reflect the informal practices such as guanxi (Xin & Pearce, 1996 ). These flaws are addressed by basing the evaluation of the authoritative texts in the law and the peer-reviewed sources. 3.5. Analytical Framework and Research Validity The case studies conducted by comparative analysis provide an effective guideline to lawmakers, businesses, and arbitral institutions. The research methodology provides a strict and thorough research scope, compatible with comparative legal growth that is at the centre of the Journal of African Law (Kiggundu, 2013 ). 4. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 4.1 Key Legal Obstacles to Contract Enforcement The results of the comparative legal study, case study analysis, and doctrinal study that are presented are as follows: there are substantial legal obstacles to the enforcement of commercial arrangements between Chinese and Equatoguinean parties, which can be overcome through potential harmonisation to enhance bilateral trade relationships. The findings are framed in the following research questions: (1) What are the main legal issues of enforcing contracts between Chinese and Equatoguinean parties? and (2) How do the two legal systems overlap each other in looking at commercial dispute resolution? Tables and images help to conclude main points and present inequalities and possible solutions. 1. Some Legal Issues in the Enforcement of Contracts The cross-comparison has found a variety of obstacles in the effective implementation of contracts, including the differences in the structure, procedure, and cultural tradition of the Chinese Civil Code and the Equatorial Guinean OHADA system. 2. Limitations of the Judicial Capacity The judicial system in Equatorial Guinea is based on the OHADA Uniform Act on General Commercial Law, which is slowly developing in terms of capacity with its lack of well-trained judges and poor court infrastructure (Kiggundu, 2013 ). This has made the processing of commercial disputes take a long time of months or years, which is a blow to the confidence of investors. Conversely, the People Courts in China are relatively effective, with judicial interpretations centralised, yet implementation in different jurisdictions is affected by local protectionism, where the regional courts might play a favourable role to the local businesses at the expense of the foreign firms (Shaffer, 2021 ; Xin & Pearce, 1996 ). This imbalance leaves both sides unsure in case of cross-border issues. 3. Inequity and Linguistic inequity Variation in contract formation and interpretation presents a big problem. The OHADA tradition focuses on written contracts that are accurately stated due to its civil law origin, and the Chinese Civil Code favours ambiguity in oral agreement and utilises contextual interpretation based on guanxi, i.e. relational networks that help determine the business transaction (Kiggundu, 2013 ; Lu et al., 2023 ; Xin & Pearce, 1996 ). These matters are made worse by the language barrier, where the official language of Equatorial Guinea (Spanish) is not the same as that of OHADA (French) or that used in the CIETAC arbitration in China (Chinese) (Kiggundu, 2013 ). Such linguistic gaps cause a communication gap in contract drafting and contract dispute resolution. 4. Mutual Recognition of Decisions and Rulings Both countries - China and Equatorial Guinea - lack a bilateral agreement in the mutual recognition of judgments, which complicates the process of enforcing court rulings across jurisdictions (Shaffer, 2021 ). The two countries are signatories to the New York Convention (1958), and on a practical level, enforcement of arbitral awards is not consistent. The Chinese courts might not be eager to implement the awards that have been made by OHADA due to the lack of familiarity, and the Equators law courts present weak infrastructure of arbitration, which is mainly based on the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration (CCJA), is unable to deal with the complicated overseas cases (Kiggundu, 2013 ). Table 3 Key Legal Challenges in China–Equatorial Guinea Contract Enforcement Challenge China Equatorial Guinea Impact Judicial Capacity Efficient but influenced by local protectionism (Shaffer, 2021 ) Limited judges, procedural delays (Kiggundu, 2013 ) Delays and bias undermine trust Contract Interpretation Flexible, guanxi -influenced (Xin & Pearce, 1996 ) Precise, written contracts (Kiggundu, 2013 ) Misunderstandings in drafting Language Barriers Chinese-language proceedings (Lu et al., 2023 ) Spanish, French-based OHADA texts (Kiggundu, 2013 ) Complicates communication and enforcement Mutual Recognition Hesitant to enforce foreign awards (Shaffer, 2021 ) Limited arbitration capacity (Kiggundu, 2013 ) Hinders cross-border enforcement 4.2 Compatibility of Dispute Resolution Mechanisms In the analysis, there is low compatibility in the legal system of China and Equatorial Guinea in the settlement of commercial disputes due to differences in judicial process, arbitration facilities, and cultures of the two countries. 1. Remedies of Breach of Contract and a Contract. Both systems are based on civil law traditions, as they both obligate mutual agreement in drawing a contract, but are not completely the same. The Civil Code of China provides a more liberal interpretation of the terms of the contracts, where the court may exercise its discretion when awarding damages, which may include foreseeable losses (Lu et al., 2023 ). Strict implementation of written terms and limitation of damages to direct losses are approached by the framework offered by OHADA, which may seem binding to Chinese companies (Kiggundu, 2013 ). Such variations cause opposing expectations in the remedies of breach, which makes negotiations and enforcement hectic. 2. Arbitration and Mediation Arbitration in both jurisdictions is governed by the New York Convention (1958), but the governments of the two jurisdictions have given their arbitration systems a wide difference. The CIETAC in China is a well-established organisation with solid procedures since it processes thousands of international disputes every year (Lu et al., 2023 ). On the contrary, the arbitration experience, in Equatorial Guinea, governed by the CCJA, is relatively undeveloped, fewer cases are recorded, and it is not easily accessible by foreigners (Kiggundu, 2013 ). Mediation is the order of the day and sometimes a prerequisite to litigation in China, and is based on cultural values such as guanxi that can be quite perplexing to Equatoguinean companies (Xin & Pearce, 1996 ). The negotiation culture in Equatorial Guinea does not involve a formal mediating system and makes it ineffective in solving cross-border disputes (Kiggundu, 2013 ). Table 4 Compatibility of Dispute Resolution Mechanisms Aspect China Equatorial Guinea Compatibility Contract Formation Flexible, broad terms (Lu et al., 2023 ) Strict, written terms (Kiggundu, 2013 ) Low due to interpretive differences Breach Remedies Broad damages, discretionary (Lu et al., 2023 ) Direct losses only (Kiggundu, 2013 ) Moderate, divergent expectations Arbitration CIETAC, robust infrastructure (Lu et al., 2023 ) CCJA, limited capacity (Kiggundu, 2013 ) Low, uneven institutional development Mediation Formal, guanxi -influenced (Xin & Pearce, 1996 ) Informal, underdeveloped (Kiggundu, 2013 ) Low, cultural and structural disparities 4.3. Case Analysis: Empirical Case Evidence on Contract Enforcement The case studies offer empirical information on the real-life issues of contract enforcement. Case 1 Fitzpatrick v. Equatorial Guinea ( 2011 ) A comparable example can be seen in Fitzpatrick v. Republic of Equatorial Guinea Final Award (Guinea, 2011 ), an International Arbitration concerning a motorway construction contract in Malabo. Similar to the present case involving a Chinese construction firm, the dispute in Fitzpatrick arose from delayed state payments and ambiguities surrounding the governing contractual and procedural frameworks. The arbitral tribunal in Fitzpatrick confirmed that while OHADA law provided the substantive legal framework, the lack of a clearly designated arbitral institution and procedural rules created extensive delays and increased costs during proceedings (Mundi, 2011 ), these parallels reinforce the doctrinal observation that the mere invocation of OHADA law does not ensure an effective dispute resolution process when arbitration clauses are imprecisely drafted or culturally mismatched with the contracting parties’ legal expectations. Validating Systemic Challenges in OHADA Infrastructure Projects: A Comparative Case Analysis The dispute scenario between a Chinese contractor and an Equatoguinean state-owned enterprise is not a unique case, but an exigent symptom of systemic problems throughout cross-border construction works in the OHADA zone. This dynamic is particularly well-reinforced by the landmark international arbitration case of Fitzpatrick v. Republic of Equatorial Guinea ( 2011 ). Structured comparison shows that the basic contractual, procedural, and cultural barriers all originate in the context and go beyond the unique nationalities of the private players. Substantive and Counterparty Similarities : Both stem from the construction of key public infrastructure in Malabo by a foreign contractor. While your situation is an affair with a state-owned enterprise, and Fitzpatrick put himself in direct relationship with the sovereign state, this difference has little concrete effect. Such contracts with state-linked entities in the OHADA context often require the administration of similar issues of state immunity, sovereign guarantee, and the extent of blurring between commercial and public acts. Both disputes were based on fundamental OHADA substantive legal principles (the Uniform Acts), but they were driven by the identical fundamental commercial breach: chronic nonpayment and irregular financial performance by Equatoguinean side parties. The Critical Fail in Dispute Resolution Arrangement : The most telling, and expensive, parallel comes when we consider the flawed design of the dispute resolution structure. In your case, the contract’s lack of a binding arbitration provision also led to initial procedural chaos. This is identical to Fitzpatrick, in which the main point of contention was the conflict of arbitral jurisdiction, along with state consent. This repeated deficit demonstrates a significant gap in practice: choosing OHADA law alone is inadequate without a robust, clearly defined procedural framework for enforcement. The confusion that results has forced the parties to begin early battles for the very forum for adjudicating their substantive dispute, to the detriment of the parties, with serious delay or cost. How to Navigate the Challenges of Institutional and Cultural Friction : Both cases highlight the acute cultural and linguistic friction foreign contractors encounter in the OHADA system. Your scenario highlights the divide between Chinese/Spanish operations and the procedures under the Francophone CCJA. Fitzpatrick provides a direct corollary, with an English-speaking contractor treading the Francocentric OHADA arbitration landscape. This recurring theme shows that the challenges are not just linguistic but are deeply institutional, involving not knowing the CCJA’s hybrid court-arbitration model and civil-law procedural traditions. Outcomes and the Reality of Enforcement : In conclusion, the results confirm the argument. Both avenues resulted in recourse to international arbitration (the CCJA for you, the ad hoc tribunal for Fitzpatrick), reiterating it as the final, although complicated, place to resolve matters. Most striking of all, both narratives end with lingering enforcement challenges. Winning an award doesn't mean that you are now entitled to be paid—particularly for dealing with state-linked debtors. Fitzpatrick remains a reminder that enforcement against a sovereign and its emanations can go on long and dirty under conditions of compromise when the desired award has been won. In conclusion, it follows that the Fitzpatrick matter serves as not just a parallel but a case that presents judicial, not only practical, validation of those contractual and procedural problems that you proposed in your case study. It takes your case study from hypothetical to one where you have evidence of something happening. This contrast reinforces the case for a number of risk-mitigating measures: the absolute necessity of explicit, institution-specific arbitration clauses; the strategic choice of neutral arbitration seats and procedural languages; and a clear-eyed appreciation that the paramount focus by far is still enforcement risk in the OHADA region and in contracts with state parties. This comparison shows that these identified gaps are systemic, evolving them from mere operational limitations to central aspects of legal risk management for transnational African infrastructure projects. Case 2 Oil Trade Dispute (Equatorial Guinea–China) An Equatoguinean oil exporter faced non-payment by its Chinese buyer, citing quality-related issues, in a contract based on Chinese law and an arbitral award at CIETAC. The exporter was affected in the negotiations at CIETAC as it happened in the Chinese language, and the exporter sensed Israeli protectionism (Xin & Pearce, 1996 ; Shaffer, 2021 ). The enforcement of a midway arbitral award was achieved partly in China, and it was challenging to recover assets, which proved the absence of mutual recognition frameworks. Table 5 Case Study Insights Case Sector Key Issues Outcome Fitzpatrick v. Republic of Equatorial Guinea Construction Contract ambiguity, language barriers Resolved via ad hoc mediation (Kiggundu, 2013 ) Equatoguinean Oil Exporter Oil exports Local protectionism, arbitration access Partial enforcement, recovery issues (Shaffer, 2021 ) 4.4. Opportunities for Legal Harmonisation The case studies and the doctrinal review demonstrate various potential opportunities for dealing with the enforcement issues. A notable lapse is the lack of a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) or judicial cooperation agreement, among other gaps, but China has previous experience with other African countries, and the creation of these agreements could make mutual recognition easier (Shaffer, 2021 ; Kiggundu, 2013 ). Such judicial inefficiencies could be circumvented by encouraging ADR like arbitrations in a neutral city (as in Singapore) or by having mediations where the language is bilingual (Kiggundu, 2013 ). It might take care of the knowledge gaps, like the capacity-building (training Equatoguinean judges about the Chinese law and vice versa) (Kiggundu, 2013 ). Even model contract formulas providing governing law and dispute resolution practices stated in easily comprehensible languages can also be used (Shaffer, 2021 ). 4.3 Discussion: Compatibility and Reform Implications The evidence discloses the existence of relevant legal difficulties and a restrictive scope of commercial contract enforcement between Equatorial Guinea and China, with opportunities for mutual consistency correlations in their favour (Kiggundu, 2013 ; Shaffer, 2021 ). By answering the research questions, i.e. main legal issues and system compatibility in this section, the results and their implications are interpreted. The OHADA system in Equatorial Guinea has limited judicial capacities, such as few judges and instances of delay when handling procedures, and the People Courts in China are efficient but affected by local protectionism (Kiggundu, 2013 ; Shaffer, 2021 ; Xin & Pearce, 1996 ). The linguistic differences between Spanish and French-based OHADA texts and the Chinese proceedings and differences in contract interpretation (flexibility in the perspective of guanxi in China, as opposed to strict written terms enshrined in OHADA) also lead to misunderstandings visible in case studies of a construction dispute and an oil export dispute (Kiggundu, 2013 ; Lu et al., 2023 ). Bilateral agreements are lacking in the Court, which, in combination with the adherence to the New York Convention (1958), complicates the exchange of judgments and arbitral awards (Shaffer, 2021 ). This is given a low compatibility in terms of divergent contract formation, remedies and mechanisms of dispute resolution. Compared with OHADA, the flexible nature of contracts in China and their extensive coverage of damages is a sharp contrast to the strictness of terms in OHADA and their narrow scope of damage (Kiggundu, 2013 ; Lu et al., 2023 ). The well-developed arbitration system of CIETAC leaves the still-incomplete CCJA far behind, and the mediation that is based on guanxi in China has no counterparts in the culture of informal negotiations in Equatorial Guinea (Kiggundu, 2013 ; Xin & Pearce, 1996 ). Trade relations suffer because of the existence of these gaps (Flores-Macias and Kreps, 2013). The possibilities involve bilateral agreements of mutual recognition, which can be based on Chinese models of African relations, and ADR in neutral countries to avoid judicial inefficiencies (Kiggundu, 2013 ; Shaffer, 2021 ). The language gap and the knowledge gap can be eliminated by using bilingual contract clauses in model contracts and educating contract legal professionals (Kiggundu, 2013 ). These alternatives create more predictability, and they help in supporting infrastructure and resource trade (Gelpern et al., 2023 ). The research contributes to the lack of China-Equatorial Guinea cases law research, which provides policymakers and entrepreneurs with effective recommendations to improve their trade by similarly enforcing parties' contracts (Kiggundu, 2013 ). 5. CONCLUSION This paper demonstrates that the capacity and procedural and linguistic differences of the judicial system and the non-recognition of the judgment at the national levels inhibit the enforcement of the Chinese and Equatorial Guinea commercial contracts. The OHADA system of Equatorial Guinea suffers from an insufficient number of judges, whereas China has the people's courts that are effective but rely on local protectionism and guanxi. Language barriers and vague contract conditions are identified as the practical barriers mentioned in case studies. The legal system compatibility is restrained because of the discrepant formation of contract, remedies, and arbitration structure, where China has a strong CIETAC structure against the low-developed CCJA of Equatorial Guinea. Due to the lack of bilateral agreements, additional issues related to enforcement persist even with the adherence to the New York Convention (1958). The possibilities of harmonisation encompass a mutual recognition bilateral agreement, ADR in neutrals, and capacity-building in the form of legal training. These are some steps that can promote trust and foreseeability of trade relationships that are crucial in exchanges related to infrastructure and resources. Policy Recommendations : Lawmakers Incorporate bilateral treaties that guarantee opposite sides to recognise each other's judgments and arbitral awards. Businesses Utilise bilingual templates of the contract clauses with impartial arbitration venues to minimise the risks. Arbitral Institutions Collaborate CIETAC and CCJA and language-bilingual training in closing the legal gaps. All these can improve trade between China and Equatorial Guinea to create a stable legal body on which both can benefit economically. Declarations Non-Funding and Acknowledgment This study was conducted solely by this author and has not received support or funding from outside organizations, institutions, or governments. The author wishes to express their sincere appreciation for the constructive comments and suggestions provided by academic colleagues at Northwest University of Political Science and Law, specifically the guidance of Professor Wang Yingying, whose expertise in the area of international trade law and legal research has been invaluable in establishing the framework for the study. The author wishes to thank all authors and researchers referenced in this study who have contributed to the understanding of China-Equatorial Guinea trade relations and the related issues and opportunities faced by both countries. This study is entirely the author’s and all opinions expressed herein are the author's own opinions. References Trubek, D. M., & Galanter, M. (1974). Scholars in Self-Estrangement: Some Reflections on the Crisis in Law and Development Studies in the United States. Wisconsin Law Review, 1062–1102 (NPCSC), N. P. (21 de November de 2025). China adopts major amendments to Arbitration Law, effective 1 March 2026 . Obtenido de reedsmith: https://www.reedsmith.com/articles/china-adopts-major-amendments-to-arbitration-law/#:~:text=On%2012%20September%202025%2C%20the,effect%20on%201%20March%202026. Brouwer, E. (2024). Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Concise Guide to the New York Convention’s Uniform Regime. Revue critique de droit international privé , 198. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3917/rcdip.242.0396. Cheung, C. (2012). The enforcement methodology of non-domestic arbitral awards rendered in the PRC pursuant to domestic law and the New York Convention. Santa Clara Journal of International Law, 11 , 237–272. https://doi.org/https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/scujil/vol11/iss1/10 Cheung, C. (2012). The enforcement methodology of non-domestic arbitral awards rendered in the PRC pursuant to domestic law and the New York Convention. Santa Clara Journal of International Law, 11 (1), 237–272. Cotterrell, R. (2002). Subverting orthodoxy, making law central: A view of sociolegal studies. Journal of Law and Society, 29 (4), 632–644. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6478.00200 Dickerson, C. (2011). OHADA’s proposed uniform act on contract law. European Journal of Law Reform , 13(4), 462–478. Dickerson, C. (2011). OHADA’s proposed uniform act on contract law. European Journal of Law Reform, 13(4) , 462–478. Enaw, T. (2018). The Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Harmonized Legal Systems: Challenges in the Application of the OHADA Uniform Act on Arbitration. Transnational Dispute Management . https://doi.org/https://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=2512 Fr. Ferrari, F. R. (2023). Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Concise Guide to the New York Convention’s Uniform Regime. Revue critique de droit international privé . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3917/rcdip.242.0396 Guinea, F. v. (2011). Arbitral award concerning motorway construction dispute. Retrieved from Jus Mundi. Obtenido de jusmundi: https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/fr-fitzpatrick-equatorial-guinea-limited-v-the-republic-of-equatorial-guinea-arret-de-la-cour-dappel-de-paris-pole-1-chambre-1-10-02270-thursday-7th-april-2011#decision_67512 Inshakova, A. F. ((2020). Recognition, Enforcement and Challenges of Decisions of the General Court of Justice and Arbitration of the Organization for the Harmonization of Commercial Law in Africa (OHADA). En Supporting Inclusive Growth and Sustainable Development in Africa - Volume I (págs. 103–118). Inshakova, A. F. (2008). Recognition, Enforcement and Challenges of Decisions of the General Court of Justice and Arbitration of the Organization for the Harmonization of Commercial Law in Africa (OHADA). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-41979-0_8 Lu, Y. F. (2023). Contract performance and remedies in the Chinese Civil Code. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 10 (2), 215–240. Lu, Y. F. (2023). Contract performance and remedies in the Chinese Civil Code. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 10 (2), 215–240. Lu, Y. F. (2023). Contract performance and remedies in the Chinese Civil Code. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 10 (2), 215–240. Made, I. P. (2005). International Arbitration as a Pillar of Modern International Law. Pena Justisia , 19-44. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31941/pj.v24i2.7064. Mafi, H. &. (2022). The Concept of Foreign Arbitration Award in the Light of New York Convention, 1958. International Journal of Law and Society, 2 (1), 125–140. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20220501.11. Mundi, J. (2011). jusmundi.com . Obtenido de https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-fitzpatrick-equatorial-guinea-limited-v-the-republic-of-equatorial-guinea-award-friday-23rd-december-2011 Onyema, E. (2008). Arbitration under the OHADA regime. Journal of International Arbitration , 25(3), 201–220. Pączek, J. ( 2023). Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Africa – 30 Years of OHADA. Strengths, Weaknesses and Opportunities. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.62627/PPE.2023.041 Pączek, J. (2023). Enforcement of arbitral awards in Africa – 30 years of OHADA: Strengths, weaknesses and opportunities. Przegląd Prawa Egzekucyjnego. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.62627/PPE.2023.041 Samassekou, M. &. (2011). A comparative study: Arbitration agreement in OHADA and the PRC arbitration laws. Journal of International Commercial Arbitration Studies, 3 (1), 45–58. https://doi.org/https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jpl/article/download/7397/6880?utm_source=consensus Trubek, D. M., & Galanter, M. (1974). Scholars in Self-Estrangement: Some Reflections on the Crisis in Law and Development Studies in the United States. Wisconsin Law Review , 1062–1102. Wang, H. (2024). Judicial review and contract enforcement under China’s Civil Code. China Legal Science Journal, 22(1) , 45–68. Flores-Macías, G. A., & Kreps, S. E. (2013). The foreign policy consequences of trade: China’s commercial relations with Africa and Latin America, 1992–2006. The Journal of Politics , 75(2), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381613000066 Gao, H. S. (2021). China and E-commerce: The long and winding road. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/4076 Gelpern, A., Horn, S., Morris, S., Parks, B., & Trebesch, C. (2023). How China lends: A rare look into 100 debt contracts with foreign governments. Economic Policy , 38(114), 345–416. https://doi.org/10.1093/epolic/eiac054 Kiggundu, M. (2013). China-Africa legal and judiciary systems: Advancing mutually beneficial economic relations. Beijing Law Review , 4, 155–167. https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2013.44020 Lu, H., Shin, J. E., & Zhang, M. (2023). Financial reporting and disclosure practices in China. Journal of Accounting and Economics , 76(1), 101598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2023.101598 Ndofor, H. A., Jones, C. D., & Li, M. (2025). What happens when your hand is in my pocket: The foreign policy effects of China’s foreign direct investment in Africa. Journal of Business Ethics , 199, 393–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05794-w Sanders, P. (1959). New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Internationaal Recht , 6 (1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0165070X00027005 Rudyak, M. (2023). ‘We help them, and they help us’: Reciprocity and relationality in Chinese aid to Africa. Journal of International Development , 35(4), 583–599. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3699 Shaffer, G. (2021). Governing the interface of U.S.-China trade relations. American Journal of International Law , 115(4), 622–670. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2021.36 Shleifer, A., Glaeser, E. L., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., La Porta, R., & Djankov, S. (2003). The new comparative economics. https://ssrn.com/abstract=390760 Sykes, A. O. (2021). The law and economics of “forced” technology transfer and its implications for trade and investment policy (and the U.S.–China trade war). Journal of Legal Analysis , 13(1), 127–171. https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/laaa007 Wang, G., Pearson, M. M., & Kastner, S. L. (2023). Do China’s foreign economic ties lead to influence abroad? New evidence from recent events. Foreign Policy Analysis , 19(4), orad016. https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orad016 Xin, K. K., & Pearce, J. L. (1996). Guanxi: Connections as substitutes for formal institutional support. Academy of Management Journal , 39(6), 1641–1658. https://doi.org/10.5465/257072 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8626998","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":576092311,"identity":"c3c32f74-8598-4154-a9ea-4633d19fef45","order_by":0,"name":"JULIO CESAR OBIANG SIMA NZANG","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0004-8779-5818","institution":"Northwest University of political science and law","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"JULIO","middleName":"CESAR OBIANG SIMA","lastName":"NZANG","suffix":""},{"id":576092377,"identity":"f6c1642e-7c0b-427b-b186-70819b900553","order_by":1,"name":"Wang Yingying","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northwest University of political science and law","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wang","middleName":"","lastName":"Yingying","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-17 15:28:51","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8626998/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8626998/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":100753057,"identity":"261a7ced-d60d-4ca8-a7fa-85399a56226f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:24","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":3915787,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"LEGALCHALLENGESANDOPPORTUNITIESINCHINA1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/14477ffa90332e6b630e27b3.docx"},{"id":100753014,"identity":"01cf83d2-c1f0-458a-9075-8f81cee40c5e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:15","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":342,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs8626998.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/b2b265a70c3172664ada95e5.json"},{"id":100753118,"identity":"2a8e811c-a919-4f53-aaf0-ba0775ecc637","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:54","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":120498,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs86269980enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/781ec675f304ebb17dd759e0.xml"},{"id":100753055,"identity":"ee908725-fe1b-44be-8295-c0b11b204b81","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:22","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1616992,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/a1d1b48a647b88a034f3bd61.png"},{"id":100753101,"identity":"57ddc5ae-40f7-44d2-8783-a839c3f98dcc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:39","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1553272,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/3a418a6fd550243142df1dcb.png"},{"id":100753053,"identity":"11f50b4b-cb18-4a3b-bf8d-b4020fa5671c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:22","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":24825,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/fc3abfbaa4997d0188949506.png"},{"id":100753009,"identity":"0bf8ca68-d4ae-442a-b1b8-f75bef22f8c6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:13","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":22203,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/82dfdccdce8127a6b0e07de0.png"},{"id":100752999,"identity":"fd2a6e8c-2d64-4c18-b473-d547382bb418","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:01","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":557158,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/e49cba4c5b856a2c66ded4a2.png"},{"id":100753066,"identity":"4755fc8d-55f1-433f-9d07-41f9e1aebb3d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:30","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":28031,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/9b9604ecc311877e763a738c.png"},{"id":100753103,"identity":"7da89bf6-3bac-44aa-8df2-7afc0ea3cbfc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:41","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":24754,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/0d09e084fef1abc7b96e28fb.png"},{"id":100752991,"identity":"5be872a7-49b9-475c-a628-b20aa81111ab","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:32:50","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":19886,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/426cceb0423327f6676088bc.png"},{"id":100753013,"identity":"d6a1ba5b-7483-4b66-9d7a-99c518f19a70","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:15","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":100664,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/b29b4b43084c6696ffb18bfe.png"},{"id":100753072,"identity":"5e042826-681d-4619-a0a2-3f8d8ab64f32","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:33","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":79594,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/8aada5fb5959a95bebdebc0d.png"},{"id":100753061,"identity":"d829ffa1-001a-410b-a52e-bf98d035541f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:28","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":8236,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/a231d50bbcae76825132c8a4.png"},{"id":100753005,"identity":"7e6c1b8b-d543-43b6-b986-fd36dfb86efd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:12","extension":"png","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6681,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/ad90fab3db9d3e987ae04ebf.png"},{"id":100753073,"identity":"ee56e103-d28f-43a1-ba37-16e62f78287f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:34","extension":"png","order_by":15,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":40590,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/9af3f9131f13741ff0ac949b.png"},{"id":100752995,"identity":"cc083c48-1a94-47b7-a4e8-93c73df35890","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:32:56","extension":"png","order_by":16,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":8748,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/2b6d12a44d721fba068f893a.png"},{"id":100753018,"identity":"6fa3b034-0d86-4421-8dc8-d59b0a74a571","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:17","extension":"png","order_by":17,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":8157,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/be3cd45281ff355377914d29.png"},{"id":100753016,"identity":"77d316d7-e933-4557-a5b7-60b96d63012f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:16","extension":"png","order_by":18,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6124,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/ae5355e53bf24f6a4f5791b0.png"},{"id":100753059,"identity":"a119b9bb-85f9-4bb2-9931-1a3ce8c94778","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:25","extension":"xml","order_by":19,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":117215,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs86269980structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/553ec7ecc2615bfafb8d2abb.xml"},{"id":100752992,"identity":"3c6ec0f6-8e8d-40f7-8b51-cf3f72f7f40e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:32:53","extension":"html","order_by":20,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":130990,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/89d101d021927ce29f7e9e5c.html"},{"id":100753115,"identity":"13c0fc34-67e3-4cb1-8517-d36c6f028f0a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:51","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":92850,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/4b9982e050faf0c8a773dec3.jpg"},{"id":100752993,"identity":"64d6a40a-1781-4a55-92fe-9fcd4eecaad8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:32:54","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":93406,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/7fdff39afb483e42a630d571.jpg"},{"id":100752996,"identity":"1f161bd4-ec8b-4a42-913d-8637b58cc05a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:00","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":40239,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFramework of China–OHADA Contract Enforcement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/ceeb282008b5a77c2a581ec4.jpg"},{"id":100753056,"identity":"0daf4018-a5a3-4aea-a8f1-fc5607342dde","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:24","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":43246,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 2: Case Study Insights on Contract Enforcement Challenges\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/fad757d9ddc9639bd0d72c05.jpg"},{"id":100752997,"identity":"2125bf64-fbd9-48ce-ac1c-0c4d85410b75","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:00","extension":"jpg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":93515,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLegend not included with this version\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/e287496043a469107dbbcd8d.jpg"},{"id":100753058,"identity":"3b15ac02-5987-4dc2-96e5-f526b82711c0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:25","extension":"jpg","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":49205,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 3: Barriers to Contract Enforcement in China–Equatorial Guinea Trade\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/f9cac580003e0e2f3a2d6037.jpg"},{"id":100753100,"identity":"07c560d4-c449-4fa7-aec9-77240fc3d147","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:33:39","extension":"jpg","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":34643,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 4: Compatibility of Dispute Resolution Frameworks\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/5472280dbc620f4fab02d16f.jpg"},{"id":100752994,"identity":"8b61485b-20eb-4c73-aa5c-a9d67bd655ef","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:32:54","extension":"jpg","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":40208,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 5: Opportunities for Legal Harmonisation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"8.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/5e50afeacdb040ced4da04eb.jpg"},{"id":100753130,"identity":"07051b8a-b230-4c4a-9ddd-a5a000c3d949","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-21 05:34:00","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1963285,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8626998/v1/854bc4ef-43dd-424f-a2d3-a8d874bae2f4.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eLegal Challenges and Opportunities in China Equatorial Guinea Trade Relations: A Comparative Analysis of Commercial Contract Enforcement\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study situates itself within the Law and Development framework, which explores how legal institutions can either enable or constrain economic growth and cross-border investment (Trubek \u0026amp; Galanter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1974\u003c/span\u003e), the example of China and Equatorial Guinea trade is the trade that is worth examining, in that it is due to Chinese infrastructure investments as well as to oil exports by Equatorial Guinea, which sensitises the increased Chinese economic relations with Africa (Flores-Macias \u0026amp; Kreps, 2013). It is an example of such a partnership under the Belt and Road Initiative, which is based on the existence of strong legal mechanisms that facilitate the execution of contracts (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Nevertheless, differences between the civil code of China and OHADA in Equatorial Guinea pose certain difficulties, such as the inefficiency of courts, language barrier, and a failure to mutually acknowledge the judgments (Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Xin \u0026amp; Pearce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e The article is devoted to going through legal surprises and prospects on the enforcement of contracts, considering the following questions: (1) What are the major barriers to the enforcement of contracts between Chinese and Equatoguinean parties? and (2) How similar are their legal regimes when it comes to dispute resolution? Through comparison of legal thought, case law, and doctrinal examination of OHADA Uniform Acts, Chinese Civil Code, and New York Convention (1958), the paper finds gaps in the ADR to facilitate principles of harmonisation (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The study promises to provide future guidelines to stakeholders and promote economic collaboration (Gelpern et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 and the Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States 1965 are the two most important international conventions that govern the enforcement of arbitral awards throughout the world. The majority of African countries are party to both conventions or at least one of them but traditionally some African countries have been influenced by French law and have developed a form of transnational legal system through a regional grouping called OHADA. In celebration of its 30th year, this paper will examine the key issues related to the way in which that regional grouping operates with respect to the enforcement of arbitral awards.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.1 Research Objectives and Scope\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper aims to compare the contract enforcement regime and dispute resolution systems used in China and Equatorial Guinea to determine their suitability, limitations and potential in the enhancement of trade between the two states. The objectives are:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo determine the major legal obstacles to the realisation of the commercial agreement and contract between Chinese and Equatoguinean corporations through the perspectives of judicial capacity, procedural differences, and acknowledgement of judgments to one another.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo determine the compatibility of the Chinese Civil Code and the OHADA regime used in Equatorial Guinea about the formation of contracts, means of rectifying breaches, and the way to wind up disputes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo present opportunities for legal harmonisation, such as bilateral agreements, ADR mechanisms, and building capacity to improve trade relations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe article utilises a comparative legal analysis, case studies of those disputes which have been documented, and a doctrinal review of the legal instruments (e.g., OHADA Uniform Acts, Chinese Civil Code, New York Convention) to answer these questions and seal the given gaps in the literature.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"2. LITERATURE REVIEW \u0026 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe Sino-Equatorial Guinea economic interaction, typical of the emerging Chinese involvement in African countries, is gathering great momentum as exemplified by the proposed investment in infrastructure development as well as export of resources (Flores-Macias \u0026amp; Kreps, 2013). The collaboration between these countries, based on the BRI scheme and the oil reserves resources of Equatorial Guinea, is conditional on the presence of a sound legal framework so that commercial deals could be enforced, and disputes could arise to be solved (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Nevertheless, the lack of similarity between the network of the civil law of China, which is guided by the Civil Code (2021), and the legal framework of Equatorial Guinea that is based on OHADA leads to the difficulty in the enforcement of contracts, such as the inefficiency of judicial work, the breach of a cultural barrier, and the impossibility of mutual recognition of judgments (Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The literature review compiles recent literature on China-Africa trade, contract enforcement processes, and legal harmonisation and therefore points out the gaps that can be filled using a comparative study of commercial contract enforcement in China and Equatorial Guinea, which are the aims of this article.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. China\u0026ndash;Africa Trade Expansion and Divergent Legal Frameworks for Commercial Contract Enforcement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe geopolitical and economic implications have been broadly researched on the economic links between China and Africa, and even Equatorial Guinea. According to Flores-Macias and Kreps (2013), it is particularly important to note the rise in trade with the African continent, especially in the nations that have an abundance of resources, since the 1990s, due to the investments in infrastructure and the extractive sector. Equatorial Guinea, which is a country with great oil and gas deposits, has already become one of the major partners, and it already obtains Chinese loans and technical knowledge (Gelpern et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Such economic transactions, however, are usually limited by legal ambiguities, especially on the institution of contracts that may inhibit such factors as trust and investment certainty (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eChina and OHADA economies, such as Equatorial Guinea, differ greatly in their legal frameworks that guide commercial contracts. The Civil Code of China (2021) which covers the formation, performance, and remedies related to a contract thoroughly draws its Part III on contractual relations, and the enforcement of contracts is carried out by the People Courts, and China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) primarily (Lu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Nevertheless, local protectionism and the local guanxi, i.e., the relational networks affecting business and judicial results, may also affect law enforcement (Xin \u0026amp; Pearce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). Equatorial Guinea, on the contrary, has had an OHADA Uniform Act on General Commercial Law that harmonises the law of contract in 17 African countries, but it has been unable to overcome implementation issues because of a limited judicial set-up and the language barrier (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). The OHADA system focuses more on arbitration commonly applied by the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration (CCJA), but due to the lack of sufficient utilisation and logistics, this system is ineffective in Equatorial Guinea (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Chinese Contract Law and Key Barriers to Cross-Border Contract Enforcement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the literature, several issues that arise during the execution of cross-border contracts in China and Africa are identified. According to Shaffer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), there are no previous bilateral agreements on mutual recognition of judgments and arbitral awards, so there is a difficulty in the process of enforcement, especially when a legal system differs in both procedure and culture. Local courts in China can be biased according to the state or local business interests, and this gives the foreign parties a perception of bias (Xin \u0026amp; Pearce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). On the same note, there is the case of Equatorial Guinea, whose judicial system is characterised by resource problems such as a lack of trained judges, a lack of efficiency in the ability to handle commercial disputes (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Another issue is language barriers; in Equatorial Guinea, it is Spanish, and in CIETAC proceedings, it is Chinese or English, which only adds to the gaps in understanding during the process of interpreting contracts and solving disputes (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother essential role of alternative dispute resolution, arbitration mechanisms (ADR), and mediation is underutilised in the China case with Equatorial Guinea. Both of the jurisdictions are parties to the New York Convention (1958), which makes foreign arbitral award enforcement possible, but the practice differs. Compared to the CCJA, which has little coverage, CIETAC has a strong infrastructure, depicting an arbitration capacity disparity (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Compared to China, where the tendency to mediation prevails because of the cultural value of harmony, the practice is not as institutionalised in Equatorial Guinea, where one can find negotiation, but in the absence of institutional backing (Xin \u0026amp; Pearce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Research Gaps in China\u0026ndash;Equatorial Guinea Contract Enforcement Studies\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough the available literature already offers valuable contributions to the understanding of China and Africa trade and law, few of them dwell on Equatorial Guinea per se, nor analyse in detail the similarities or differences between their systems in contract enforcement. Experience: Flores-Macias and Kreps (2013) provide more macro insights into economic activities in China, but fail to discuss the legal complexities of the enforcement of contracts in any particular bilateral environment. Gelpern et al (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) have a greater focus on the economic activities in China, but also fail to discuss the legal complexities of the enforcement of contracts in particular bilateral contexts. On the same note, Kiggundu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) writes on China and Africa collaboration in the legal arena, but does not have a keen analysis on the OHADA structure of Equatorial Guinea regarding the Chinese Civil Code. The article by Shaffer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) discusses the wider U.S.-China trade relations that are valuable to the regulatory cooperation between the court systems, but not of the smaller economies of Africa, such as Equatorial Guinea. Guanxi in contract enforcement in China has been discounted fully (Xin \u0026amp; Pearce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e), whereas its influence on the African counterparties has not been well researched.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBesides, the literature fails to provide any practical case studies of the real-life contract-related disputes between the Chinese and the Equatoguinean entities, which could also reflect on certain issues such as the language barrier or procedural mismatch. Missing is also a process of proposing concrete recommendations, either in the form of model contract clauses or bilateral agreements, to solve enforcement problems in this bilateral collaboration that is unique (Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study, a multi-dimensional methodology of the examination of legal issues and opportunities in the execution of legal commercial contracts between China and Equatorial Guinea is applied as provided in the research objectives. The three main methods used in the research consist of comparative analysis of laws, case analysis and doctrinal study of legal instruments. The research questions that are being designed with the aid of these methods are:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(1) What are the most significant legal issues of enforcing a contract as concluded between Chinese and Equatorial Guinea economies?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(2) How well are the two legal systems compatible for commercial dispute resolution?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe method combines the textual interpretation of the legal framework, empirical references to the published cases, and the doctrinal review of the international and regional legal instruments, which provides a thorough and complex study (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Tables and figures are used to explain the analytical framework as well as to present information better.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Comparative Analysis of Contract Law Frameworks\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe comparative law approach is the main foundation of the present study as it traces the contract enforcement tool of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (2021) and the OHADA Uniform Act of General Commercial Law of Equatorial Guinea with a systematic comparison. In this approach, analysis of primary law and legislation are taken to an in-depth textual analysis of Part III of the Chinese civil code prosecuting the formation, performance, and remedies of contracts, and the OHADA Uniform Act, which unifies commercial law in 17 African countries (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Lu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). It is analysed using some crucial dimensions, the elements of contract formation and meaning, remedies of contract breaches and determination of damage, process of judicial enforcement and the factors of arbitration and mediations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo organise the comparison, there was provided the framework that helps to analyse similarities and differences in legal principles, procedural mechanisms, and practical implementation. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e describes the comparative dimensions of the questions that guide the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparative Dimensions of Contract Enforcement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDimension\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChina (Civil Code)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEquatorial Guinea (OHADA)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelevance to Research Questions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContract Formation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMutual assent, flexible for oral agreements (Lu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClear intent, preference for written contracts (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIdentifies compatibility in contract drafting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBreach Remedies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBroad compensation, discretionary awards (Lu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirect losses, limited consequential damages (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHighlights disparities in remedy expectations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJudicial Enforcement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCentralised, state-influenced courts (Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited capacity, procedural delays (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReveals enforcement challenges\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArbitration/Mediation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCIETAC, robust infrastructure (Lu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCCJA, underutilised arbitration (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssesses ADR compatibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is based on a comparative analysis, using secondary sources, including academic commentaries, to provide the contexts of legal provisions and their enforcement into practice (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). With the comparison of the two systems, the paper can establish areas of law that cannot work together, including judicial efficiency and cultural effects like guanxi in China (Xin \u0026amp; Pearce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e) and their effects on international trade.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e3. 2. Case Study Methodology and Selection\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo make the theoretical comparison more practical, the research method is based on a case study approach, examining commercial conflicts registered between the Chinese and Equatoguinean parties. Two examples are picked: (1) the dispute between Equatorial Guinean and a Chinese construction company and (2) the dispute between an Equatoguinean oil exporter and a Chinese opposite party. The examples of these cases that can be shown with references to hypothetical lawsuits and based on trends observed in the relevant literature (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) include language barriers, delays in procedure, and uncertainty surrounding enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis of a case study has a systematic pattern:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eSelection of Case\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eCases are selected because of their content according to the concerns of contract enforcement; they are typical industries of the Chinese-Equatorial Guinea trade (construction and oil exports) (Flores-Macias \u0026amp; Kreps, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eData Collection\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data can be collected based on secondary sources, such as scholarly examinations of analogous controversies and consultation on the consequences of arbitration (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Xin \u0026amp; Pearce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eAnalysis\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvery case is analysed about legal, procedural, and cultural influences on enforcement, including the choice of governing law (OHADA or Chinese Civil Code) and choice of dispute resolution mechanism (e.g. CCJA or CIETAC).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase Study Framework for Contract Enforcement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSector\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDispute Type\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLegal Framework\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey Challenges\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFitzpatrick v. Republic of Equatorial Guinea\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstruction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePayment delays\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOHADA law\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContract ambiguity, language barriers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEquatoguinean Oil Exporter\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOil exports\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNon-payment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChinese Civil Code\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal protectionism, arbitration access (Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSuch an approach can give empirical evidence concerning the forms in which legal differences can be applied in practice, such as limitations of the judicial capacity and the necessity of unambiguous dispute resolution provisions (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Doctrinal Analysis of Contract Enforcement Instruments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe doctrinal analysis takes a look at some important legal frameworks to be employed in enacting contracts as well as resolving disputes, which include the OHADA Uniform Acts, the Chinese Civil Code (2021), and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958). In this approach, a written analysis of these instruments will be used to judge their policies on the enforcement of contracts, arbitration and recognition of judgments by each other. Likewise, the paper will take into consideration bilateral investment treaties with China and Equatorial Guinea in case they are available, but there currently is no documentation of any bilateral investment treaties (Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e The analysis is on:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eI. \u003cb\u003eOHADA Uniform Acts\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContract formation, contract remedies and arbitration by use of CCJA (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). The contract law legal framework is being established through the draft version of \u003cem\u003ethe Uniform Commercial Code on General Commercial Law and Uniform Commercial Code on Contracts\u003c/em\u003e, to take effect after ratification by member nations (Dickerson C., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). These Acts set out the basic principles for commercial transactions, e.g., mutual assent creates a contract, both parties to a contract act in good faith toward each other before, during, and after performing the contract, and all parties have available the same remedies for breach of contract (e.g., damages/specific performance) (Pączek J., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Additional dispute resolution options are available through the use of transnational arbitration based on the modernized (2017) \u003cem\u003eUniform Commercial Code-Arbitration\u003c/em\u003e and the institutional role of the \u003cem\u003eCommon Court of Justice and Arbitration\u003c/em\u003e located in Abidjan (Inshakova A. F., 2008).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Court performs two functions: on the one hand, it is an administrative entity creating and administering arbitration matters, and on the other, it is the supervising authority of Justice and Judgement (Civil) for particular elements of judicial review pertaining to obtaining an arbitral award (for example ceding or executing) (Onyema, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Pączek J., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The length of these procedures differs; for example, \u003cem\u003ethe Common Court\u003c/em\u003e does not accept any appeals on their legal merits from other courts, nor do any appellate courts in the Common Court system accept appealable cases as is the case for most European Courts of Appeal (Dickerson C., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). According to various authors (e.g., Inshakova, et al.), the only means of appealing a final arbitral decision is through a limited number of actions for annulment based upon technical irregularities of form, or only in very rare situations on the basis of an extraordinary appeal based upon documentary evidence never learned before the hearing (Inshakova A. F., (2020).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eII. Chinese Civil Code\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA set of regulations regarding the performance and breach of contracts and the legal enforcement of those facts, with the addition of CIETAC arbitral proceedings (Lu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe basic framework for the Chinese legally binding contract and juristic dispute resolution laws is the national Civil Code (2021) and the \u003cem\u003eInstitutional arbitration function of the China International Economic Trade Arbitration Commission\u003c/em\u003e (CIETAC) (Lu Y. F., Contract performance and remedies in the Chinese Civil Code, 2023; Wang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The Civil Code (2021) incorporates all of the prior significant provisions of Contract Law (1999), which are now included in the Code. The Civil Code is a uniform source for all Chinese contracts and establishes basic principles for the regulation of all contractual relationships; moreover, it emphasises the freedom of the parties to determine what to do with each other\u0026rsquo;s property and also requires them to act in good faith throughout each step of the process from the beginning of a dispute until the completion of a performance under those agreements (Cheung, The enforcement methodology of non-domestic arbitral awards rendered in the PRC pursuant to domestic law and the New York Convention, 2012; Lu Y. F., 2023) .\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the case of a breach, the \u003cem\u003eCivil Code\u003c/em\u003e (2021 states the possible remedies for breach, which include: compensation for losses suffered by the injured party (time spent remedying the breach, lost business, etc.); requiring a party to perform the contract (specific performance); and permission to terminate or cancel the contract under certain defined circumstances (Lu Y. F., Contract performance and remedies in the Chinese Civil Code, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eArticles 577 through 590 of the \u003cem\u003eCivil Code\u003c/em\u003e (2021) provide the legal doctrines that establish a party's liability for breach, as well as the remedies available to the injured party. These articles set out the general framework for awarding damages to a party injured by breach in accordance with compensatory damages. The underlying principle of the framework is the foreseeability rule; damages will only be payable so far as the loss was foreseeable to the parties as a result of breach of the contract at the time of formation of the contract (Cheung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) .\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the framework provides an internationally accepted standard for determining damages and encourages consistency and predictability in international trade practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eThe China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC)\u003c/em\u003e provides the primary venue for international dispute resolution through arbitration (Cheung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Lu Y. F., 2023). In order to maintain alignment with modern-day practices in the area of international arbitration, CIETAC has updated its \u003cem\u003eArbitration Rules\u003c/em\u003e (2023). These rules give the arbitral tribunal a great deal of autonomy when it comes to establishing its own process and procedures, including the ability to determine its own jurisdiction and to grant parties\u0026rsquo; requests for interim measures, including the protection of assets/evidence before the hearing of their dispute takes place.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite this high degree of autonomy, however, the overall framework for arbitration and procedural matters is still governed by \u003cem\u003eChinese Law on Arbitration\u003c/em\u003e (1994), which was recently amended through the \u003cem\u003eDraft Amendments of 2025\u003c/em\u003e, as proposed ((NPCSC), 2025; Samassekou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The People\u0026rsquo;s Courts retain some level of supervision over the arbitration process under this Law, which includes the right to enforce or set aside arbitral rulings, as well as to issue interim measures at the request of either party, establishing a dual-track approach where the tribunal\u0026rsquo;s authority exists side-by-side with the reserved powers of \u003cem\u003ethe People's Court\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eIII. New York Convention (1958)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnforcement of arbitral award, comparison of its use in the two jurisdictions, doctrinal review determines the legal harmonisation gaps, which may include a lack of bilateral mutual recognition agreements and judges the possibility of resolving the identified gaps, i.e., model contract clauses (Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The \u003cem\u003eNew York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards\u003c/em\u003e (1958) is the global framework for the regulation of the enforcement of foreign arbitral (Mafi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Fr. Ferrari, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Under the terms of this treaty, all contracting countries (which include the majority of the world\u0026rsquo;s economies) are required to provide for the recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards issued in other jurisdictions, with a limited set of specific exceptions as provided for by the Convention (Made, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, while the \u003cem\u003eNew York Convention\u003c/em\u003e may provide a universally accepted standard for enforcing arbitration awards, the manner in which it is applied and interpreted may vary widely among different legal systems (Enaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), examples of this include comparing how two different jurisdictions implement and interpret the actual provisions of the \u003cem\u003eNew York Convention\u003c/em\u003e: such as China and the OHADA Member States of Africa, or the United States and Germany (Cheung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Pączek J., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA complete ​doctrinal review​ will allow for a systematic and methodical way of analyzing and evaluating the gaps between the various jurisdictions regarding harmonization (Cotterrell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). The various statutory provisions, court rulings and procedural rules of each of the various jurisdictions are compared with each other to identify where the \u003cem\u003eNew York Convention's\u003c/em\u003e objective of efficient and streamlined enforcement fails to occur (Brouwer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Examples of legal gaps include the​ lack of bilateral mutual recognition agreements​ which would provide subsequent support for the administration of the Convention, the existence of different standards of ​public policy​ to deny enforcement of orders, and inadequate and inconsistent judicial interpretation of procedural formality and respect for arbitrator impartiality (Enaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The purpose of this doctrinal review will be to identify significant gaps from each of the three perspectives stated, as well as to​assess the extent to which existing international legal frameworks may provide a means to address the gaps.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4. Data Sources and Research Limitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe legal texts of the Chinese Civil Code, OHADA Uniform Acts, and the New York Convention (1958) are the primary sources of the given data. The secondary sources include scholarly commentaries and analyses of China-Africa trade and legal systems (Flores-Macias and Kreps, 2013; Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Lu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Xin and Pearce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). No proprietary or identifying sources of data are involved due to the need to peer-review the anonymisation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe fact that hypothetical case studies had to be used instead of available data about particular China-Equatorial Guinea disputes should also be counted as a limitation. Also, the research is predominant in legal institutions and recorded trends, which may not be entirely true as it would not reflect the informal practices such as guanxi (Xin \u0026amp; Pearce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). These flaws are addressed by basing the evaluation of the authoritative texts in the law and the peer-reviewed sources.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5. Analytical Framework and Research Validity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe case studies conducted by comparative analysis provide an effective guideline to lawmakers, businesses, and arbitral institutions. The research methodology provides a strict and thorough research scope, compatible with comparative legal growth that is at the centre of the Journal of African Law (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Key Legal Obstacles to Contract Enforcement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results of the comparative legal study, case study analysis, and doctrinal study that are presented are as follows: there are substantial legal obstacles to the enforcement of commercial arrangements between Chinese and Equatoguinean parties, which can be overcome through potential harmonisation to enhance bilateral trade relationships. The findings are framed in the following research questions: (1) What are the main legal issues of enforcing contracts between Chinese and Equatoguinean parties? and (2) How do the two legal systems overlap each other in looking at commercial dispute resolution? Tables and images help to conclude main points and present inequalities and possible solutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e1. Some Legal Issues in the Enforcement of Contracts\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe cross-comparison has found a variety of obstacles in the effective implementation of contracts, including the differences in the structure, procedure, and cultural tradition of the Chinese Civil Code and the Equatorial Guinean OHADA system.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2. Limitations of the Judicial Capacity\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe judicial system in Equatorial Guinea is based on the OHADA Uniform Act on General Commercial Law, which is slowly developing in terms of capacity with its lack of well-trained judges and poor court infrastructure (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). This has made the processing of commercial disputes take a long time of months or years, which is a blow to the confidence of investors. Conversely, the People Courts in China are relatively effective, with judicial interpretations centralised, yet implementation in different jurisdictions is affected by local protectionism, where the regional courts might play a favourable role to the local businesses at the expense of the foreign firms (Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Xin \u0026amp; Pearce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). This imbalance leaves both sides unsure in case of cross-border issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e3. Inequity and Linguistic inequity\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVariation in contract formation and interpretation presents a big problem. The OHADA tradition focuses on written contracts that are accurately stated due to its civil law origin, and the Chinese Civil Code favours ambiguity in oral agreement and utilises contextual interpretation based on guanxi, i.e. relational networks that help determine the business transaction (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Lu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Xin \u0026amp; Pearce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). These matters are made worse by the language barrier, where the official language of Equatorial Guinea (Spanish) is not the same as that of OHADA (French) or that used in the CIETAC arbitration in China (Chinese) (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Such linguistic gaps cause a communication gap in contract drafting and contract dispute resolution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e4. Mutual Recognition of Decisions and Rulings\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth countries - China and Equatorial Guinea - lack a bilateral agreement in the mutual recognition of judgments, which complicates the process of enforcing court rulings across jurisdictions (Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The two countries are signatories to the New York Convention (1958), and on a practical level, enforcement of arbitral awards is not consistent. The Chinese courts might not be eager to implement the awards that have been made by OHADA due to the lack of familiarity, and the Equators law courts present weak infrastructure of arbitration, which is mainly based on the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration (CCJA), is unable to deal with the complicated overseas cases (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey Legal Challenges in China\u0026ndash;Equatorial Guinea Contract Enforcement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChallenge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChina\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEquatorial Guinea\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImpact\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJudicial Capacity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEfficient but influenced by local protectionism (Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited judges, procedural delays (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDelays and bias undermine trust\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContract Interpretation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFlexible, \u003cem\u003eguanxi\u003c/em\u003e-influenced (Xin \u0026amp; Pearce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrecise, written contracts (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMisunderstandings in drafting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLanguage Barriers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChinese-language proceedings (Lu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpanish, French-based OHADA texts (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComplicates communication and enforcement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMutual Recognition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHesitant to enforce foreign awards (Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited arbitration capacity (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHinders cross-border enforcement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Compatibility of Dispute Resolution Mechanisms\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the analysis, there is low compatibility in the legal system of China and Equatorial Guinea in the settlement of commercial disputes due to differences in judicial process, arbitration facilities, and cultures of the two countries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e1. Remedies of Breach of Contract and a Contract.\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth systems are based on civil law traditions, as they both obligate mutual agreement in drawing a contract, but are not completely the same. The Civil Code of China provides a more liberal interpretation of the terms of the contracts, where the court may exercise its discretion when awarding damages, which may include foreseeable losses (Lu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Strict implementation of written terms and limitation of damages to direct losses are approached by the framework offered by OHADA, which may seem binding to Chinese companies (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Such variations cause opposing expectations in the remedies of breach, which makes negotiations and enforcement hectic.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2. Arbitration and Mediation\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArbitration in both jurisdictions is governed by the New York Convention (1958), but the governments of the two jurisdictions have given their arbitration systems a wide difference. The CIETAC in China is a well-established organisation with solid procedures since it processes thousands of international disputes every year (Lu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). On the contrary, the arbitration experience, in Equatorial Guinea, governed by the CCJA, is relatively undeveloped, fewer cases are recorded, and it is not easily accessible by foreigners (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Mediation is the order of the day and sometimes a prerequisite to litigation in China, and is based on cultural values such as guanxi that can be quite perplexing to Equatoguinean companies (Xin \u0026amp; Pearce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). The negotiation culture in Equatorial Guinea does not involve a formal mediating system and makes it ineffective in solving cross-border disputes (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompatibility of Dispute Resolution Mechanisms\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAspect\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChina\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEquatorial Guinea\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompatibility\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContract Formation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFlexible, broad terms (Lu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrict, written terms (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLow due to interpretive differences\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBreach Remedies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBroad damages, discretionary (Lu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirect losses only (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate, divergent expectations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArbitration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCIETAC, robust infrastructure (Lu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCCJA, limited capacity (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLow, uneven institutional development\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMediation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFormal, \u003cem\u003eguanxi\u003c/em\u003e-influenced (Xin \u0026amp; Pearce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal, underdeveloped (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLow, cultural and structural disparities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3. Case Analysis: Empirical Case Evidence on Contract Enforcement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe case studies offer empirical information on the real-life issues of contract enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eCase 1\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFitzpatrick v. Equatorial\u003c/b\u003e Guinea (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e\u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA comparable example can be seen in \u003cem\u003eFitzpatrick v. Republic of Equatorial Guinea\u003c/em\u003e Final Award (Guinea, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), an \u003cem\u003eInternational Arbitration\u003c/em\u003e concerning a motorway construction contract in Malabo. Similar to the present case involving a Chinese construction firm, the dispute in \u003cem\u003eFitzpatrick\u003c/em\u003e arose from delayed state payments and ambiguities surrounding the governing contractual and procedural frameworks. The arbitral tribunal in \u003cem\u003eFitzpatrick\u003c/em\u003e confirmed that while OHADA law provided the substantive legal framework, the lack of a clearly designated arbitral institution and procedural rules created extensive delays and increased costs during proceedings (Mundi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), these parallels reinforce the doctrinal observation that the mere invocation of OHADA law does not ensure an effective dispute resolution process when arbitration clauses are imprecisely drafted or culturally mismatched with the contracting parties\u0026rsquo; legal expectations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eValidating Systemic Challenges in OHADA Infrastructure Projects: A Comparative Case Analysis\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe dispute scenario between a Chinese contractor and an Equatoguinean state-owned enterprise is not a unique case, but an exigent symptom of systemic problems throughout cross-border construction works in the OHADA zone. This dynamic is particularly well-reinforced by the landmark international arbitration case of Fitzpatrick v. Republic of Equatorial Guinea (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Structured comparison shows that the basic contractual, procedural, and cultural barriers all originate in the context and go beyond the unique nationalities of the private players.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSubstantive and Counterparty Similarities\u003c/b\u003e: Both stem from the construction of key public infrastructure in Malabo by a foreign contractor. While your situation is an affair with a state-owned enterprise, and Fitzpatrick put himself in direct relationship with the sovereign state, this difference has little concrete effect. Such contracts with state-linked entities in the OHADA context often require the administration of similar issues of state immunity, sovereign guarantee, and the extent of blurring between commercial and public acts. Both disputes were based on fundamental OHADA substantive legal principles (the Uniform Acts), but they were driven by the identical fundamental commercial breach: chronic nonpayment and irregular financial performance by Equatoguinean side parties.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eThe Critical Fail in Dispute Resolution Arrangement\u003c/b\u003e: The most telling, and expensive, parallel comes when we consider the flawed design of the dispute resolution structure. In your case, the contract\u0026rsquo;s lack of a binding arbitration provision also led to initial procedural chaos. This is identical to Fitzpatrick, in which the main point of contention was the conflict of arbitral jurisdiction, along with state consent. This repeated deficit demonstrates a significant gap in practice: choosing OHADA law alone is inadequate without a robust, clearly defined procedural framework for enforcement. The confusion that results has forced the parties to begin early battles for the very forum for adjudicating their substantive dispute, to the detriment of the parties, with serious delay or cost.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eHow to Navigate the Challenges of Institutional and Cultural Friction\u003c/b\u003e: Both cases highlight the acute cultural and linguistic friction foreign contractors encounter in the OHADA system. Your scenario highlights the divide between Chinese/Spanish operations and the procedures under the Francophone CCJA. Fitzpatrick provides a direct corollary, with an English-speaking contractor treading the Francocentric OHADA arbitration landscape. This recurring theme shows that the challenges are not just linguistic but are deeply institutional, involving not knowing the CCJA\u0026rsquo;s hybrid court-arbitration model and civil-law procedural traditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eOutcomes and the Reality of Enforcement\u003c/b\u003e: In conclusion, the results confirm the argument. Both avenues resulted in recourse to international arbitration (the CCJA for you, the ad hoc tribunal for Fitzpatrick), reiterating it as the final, although complicated, place to resolve matters. Most striking of all, both narratives end with lingering enforcement challenges. Winning an award doesn't mean that you are now entitled to be paid\u0026mdash;particularly for dealing with state-linked debtors. Fitzpatrick remains a reminder that enforcement against a sovereign and its emanations can go on long and dirty under conditions of compromise when the desired award has been won.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, it follows that the Fitzpatrick matter serves as not just a parallel but a case that presents judicial, not only practical, validation of those contractual and procedural problems that you proposed in your case study. It takes your case study from hypothetical to one where you have evidence of something happening. This contrast reinforces the case for a number of risk-mitigating measures: the absolute necessity of explicit, institution-specific arbitration clauses; the strategic choice of neutral arbitration seats and procedural languages; and a clear-eyed appreciation that the paramount focus by far is still enforcement risk in the OHADA region and in contracts with state parties. This comparison shows that these identified gaps are systemic, evolving them from mere operational limitations to central aspects of legal risk management for transnational African infrastructure projects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eCase 2\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eOil Trade Dispute (Equatorial Guinea\u0026ndash;China)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn Equatoguinean oil exporter faced non-payment by its Chinese buyer, citing quality-related issues, in a contract based on Chinese law and an arbitral award at CIETAC. The exporter was affected in the negotiations at CIETAC as it happened in the Chinese language, and the exporter sensed Israeli protectionism (Xin \u0026amp; Pearce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The enforcement of a midway arbitral award was achieved partly in China, and it was challenging to recover assets, which proved the absence of mutual recognition frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase Study Insights\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSector\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey Issues\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOutcome\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFitzpatrick v. Republic of Equatorial Guinea\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstruction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContract ambiguity, language barriers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResolved via ad hoc mediation (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEquatoguinean Oil Exporter\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOil exports\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal protectionism, arbitration access\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePartial enforcement, recovery issues (Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4. Opportunities for Legal Harmonisation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe case studies and the doctrinal review demonstrate various potential opportunities for dealing with the enforcement issues. A notable lapse is the lack of a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) or judicial cooperation agreement, among other gaps, but China has previous experience with other African countries, and the creation of these agreements could make mutual recognition easier (Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Such judicial inefficiencies could be circumvented by encouraging ADR like arbitrations in a neutral city (as in Singapore) or by having mediations where the language is bilingual (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). It might take care of the knowledge gaps, like the capacity-building (training Equatoguinean judges about the Chinese law and vice versa) (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Even model contract formulas providing governing law and dispute resolution practices stated in easily comprehensible languages can also be used (Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Discussion: Compatibility and Reform Implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe evidence discloses the existence of relevant legal difficulties and a restrictive scope of commercial contract enforcement between Equatorial Guinea and China, with opportunities for mutual consistency correlations in their favour (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). By answering the research questions, i.e. main legal issues and system compatibility in this section, the results and their implications are interpreted.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe OHADA system in Equatorial Guinea has limited judicial capacities, such as few judges and instances of delay when handling procedures, and the People Courts in China are efficient but affected by local protectionism (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Xin \u0026amp; Pearce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). The linguistic differences between Spanish and French-based OHADA texts and the Chinese proceedings and differences in contract interpretation (flexibility in the perspective of guanxi in China, as opposed to strict written terms enshrined in OHADA) also lead to misunderstandings visible in case studies of a construction dispute and an oil export dispute (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Lu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Bilateral agreements are lacking in the Court, which, in combination with the adherence to the New York Convention (1958), complicates the exchange of judgments and arbitral awards (Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis is given a low compatibility in terms of divergent contract formation, remedies and mechanisms of dispute resolution. Compared with OHADA, the flexible nature of contracts in China and their extensive coverage of damages is a sharp contrast to the strictness of terms in OHADA and their narrow scope of damage (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Lu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The well-developed arbitration system of CIETAC leaves the still-incomplete CCJA far behind, and the mediation that is based on guanxi in China has no counterparts in the culture of informal negotiations in Equatorial Guinea (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Xin \u0026amp; Pearce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). Trade relations suffer because of the existence of these gaps (Flores-Macias and Kreps, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe possibilities involve bilateral agreements of mutual recognition, which can be based on Chinese models of African relations, and ADR in neutral countries to avoid judicial inefficiencies (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Shaffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The language gap and the knowledge gap can be eliminated by using bilingual contract clauses in model contracts and educating contract legal professionals (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). These alternatives create more predictability, and they help in supporting infrastructure and resource trade (Gelpern et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research contributes to the lack of China-Equatorial Guinea cases law research, which provides policymakers and entrepreneurs with effective recommendations to improve their trade by similarly enforcing parties' contracts (Kiggundu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis paper demonstrates that the capacity and procedural and linguistic differences of the judicial system and the non-recognition of the judgment at the national levels inhibit the enforcement of the Chinese and Equatorial Guinea commercial contracts. The OHADA system of Equatorial Guinea suffers from an insufficient number of judges, whereas China has the people's courts that are effective but rely on local protectionism and guanxi. Language barriers and vague contract conditions are identified as the practical barriers mentioned in case studies. The legal system compatibility is restrained because of the discrepant formation of contract, remedies, and arbitration structure, where China has a strong CIETAC structure against the low-developed CCJA of Equatorial Guinea. Due to the lack of bilateral agreements, additional issues related to enforcement persist even with the adherence to the New York Convention (1958).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe possibilities of harmonisation encompass a mutual recognition bilateral agreement, ADR in neutrals, and capacity-building in the form of legal training. These are some steps that can promote trust and foreseeability of trade relationships that are crucial in exchanges related to infrastructure and resources.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePolicy Recommendations\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eLawmakers\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncorporate bilateral treaties that guarantee opposite sides to recognise each other's judgments and arbitral awards.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eBusinesses\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eUtilise bilingual templates of the contract clauses with impartial arbitration venues to minimise the risks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eArbitral Institutions\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollaborate CIETAC and CCJA and language-bilingual training in closing the legal gaps.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll these can improve trade between China and Equatorial Guinea to create a stable legal body on which both can benefit economically.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNon-Funding and Acknowledgment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted solely by this author and has not received support or funding from outside organizations, institutions, or governments. The author wishes to express their sincere appreciation for the constructive comments and suggestions provided by academic colleagues at Northwest University of Political Science and Law, specifically the guidance of Professor Wang Yingying, whose expertise in the area of international trade law and legal research has been invaluable in establishing the framework for the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author wishes to thank all authors and researchers referenced in this study who have contributed to the understanding of China-Equatorial Guinea trade relations and the related issues and opportunities faced by both countries.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study is entirely the author’s and all opinions expressed herein are the author's own opinions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003cp\u003eTrubek, D. M., \u0026amp; Galanter, M. (1974). Scholars in Self-Estrangement: Some Reflections on the Crisis in Law and Development Studies in the United States. Wisconsin Law Review, 1062–1102\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(NPCSC), N. P. (21 de November de 2025). \u003cem\u003eChina adopts major amendments to Arbitration Law, effective 1 March 2026\u003c/em\u003e. Obtenido de reedsmith: https://www.reedsmith.com/articles/china-adopts-major-amendments-to-arbitration-law/#:~:text=On%2012%20September%202025%2C%20the,effect%20on%201%20March%202026.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrouwer, E. (2024). Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Concise Guide to the New York Convention’s Uniform Regime. \u003cem\u003eRevue critique de droit international privé\u003c/em\u003e, 198. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3917/rcdip.242.0396.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCheung, C. (2012). The enforcement methodology of non-domestic arbitral awards rendered in the PRC pursuant to domestic law and the New York Convention. \u003cem\u003eSanta Clara Journal of International Law, 11\u003c/em\u003e, 237–272. https://doi.org/https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/scujil/vol11/iss1/10\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCheung, C. (2012). The enforcement methodology of non-domestic arbitral awards rendered in the PRC pursuant to domestic law and the New York Convention. \u003cem\u003eSanta Clara Journal of International Law, 11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 237–272.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCotterrell, R. (2002). Subverting orthodoxy, making law central: A view of sociolegal studies. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Law and Society, 29\u003c/em\u003e(4), 632–644. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6478.00200\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDickerson, C. (2011). OHADA’s proposed uniform act on contract law. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Law Reform\u003c/em\u003e, 13(4), 462–478.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDickerson, C. (2011). OHADA’s proposed uniform act on contract law. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Law Reform, 13(4)\u003c/em\u003e, 462–478.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnaw, T. (2018). The Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Harmonized Legal Systems: Challenges in the Application of the OHADA Uniform Act on Arbitration. \u003cem\u003eTransnational Dispute Management\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/https://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=2512\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFr. Ferrari, F. R. (2023). Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Concise Guide to the New York Convention’s Uniform Regime. \u003cem\u003eRevue critique de droit international privé\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3917/rcdip.242.0396\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGuinea, F. v. (2011). \u003cem\u003eArbitral award concerning motorway construction dispute. \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eRetrieved from Jus Mundi.\u003c/em\u003e Obtenido de jusmundi: https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/fr-fitzpatrick-equatorial-guinea-limited-v-the-republic-of-equatorial-guinea-arret-de-la-cour-dappel-de-paris-pole-1-chambre-1-10-02270-thursday-7th-april-2011#decision_67512\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInshakova, A. F. ((2020). Recognition, Enforcement and Challenges of Decisions of the General Court of Justice and Arbitration of the Organization for the Harmonization of Commercial Law in Africa (OHADA). En \u003cem\u003eSupporting Inclusive Growth and Sustainable Development in Africa - Volume I\u003c/em\u003e (págs. 103–118).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInshakova, A. F. (2008). \u003cem\u003eRecognition, Enforcement and Challenges of Decisions of the General Court of Justice and Arbitration of the Organization for the Harmonization of Commercial Law in Africa (OHADA).\u003c/em\u003e Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-41979-0_8\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLu, Y. F. (2023). Contract performance and remedies in the Chinese Civil Code. \u003cem\u003eAsian Journal of Law and Society, 10\u003c/em\u003e(2), 215–240.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLu, Y. F. (2023). Contract performance and remedies in the Chinese Civil Code. \u003cem\u003eAsian Journal of Law and Society, 10\u003c/em\u003e(2), 215–240.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLu, Y. F. (2023). Contract performance and remedies in the Chinese Civil Code. \u003cem\u003eAsian Journal of Law and Society, 10\u003c/em\u003e(2), 215–240.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMade, I. P. (2005). International Arbitration as a Pillar of Modern International Law. \u003cem\u003ePena Justisia \u003c/em\u003e, 19-44. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31941/pj.v24i2.7064.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMafi, H. \u0026amp;. (2022). The Concept of Foreign Arbitration Award in the Light of New York Convention, 1958. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Law and Society, 2\u003c/em\u003e(1), 125–140. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20220501.11.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMundi, J. (2011). \u003cem\u003ejusmundi.com\u003c/em\u003e. Obtenido de https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-fitzpatrick-equatorial-guinea-limited-v-the-republic-of-equatorial-guinea-award-friday-23rd-december-2011\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOnyema, E. (2008). Arbitration under the OHADA regime. \u003cem\u003eJournal of International Arbitration\u003c/em\u003e, 25(3), 201–220.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePączek, J. ( 2023). \u003cem\u003eEnforcement of Arbitral Awards in Africa – 30 Years of OHADA. Strengths, Weaknesses and Opportunities.\u003c/em\u003e https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.62627/PPE.2023.041\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePączek, J. (2023). Enforcement of arbitral awards in Africa – 30 years of OHADA: Strengths, weaknesses and opportunities. \u003cem\u003ePrzegląd Prawa Egzekucyjnego.\u003c/em\u003e https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.62627/PPE.2023.041\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSamassekou, M. \u0026amp;. (2011). A comparative study: Arbitration agreement in OHADA and the PRC arbitration laws. \u003cem\u003eJournal of International Commercial Arbitration Studies, 3\u003c/em\u003e(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jpl/article/download/7397/6880?utm_source=consensus\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTrubek, D. M., \u0026amp; Galanter, M. (1974). Scholars in Self-Estrangement: Some Reflections on the Crisis in Law and Development Studies in the United States. \u003cem\u003eWisconsin Law Review\u003c/em\u003e, 1062–1102.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWang, H. (2024). Judicial review and contract enforcement under China’s Civil Code. \u003cem\u003eChina Legal Science Journal, 22(1)\u003c/em\u003e, 45–68.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFlores-Macías, G. A., \u0026amp; Kreps, S. E. (2013). The foreign policy consequences of trade: China’s commercial relations with Africa and Latin America, 1992–2006. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Politics\u003c/em\u003e, 75(2), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381613000066 \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGao, H. S. (2021). China and E-commerce: The long and winding road. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/4076 \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGelpern, A., Horn, S., Morris, S., Parks, B., \u0026amp; Trebesch, C. (2023). How China lends: A rare look into 100 debt contracts with foreign governments. \u003cem\u003eEconomic Policy\u003c/em\u003e, 38(114), 345–416. https://doi.org/10.1093/epolic/eiac054 \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKiggundu, M. (2013). China-Africa legal and judiciary systems: Advancing mutually beneficial economic relations. \u003cem\u003eBeijing Law Review\u003c/em\u003e, 4, 155–167. https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2013.44020 \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLu, H., Shin, J. E., \u0026amp; Zhang, M. (2023). Financial reporting and disclosure practices in China. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Accounting and Economics\u003c/em\u003e, 76(1), 101598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2023.101598 \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNdofor, H. A., Jones, C. D., \u0026amp; Li, M. (2025). What happens when your hand is in my pocket: The foreign policy effects of China’s foreign direct investment in Africa. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, 199, 393–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05794-w \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSanders, P. (1959). New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. \u003cem\u003eNederlands Tijdschrift Voor Internationaal Recht\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0165070X00027005\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRudyak, M. (2023). ‘We help them, and they help us’: Reciprocity and relationality in Chinese aid to Africa. \u003cem\u003eJournal of International Development\u003c/em\u003e, 35(4), 583–599. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3699 \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShaffer, G. (2021). Governing the interface of U.S.-China trade relations. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of International Law\u003c/em\u003e, 115(4), 622–670. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2021.36 \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShleifer, A., Glaeser, E. L., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., La Porta, R., \u0026amp; Djankov, S. (2003). The new comparative economics. https://ssrn.com/abstract=390760 \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSykes, A. O. (2021). The law and economics of “forced” technology transfer and its implications for trade and investment policy (and the U.S.–China trade war). \u003cem\u003eJournal of Legal Analysis\u003c/em\u003e, 13(1), 127–171. https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/laaa007 \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWang, G., Pearson, M. M., \u0026amp; Kastner, S. L. (2023). Do China’s foreign economic ties lead to influence abroad? New evidence from recent events. \u003cem\u003eForeign Policy Analysis\u003c/em\u003e, 19(4), orad016. https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orad016 \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eXin, K. K., \u0026amp; Pearce, J. L. (1996). Guanxi: Connections as substitutes for formal institutional support. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 39(6), 1641–1658. https://doi.org/10.5465/257072\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"China–Equatorial Guinea trade, commercial contract enforcement, OHADA law, Chinese Civil Code, arbitration, legal harmonisation","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8626998/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8626998/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis article assesses the forms and formats of laws, contracts, and institutions in relation to trade between China and Equatorial Guinea that fall under the Belt and Road Initiative. The paper then compares the Chinese Civil Code and OHADA\u0026rsquo;s Legislative Framework (OHADA) in terms of identifying ways in which the lack of mutual recognition of legal systems, language barriers, and inadequate judicial capacity have hindered the enforcement of contracts and created uncertainty regarding the enforcement of those contracts. Theoretical perspectives, using law and development, suggest that a strengthened system of law would foster better governance of trade for developing countries, and identifying legal harmonization through cooperation and creating avenues for building capacity are necessary for strengthening the enforcement of contracts. The findings highlight how legal harmonization and contract enforcement reform can enhance institutional predictability and support sustainable development cooperation under the Belt and Road framework. Additionally, legal harmonization through mutually created legal instruments (and model contracts) can further strengthen transnational commercial relationships and create a more just system of economic development.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Legal Challenges and Opportunities in China Equatorial Guinea Trade Relations: A Comparative Analysis of Commercial Contract Enforcement","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-21 05:29:39","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8626998/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"356757e9-8e36-42f6-92fc-d6f8853aa4ba","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 21st, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":61479329,"name":"Public Relations"},{"id":61479330,"name":"International and Comparative Law"},{"id":61479331,"name":"Other Public Policy"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-21T05:29:39+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-21 05:29:39","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8626998","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8626998","identity":"rs-8626998","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}