Conflict Resolution

Chinese source (authoritative): ../../skills/conflict-resolution/SKILL.md

Conflict Resolution and Priority Determination

Overview Table

Legal Disclaimer

Important notice: This skill file provides only structured guidance for AI agents engaged in legal reasoning and does not constitute legal advice. Conflict resolution and priority determination involve highly specialized legal judgment; final conclusions should be reviewed and confirmed by a licensed legal professional. AI agents should always annotate confidence levels in their outputs and, where major rights and interests are involved or substantial uncertainty exists, expressly advise the user to consult a qualified attorney.

I. Core Conceptual Framework

1.1 Three Major Conflict Types

Conflict Resolution and Priority Determination
├── A. Concurrence of Legal Norms (Norm Conflict / 法条竞合)
│   ├── A1. Concurrence of provisions within the same statute
│   ├── A2. Norm conflicts between different statutes
│   ├── A3. Conflicts between sources of law of different hierarchical ranks
│   └── A4. Concurrence of claims (请求权竞合)
├── B. Evidentiary Conflict (Fact Conflict / 证据矛盾)
│   ├── B1. Conflicts among evidence of the same type
│   ├── B2. Conflicts among evidence of different types
│   ├── B3. Conflicts between direct and circumstantial evidence
│   └── B4. Conflicts between evidence and rules of experience (经验法则)
└── C. Issue Priority (Procedural / Logical Conflict / 争点优先级)
    ├── C1. Ordering of procedural vs. substantive issues
    ├── C2. Ordering of prerequisite vs. derivative issues
    ├── C3. Ordering of primary vs. secondary issues
    └── C4. Ordering of independent vs. related issues

1.2 Key Term Definitions

1.3 Basic Principles of Conflict Resolution

Basic Principles of Conflict Resolution
├── Principle of hierarchical ranking of legal sources (法源位阶原则)
│   ├── Higher-ranking law prevails over lower-ranking law (Constitution > Laws > Administrative regulations > Local regulations > Rules)
│   └── Apply directly when hierarchical rank is clear
├── Special law prevails over general law (特别法优于一般法)
│   ├── At the same hierarchical rank, special provisions prevail over general provisions
│   └── Must confirm that a true “special” relationship exists (special subject, special subject matter, special time)
├── New law prevails over old law (新法优于旧法)
│   ├── Laws enacted by the same organ: new provisions prevail over old provisions
│   └── Note: When a new general provision conflicts with an old special provision, the matter must be referred for ruling
├── Non-retroactivity of law (法律不溯及既往)
│   ├── New law generally does not apply to conduct before its effective date
│   └── Exception: beneficial retroactivity (criminal law: old law with lighter punishment where more favorable / 从旧兼从轻)
├── Evidentiary preponderance principles
│   ├── Civil: high degree of probability (高度盖然性)
│   ├── Criminal: beyond reasonable doubt (排除合理怀疑)
│   └── Administrative: clear preponderance (明显优势)
└── Logical priority of issues (争点逻辑优先原则)
    ├── Procedure before substance
    ├── Prerequisite before derivative
    └── Primary before secondary

II. Complete Workflow

Stage Zero: Conflict Identification (Preliminary Judgment)

Step 0.1: Scan input materials and identify whether conflicts exist
  ├── Check whether multiple applicable provisions exist → possible concurrence of norms
  ├── Check whether evidence is inconsistent → possible evidentiary conflict
  ├── Check whether multiple disputed issues exist → issue ranking needed
  └── If no conflict → exit this skill and proceed to ordinary analysis

Step 0.2: Classify the conflict
  ├── Determine whether the conflict is Type A (norm concurrence), B (evidentiary conflict), or C (issue priority)
  ├── A single case may involve multiple conflict types simultaneously
  └── Record all identified conflicts and address them one by one
  
Step 0.3: Assess conflict severity
  ├── High: the conflict’s resolution will fundamentally change the case trajectory
  ├── Medium: the conflict affects handling of some issues
  └── Low: the conflict affects only details or supporting arguments

Stage One: Resolving Concurrence of Legal Norms (Type A Conflicts)

Step A1: List all potentially applicable legal norms
  ├── Quote the full text of each provision
  ├── Annotate the hierarchical rank of each provision’s legal source
  ├── Annotate the enactment/amendment date of each provision
  └── Annotate the scope of application of each provision (general / special)

Step A2: Determine the type of concurrence
  ├── Is it a conflict between sources of different hierarchical ranks?
  │   └── Yes → apply “higher-ranking law prevails over lower-ranking law” → go to A3a
  ├── Is it a conflict between general and special law at the same rank?
  │   └── Yes → apply “special law prevails over general law” → go to A3b
  ├── Is it a conflict between new and old law of the same organ?
  │   └── Yes → apply “new law prevails over old law” → go to A3c
  ├── Is it a conflict between a new general provision and an old special provision?
  │   └── Yes → refer to the competent authority for ruling → go to A3d
  ├── Is it concurrence of claims?
  │   └── Yes → analyze pros and cons of each claim → go to A3e
  └── Is it concurrence under criminal law?
      └── Yes → distinguish imaginative concurrence from statutory concurrence → go to A3f

Step A3a: Higher-ranking law prevails over lower-ranking law
  ├── Confirm hierarchical relationships among legal sources
  │   Constitution > Laws > Administrative regulations > Local regulations > Rules
  │   (Note: Conflicts between local regulations and departmental rules must be referred for ruling)
  ├── Apply the higher-ranking provision
  └── Record: lower-ranking related provisions are not applied, and the reasons

Step A3b: Special law prevails over general law
  ├── Verify whether a true “special” relationship exists
  │   ├── Special subject: e.g., Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law relative to the Civil Code
  │   ├── Special subject matter: e.g., Maritime Law relative to the Contracts Book of the Civil Code
  │   ├── Special region: e.g., regulations of special economic zones
  │   └── Special time: e.g., wartime special provisions
  ├── Confirm both are at the same hierarchical rank
  ├── Apply the special-law provision
  └── Record: possibility that general-law provisions may apply supplementarily

Step A3c: New law prevails over old law
  ├── Confirm both laws were enacted by the same organ
  ├── Confirm the new law has taken effect and applies to the temporal node of this case
  ├── Check whether the new law contains retroactivity clauses
  ├── Apply the new-law provision
  └── Record: old-law provisions no longer apply, and any transitional arrangements

Step A3d: Conflict between new general law and old special law
  ├── Confirm a true conflict exists (and that the new law does not already contain special provisions)
  ├── Principle: neither side may simply be applied
  ├── Handling:
  │   ├── Laws enacted by the Standing Committee of the NPC → refer to the NPC Standing Committee for ruling
  │   ├── Administrative regulations of the State Council → refer to the State Council for ruling
  │   └── Other situations → handle per the Legislation Law (立法法)
  ├── The AI agent should annotate: legal-application uncertainty exists here
  └── Advise the user to watch for the latest rulings or judicial interpretations

Step A3e: Handling concurrence of claims
  ├── List all possible claim bases
  ├── Compare and analyze each claim regarding:
  │   ├── Constituent elements (difficulty of proof)
  │   ├── Legal effects (scope and amount of damages)
  │   ├── Limitation periods
  │   ├── Competent court / jurisdiction
  │   ├── Allocation of burden of proof
  │   └── Other procedural differences
  ├── Recommend a choice based on maximizing the party’s interests
  ├── Note: Civil Code Art. 186 allows the party to choose
  └── Record: a pros-and-cons comparison table for each claim

Step A3f: Handling criminal-law concurrence
  ├── Distinguish imaginative concurrence from statutory concurrence
  │   ├── Imaginative concurrence: one act violates multiple offenses → punish under the heavier offense (从一重罪处断)
  │   └── Statutory concurrence: special law over general law (primary); heavier law over lighter law (supplementary)
  ├── Determine the statutory penalties for each offense
  ├── Apply the rules to determine the ultimately applicable offense
  └── Record: excluded offenses and reasons

Step A4: Form the conclusion on norm concurrence
  ├── Clearly state the ultimately applicable provision(s)
  ├── Explain reasons for excluding other provisions
  ├── Annotate confidence level
  └── Annotate whether referral to a competent authority for ruling is required

Stage Two: Resolving Evidentiary Conflicts (Type B Conflicts)

Step B1: Identify and describe the contradiction
  ├── List mutually contradictory evidence
  ├── Clarify the specific content of the contradiction (which factual assertions are mutually exclusive)
  ├── Determine whether the contradiction is fundamental or merely detailed
  └── Determine whether the contradiction can be eliminated by a reasonable explanation

Step B2: Review of evidentiary competence / admissibility (前置过滤 / preliminary filter)
  ├── Review whether all conflicting evidence has evidentiary competence (legality)
  │   ├── Should it be excluded as illegally obtained evidence?
  │   ├── Does it meet statutory formal requirements?
  │   └── Was it submitted within the time limit for producing evidence?
  ├── If one side’s evidence lacks competence → exclude that evidence; contradiction resolved
  └── If both have competence → proceed to comparison of probative force

Step B3: Comparison of probative force (core step)
  ├── Apply general rules on relative probative force:
  │   ├── Official documentary evidence of state organs > other documentary evidence
  │   ├── Notarial instruments > ordinary documentary evidence
  │   ├── Original evidence > hearsay / transmitted evidence (传来证据)
  │   ├── Direct evidence > circumstantial evidence
  │   ├── Physical evidence, archives, expert opinions, inspection records, etc. > ordinary witness testimony
  │   ├── Testimony of witnesses without interest in the case > testimony of interested witnesses
  │   └── An evidentiary chain formed by multiple items > solitary evidence (孤证)
  ├── Factors to consider:
  │   ├── Reliability of the evidence’s source
  │   ├── Proximity in time between formation of the evidence and the case facts
  │   ├── Motives and interest relationships of the evidence provider
  │   ├── Internal consistency of the evidence
  │   ├── Degree of consistency with other established facts
  │   └── Whether the evidence has been cross-examined (质证)
  └── Form a preliminary judgment on relative strength of probative force

Step B4: Comprehensive fact-finding
  ├── Take the evidence with stronger probative force as the basis for fact-finding
  ├── Test whether that finding is consistent with other evidence and rules of experience
  ├── Apply the appropriate standard of proof:
  │   ├── Civil cases: high degree of probability (preponderance; commonly understood as >50% likelihood)
  │   ├── Criminal cases: beyond reasonable doubt (near certainty)
  │   ├── Administrative cases: clear preponderance of evidence
  │   └── Special situations: e.g., fraud, duress, etc. may require a higher standard of proof
  ├── If the contradiction cannot be resolved:
  │   ├── Apply burden-of-proof allocation rules
  │   ├── Basic principle: “who asserts, proves” (谁主张，谁举证)
  │   ├── Consider statutory situations of reversed burden of proof
  │   └── The party bearing the burden suffers the adverse consequence
  └── Form the fact-finding conclusion

Step B5: Form the conclusion on evidentiary conflict
  ├── Clearly state admitted evidence and reasons
  ├── Clearly state evidence not admitted and reasons
  ├── State the facts found
  ├── Annotate confidence level
  └── Annotate whether major uncertainty in fact-finding remains

Stage Three: Issue Priority Ranking (Type C Conflicts)

Step C1: Identify and list issues
  ├── Extract issues from the parties’ claims for relief
  ├── Extract issues from defensive pleadings
  ├── Identify implied issues arising from legal application
  └── Form a complete issue list

Step C2: Classify issues
  ├── By nature:
  │   ├── Procedural issues (jurisdiction, standing, limitation periods, etc.)
  │   ├── Fact issues (whether and how facts occurred)
  │   └── Legal issues (how law applies and how it is interpreted)
  ├── By logical relationship:
  │   ├── Prerequisite issues (their conclusion determines whether subsequent issues need hearing)
  │   ├── Independent issues (no logical dependence on other issues)
  │   └── Derivative issues (depend on conclusions of prerequisite issues)
  └── By importance:
      ├── Core issues (directly determine the case outcome)
      ├── Important issues (significantly affect the case outcome)
      └── Auxiliary issues (affect only details or supporting arguments)

Step C3: Build an issue-dependency graph
  ├── Identify logical precedence among issues
  ├── Draw issue dependencies (directed acyclic graph)
  │   Example: whether contract formed → whether contract valid → how breach liability is borne
  ├── Identify independent issues that can be handled in parallel
  └── Identify “threshold issues” (if the conclusion is negative, many subsequent issues need not be heard)

Step C4: Apply ranking rules
  ├── First priority: procedural issues
  │   ├── Jurisdictional objections
  │   ├── Party standing / capacity
  │   ├── Limitation periods / exclusion periods (除斥期间)
  │   └── Other procedural defenses
  ├── Second priority: prerequisite fact issues
  │   ├── Whether a legal relationship was formed
  │   ├── Whether a juristic act is valid
  │   └── Whether a right exists
  ├── Third priority: core legal issues
  │   ├── Choice of applicable law
  │   ├── Interpretation of statutory provisions
  │   └── Determination of liability principles
  ├── Fourth priority: derivative issues
  │   ├── Scope of liability
  │   ├── Calculation of damages
  │   └── Proportional allocation of liability
  └── Fifth priority: auxiliary issues
      ├── Allocation of litigation costs
      ├── Modes of enforcement
      └── Other incidental matters

Step C5: Efficiency optimization
  ├── Identify “short-circuit” opportunities:
  │   ├── If the limitation period has expired → substantive issues may not need hearing
  │   ├── If the contract was not formed → breach-liability issues need not be heard
  │   └── If no tort is constituted → damages issues need not be heard
  ├── Assess analytical difficulty and certainty of each issue
  ├── Prioritize high-certainty “threshold issues” that can be resolved quickly
  └── Form the final ranking scheme

Step C6: Form the issue-priority conclusion
  ├── Output the ranked issue list (with numbers and priority labels)
  ├── Explain ranking reasons
  ├── Annotate dependencies among issues
  ├── Annotate possible “short-circuit” paths
  └── Annotate confidence level

Stage Four: Comprehensive Conflict Resolution (When Multiple Conflict Types Coexist)

Step D1: Cross-analysis of conflicts
  ├── Check whether resolution of norm concurrence affects issue ranking
  ├── Check whether resolution of evidentiary conflict affects choice of norms
  ├── Check whether issue ranking affects priority of evidence review
  └── Identify mutual dependencies among conflicts

Step D2: Iterative resolution
  ├── First resolve the most foundational conflict (usually issue ranking)
  ├── Then resolve the conflict with the broadest impact
  ├── Finally resolve derivative conflicts
  ├── Check for circular dependencies (if any, consider them jointly)
  └── Iterate through multiple rounds if necessary until all conflicts are resolved

Step D3: Consistency check
  ├── Check whether all conflict-resolution conclusions are consistent with one another
  ├── Check whether the final conclusion accords with the internal logic of the legal system
  ├── Check for omitted conflicts
  └── Form the final comprehensive conclusion

III. Common Domains and Sources of Law

3.1 Common Domains of Norm Concurrence

3.2 Primary Sources for Resolving Evidentiary Conflicts

3.3 Primary Sources for Issue Ranking

IV. Verification and Screening Rules

4.1 Verification Rules for Norm Concurrence

Verification Rule A-1: Confirm hierarchical rank
  ├── Confirm the enacting organ of each legal norm
  ├── Confirm its position in the hierarchy of legal sources
  ├── Verify that the hierarchical judgment is correct
  └── Special attention: special status of SEZ regulations and autonomous regulations/separate regulations

Verification Rule A-2: Confirm special-law relationship
  ├── Confirm that the two laws truly stand in a general–special relationship
  ├── Verification standard: whether the special law’s scope of application is a proper subset of the general law’s scope
  ├── Caution: the two laws may stand in a crossing relationship rather than an inclusion relationship
  └── Where the relationship is crossing, “special law prevails over general law” cannot simply be applied

Verification Rule A-3: Confirm temporal effect
  ├── Confirm when the case facts occurred
  ├── Confirm effective and expiry dates of each legal norm
  ├── Confirm whether retroactivity clauses exist
  └── Confirm transitional provisions

Verification Rule A-4: Confirm concurrence of claims
  ├── Confirm that each claim basis is actually established (all constituent elements satisfied)
  ├── Confirm there is no statutory provision expressly excluding concurrence
  ├── Confirm whether the party has already made a choice
  └── Confirm whether the choice may be changed afterward

4.2 Verification Rules for Evidentiary Conflicts

Verification Rule B-1: Confirm genuineness of the contradiction
  ├── Confirm the contradiction is real rather than merely apparent
  ├── Check whether it can be eliminated by a reasonable explanation
  │   Example: two witnesses describe different times, which may be memory deviation rather than factual contradiction
  └── Distinguish fundamental contradictions from detailed differences

Verification Rule B-2: Confirm evidentiary competence
  ├── Confirm all conflicting evidence has evidentiary competence
  ├── Exclude illegally obtained evidence
  └── Exclude evidence that fails to meet statutory form

Verification Rule B-3: Confirm reasonableness of probative-force assessment
  ├── Confirm comparison of probative force followed statutory rules
  ├── Confirm all relevant factors were adequately considered
  └── Confirm the conclusion accords with rules of experience and logic

Verification Rule B-4: Confirm application of the standard of proof
  ├── Confirm the correct standard of proof was applied
  ├── Confirm the application of that standard was appropriate
  └── Special note: different facts in the same case may be subject to different standards of proof

4.3 Verification Rules for Issue Ranking

Verification Rule C-1: Confirm completeness of issues
  ├── Confirm no important issues were omitted
  ├── Confirm inclusion of issues not expressly raised by the parties but that must be examined as a matter of law
  └── Confirm inclusion of matters subject to ex officio examination by the court

Verification Rule C-2: Confirm dependency relationships
  ├── Confirm logical dependencies among issues are correct
  ├── Confirm no dependency relationships were omitted
  └── Confirm whether circular dependencies exist (if so, special handling is required)

Verification Rule C-3: Confirm reasonableness of ranking
  ├── Confirm procedural issues are ranked before substantive issues
  ├── Confirm prerequisite issues are ranked before derivative issues
  ├── Confirm “short-circuit” paths were correctly identified
  └── Confirm the ranking facilitates analytical efficiency

V. Output Format Templates

5.1 Output Template for Norm-Concurrence Resolution

## Norm Concurrence Analysis Report

### I. Identification of Concurrence
- **Type of concurrence:** [Hierarchical conflict / Special vs. general law / New vs. old law / Concurrence of claims / Criminal concurrence]
- **Provisions involved:**
  - Provision A: [Name of law] Art. X — [Summary] ([Rank / Enactment date / Scope])
  - Provision B: [Name of law] Art. Y — [Summary] ([Rank / Enactment date / Scope])
  - (Continue listing if more provisions)

### II. Analysis of Concurrence
- **Applicable resolution rule:** [Higher over lower / Special over general / New over old / Party’s right of choice / Punish under heavier offense / Other]
- **Analytical process:**
  [Explain in detail why that rule applies, including hierarchical comparison, special-relationship argumentation, temporal comparison, etc.]

### III. Conclusion
- **Provision preferentially applied:** [Name of law] Art. X
- **Provision(s) excluded:** [Name of law] Art. Y
- **Reasons for exclusion:** [Brief explanation]
- **Supplementary notes:** [Any provisions for supplementary application or other caveats]

### IV. Confidence: [High / Medium / Low] — [Specific sources of uncertainty]

5.2 Output Template for Evidentiary-Conflict Resolution

## Evidentiary Conflict Analysis Report

### I. Identification of Contradiction
- **Description of contradiction:** [Specifically describe which evidence conflicts and how]
- **Nature of contradiction:** [Fundamental contradiction / Detailed difference / Explainable inconsistency]
- **Evidence involved:**
  - Evidence A: [Type] — [Summary of what it proves] ([Source / Formation time])
  - Evidence B: [Type] — [Summary of what it proves] ([Source / Formation time])

### II. Review of Evidentiary Competence
- Evidence A: [Has / Lacks] competence — [Reasons]
- Evidence B: [Has / Lacks] competence — [Reasons]

### III. Comparison of Probative Force
| Comparison Dimension | Evidence A | Evidence B | Advantage |
|---------|--------|--------|--------|
| Evidence type | | | |
| Source reliability | | | |
| Proximity to case facts | | | |
| Internal consistency | | | |
| Consistency with other evidence | | | |
| Provider’s interest relationship | | | |
| **Overall assessment** | | | |

### IV. Fact-Finding
- **Admitted evidence:** [Evidence A / Evidence B]
- **Reasons for admission:** [Detailed explanation]
- **Facts found:** [Facts found based on admitted evidence]
- **Standard of proof applied:** [High degree of probability / Beyond reasonable doubt / Clear preponderance]

### V. Confidence: [High / Medium / Low] — [Specific sources of uncertainty]

5.3 Output Template for Issue Priority Ranking

## Issue Priority Ranking Report

### I. Issue List
| No. | Issue Content | Nature | Type | Importance |
|------|---------|------|------|--------|
| 1 | | Procedural / Fact / Legal | Prerequisite / Independent / Derivative | Core / Important / Auxiliary |
| 2 | | | | |
| ... | | | | |

### II. Dependencies

Issue 1 → Issue 3 → Issue 5 Issue 2 (independent) Issue 4 → Issue 6

### III. Ranking Results
| Priority | Issue No. | Issue Content | Ranking Reason |
|--------|---------|---------|---------|
| 1 (highest) | | | |
| 2 | | | |
| ... | | | |

### IV. Short-Circuit Path Identification
- **Path 1:** If Issue [X] concludes [No], then Issues [Y, Z] need not be heard
- **Path 2:** [Other short-circuit paths, if any]

### V. Confidence: [High / Medium / Low] — [Specific sources of uncertainty]

VI. Confidence Annotation System

6.1 Confidence Level Definitions

6.2 Confidence Downgrade Factors

The presence of the following factors should lead to a lower confidence level:

Downgrade factor checklist:
├── Regarding norm concurrence:
│   ├── Involved norms were recently amended or are about to be amended
│   ├── Divergent adjudicative views among different courts
│   ├── New types of cases lacking precedents
│   ├── Contested identification of special-law relationship
│   └── Situations requiring referral to a competent authority for ruling
├── Regarding evidentiary conflicts:
│   ├── Probative force of conflicting evidence is close (evenly matched)
│   ├── Key evidence is missing
│   ├── Authenticity of the evidence itself is in doubt
│   ├── Technical issues requiring expert appraisal
│   └── Contested application of rules of experience
└── Regarding issue ranking:
    ├── Unclear dependencies among issues
    ├── Circular dependencies exist
    ├── Major disagreement among parties on issue definition
    └── Matters for ex officio court examination with uncertain scope

6.3 Confidence Annotation Norms

Annotation format:
[Confidence level] [Level marker] — [Brief reason]

Examples:
- Confidence: High 🟢 — Legislation Law Art. 92 expressly provides that special law prevails over general law; the special-law relationship in this case is clear
- Confidence: Medium 🟡 — Two expert opinions reach different conclusions; must comprehensively assess appraisal methods and appraiser qualifications
- Confidence: Low 🔴 — Divergent views among different adjudicative divisions of the Supreme People’s Court in this field; no unified opinion yet

VII. Common Errors and Prevention

7.1 Fatal Error Table

7.2 Common Traps

VIII. Special Scenario Handling

8.1 Criminal–Civil Crossover Cases (刑民交叉)

Processing workflow:
1. Identify whether the same facts simultaneously involve criminal and civil legal relationships
2. Determine whether the “criminal first, civil later” (先刑后民) principle applies
   ├── Applicable: fact-finding in the criminal case directly affects handling of the civil case
   ├── Not applicable:
   │   ├── Criminal and civil cases are based on different facts
   │   ├── The civil case does not presuppose the criminal conclusion
   │   └── The criminal case is long delayed, seriously impairing protection of civil rights
   └── Note: not all criminal–civil crossover cases must follow criminal-first
3. Analyze criminal and civil legal relationships separately
4. Note the preclusive effect of facts found in a criminal judgment on the civil case
5. Note the relationship between civil damages and incidental civil action in criminal proceedings

8.2 Administrative–Civil Crossover Cases

Processing workflow:
1. Identify how administrative acts affect civil legal relationships
2. Determine the validity status of the administrative act
   ├── Valid administrative act: generally respected in civil adjudication
   ├── Revoked administrative act: void ab initio; does not constrain civil judgment
   ├── Administrative act of uncertain validity:
   │   ├── Whether civil litigation must be stayed pending the administrative result
   │   └── Whether the civil court may incidentally review legality of the administrative act
   └── Invalid administrative act: the civil court may directly find it invalid
3. Note the public notice and good-faith effect of administrative registration (e.g., real-estate registration)
4. Note the effect of administrative licensing on the validity of civil contracts

8.3 Foreign-Related Conflicts of Law

Processing workflow:
1. Identify whether the case has foreign-related elements
2. Determine the applicable law (准据法)
   ├── Apply the Law on Application of Law to Foreign-Related Civil Relations
   ├── Apply relevant international treaties
   └── Apply the law chosen by the parties (party autonomy)
3. After determining the applicable law, resolve conflicts under the rules of that legal system
4. Note application of public-order reservation clauses
5. Note problems of ascertaining foreign law

8.4 Cases in the Transition Period Between Old and New Law

Processing workflow:
1. Determine when the case facts occurred
2. Determine when the new law took effect
3. Check transitional clauses of the new law
   ├── Clear transitional provisions → follow them
   ├── No transitional provisions → apply non-retroactivity
   └── Continuing legal relationships → may require segmented application
4. Check SPC judicial interpretations or notices on application of the new law
5. Note exceptions for “beneficial retroactivity”

8.5 Extreme Cases of Evenly Matched Evidence

Processing workflow:
1. Confirm that comparison of probative force truly cannot distinguish superior from inferior
2. Return to burden-of-proof allocation rules
   ├── Determine burden allocation in this case
   │   ├── General rule: “who asserts, proves”
   │   ├── Statutory reversed-burden situations
   │   └── Special burden allocations under judicial interpretations
   ├── The party bearing the burden suffers the adverse consequence
   └── Clearly annotate: fact-finding rests on burden allocation, not evidentiary preponderance
3. Annotate low confidence
4. Advise the 

…(truncated)