Investment and trade activities brought about by economic globalisation have led to an increase in the number and scale of cross-border insolvency cases, attracting the attention of the international community as well as that of scholars, and the theoretical study of cross-border insolvency has evolved from the traditional universalism and territorialism to the modified universalism. The choice of theory is closely related to the level of economic and social development of the country at that time and the legislative trend of the international community. Modified universalism had been accepted by an increasing number of countries, regions and international organisations because of its flexibility in judicial practice.

Ziyi Wang. The critical discussion on theories in cross-border insolvency: universalism, territorialism, and modified universalism. International Journal of Frontiers in Sociology (2023), Vol. 5, Issue 9: 112-118. https://doi.org/10.25236/IJFS.2023.050918.

[1] United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (1997). UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency.

[2] Committee on International Jurisdiction and Cooperation (2012). Judicial Guidelines for Coordination of Multi-National Enterprise Group Insolvencies III.

[3] Edward S. Adams and Jason L. Finke (2009). "Coordinating Cross-Border Bankruptcy: How Territorialism Saves Universalism."Columbia Journal of European Law, 15(43).

[4] John J. Chung (2006). "The New Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code: A Step Toward Erosion of National Sovereignty." Journal of International Law and Business, 27(1).

[5] Elizabeth Buckel (2013). "Curbing Comity: The Increasingly Expansive Public Policy Exception of Chapter 15." Georgetown Journal of International Law, 44(3).

[6] Pottow, John A. E (2005). "Procedural Incrementalism: A Model for International Bankruptcy." Virginia Journal of International Law, 45(4).

[7] United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (1997). UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, 9-14.

[8] United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (1997). UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, 20-24.

[9] United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (1997). UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, 19(b)

[10] Pottow, John A. E (2005). "Procedural Incrementalism: A Model for International Bankruptcy." Virginia Journal of International Law, 45(4).

[11] Lynn M. LoPucki (2000). "The Case for Cooperative Territoriality in International Bankruptcy." Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol98/iss7/3.

[12] Lucian Arye Bebchuk and Andrew T. Guzman (1999). "An Economic Analysis of Transnational Bankruptcies." The Journal of Law and Economics, 42(2).

[13] Westbrook, Lawrence; Booth, Charles D.; Paulus, Christoph G.; Rajak, Harry (2010). "A Global View of Business Insolvency Systems." Washington, DC: World Bank and Brill.

[14] Frederick Tung (2001). "Fear of Commitment in International Bankruptcy." 33 George Washington International Law Review. Available at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/1794

[15] Paul J Omar (2002). "The Landscape of International Insolvency Law." International Insolvency Review, 11(3).

[16] John Anthony Edwards Pottow (2006). "Greed and Pride in International Bankruptcy: The Problems of and Proposed Solutions to 'Local Interests'." Michigan Law Review, 104(8).

[17] Kent Anderson (2000). "The Cross-Border Insolvency Paradigm: A Defense of the Modified Universal Approach Considering the Japanese Experience." University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 21(4).

[18] Irit Mevorach (2018). "The Future of Cross-Border Insolvency – Overcoming Biases and Closing Gaps." online edn, Oxford Academic, Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198782896.001.0001.