This chapter provides a snapshot of the recent developments on Chinese security interest law. Several questions will be explored. Firstly, were there any needs for changes? Secondly, what are the recent changes? Thirdly, have these changes achieved the purpose? I will offer some critical reflections of the law in terms of clarity, simplicity, convenience, and fairness. Not only are the relevant background and statutory framework of the security interests explained, but its theoretical structure and several practical issues will also be discussed. For instance, where a loan has been secured by both a personal guarantee and a mortgage, in the absence of any agreement, will the creditor have a free choice on which one to enforce first? Another question to be addressed is in situations where more than two securities had secured a loan (including a personal guarantee and mortgages) on a joint and several liability basis, in the absence of any agreement, can a security provider indemnify from the others after it fulfilled its security obligation in case of the debtor’s insolvency ?

The analysis in this chapter proceeds from the assumption that shared responsibility for a breach of a shared obligation has been established and focuses on the content of that responsibility. In the case that secondary obligations of reparation or cessation arise, what can be claimed from which responsible actor, and to what extent is this influenced by the fact that the underlying primary obligation is shared? And if injured parties wish to effectuate these secondary obligations through international adjudication, are there any obstacles to the claiming of cessation and reparation? It will ultimately be argued that conceiving of the content of shared responsibility as consisting of shared obligations incumbent on all responsible actors can help untangle which of the responsible states or international organizations is bound to do what in terms of cessation and reparation. In this context, the distinction between divisible and indivisible shared obligations has an important role to play. After all, determining whether responsible actors are each bound only to their own share of cessation or reparation or whether, alternatively, all of them become bound to achieve a common result has direct implications for what can be claimed from whom.