Delta Law Expat Services Desk ｜ Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents（《取消外国公文书认证要求的公约》）, in force for China from 2023-11-07
- The Convention entered into force for China on 2023-11-07. It replaced consular legalisation between contracting States — it did not create a universal single-step formality.
- Three limits define what it does not reach: it covers public documents only, contracting States only, and it certifies signatures and seals only — never the content.
- A private document does not become a public document by being apostilled. Under Chinese court practice a power of attorney signed abroad still requires notarisation first.
- Article 275 of the Civil Procedure Law and Article 16 of the 2019 Evidence Provisions each contain the words "or complete the certification formalities provided in a treaty". That clause is the doorway through which an apostille enters Chinese proceedings.
- Evidence formed in Hong Kong, Macao or Taiwan is dealt with in a separate paragraph of Article 16 and is not on the Convention route at all.
1. The document at a glance
| Item | Content |
|---|---|
| Full title | Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents（《取消外国公文书认证要求的公约》） |
| Document number | A multilateral treaty concluded under the Hague Conference on Private International Law; no domestic document number. China's accession and entry into force were announced by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 2023-10-23 |
| Adopted / promulgated | China acceded on 2023-03-08; Ministry of Foreign Affairs announcement issued 2023-10-23 |
| Current version in force from | 2023-11-07 for China |
| Issuing authority | Ministry of Foreign Affairs（外交部）as the competent authority for apostilles issued in China; certain provincial and municipal foreign affairs offices issue apostilles under its delegation |
| Official text | https://www.mfa.gov.cn/wjbxw_new/202310/t20231023_11165858.shtml |
| What this page covers | The three limits of the apostille route, and the Chinese provisions through which an apostille takes effect in China |
2. What was actually replaced
2023年3月8日，中国加入《取消外国公文书认证要求的公约》（以下简称《公约》）。《公约》将于2023年11月7日在中国生效实施。
《公约》是海牙国际私法会议框架下适用范围最广、缔约成员最多的国际条约，旨在简化公文书跨国流转程序。11月7日起，中国送往其他缔约国使用的公文书，仅需办理《公约》规定的附加证明书（Apostille），即可送其他缔约国使用，无需办理中国和缔约国驻华使领馆的领事认证。其他缔约国公文书送中国内地使用，只需办理该国附加证明书，无需办理该国和中国驻当地使领馆的领事认证。
中国外交部是《公约》规定的附加证明书主管机关，并为本国境内出具的公文书签发附加证明书。受外交部委托，中国相关省、自治区、直辖市人民政府外事办公室以及部分市人民政府外事办公室可为本行政区域内出具的公文书签发附加证明书。
China acceded to the Convention on 2023-03-08, and the Convention entered into force for China on 2023-11-07. From that date, a public document going from China to another contracting State needs only the apostille provided for by the Convention, without consular legalisation by China and by the contracting State's mission in China; and a public document from another contracting State going for use in mainland China needs only that State's apostille, without legalisation by that State and by the Chinese mission there. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the competent authority for the Convention and issues apostilles for public documents issued within China; under its delegation, the foreign affairs offices of the relevant provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities, and of certain cities, may issue apostilles for public documents issued within their administrative areas.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
Read carefully, the announcement describes a substitution rather than an abolition. What is removed is a two-step consular chain; what replaces it is a one-step certificate issued by a designated authority. Everything the old chain did not do, the new certificate also does not do — and that is where most of the practical difficulty lies.
3. Three limits, stated in the official material itself
《公约》缔约国之间相互取消使领馆领事认证环节。缔约国指定的主管机关为《公约》第一条中所述的公文书（以下简称文书）出具附加证明书后，即可送各缔约国使用，无需再办理外国驻该国使领馆的领事认证。
附加证明书与领事认证书具备同等功能，仅证明文书上最后一个印鉴、签名属实，不对文书内容本身的真实性和合法性负责。文书内容真实性仍遵循“谁出具，谁负责”原则。
中国与《公约》非缔约国之间仍沿用原有领事认证程序。
Contracting States mutually dispense with consular legalisation. Once the competent authority designated by a contracting State has issued an apostille for a public document as referred to in Article 1 of the Convention, the document may be used in any contracting State without further legalisation by that State's mission. An apostille has the same function as a certificate of consular legalisation: it certifies only that the last seal and signature on the document are genuine, and takes no responsibility for the truthfulness or lawfulness of the content of the document itself. The truthfulness of the content continues to follow the principle that whoever issues it is answerable for it. As between China and non-contracting States, the former consular legalisation procedure continues to apply.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
Three limits emerge from those three sentences, and each defeats a different assumption.
| Limit | What it means | What is left outside |
|---|---|---|
| Public documents only | The apostille is issued for a public document as referred to in Article 1 of the Convention | A privately signed instrument — a power of attorney, a board resolution, a declaration, a contract — is not within the category as it stands |
| Contracting States only | The route operates between contracting States | Documents from a non-contracting State continue on the consular legalisation route |
| Form only, not content | It certifies that the last seal and signature are genuine | Whether what the document says is true, and whether the document is legally sufficient for the purpose it is offered for, are untouched |
The first limit is the one that produces most difficulty in practice, because the way past it is not an apostille but a notarial act: a private document is first notarised, and the notary's seal and signature are then what the apostille certifies. The document that travels is, in substance, the notarial act. Nothing in the Convention material dispenses with that first step.
The third limit deserves emphasis in a legal setting. An apostilled document is not thereby admissible, sufficient or persuasive. The receiving authority — a court, a registry, an administrative body — still applies its own rules on what the document must contain and whether it establishes what it is offered to establish. The Introduction page states the number of contracting States as 126 as at its own stated publication date of 2024-09-04; the current membership is as published by the competent authority, and this page does not reproduce the list.
4. Where the apostille plugs into Chinese law
An apostille has effect in China because Chinese provisions on formalities contain an alternative limb pointing to treaties. Two provisions carry most of the traffic for individuals.
第二百七十五条 在中华人民共和国领域内没有住所的外国人、无国籍人、外国企业和组织委托中华人民共和国律师或者其他人代理诉讼，从中华人民共和国领域外寄交或者托交的授权委托书，应当经所在国公证机关证明，并经中华人民共和国驻该国使领馆认证，或者履行中华人民共和国与该所在国订立的有关条约中规定的证明手续后，才具有效力。
Article 275: Where a foreign national, a stateless person, or a foreign enterprise or organisation without domicile within the territory of the People's Republic of China entrusts a Chinese lawyer or another person to act in proceedings, a power of attorney sent or delivered from outside the territory takes effect only after it has been certified by a notarial body of the country where the person is located and authenticated by the Chinese embassy or consulate in that country, or after the certification formalities provided in a relevant treaty concluded between China and that country have been completed.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
Two things follow. The words 「或者履行……有关条约中规定的证明手续」 are the doorway: the treaty route is an alternative to the consular route, put there long before 2023 and now populated by the Convention. And the notarisation limb is not optional even on the treaty route — a power of attorney is a private document, so the sequence remains notarisation first, apostille second. Article 275 was not amended by the 2023 revision; its number changed only because the article sequence was adjusted on republication.
第十六条 当事人提供的公文书证系在中华人民共和国领域外形成的，该证据应当经所在国公证机关证明，或者履行中华人民共和国与该所在国订立的有关条约中规定的证明手续。
中华人民共和国领域外形成的涉及身份关系的证据，应当经所在国公证机关证明并经中华人民共和国驻该国使领馆认证，或者履行中华人民共和国与该所在国订立的有关条约中规定的证明手续。
当事人向人民法院提供的证据是在香港、澳门、台湾地区形成的，应当履行相关的证明手续。
Article 16, paragraph 1: Where documentary evidence of a public nature provided by a party was formed outside the territory of the People's Republic of China, it shall be certified by a notarial body of the country where it was formed, or the certification formalities provided in a relevant treaty concluded between China and that country shall be completed. Paragraph 2: Evidence formed outside the territory concerning personal status shall be certified by a notarial body of the country where it was formed and authenticated by the Chinese embassy or consulate in that country, or the certification formalities provided in a relevant treaty shall be completed. Paragraph 3: Where evidence provided to a people's court was formed in Hong Kong, Macao or Taiwan, the relevant certification formalities shall be completed.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
Article 16 is the clearest statement of the asymmetry. Paragraph 1 sets a single requirement for foreign public documents; paragraph 2 sets a double requirement for evidence concerning personal status — birth, marriage, kinship, death — and only then offers the treaty alternative. So the Convention's practical effect is largest exactly where the old burden was heaviest: family and status documents, which previously carried notarisation plus consular authentication, can now travel on notarisation plus apostille where the source State is a contracting State.
Paragraph 3 is the one that catches people out. Evidence formed in Hong Kong, Macao or Taiwan sits under its own sentence, with its own certification formalities, and is outside the Convention route. Treating an apostille as the answer for a Hong Kong document is a category error, not a shortcut.
5. The same doorway outside litigation
The treaty limb is not a litigation device. It appears in administrative rules as well, and one 2024 amendment states the connection expressly.
为了履行我国加入《取消外国公文书认证要求的公约》义务，并结合外国人参加社会保险相关证件名称和编码规则的变化，现决定对《在中国境内就业的外国人参加社会保险暂行办法》（人力资源社会保障部令第16号）有关条款进行修改。
三、将第七条修改为“在中国境外享受按月领取社会保险待遇的外国人，应当每年核验一次社会保险待遇享受资格。核验待遇享受资格可以向负责支付其待遇的社会保险经办机构提供由中国驻外使、领馆出具的生存证明，或者由居住国有关机构公证、认证并经中国驻外使、领馆认证的生存证明，也可以按照规定通过互联网自助办理。中国缔结或者参加的国际条约另有规定的，按照条约规定的证明手续办理。
Preamble: In order to perform China's obligations upon accession to the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, and having regard to changes in the names and numbering rules of documents relating to foreign nationals' participation in social insurance, the relevant provisions of the Provisional Measures on Social Insurance for Foreigners Employed in China (MOHRSS Order No. 16) are hereby amended. Item 3: Article 7 is amended to read: "A foreign national receiving monthly social insurance benefits outside China shall have eligibility for those benefits verified once a year. For verification, the person may provide the social insurance handling body responsible for payment with a certificate of existence issued by a Chinese embassy or consulate abroad, or a certificate of existence notarised and authenticated by a relevant body in the country of residence and authenticated by a Chinese embassy or consulate, or may complete verification online as prescribed. Where a treaty concluded or acceded to by China provides otherwise, the certification formalities provided in the treaty apply."
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
The preamble names the Convention as the reason for the amendment, and the amended Article 7 then carries the same alternative limb — treaty formalities in place of consular authentication. The pattern to take away is general: the apostille takes effect in China not by its own force but wherever a Chinese provision has left a treaty limb open. Where a provision has no such limb, the position is unchanged.
6. Who runs into this, and how it is used
Three situations account for most of the difficulty. A party to Chinese proceedings signing a power of attorney abroad and expecting an apostille to be the whole of the formality. A family or succession matter relying on a status document from a State whose position under the Convention has not been checked. And any matter involving a document formed in Hong Kong, Macao or Taiwan, where a different sentence of Article 16 applies. In each, the first question is the same: is the document public or private, and is the source State a contracting State?
- Misconception: Since 2023-11-07 any foreign document needs only an apostille. In fact: the route runs between contracting States and covers public documents. Documents from a non-contracting State remain on the consular legalisation route, as the Convention introduction states expressly.
- Misconception: An apostille replaces notarisation. In fact: for a privately signed instrument, notarisation is the step that produces something the apostille can certify. Article 275 of the Civil Procedure Law keeps the notarisation limb on both routes.
- Misconception: An apostilled document will be accepted as proving what it says. In fact: the apostille certifies only that the last seal and signature are genuine and takes no responsibility for the content; sufficiency remains a matter for the receiving authority.
- Misconception: A Hong Kong or Macao document can be apostilled for use on the mainland. In fact: paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the 2019 Evidence Provisions deals with evidence formed in Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan under its own certification formalities, separately from the foreign-document paragraphs.
- Classify the document before choosing a route: whether it is a public document within Article 1 of the Convention, or a private instrument that must first be notarised, determines the whole sequence.
- Check the source State's position against the list published by the competent authority rather than against a remembered figure — membership changes, and the number appearing in any given official page is stated as at that page's own date.
- Identify which Chinese provision governs the formality for the specific use, and whether it contains a treaty limb: Article 275 of the Civil Procedure Law for a power of attorney, Article 16 of the 2019 Evidence Provisions for evidence, and the corresponding provision of the applicable administrative rules elsewhere.
- Separate personal-status evidence from other public documents, since Article 16 imposes a double requirement on the former on the consular route and only offers the treaty alternative after it.
- Treat Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan documents as a distinct question under Article 16, paragraph 3, and assess sufficiency of content separately from certification of form in every case.
- Laws and Regulations index
- Settle · Cross-Border Marriage, Family & Children
- Legacy · Wills & Succession
- Foreign Nationals Before Chinese Courts After the 2023 Civil Procedure Law Amendment (forthcoming)
- Social Insurance for Foreign Employees in China: Mandatory Participation, Bilateral Treaty Exemptions, and What Order No. 54 Changed in December 2024
- 外交部《〈取消外国公文书认证要求的公约〉将于 2023 年 11 月 7 日在中国生效实施》，2023 年 10 月 23 日。https://www.mfa.gov.cn/wjbxw_new/202310/t20231023_11165858.shtml
- 中国领事服务网《〈取消外国公文书认证要求的公约〉简介》，页面自载发布时间 2024 年 9 月 4 日。https://cs.mfa.gov.cn/zggmcg/fjzms/qxwggwsrzyqdgy/202310/t20231018_11162932.shtml
- 《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》（2023 年修正），第五次修正经 2023 年 9 月 1 日第十四届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第五次会议通过，自 2024 年 1 月 1 日起施行，重新公布后全文 306 条。本文引用其第二百七十五条。修改决定官方原文 https://www.gov.cn/yaowen/liebiao/202309/content_6901570.htm
- 《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》，法释〔2019〕19 号。本文引用其第十六条（三款）。官方原文 https://www.court.gov.cn/fabu/xiangqing/212721.html
- 《人力资源社会保障部关于修改〈在中国境内就业的外国人参加社会保险暂行办法〉的决定》，人社部令第 54 号，2024 年 12 月 23 日公布并自公布之日起施行。本文引用其决定前言与第三项。官方原文 https://www.gov.cn/gongbao/2025/issue_11806/202501/content_6999379.html
- Status and timing note 效力与时点提示：The Convention entered into force for China on 2023-11-07 and remains in force as at the verification date of this page. The membership figure quoted above is the figure stated on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs consular page as at that page's own publication date; the current list of contracting States is as published by the competent authority. The Chinese text of Article 1 of the Convention was not obtainable from an official page in the course of preparing this page, and the categories of public document it defines are therefore not enumerated here. All procedural matters — where an apostille is issued, in what form, and what a receiving authority requires — are subject to the current published requirements of the accepting authority.
This article is general legal research and does not constitute legal advice; by law, a law firm may not guarantee case outcomes. 本文为一般性法律研究，不构成法律意见；依据法律规定，律所不得承诺办案结果。
