Article 224the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 29 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China explicitly stipulate hierarchical jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction for the enforcement of arbitration awards and such stipulations shall have binding force. For the enforcement of an arbitral award, there were only two nexus points in the determination of jurisdiction: one is the place of domicile of the person subject to enforcement and the other is the place where the property subject to enforcement is located. The civil procedure law is a public law, so it shall be prohibited unless it is prescribed as a right in the law. Although the civil procedure law does not explicitly forbid the parties' negotiation on the selection of a court having jurisdiction over enforcement, the parties' selection of jurisdiction over the enforcement should be limited to the aforesaid two nexus points and the parties may only select one court having jurisdiction among them to file an application for enforcement. The provisions on responding to actions in the civil procedure law shall apply to judicial proceedings and shall not apply to enforcement procedures. Therefore, when the parties voluntarily determined to file an application for enforcement with a court having no jurisdiction by the parties' selection through negotiation or by such default means as raising no objection to jurisdiction and abandoning the objection to jurisdiction, such determination should not be supported.