CHINA: An Introduction to Most in Demand Arbitrators: Mainland China-seated Arbitrations
As of 2023, the global economic landscape remains ensconced in the aftermath of the pandemic, navigating through the intricate web of international economic and political complexities. In this intricate milieu, arbitration stands as the cornerstone for international commercial dispute resolution, encountering both unprecedented challenges and opportunities. Concurrently, the realm of commercial arbitration in China has undergone a significant metamorphosis with the imminent promulgation of the new Arbitration Law and the enforcement of updated rules by leading arbitration institutions such as the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (hereinafter referred to as “CIETAC”). The impending changes foreshadow a transformative year for commercial arbitration in China in 2024.
1. Addition of provisions regarding ad hoc arbitration and rules regarding third party funding, aligning with the development trends of international commercial arbitration.
The release of the “Arbitration Law (Draft for Comments)” (hereinafter referred to as “Draft for Comments”) by the Ministry of Justice makes a preliminary attempt to ad hoc arbitration in China. Under the existing Arbitration Law, ad hoc arbitration does not meet the requirement of having a “chosen arbitration commission” as a condition for the effectiveness of an arbitration agreement, and its legal validity is generally not recognised under the current Arbitration Law. The Draft for Comments, for the first time, loosens the legislative constraints inherent in the existing Arbitration Law. A notable departure is the elimination of the requirement for a pre-designated arbitration commission as a precondition for a “valid” arbitration agreement. This revolutionary shift provides leeway for the application of ad hoc arbitration. However, the Draft for Comments places restrictions on the scope of ad hoc arbitration, confining it solely to “foreign-related commercial disputes”, underscoring the cautious approach adopted by Chinese legislators in advancing the ad hoc arbitration system.
The unveiling of the 2024 edition of the “Arbitration Rules” by CIETAC (hereinafter referred to as “Arbitration Rules”), representing several prominent arbitration institutions, introduces groundbreaking third-party funding rules. This innovative inclusion allows parties to avail themselves of third-party funding, coupled with obligations to disclose such arrangements to regulate their impact on arbitration proceedings. Nevertheless, Arbitration Rules have not explicitly delved into the question of whether the failure of parties to fulfill their disclosure obligations might impact the inherent legitimacy of the arbitration proceedings. This particular matter continues to be a source of considerable divergence within the landscape of judicial practices, necessitating a more comprehensive and nuanced exploration to foster a consensus among stakeholders. In addition, the Arbitration Rules have refrained from offering explicit definitions and comprehensive guidelines regarding the concept and extent of third-party funding. This critical aspect remains in a state of anticipation, as it awaits regulatory frameworks to be articulated at the legislative level.
The introduction of the aforementioned new laws and rules signifies China’s endeavor to align its commercial arbitration practices with international standards. This concerted effort not only underscores the proactive response of Chinese legislators to the evolving trends in international commercial arbitration within the realm of commercial arbitration but also reflects a thoughtful and deliberative approach in the pursuit of excellence in the development of commercial arbitration practices.
2. Enhancement of online arbitration rules, increasing foreign entities’ convenience of participation in arbitrations
The Arbitration Rules now dedicate specific provisions to online arbitration, reflecting a concerted effort to enhance the electronification and digitisation of the arbitration processes, and further clarify the rules for the submission of arbitration documents by electronic means, the rules for electronic service, the right of the arbitral tribunal to decide to hold hearings online, and the equivalence of the arbitrators’ electronic signatures and their handwritten signatures, among others. These advancements significantly augment the convenience of foreign entities participating in arbitrations, acknowledging the evolving landscape of technologically facilitated dispute resolution.
3. Clarification of the rules of examination for arbitration agreements and arbitral awards, enhancing arbitration efficiency
In the context of the scrutiny of arbitration agreements, the Draft for Comments stipulates that in cases where the parties raise objections to the validity of the arbitration agreement or contest the tribunal’s jurisdiction, the parties no longer have the discretion to choose their forum for resolution. Instead, they are mandated to raise such objections exclusively before the arbitral tribunal. Should the arbitral tribunal not yet be constituted at the time of objection, the arbitration institution will, based on prima facie evidence, determine whether to proceed with the arbitration proceedings. In contrast to the existing legal framework, which allows the parties to decide unilaterally whether to seek confirmation of the validity of an arbitration agreement before an arbitral institution or a court, this provision simplifies the prior review procedure and strengthens the independence and efficiency of arbitration.
Turning our attention to the scrutiny of arbitral awards, the Draft for Comments introduces a discerning framework aimed at refining the permissible grounds for annulling an arbitral award. The circumscription of statutory grounds for the annulment of arbitral awards in the Draft for Comments is designed to mitigate the likelihood of parties abusing such legal provisions. This deliberate regulatory constraint seeks to enhance the enforceability of arbitration awards by preventing the exploitation of statutory reasons for challenging arbitral decisions. Simultaneously, the Draft for Comments bestows parties with the right to request a reconsideration of a decision to annul an arbitral award. This provision is instrumental in enhancing the transparency of judicial oversight in arbitration and fostering increased participation of the parties in the arbitration process. It signifies legislative efforts to strike a delicate balance between ensuring the protection of parties’ rights and optimizing the efficiency of judicial review, underscoring a conscientious endeavor to harmonize these dual objectives.
In conclusion, the imminent release of the new “Arbitration Law” and the enforcement of updated rules by various arbitration institutions collectively herald a significant reform in China’s arbitration landscape. These comprehensive reforms not only establish a robust framework conducive to the evolution of international commercial arbitration in China but also serve as a testament to China’s commitment to enhancing its international arbitration competitiveness. These reforms will help improve the international competitiveness of China’s arbitration system and make China a more attractive arbitration center in 2024.
2023年，全球经济仍处于疫情余波的笼罩之中，在复杂的国际经济政治环境下，仲裁作为国际商事争议解决的主要途径，迎来了前所未有的机遇和挑战。与此同时，中国商事仲裁相关法律和规则迎来大变革。新《仲裁法》的即将公布、中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会(“贸仲”)为首的多家仲裁机构新规则的生效适用，都将对中国商事仲裁产生深远影响。2024年必将是中国商事仲裁焕新的一年。
1. 新增临时仲裁规定与第三方资助规则，顺应国际商事仲裁发展趋势
司法部新《仲裁法》征求意见稿(“《征求意见稿》”)对临时仲裁制度在中国的适用进行了初步尝试。现行《仲裁法》下，作为一种不是由常设仲裁机构管理的仲裁，临时仲裁并不满足“具有选定的仲裁委员会”这一仲裁协议生效要件，其效力原则上不被现行《仲裁法》所承认。《征求意见稿》首次从立法层面松动了现行《仲裁法》拒绝承认临时仲裁协议效力的原则性立场，拟将临时仲裁制度纳入我国仲裁法律体系之中并确定了相关具体规则。一方面，不再要求有效的仲裁协议必须约定明确的仲裁机构，为临时仲裁的适用提供了空间；另一方面，《征求意见稿》明确规定，临时仲裁仅限于“涉外商事纠纷”，凸显了立法者在推进临时仲裁制度方面的谨慎态度。
以贸仲发布的2024年版《仲裁规则》为代表的仲裁机构新规则(“《仲裁规则》”)则初步引入了第三方资助规则，允许仲裁当事人接受第三方资助，同时规定了披露义务以规制第三方资助对仲裁程序的影响。然而，《仲裁规则》也未涉及当事人未履行披露义务是否影响仲裁程序本身的合法性，该问题目前在司法实践中仍存在较大分歧，有待进一步探讨形成共识。并且，《仲裁规则》未对第三方资助的概念和范围作出规定，尚待立法层面予以规制。
上述新规定与规则的引入体现了中国商事仲裁与国际接轨的初步尝试，这一努力不仅彰显了中国立法者在商事仲裁领域对国际商事仲裁发展趋势的积极响应，更呈现了在追求商事仲裁领域卓越发展过程中的深思熟虑。
2. 完善线上仲裁规则，提高境外主体参与仲裁的便利性
《仲裁规则》对线上仲裁多个环节作出规定，着力提升仲裁程序的电子化、数字化水平，进一步明确电子方式提交仲裁文件规则、电子送达规则、仲裁庭有权决定线上开庭、仲裁员电子签名与手写署名具有同等效力等。这一系列规定有助于提高境外主体参与仲裁的便利性。
3. 明确仲裁协议和仲裁裁决的审查规则，提高仲裁效率
就对于仲裁协议的审查而言，《征求意见稿》规定，当事人对仲裁协议效力、仲裁管辖权有异议时不再具有选择权，而是只能向仲裁庭提出异议申请。如此时仲裁庭尚未组建，则由仲裁机构先根据表面证据决定是否继续进行仲裁程序。与现行法律下允许当事人自行决定向仲裁机构或法院确认仲裁协议效力相比，该规定简化了事前审查程序，加强了仲裁的独立性和高效性。
就对于仲裁裁决的审查而言，《征求意见稿》对仲裁裁决的撤销法定事由进行了限缩，有助于降低当事人滥用法定事由的可能性，以提高仲裁裁决的可执行性。《征求意见稿》还赋予了当事人对撤销仲裁裁决裁定的复议权，有助于提高仲裁司法监督的透明度和当事人参与度，体现了立法在实现当事人权利保护与司法审查效率之间的平衡所作出的努力。
综合而言，新《仲裁法》的即将发布、贸仲为首的多家仲裁机构新规则的生效适用共同构成了中国仲裁环境的重要改革，为促进中国国际商事仲裁的发展提供了更加健全的框架。这些改革有助于提高中国仲裁制度的国际竞争力，使中国在2024年成为更具吸引力的仲裁中心。