China: A Dispute Resolution: Litigation (PRC Firms) Overview

China’s New Arbitration Law: Opening a New Chapter in Global Alignment

Background to the amendments

China is emerging as a preferred forum for resolving cross‑border commercial disputes, as more Chinese enterprises explore business overseas. In 2024, leading Chinese arbitration institutions, including the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), the Beijing Arbitration Commission (BAC), the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (SHIAC) and the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA), reported year-on-year increases of roughly 20% to 40% in foreign-related cases, and an average case value above CNY100 million (administered by CIETAC), underscoring China’s growing prominence in global arbitration.

Against this backdrop, the amended Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (“the New Arbitration Law”) was promulgated on 12 September 2025 and will take effect on 1 March 2026. It preserves the dual‑track regime for domestic and foreign‑related arbitrations while introducing targeted reforms for the latter, including codifying the seat of arbitration and recognising ad hoc arbitration under specified conditions. These changes align China more closely with international practice and are designed to make China a more attractive jurisdiction in which to seat arbitrations.

Aligning arbitration principles with international practice

The New Arbitration Law codifies key international principles, providing a statutory foundation for long-standing practices and harmonising standards among Chinese arbitration institutions.

Defining the seat of arbitration

The seat of arbitration is pivotal: it typically determines both the law governing the arbitration agreement and the procedural law applicable to the proceedings.

The previous law lacked a clear definition of the arbitration seat, causing confusion between the seat and the institution’s location and even leading to instances where awards issued in the Chinese Mainland by foreign institutions were mistakenly categorised as “foreign awards”. Subsequent judicial interpretations and institutional rules clarified the distinction, gradually resolving this confusion.

Article 81 of the New Arbitration Law expressly anchors the seat of arbitration as the touchstone for identifying the applicable procedural law and the competent supervisory court for matters concerning the arbitration agreement. Where the seat is not specified, it may be determined under the applicable rules or by the arbitral tribunal. This clarification brings Chinese law into step with the established practice of China’s leading arbitral institutions.

Recognising the tribunal’s competence-competence

The New Arbitration Law formally adopts the competence-competence principle, confirming that arbitral tribunals may rule on their own jurisdiction. Previously, this authority technically resided with arbitral institutions, though many had, in practice, delegated it to tribunals. In some instances, however, administrative officers of arbitral institutions made jurisdictional decisions – an approach misaligned with international practice. The amendment removes this procedural inconsistency, reinforces tribunal independence and brings China’s arbitration framework closer to international norms.

Reinforcing the separability of arbitration agreements

The New Arbitration Law further strengthens the separability doctrine, confirming that an arbitration clause remains effective even if the underlying contract is not concluded or is invalid – or is rescinded, terminated or otherwise ineffective. It also clarifies that both non-existence and invalidity fall within validity review.

Procedurally, where a claimant invokes an arbitration agreement and commences arbitration, and the respondent – having been duly notified before the first hearing – does not contest the agreement’s existence, the agreement is deemed valid. This pragmatic approach, effectively recognising a constructive agreement, curbs belated challenges to the clause and deters tactics aimed at obstructing enforcement.

Strengthening arbitrator disclosure obligations

For the first time in statute, arbitrators must promptly disclose in writing to the institution any circumstances that may raise justifiable doubts about their independence or impartiality – a duty that previously appeared mainly in institutional rules. This provision aligns with the core principles of the International Bar Association (IBA) Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration.

Enabling new mechanisms for foreign-related arbitration

Historically, the statute defined foreign-related arbitration narrowly – limited to trade, transportation and maritime disputes – even though, in practice, other matters with foreign elements were also treated as foreign-related. The New Arbitration Law broadens the scope by adding a catch-all category for “other foreign-related disputes”. It also calibrates international best practices to China's framework by introducing mechanisms such as ad hoc arbitration and strengthened judicial support, offering greater flexibility and efficiency for cross-border dispute resolution.

Introducing ad hoc arbitration

Article 82 marks a significant shift in China’s stance on ad hoc arbitration, extending it beyond prior pilots in free trade zones. Parties to maritime disputes, as well as companies registered in free trade zones or the Hainan Free Trade Port, may opt for ad hoc arbitration. They are free to agree on the seat, arbitral rules and arbitrators, and may adopt internationally recognised procedural rules – without being confined to institutional rosters.

A distinctive requirement remains: within three days of constitution, the ad hoc tribunal must file for the record with a recognised arbitration association. To date, more than ten such arbitration associations have been formally established in China at the municipal, provincial and national levels.

While this filing mechanism reflects China’s administrative oversight model, the reform nonetheless represents a meaningful breakthrough, enhancing procedural flexibility and modernising the arbitration framework.

Enhancing judicial support for arbitration proceedings

The New Arbitration Law substantially strengthens court support for arbitration by expanding interim measures to include preservation of conduct in addition to property and evidence. Courts may now grant such measures even before an arbitration is commenced, aligning arbitral practice with interim injunctions available in courts under the Civil Procedure Law. Parties can apply either through the arbitration institution or directly to the courts, and these measures are also available in ad hoc arbitrations.

The law also authorises arbitral tribunals to seek assistance from competent authorities in collecting evidence as they think fit. Courts have increasingly issued investigation orders to support tribunals in domestic and foreign-related arbitration cases. For example, in 2025, a cross-border contract dispute administered by SHIAC saw a Chinese court issue an investigation order at the tribunal's request to collect evidence, illustrating China's growing commitment to facilitating arbitral proceedings.

Revamping the judicial review mechanism

China retains distinct review regimes for domestic and foreign-related arbitral awards. Domestic awards may undergo substantive review, including verification of evidentiary authenticity, whereas foreign-related awards are primarily subject to procedural scrutiny.

The New Arbitration Law has updated the grounds for challenging foreign-related awards by replacing the phrase “arbitration clause in the contract or subsequently concluded in writing” with the broader “arbitration agreement”. This offers room to recognise implied arbitration agreements and aligns the grounds with those applicable to setting aside domestic awards.

To enhance efficiency, courts must now issue rulings on applications to set aside arbitral awards within three months – reduced from six months – for both domestic and foreign-related awards.

Policy support for international arbitration

China’s 2024 policy package signals strong backing for the expansion of international arbitration. Articles 86 and 87 of the New Arbitration Law promote a dual-track development strategy: encouraging domestic arbitration institutions to build an international presence while welcoming foreign institutions to establish operations in China’s free trade zones and the Hainan Free Trade Port. These measures aim to consolidate China’s position as a leading arbitration hub and enhance its global competitiveness.

This policy is already taking shape: leading institutions – including the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), SIAC and the ICC – have established representative offices in the Chinese Mainland.

Conclusion

The New Arbitration Law harmonises international and Chinese arbitration practice into a coherent framework, codifying such key principles as the arbitration seat, separability of arbitration agreements and arbitrator disclosure requirements. These changes help standardise procedures across local institutions and reduce regional disparities. The law recognises ad hoc arbitration and enhances judicial assistance, reflecting international best practices while preserving Chinese characteristics.

新仲裁法：迈向与国际规则接轨的新篇章

修订背景

中国仲裁近年发展迅速，涉外案件量和标的持续攀升。2024年，贸仲、北仲、上国仲、深国仲等机构涉外案件同比增长20%-40%，贸仲涉外案件平均单案标的逾亿元，凸显中国在国际商事争议解决中的重要地位。

在此背景下，新修订的《仲裁法》（“新法”）于2025年9月12日公布，将于2026年3月1日起施行。该法在延续“国内仲裁/涉外仲裁”双轨制的基础上，系统优化涉外仲裁规则，包括确定仲裁地原则、有条件的引入临时仲裁制度等，释放出中国仲裁制度加速国际化、提升全球竞争力的鲜明信号。

仲裁原则的国际化发展

新法以立法形式确认了多项国际通行原则，为实践中的通行做法提供明确法律依据，有效统一地方仲裁实践乱象。

确立仲裁地概念

仲裁地在仲裁中具有核心意义，可能直接影响到仲裁协议适用法律和仲裁程序适用法律的确定。

旧法并未规定仲裁地的概念，曾出现“仲裁机构所在地”误作仲裁地的乱象，导致境外仲裁机构在中国内地作出的裁决被错误认定为外国裁决。但随着司法解释、仲裁规则的发展，仲裁地与仲裁机构所在地被区分。

新法第81条首次在法律层面确立仲裁地概念，明确其作为仲裁程序适用法与司法管辖法院的依据；当事人可书面约定仲裁地，未约定则由仲裁规则或仲裁庭决定。事实上，国内主流仲裁机构早已将上述情形规定在仲裁规则中，新法实现了仲裁规则和法律规定的统一。

明确仲裁庭自裁管辖权

新法确认自裁管辖权原则，由仲裁庭裁定自身管辖权。旧法将该权利赋予仲裁委员会，多数机构实际授权仲裁庭行使，但也存在由机构行政人员作出的情况。新法明确由仲裁庭直接作出裁定，与国际实践接轨，突显仲裁庭独立性。

仲裁条款独立性原则完善

新法完善了仲裁协议的独立性原则，即便主合同未成立、不生效、被撤销、终止或无效，仲裁条款仍有效；同时，进一步明确了未成立与无效均属仲裁条款效力问题；程序上，若申请人主张存在仲裁协议并提起仲裁，仲裁庭在首次开庭前已提示并记录，而被申请人未否认的，则视为双方之间存在仲裁协议，有效防止事后否认、阻碍执行的情况。该规定延续了原司法解释第十三条的立场，并以更直接的方式确认仲裁协议的“拟制存在”。

仲裁员披露义务的确立

新法增加仲裁员披露制度的原则性规定，即仲裁员存在可能导致当事人对其独立性、公正性产生合理怀疑的，应及时向仲裁机构披露，这与IBA利冲指引中的核心原则一致，强调仲裁员的独立与公正。实践中，以贸仲为首的多家仲裁机构已将该原则规定于仲裁规则或仲裁员守则中。新法在制度上予以统一。

引入涉外仲裁新制度，兼顾中国实践特色

新法在涉外仲裁案件范围中新增“其他涉外纠纷”兜底条款，使制度覆盖更全面。同时引入临时仲裁、强化司法支持等新机制，积极对接国际通行实践，并结合中国实践探索制度创新。

引入临时仲裁制度

旧法未规定临时仲裁，仅通过司法文件在自贸区进行试点。新法第82条首次将其制度化，适用于涉外海事纠纷及自贸区、海南自由贸易港企业之间的涉外纠纷。当事人可自主约定仲裁地、仲裁规则和仲裁员，甚至适用任何国际通行规则进行仲裁，不受仲裁员名册约束，但临时仲裁庭须在组庭后三日内向仲裁协会备案。目前国内已经正式注册的仲裁协会有10余家，涵盖国家级、省级和市级。既体现了中国特色的管理模式，也整体上显著提升涉外仲裁灵活性。

强化法院对仲裁在保全和证据收集方面的支持

新法将行为保全纳入仲裁保全措施，并在紧急情况下允许当事人在申请仲裁前向法院申请财产、行为及证据保全，实现与《民事诉讼法》衔接。无论由仲裁机构转递还是当事人直接申请，法院均应依法及时处理。临时仲裁亦可申请行为保全。

此外，新法还规定，仲裁庭在必要时可请求相关部门协助收集证据。近年来，法院协助仲裁庭开具调查令的实践逐步增多，涵盖境内及涉外仲裁案件。例如，2025年上海国际仲裁中心在一宗跨境合同纠纷中，通过临时措施同意当事人的调查取证申请，随后得到法院支持，正式出具调查令，传递出我国支持仲裁的整体趋势。

撤裁双轨制的更新

对于仲裁司法审查而言，新法仍坚持对国内仲裁裁决和涉外仲裁裁决的双轨制审查模式，对涉外仲裁裁决的司法审查事项主要体现在程序性审查，而对于国内仲裁裁决，则除了程序性事项审查之外，还包括部分实体内容审查，如证据伪造等。同时，对涉外案件的撤裁理由进行更新，由“当事人在合同中没有订有仲裁条款或者事后没有达成书面仲裁协议的”改为“没有仲裁协议”，给非书面达成的仲裁合意留下了空间，也与国内撤裁理由保持一致。境内、涉外仲裁申请撤裁的期限由6个月缩短为3个月，进一步提高仲裁程序效率，保障当事人权益。

支持发展涉外仲裁的政策

2024年伊始，中央多项政策强调“深化仲裁制度改革”，推进海事仲裁规则创新及国际商事仲裁制度完善。新法第86–87条明确支持涉外仲裁发展，鼓励我国仲裁机构拓展境外业务，允许境外仲裁机构在自贸区、海南自由港等设立机构，并支持当事人选择中国仲裁机构和仲裁地，以提升制度国际化竞争力。目前，香港国际仲裁中心、新加坡国际仲裁中心、国际商会仲裁院均在中国设有代表处/办公室。

总结与展望

新修订通过体系化整合仲裁实践，将仲裁地、仲裁协议独立性、仲裁员披露等国际通行规则与国内仲裁标准制度化、统一化，推动各仲裁机构规则与程序协调一致，减少地方性差异。同时，有序引入临时仲裁、强化司法支持机制，既顺应国际仲裁发展趋势，又充分体现中国仲裁的实践特色。