China: A Dispute Resolution: Litigation (PRC Firms) Overview
China’s Revised Arbitration Law: Key Implementation Changes and Their Market Impact
Background
On 12 September 2025, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress adopted a comprehensively revised Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China. The revised law will take effect on 1 March 2026, signalling the conclusion of a prolonged legislative consultation process and the commencement of a new phase of implementation for China’s arbitration regime.
By the end of 2025, China’s arbitration landscape had reached a pivotal stage. With the legislative framework now in place, the questions confronting the market are how the revised law will function in practice, how it may shape party conduct and institutions’ operation, and how it could affect the structure and competitiveness of China’s arbitration market. Against this background, arbitration in China in 2026 is increasingly examined through the lens of implementation and market impact.
Key implementation changes under the adopted Arbitration Law and their anticipated market impact
Beyond the formal recognition of ad hoc arbitration in limited circumstances, the adopted Arbitration Law introduces a series of clarifications that are particularly relevant to users of arbitration.
One of the most immediate effects of the revised Arbitration Law lies in its clarification of the legal status and governance framework of arbitration institutions. By expressly confirming that arbitration institutions operate independently of administrative organs and by refining registration and filing arrangements, the revised law addresses long-standing uncertainties surrounding institutional positioning under Chinese law. In practical terms, this clarification is expected to enhance user confidence, particularly in cross-border disputes where institutional independence and procedural neutrality are closely scrutinised.
On the other hand, the revised Arbitration Law introduces a series of measures aimed at reinforcing judicial support for arbitral institutions, including the conferral of investigative powers on arbitral institutions, the explicit recognition of conduct preservation and pre-arbitration preservation regimes, and the imposition of a statutory obligation on courts to process preservation applications in arbitration-related matters without undue delay.
In particular, by formally incorporating conduct preservation and expressly providing for pre-arbitration preservation measures, the law offers clearer pathways for parties seeking urgent relief before or at the outset of arbitration. In practice, this is likely to influence how parties sequence arbitration filings and court applications, particularly in disputes involving asset dissipation risks or a need for prompt pre-emptive relief to prevent the escalation of harm, such as disputes concerning intellectual property or maritime and shipping matters.
As these mechanisms begin to be applied, the arbitration strategy is expected to become more enforcement-oriented. Measures relating to the preservation of property, conduct, and evidence will be more systematically integrated into the overall dispute resolution strategy, with a view to facilitating enforcement across multiple jurisdictions.
Another notable implementation aspect lies in Article 27 of the revised Arbitration Law, which for the first time expressly recognises circumstances in which an arbitration agreement may be deemed to exist even in the absence of a written arbitration agreement. This amendment represents a departure, at the institutional level, from the traditional requirement that the commencement of arbitration be strictly premised on a written arbitration agreement, and reflects a legislative shift from a formalistic approach toward greater emphasis on the parties’ true intent and autonomy.
Anticipated implementation-oriented adjustments across arbitration stakeholders
Although the revised Arbitration Law will not enter into force until 1 March 2026, its adoption provides parties with a settled statutory baseline for future planning. Thus, the more relevant question for users is what adjustments may be prudent in dispute planning and clause design in light of the confirmed legislative text, and what practical trends may emerge in the operational approaches of arbitral institution.
First, the revised law’s approach to preservation measures suggests that parties should consider preservation pathways and timing at an earlier stage of dispute planning. Where there is a foreseeable risk of asset dissipation or ongoing harm, counsel may wish to map out, in advance, the sequence between court applications for preservation and the commencement of arbitration, as well as the supporting evidence required. While the practical operation of these mechanisms will ultimately depend on judicial co-ordination after the effective date, early planning can reduce execution risk when urgent relief becomes necessary.
Furthermore, although the formally adopted Arbitration Law removed references to “interim measures” that appeared in the earlier draft, the newly introduced pre-arbitration preservation regime has, in substance, provided institutional space for their practical application. Several domestic arbitral institutions have likewise incorporated interim measures into their arbitration rules. In October 2024, in an arbitration administered by the Beijing Arbitration Commission concerning an international technology development and services dispute, the arbitral tribunal issued an interim measures decision, which was subsequently supported and enforced by the Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People’s Court. This case marks the first instance in China in which an interim measures decision rendered by an arbitral tribunal was judicially enforced.
These developments indicate that the institutional significance of interim measures in arbitral practice is gradually coming into focus. At the same time, how arbitral proceedings will be co-ordinated with court-led preservation procedures, and the precise contours of such co-ordination in practice, remain to be further observed and clarified through subsequent judicial practice.
In addition, certain local courts in China have already undertaken pilot practices reflecting the newly introduced investigative powers of arbitral tribunals. In recent years, courts in various regions have issued judicial guidelines to assist evidence-gathering in arbitration, including through the issuance of court-backed investigation orders. In February 2026, following the formal implementation of the Regulation on the Development of the Beijing International Commercial Arbitration Center, the Beijing No 4 Intermediate People’s Court, in co-ordination with the Beijing Arbitration Commission, completed Beijing’s first instance of court-assisted evidence collection in support of an arbitral institution.
With the formal recognition of arbitral tribunals’ investigative powers under the revised Arbitration Law, these practices are likely to be adopted more broadly, contributing to greater efficiency in the resolution of commercial disputes.
In conclusion, the adoption of the revised Arbitration Law shifts the focus of China’s arbitration discourse from reform design to practical calibration. As the law moves towards its effective date in 2026, its significance will be tested by how consistently its provisions are applied, interpreted, and integrated into day-to-day arbitration practice. The coming period is therefore more about institutional and market adjustment, as parties, counsel, and arbitration institutions respond to a more clearly articulated statutory framework.
新《仲裁法》落地在即：中国仲裁实务的关键变化与市场影响
背景
2025年9月12日，全国人大常委会表决通过新修订的《中华人民共和国仲裁法》。新《仲裁法》将于2026年3月1日起施行，标志着历时多年的立法论证与征求意见阶段正式结束，中国仲裁制度进入以实施落地为核心的新阶段。
至2025年末，中国仲裁实践已进入一个关键阶段。在新《仲裁法》立法框架基本确立的背景下，市场关注的核心问题是新法将在具体案件中如何运行，其是否会改变当事人的行为模式和仲裁机构的运作实践，以及这些变化将如何影响中国仲裁市场的结构与竞争格局。正是在这一背景下，2026 年的中国仲裁有必要从“制度落实”和“市场影响”的角度加以审视。
新《仲裁法》通过后的关键落实变化及其对仲裁市场的前瞻性影响
除在特定范围内对临时仲裁制度作出回应之外，新《仲裁法》还在若干关键制度层面对既有仲裁框架进行了重要澄清。
在实施层面，新《仲裁法》带来的最直接影响之一，是对仲裁机构法律地位及治理框架的进一步明确。通过在立法层面强调仲裁机构独立于行政机关，并优化登记备案机制，新法回应了长期以来仲裁机构属性与独立性存在的不确定性问题。在实践中，这一澄清有助于提升当事人，尤其是涉外当事人，对中国仲裁制度中立性与公信力的信心。
另一方面，新修订《仲裁法》采取系列措施，加强了司法体系对仲裁机构的支持力度。例如，新增仲裁机构的调查权、明确规定仲裁行为保全和仲裁前保全制度、明确要求法院应及时处理仲裁案件保全申请等。
特别是，新法将行为保全正式纳入制度体系，并明确仲裁前保全的适用路径，为当事人在仲裁启动前或初期寻求紧急救济提供了更加清晰的法律依据。在实践中，这一变化可能直接影响当事人对仲裁立案与法院保全申请先后顺序的安排，尤其是在存在资产转移风险或需要事前及时制止损害扩大的案件中，例如知识产权、海事海商类纠纷案件。
随着相关机制逐步落地，当事人的仲裁策略预计将更加侧重执行导向。财产保全、行为保全和证据保全措施将进一步被系统性地纳入整体争议解决方案，与跨司法辖区的执行目标相协调。
此外，另一项具有结构性意义的变化，是新《仲裁法》第二十七条首次明确规定，在未形成书面仲裁协议的情况下，亦可在特定情形下视为存在仲裁协议。该项修订在制度层面突破了以往仲裁立案必须以书面仲裁协议为前提的传统路径，体现出立法思路由形式要件导向向当事人真实意思自治导向的转变。
新《仲裁法》背景下仲裁各参与主体的实践调整之预期
尽管新《仲裁法》将于2026年3月1日起正式施行，但其正式通过已经为当事人提供了一个确定的制度基准。因此，对使用者而言更关键的问题是基于已确定的法律文本，当事人在争议规划与条款设计上哪些调整更为稳妥，仲裁机构在实操层面会发生何等变化趋势。
首先，新法对保全制度的制度化安排提示当事人应更早将保全路径与时间安排纳入争议规划。对于可预见存在资产转移风险或损害持续扩大的情形，律师团队可提前梳理：在何种条件下需要申请保全、保全申请与仲裁启动的先后顺序、证据准备与材料标准等。尽管相关机制在实施后的具体运行仍取决于法院层面的协调，但提前规划有助于在需要紧急救济时降低执行风险。
尽管正式出台的《仲裁法》删除了征求意见稿中关于“临时措施”的表述，但新增的仲裁前保全制度已在实质上为“临时措施”的适用提供了制度空间。多家国内仲裁机构的仲裁规则亦已引入临时措施机制。2024年10月，北京仲裁委员会受理的一起涉外技术开发与服务纠纷仲裁案件中，仲裁庭作出临时措施决定，并获得北京四中院裁定保全并实际执行，该案系全国首例由仲裁庭作出临时措施决定并获法院支持执行的案件。
上述实践表明，临时措施在仲裁实务中的制度意义正逐步显现。与此同时，仲裁程序与法院财产保全程序之间的制度衔接方式及具体操作口径，仍有待在后续司法实践中进一步观察与澄清。
除此之外，对于新增的仲裁庭调查权制度，我国部分地区的司法实务中也已有先行探索。近年来，针对仲裁机构在办案取证方面的法律障碍问题，多地区法院出台了专门的司法政策性文件，通过法院开具调查令等方式协助仲裁案件调查取证。2026年2月，随着《北京国际商事仲裁中心建设条例》正式实施，北京市第四中级人民法院配合北京仲裁委员会完成了北京首例法院协助仲裁机构调查取证工作。
可以预见，随着仲裁庭调查权制度在新《仲裁法》中的正式确立，该类实践将在更大范围内得以推广，提高商事纠纷解决效率。
综上所述，新《仲裁法》的通过，标志着中国仲裁讨论的重心由制度构想与改革方向，转向具体规则在实践中的消化与适用。随着新法在2026年正式生效，其制度价值有赖于相关条款在具体案件中的适用一致性、解释稳定性以及与既有仲裁实践的衔接效果。可以预期，接下来的阶段有待仲裁机构、当事人与律师在既定法律框架下逐步完成的实践调整与市场适应。