China: Most-in-Demand Arbitrators: Mainland China-seated Arbitrations Overview
China’s Arbitration System Aligns with Global Standards: An Analysis of Three Core Reforms in 2025 Arbitration Law
With the deep integration of the global economy, efficient and impartial dispute resolution mechanisms have become a core yardstick for measuring a country’s legal system and business environment. Arbitration, renowned for its efficiency, professionalism and cross-border enforceability, has emerged as one of the preferred methods for international commercial dispute resolution. As China is the world’s second-largest economy and a major trading nation, the internationalisation of its arbitration system has attracted worldwide attention. On 12 September 2025, the newly revised Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “new Arbitration Law”; as opposed to the pre-revised version, referred to as the “former Arbitration Law”) was promulgated and will take effect on 1 March 2026. Focusing on three core areas of foreign-related arbitration – establishing the seat of arbitration system, introducing ad hoc arbitration, and promoting two-way openness of arbitration institutions – this revision marks a new stage in the internationalisation of Chinese arbitration.
Seat of arbitration: aligning with international practice and clarifying legal application
Prior to the promulgation of the new Arbitration Law, the concept of the “seat of arbitration” lacked a clear definition in the former law. In practice, the nationality of an arbitral award was usually determined based on the location of the arbitration institution, which diverged significantly from the “seat of arbitration” system prevalent in international arbitration. In international arbitration practice, the seat of arbitration holds crucial legal significance for a case, serving as the core basis for determining the validity of the arbitration agreement, applicable procedural law, nationality of the award, and the court exercising judicial supervision.
Paragraph 1 of Article 81 of the new Arbitration Law establishes the core status of the seat of arbitration, embodied in three aspects: first, clarifying the lex arbitri (law of the arbitration seat) as the default applicable law for arbitration proceedings; in the absence of a contractual agreement on procedural law, the lex arbitri governs matters such as the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the conduct of the proceedings and the evidence rules; second, endowing courts at the seat of arbitration with judicial supervision power, including the authority to determine the validity of the arbitration agreement, decide on arbitration-related interim measures, and review whether the award meets set-aside conditions; third, establishing the seat of arbitration as the criterion for determining the nationality of the award.
Previously, awards rendered by foreign arbitration institutions in mainland China often faced an “identity dilemma” – they were neither standard foreign awards (made overseas), nor standard Chinese awards (under the former law, only awards without foreign-related elements qualified as Chinese awards), leading to disputes and uncertainties in their recognition and enforcement. In judicial practice, Chinese judges usually confirmed such awards as Chinese foreign-related awards by actively interpreting and applying the concept of “seat of arbitration”. The aforementioned provisions of the new Arbitration Law completely resolve the issue of determining award nationality, reflecting respect for internationally accepted rules and demonstrating China’s open judicial attitude towards foreign-related arbitration, thus providing a stable and transparent legal guarantee for foreign arbitration institutions operating in China.
Ad hoc arbitration: limited opening with steady advancement
Ad hoc arbitration, operating independently of permanent arbitration institutions, boasts advantages of flexibility, efficiency and controllable costs, and is widely applied in international maritime, cross-border trade and other fields. The former Arbitration Law only recognised institutional arbitration in provisions, restricting the diversification of dispute resolution methods; however, in practice, China has gradually explored the implementation path of ad hoc arbitration through pilots. In 2016, the Supreme People’s Court explicitly permitted enterprises in Pilot Free Trade Zones to conduct ad hoc arbitration meeting “three specific” criteria. In 2024, the Shanghai High People’s Court implemented the “Provisions of Shanghai High People’s Court on the Centralized Jurisdiction over Arbitration-related Judicial cases Involving ‘Three-Specific’ Ad Hoc Arbitrations and ‘Overseas Arbitration Business Agencies’”. In 2025, the Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Justice issued the “Measures for the Promotion of Ad Hoc Arbitration in Shanghai for Foreign-related Matters in Commercial and Maritime Fields”. Simultaneously, the Shanghai Arbitration Association released the supporting procedural rules, the “Shanghai Arbitration Association Ad Hoc Arbitration Rules”, providing practical guidance for the implementation of this system.
Article 82 of the new Arbitration Law introduces the ad hoc arbitration system in a prudent manner, limiting its application to two types of disputes: first, foreign-related maritime disputes; second, foreign-related disputes within specific regions such as Pilot Free Trade Zones and the Hainan Free Trade Port. Meanwhile, the law requires ad hoc tribunals to complete registration with the China Arbitration Association after constitution, fully reflecting the philosophy of “orderly opening and regulated management” and balancing reform innovation with risk prevention and control.
Two-way openness of arbitration institutions: balancing “bringing in” and “going global”
The internationalisation level of arbitration institutions is a core indicator of a country’s competitiveness in arbitration services. The new Arbitration Law explicitly supports well-known foreign arbitration institutions in establishing business entities in key regions such as Pilot Free Trade Zones and the Hainan Free Trade Port to conduct foreign-related arbitration business in accordance with the law. This “bringing in” initiative not only enriches dispute resolution options for market entities and enhances China’s attractiveness as an international arbitration seat, it also compels domestic arbitration institutions to optimise service processes and improve professional standards through competition, driving the overall upgrading of the industry.
At the same time, the law supports high-quality domestic arbitration institutions in “going global” by establishing overseas branches and expanding service networks. In recent years, major domestic arbitration institutions in China have begun preliminary explorations in global expansion. The most representative initiatives include institutions such as the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission/Shanghai International Arbitration Center (SHIAC), the Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Center (BAC/BIAC), the Shanghai Arbitration Commission (SHAC), the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA), the Guangzhou Arbitration Commission (GAC), and the China Maritime Arbitration Commission (CMAC), which have established overseas branches or arbitration centres in multiple countries and regions, including Hong Kong (China), Vienna (Austria), Vancouver (Canada), Malaga (Spain), Cyprus, and Singapore. Their global network has initially covered Asia, Europe, and North America. These layouts provide “home-court” cross-border dispute resolution services for Chinese enterprises going global, effectively reducing their rights protection costs, and cultivating high-end arbitration talents proficient in international rules and cross-cultural communication through practice. The two-way openness of arbitration institutions forms an integrated system: “bringing in” injects competitive vitality and innovative concepts, while “going global” accumulates international experience and industry reputation. The two work in synergy to enhance China’s voice and influence in the global dispute resolution landscape.
Conclusion
The three core revisions in the field of foreign-related arbitration under the new Arbitration Law mark a significant milestone in the internationalisation of China’s arbitration system. This reform accurately responds to the practical needs of international commercial dispute resolution and demonstrates China’s firm determination to deepen a law-based, internationalised and facilitation-oriented business environment. With the implementation of the new law and continuous improvement of supporting systems, China will surely provide more high-quality and efficient “Chinese options” for global commercial entities, play a more critical role in the international arbitration landscape, and safeguard the development of cross-border trade and investment.
中国仲裁制度与国际接轨：2025年中国《仲裁法》三大核心变革解读
随着全球经济深度融合，高效、公正的争议解决机制成为衡量一国法治水平与营商环境的核心标尺。仲裁凭借其高效性、专业性及跨境执行力，已成为国际商事争议解决的优选方式之一。作为世界第二大经济体和主要贸易国，中国仲裁制度的国际化进程备受全球关注。2025年9月12日，新修订的《中华人民共和国仲裁法》（下称“新《仲裁法》”，修订前的法律下称“旧《仲裁法》”）正式颁布，将于2026年3月1日生效。此次修订聚焦涉外仲裁三大核心领域——确立仲裁地制度、引入临时仲裁、推动仲裁机构双向开放，标志着中国仲裁国际化迈入新阶段。
仲裁地制度：衔接国际实践，明确法律适用
新《仲裁法》颁布前，“仲裁地”概念在旧法中缺乏明确界定，实践通常以仲裁机构所在地作为裁决国籍的认定标准，这与国际仲裁通行的“仲裁地”制度存在明显差异。在国际仲裁实践中，仲裁地对案件具有关键法律意义，是确定仲裁协议效力、仲裁程序法、裁决国籍及司法监督权行使法院的核心依据。
新《仲裁法》第八十一条第一款确立了仲裁地的核心地位，具体体现为三点：一是明确仲裁地法作为仲裁程序适用法的默认规则，若仲裁协议未约定程序法，仲裁地法将适用于仲裁庭组成、程序推进及证据规则等事项；二是赋予仲裁地法院司法监督权，其有权认定仲裁协议效力、决定仲裁相关临时措施，并审查裁决是否符合撤销条件；三是确立以仲裁地为裁决国籍的认定标准。
此前，境外仲裁机构在中国内地作出的裁决常陷入“身份困境”——既非标准外国裁决（未在境外作出），也非标准中国裁决（旧法规定仅无涉外因素的裁决属中国裁决），导致其承认与执行存在争议及不确定性。司法实践中，中国法官多通过主动解释和适用“仲裁地”概念，将此类裁决认定为中国涉外裁决。新《仲裁法》的上述条款彻底解决了裁决国籍认定难题，既尊重国际通行规则，又彰显中国司法对涉外仲裁的开放态度，为境外仲裁机构在华开展业务提供了稳定透明的法律保障。
临时仲裁制度：有限开放，稳步推进
临时仲裁独立于常设仲裁机构运作，兼具灵活高效、成本可控的优势，在国际海事、跨境贸易等领域应用广泛。旧《仲裁法》仅在条文层面认可机构仲裁，限制了争议解决方式的多元化；但实践中，我国已通过试点逐步探索临时仲裁的落地路径。2016年，最高人民法院明确允许自贸试验区内企业开展符合“三特定”要求的临时仲裁；2024年，上海市高级人民法院实施《上海市高级人民法院关于涉“三特定”临时仲裁及“境外仲裁业务机构”仲裁司法案件集中管辖的规定》；2025年，上海市司法局出台《上海市涉外商事海事临时仲裁推进办法》，上海仲裁协会同步发布配套规则《上海仲裁协会临时仲裁规则》，为制度落地提供了实操指引。
新《仲裁法》第八十二条秉持审慎原则引入临时仲裁制度，明确其适用范围限于两类纠纷：一是涉外海事纠纷；二是自由贸易试验区、海南自由贸易港等特定区域内的涉外纠纷。同时，法律要求临时仲裁庭组建完成后向中国仲裁协会办理备案，充分体现“有序开放、规范管理”的思路，实现改革创新与风险防控的平衡。
仲裁机构双向开放：引进来与走出去并重
仲裁机构的国际化水平是衡量一国仲裁服务竞争力的核心指标。新《仲裁法》明确支持境外知名仲裁机构在自贸试验区、海南自贸港等重点区域设立业务机构，依法开展涉外仲裁业务。这一“引进来”举措，不仅丰富了市场主体的争议解决选择、提升中国作为国际仲裁地的吸引力，更通过竞争倒逼国内仲裁机构优化服务流程、提升专业水准，推动行业整体升级。
与此同时，法律亦支持境内优质仲裁机构“走出去”，在境外布局分支机构、拓展服务网络。近年来，主要境内仲裁机构已开始其全球化布局的初步探索。最具代表性的举措包括：中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（CIETAC）、上海国际经济贸易仲裁委员会/上海国际仲裁中心（SHIAC）、北京仲裁委员会/北京国际仲裁院（BAC/BIAC）、上海仲裁委员会（SHAC）、深圳国际仲裁院（SCIA）、广州仲裁委员会（GAC）以及中国海事仲裁委员会（CMAC）等多家机构均已在中国香港、奥地利维也纳、加拿大温哥华、西班牙马拉加、塞浦路斯及新加坡等多个国家和地区设立了境外分支机构或仲裁中心，其全球网络已初步覆盖亚洲、欧洲和北美。这些布局为“走出去”的中国企业提供“家门口”式跨境争议解决服务，有效降低企业维权成本，同时在实战中培养了一批精通国际规则、具备跨文化沟通能力的高端仲裁人才。仲裁机构双向开放是有机整体：“引进来”注入竞争活力与创新理念，“走出去”积累国际经验与行业声誉，二者协同发力，共同提升中国仲裁在全球争议解决格局中的话语权与影响力。
结语
新《仲裁法》在涉外仲裁领域的三项核心修订，是中国仲裁制度国际化的重要里程碑。此次改革精准回应国际商事争议解决的实践需求，彰显中国深化法治化、国际化、便利化营商环境的坚定决心。随着新法落地实施及配套制度不断完善，中国必将为全球商事主体提供更多优质高效的“中国选择”，在国际仲裁格局中扮演更关键角色，为跨境贸易投资发展保驾护航。
中国仲裁制度与国际接轨：2025年中国《仲裁法》三大核心变革解读
随着全球经济深度融合，高效、公正的争议解决机制成为衡量一国法治水平与营商环境的核心标尺。仲裁凭借其高效性、专业性及跨境执行力，已成为国际商事争议解决的优选方式之一。作为世界第二大经济体和主要贸易国，中国仲裁制度的国际化进程备受全球关注。2025年9月12日，新修订的《中华人民共和国仲裁法》（下称“新《仲裁法》”，修订前的法律下称“旧《仲裁法》”）正式颁布，将于2026年3月1日生效。此次修订聚焦涉外仲裁三大核心领域——确立仲裁地制度、引入临时仲裁、推动仲裁机构双向开放，标志着中国仲裁国际化迈入新阶段。
仲裁地制度：衔接国际实践，明确法律适用
新《仲裁法》颁布前，“仲裁地”概念在旧法中缺乏明确界定，实践通常以仲裁机构所在地作为裁决国籍的认定标准，这与国际仲裁通行的“仲裁地”制度存在明显差异。在国际仲裁实践中，仲裁地对案件具有关键法律意义，是确定仲裁协议效力、仲裁程序法、裁决国籍及司法监督权行使法院的核心依据。
新《仲裁法》第八十一条第一款确立了仲裁地的核心地位，具体体现为三点：一是明确仲裁地法作为仲裁程序适用法的默认规则，若仲裁协议未约定程序法，仲裁地法将适用于仲裁庭组成、程序推进及证据规则等事项；二是赋予仲裁地法院司法监督权，其有权认定仲裁协议效力、决定仲裁相关临时措施，并审查裁决是否符合撤销条件；三是确立以仲裁地为裁决国籍的认定标准。
此前，境外仲裁机构在中国内地作出的裁决常陷入“身份困境”——既非标准外国裁决（未在境外作出），也非标准中国裁决（旧法规定仅无涉外因素的裁决属中国裁决），导致其承认与执行存在争议及不确定性。司法实践中，中国法官多通过主动解释和适用“仲裁地”概念，将此类裁决认定为中国涉外裁决。新《仲裁法》的上述条款彻底解决了裁决国籍认定难题，既尊重国际通行规则，又彰显中国司法对涉外仲裁的开放态度，为境外仲裁机构在华开展业务提供了稳定透明的法律保障。
临时仲裁制度：有限开放，稳步推进
临时仲裁独立于常设仲裁机构运作，兼具灵活高效、成本可控的优势，在国际海事、跨境贸易等领域应用广泛。旧《仲裁法》仅在条文层面认可机构仲裁，限制了争议解决方式的多元化；但实践中，我国已通过试点逐步探索临时仲裁的落地路径。2016年，最高人民法院明确允许自贸试验区内企业开展符合“三特定”要求的临时仲裁；2024年，上海市高级人民法院实施《上海市高级人民法院关于涉“三特定”临时仲裁及“境外仲裁业务机构”仲裁司法案件集中管辖的规定》；2025年，上海市司法局出台《上海市涉外商事海事临时仲裁推进办法》，上海仲裁协会同步发布配套规则《上海仲裁协会临时仲裁规则》，为制度落地提供了实操指引。
新《仲裁法》第八十二条秉持审慎原则引入临时仲裁制度，明确其适用范围限于两类纠纷：一是涉外海事纠纷；二是自由贸易试验区、海南自由贸易港等特定区域内的涉外纠纷。同时，法律要求临时仲裁庭组建完成后向中国仲裁协会办理备案，充分体现“有序开放、规范管理”的思路，实现改革创新与风险防控的平衡。
仲裁机构双向开放：引进来与走出去并重
仲裁机构的国际化水平是衡量一国仲裁服务竞争力的核心指标。新《仲裁法》明确支持境外知名仲裁机构在自贸试验区、海南自贸港等重点区域设立业务机构，依法开展涉外仲裁业务。这一“引进来”举措，不仅丰富了市场主体的争议解决选择、提升中国作为国际仲裁地的吸引力，更通过竞争倒逼国内仲裁机构优化服务流程、提升专业水准，推动行业整体升级。
与此同时，法律亦支持境内优质仲裁机构“走出去”，在境外布局分支机构、拓展服务网络。近年来，主要境内仲裁机构已开始其全球化布局的初步探索。最具代表性的举措包括：中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（CIETAC）、上海国际经济贸易仲裁委员会/上海国际仲裁中心（SHIAC）、北京仲裁委员会/北京国际仲裁院（BAC/BIAC）、上海仲裁委员会（SHAC）、深圳国际仲裁院（SCIA）、广州仲裁委员会（GAC）以及中国海事仲裁委员会（CMAC）等多家机构均已在中国香港、奥地利维也纳、加拿大温哥华、西班牙马拉加、塞浦路斯及新加坡等多个国家和地区设立了境外分支机构或仲裁中心，其全球网络已初步覆盖亚洲、欧洲和北美。这些布局为“走出去”的中国企业提供“家门口”式跨境争议解决服务，有效降低企业维权成本，同时在实战中培养了一批精通国际规则、具备跨文化沟通能力的高端仲裁人才。仲裁机构双向开放是有机整体：“引进来”注入竞争活力与创新理念，“走出去”积累国际经验与行业声誉，二者协同发力，共同提升中国仲裁在全球争议解决格局中的话语权与影响力。
结语
新《仲裁法》在涉外仲裁领域的三项核心修订，是中国仲裁制度国际化的重要里程碑。此次改革精准回应国际商事争议解决的实践需求，彰显中国深化法治化、国际化、便利化营商环境的坚定决心。随着新法落地实施及配套制度不断完善，中国必将为全球商事主体提供更多优质高效的“中国选择”，在国际仲裁格局中扮演更关键角色，为跨境贸易投资发展保驾护航。