The Singapore Law Gazette

The New China Arbitration Law: unboxed

The revised Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China, which came into force on 1 March 2026, represents the most significant reform of China’s arbitration framework since the Arbitration Law was first enacted in 1994. This article examines three key themes: closer alignment with international arbitration practice, enhanced consistency in judicial supervision and enforcement, and expanded access for foreign arbitral institutions. The reforms represent a carefully calibrated step towards positioning China as a competitive international arbitration seat.

On 1 March 2026, the revised Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “New Arbitration Law” or “NAL”) took effect, marking the most significant overhaul of China’s arbitral framework since 1994. The reform, which follows several years of consultation and legislative drafting, is intended to further align China with international practice and make mainland China a more attractive seat for international arbitration. The Ministry of Justice expressly recognised that:

“Arbitration is an internationally accepted commercial dispute resolution mechanism, possessing advantages such as professionalism, efficiency, and finality of awards, playing a vital role in a country’s or region’s investment, trade, and economic development.”

The avowed aim of the NAL is to “comprehensively revise” the Arbitration Law, “to effectively enhance the credibility and international competitiveness of [China’s] arbitration and better serve high-quality economic development and high-level opening up”¹Transcript of the press conference held by the Ministry of Justice on 29 September 2025 at https://www.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbgw/sfbxwfbhzb/2025nsfbfbh/acf20250925/ (machine translation). by clarifying “the overall requirements for the development of arbitration” and making “a series of institutional arrangements regarding improving the international arbitration system, enhancing the credibility of arbitration, and promoting innovation in the arbitration system with Chinese characteristics.”

We consider three key themes arising from the NAL. First, it brings China’s framework more closely into alignment with international practice. Second, it seeks to enhance predictability in enforcement by reducing any remaining inconsistencies among local courts. Third, it opens the door wider to foreign arbitral institutions to operate in mainland China whilst signalling further international activity by CIETAC and other Chinese arbitration institutions.

Closer alignment with international arbitration practice

The NAL expressly adopts the concept of a “seat of arbitration”. Article 81 provides that, in foreign-related cases, parties can agree the seat of arbitration in writing which, absent contrary agreement between the parties, will determine the governing law of the arbitration as well as the supervisory court. Moreover, Article 81 provides that the award is deemed to have been rendered at the seat.

Though “foreign-related” is undefined, the Supreme People’s Court, interpreting the Civil Procedure Law, provides that it is likely to apply: i) one or more parties are non-PRC nationals or foreign enterprises, or habitually reside outside the PRC, ii) the subject matter of the dispute is outside the PRC, iii) the relevant “legal facts” occur outside the PRC or iv) “other situations” involving foreigners or foreign affairs are relevant.

If the parties have not agreed a seat or where any agreement is unclear, the seat will be determined in accordance with the arbitration rules agreed by the parties. Failing such provision the tribunal will determine the seat based on the circumstances of the case aligning the PRC with international practice the UNCITRAL Model Law.

Whereas previously only arbitration institutions and the People’s Court could rule on the validity of the arbitration agreement, Article 31 of the NAL additionally provides that, where a party makes such an objection, it may request a decision from the tribunal. Even prior to NAL, institutions regularly delegated these matters to tribunals, as reflected for example in Article 6.1 of the CIETAC Rules. However, whilst reflecting a step towards the international concept that a tribunal determines its own jurisdiction, where one party requests a decision from the tribunal and the other seeks a ruling from the Court, the latter will take priority to decide. Any objection must be raised before the first hearing of the arbitral tribunal, broadly reflecting international practice aimed at preventing parties from raising jurisdictional objections at a late stage after participating in the proceedings.

Previously, where the parties or rules specified a three-person tribunal, each party would appoint an arbitrator with the chairperson selected jointly by the parties or by the administering institution. Article 43 of the NAL establishes an additional method common in international arbitration, whereby the parties can agree that the third arbitrator shall be jointly selected by the two party-appointed arbitrators.

Article 11 of the NAL recognises that arbitration may be conducted online, except where the parties expressly exclude this. This “opt-out” model is an endorsement of online and hybrid arbitration proceedings, which have become near ubiquitous in international arbitration since the pandemic.

Article 72 provides that a party applying to set aside an award must do so within three months of receipt, mirroring Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, whereas the prior Arbitration Law provided for a period of six months. Article 73 of the NAL provides that the People’s Court must render its decision within two months of receiving the application. Both measures appear intended to boost China’s reputation for internationally aligned and efficient arbitration measures.

Article 56 permits the tribunal to “collect evidence” on its own initiative.

The main areas where the NAL does not fully align with international practice are that there is no provision:

• clearly setting out the ability of the tribunal to order interim measures, so these applications will continue to be made to the court (though Article 58 which addresses preservation of evidence states that “the arbitration institution shall submit the application to the basic-level people’s court where the evidence is located…”),
• for emergency arbitrators before the tribunal is constituted,
• for “summary judgment” on claims or aspects of a claim.

Greater certainty in enforcement and judicial supervision

One of the concerns expressed by users of arbitration in China has been the perceived inconsistency among local courts in matters of enforcement and setting aside of awards.

Article 88 seeks to address concerns over consistency of the enforcement process by providing that, where a foreign arbitral award (rendered outside mainland China) requires recognition and enforcement in mainland China, award creditors may apply to any of the following for recognition and enforcement: the Intermediate People’s Court at the place of residence of the award debtor); the Intermediate People’s Court where the award debtor’s assets are located; or where the award debtor’s residence or its property are not within the PRC, the Intermediate People’s Court at the place of residence of the award creditor or at a place with a “proper connection” to the dispute.

Enforcement in mainland China was already perhaps more efficient than foreign parties might have expected: a recent study analysing approximately 200 decisions of the Chinese courts on enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention in mainland China between 2012 and 2022 found that 93% were fully or partially recognised for enforcement with a decision being issued within 6 months in almost half of the applications and within one year in over 2/3 of the applications. Awards from SIAC, the ICC, the ICDR and the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board were amongst those enforced. Where the seat of the foreign award was disclosed, London came first, followed by Singapore. Foreign ad hoc awards were also recognised.

Foreign-related disputes and foreign arbitration institutions

Article 82 of the NAL cautiously introduces a potential pilot for significant reform by expressly permitting limited ad hoc arbitrations seated in China: for foreign-related maritime disputes and for foreign-related disputes between enterprises registered in pilot free trade zones, the Hainan Free Trade Port or other state-designated areas, parties may choose to have their arbitrations administered by an institution or proceed to ad hoc arbitration seated in China using suitable rules such as UNCITRAL, provided that the tribunal registers the arbitration (with the arbitration association) within 3 working days.

Article 86 permits foreign arbitration institutions to open offices and “conduct foreign-related arbitration activities” in areas approved by the State Council, including the pilot free trade zones and the Hainan Free Trade Port.

In addition, Article 86 provides that Chinese arbitral institutions will be given support to establish offices outside mainland China in order to conduct arbitration activities.

Finally, Article 94 of the NAL permits arbitration institutions and tribunals to handle “international investment arbitration cases in accordance with the arbitration rules agreed upon by the disputing parties”. This is understood to be without prejudice to China’s obligations under bilateral and multilateral agreements.

Taken together, the reforms in the NAL represent a carefully calibrated internationalisation of China’s arbitral landscape, albeit amounting to a slightly less radical shake up than envisaged by the 2021 draft report, whilst retaining distinctive Chinese aspects. The compromise appears intended to reassure foreign counterparties both as regards arbitrating in the PRC and enforcing foreign awards there whilst seeking to position China as a leading regional and global arbitration player in future.

Whilst beyond the scope of this article, the NAL also contains measures intended to modernise and strengthen the development of China’s 285 arbitration commissions, which have handled a total of more than 5 million arbitration cases worth more than 9 trillion yuan, including the establishment of the China Arbitration Association, recognised by the Ministry of Justice as being “a very important part of our implementation of the law.”

Overall, the NAL represents a welcome further step in China’s integration in international arbitration and its evolution as an arbitration seat.