THE AUTHORS:
Yanbing Peng, Legal Counsel at Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (“SCIA”)
Jingjing Li, Associate at Zhong Lun Law Firm
This article was featured in Jus Mundi‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review, an annual publication analyzing arbitration developments across 40+ jurisdictions on 6 continents. This edition brings together young practitioners and senior experts to capture the year’s most significant legislative reforms, enforcement trends, and institutional innovations.
The year 2025 was a significant year for arbitration in China. According to Xinhua News, as of the end of August 2025, China’s 285 arbitration commissions/institutions had reached a cumulative total of over 5 million cases. The total value of these cases exceeded RMB 9 trillion. This immense volume shows the deep and growing reliance on arbitration as one of the primary mechanisms for commercial dispute resolution. This growth is not merely domestic, and parties from over 100 countries and regions engaged in Chinese arbitration proceedings in 2025. The disputes spanned many fields, including finance, e-commerce, and construction projects.
Beyond these impressive statistics, 2025 was a year of major legal reform. In September 2025, China passed the revised Arbitration Law, the largest update to the arbitration framework in decades. Set to take effect on 1 March 2026, the new law aligns China’s regime more closely with international best practices.
In this 2025 year in review, we will introduce the key changes in the new Arbitration Law. We will also cover other significant updates in its rules and judicial practice from the past year.
Amendment to China’s Arbitration Law
China’s Arbitration Law came into force on 1 September 1995 and has only undergone two minor amendments in 2009 and 2017. With the rapid expansion of the arbitration business, the old Arbitration Law struggled to meet the needs of an open and inclusive arbitration legal system. Against this background, the New Arbitration Law was adopted on 12 September 2025 and will officially come into force on 1 March 2026. Expanding from 80 articles in the 2017 revised version to 96 articles, the law introduces significant adjustments. The following analysis is about the core revisions.
Jurisdiction
The revisions to the New Arbitration Law at the jurisdictional level have further expanded the scope of arbitration, strengthened the stability of arbitration agreements, and improved the rules for determining jurisdiction.
Arbitrable Disputes
- Previously, the 2017 Arbitration Law limited foreign-related arbitration to specific disputes in the economic, trade, transportation, and maritime sectors. Article 78 of the New Arbitration Law expands this by adding the phrase “and other foreign-related disputes”, which signals a clear expansion beyond those four original categories, allowing a much wider range of disputes involving a foreign element to be arbitrated.
- Article 94 of the New Arbitration Law clearly stipulates that arbitration institutions and arbitral tribunals may accept investment arbitration disputes in accordance with international treaties, filling the previous legislative gap in the field of investment arbitration.
Arbitration Agreements
- Article 27 of the New Arbitration Law clearly states that if a party does not raise an objection to the validity of the arbitration agreement before the first hearing, the arbitration clause shall be deemed valid. This provision is not entirely new. Similar provisions can be found in Articles 13 and 27 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Arbitration Law. Many arbitration institutions have long incorporated this principle into their arbitration rules, such as Article 10(2) of SCIA (Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration) Arbitration Rules 2025 and Article 6 of CIETAC (China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission) Arbitration Rules 2024.
- Article 30 of the New Arbitration Law strengthens the doctrine of separability that an arbitration agreement is independent of the main contract, by clarifying that the arbitration agreement remains valid even if the main contract is challenged based on its “formation”, “ineffectiveness”, or “rescission”. This revision echoes judicial practice. On 18 September 2019, SPC issued the [(2019) Zui Gao Fa Min Te 1] Civil Ruling in a case accepted by the China International Commercial Court (“CICC”) for confirming the validity of the arbitration agreement. The ruling clearly stated that “even if the contracts are not established, the validity of the arbitration clause shall not be affected.”
Competence-Competence
- Article 31 of the New Arbitration Law formally establishes the “competence-competence” principle by granting arbitral tribunals the power to rule on their own jurisdiction. Previously, the law vested this power only in people’s courts and arbitration institutions. This new legislation codifies a mature practice, as many institutions (like CIETAC and SCIA) had already authorised tribunals to exercise this power through their internal rules.
Arbitration Procedure
Judicial Support for Arbitration
- Articles 39 and 79 expand arbitration preservation by explicitly including “injunctive relief” (a form of conduct preservation) and adding the “pre-arbitration preservation” procedure, which allows parties to apply to the courts for preservation before initiating arbitration.
- Articles 55 and 58 strengthen the judicial assistance for arbitral tribunals in obtaining evidence. Since arbitration institutions lack direct investigative powers, they rely on the courts to issue investigation orders (调查令). The new law formalises this support, codifying an emerging practice already seen in courts such as those in Shanghai (2025)and Guangdong (2024).
Party Autonomy
- The New Arbitration Law further enhances party autonomy. Article 41 clearly stipulates that parties may agree on the method of service, and Article 43(1) allows them to agree on the method of appointing arbitrators.
Principles of Good Faith
- Article 8 of the New Arbitration Law formally incorporates the good faith principle, providing a basic principle for all arbitration activities. This principle was first stipulated in the General Principles of the Civil Law in 1986.
- Article 61 introduces a mechanism to combat bad faith claims, stipulating that the arbitral tribunal shall dismiss the arbitration request if it finds that a party has unilaterally fabricated basic facts or that the parties have maliciously colluded to harm national interests, the public interest, or the legitimate rights of others.
Seat of Arbitration
- The previous Arbitration Law lacked a clear criterion for determining the nationality of an arbitral award. Over time, judicial practice gradually shifted away from using the “arbitration institution’s location” as the standard, moving instead toward the internally accepted “seat of arbitration” standard. The New Arbitration Law formally codifies this mature judicial practice. Article 81, within the chapter on foreign-related disputes, defines the “seat of arbitration” and provides a clear basis for determining the nationality of the award, the supervisory court, and the governing procedural law (lex arbitri).
Ad Hoc Arbitration
- A major breakthrough is the limited recognition of ad hoc arbitration, which the 2017 Arbitration Law did not provide for. Previously, only institutional arbitration was legally recognised. Article 82 now cautiously permits ad hoc arbitration for specific foreign-related disputes: maritime cases and those involving enterprises in Pilot Free Trade Zones, the Hainan Free Trade Port, or other approved regions; the law also imposes a new procedural step that the ad hoc tribunal must file a record with the arbitration association detailing the parties, seat, tribunal composition, and rules. This provision remains vague and requires further supporting measures.
Arbitration Institutions
Arbitration Institutions
- Article 13 defines arbitration institutions as “public-interest and non-profit legal persons”, clearly delineating their role as social service organisations, which helps to strengthen the credibility and impartiality of arbitration.
- Article 26, for the first time, adds a clause on the supervision and guidance of arbitration institutions. However, this new supervisory role is carefully balanced against arbitral independence. Any provisions implying “management” (e.g., Article 14(3) and Article 95) should be understood as being specifically limited to registration work, and must not involve supervising case hearings. In addition, Articles 9 and 24 confirm that arbitration shall be conducted independently, which further strengthens the independence of arbitration institutions.
Foreign Arbitration Institutions
- Article 86 of the New Arbitration Law marks a significant development by confirming, for the first time at the legislative level, that foreign arbitration institutions may establish case management offices in China. They may set up branches in specific areas, such as Pilot Free Trade Zones or the Hainan Free Trade Port, to conduct foreign-related arbitration activities.
Other Judicial and Institutional Developments
In December 2024, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC”) officially opened its Beijing representative office. This is HKIAC’s second office in mainland China, following its Shanghai office. It also marks the first time an international arbitration institution has established a representative office in Beijing.
The Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Court (“BAC/BIAC”) announced several key developments in 2025. On 15 April 2025, BAC/BIAC released the Med-Arb Expedited Rules, providing a fast-track, cost-effective mechanism to convert settlement agreements into legally enforceable mediation statements or consent awards. Later, on 29 October 2025, the BAC/BIAC adopted new “Domestic Arbitration Rules” and “International Arbitration Rules”, which have been in effect since 1 January 2026. Additionally, the institution opened its Hong Kong Center on 12 November 2025. Previously, several mainland arbitration institutions had already established operations in Hong Kong, though in different institutional forms: SCIA HK and SHIAC HK operate as independent arbitral institutions incorporated under Hong Kong law, whereas CIETAC HK and CMAC maintain Hong Kong sub-commission or branch-type entities rather than fully separate institutions.
The SCIA also revised its Schedules of Arbitration Fees and Costs for cases accepted from 1 July 2025. The new schedule aims to optimise fee structures, lower overall arbitration costs, and increase transparency. It also includes incentives for efficient dispute resolution, support for specific industries, and improved hourly billing methods to offer more flexible fee options. Notably, SCIA has long promoted fee relief: back in 2022, it launched a pandemic relief program under which it cut arbitration fees, granted up to 50% reduction for settlement resolved cases, and offered additional concessions for remote hearings.
In October 2025, China’s first “maritime mediation + ad hoc arbitration” case was concluded in Pudong, Shanghai. This case, involving a payment dispute between a British and a Greek company, was the first in China to be initiated using an ad hoc arbitration clause from within a settlement agreement. The parties agreed on Shanghai as the arbitration location, applied the “Shanghai Arbitration Association Ad Hoc Arbitration Rules” and selected a sole arbitrator from the association’s recommended list.
Chinese arbitral awards are seeing growing success in international enforcement. For example, in July 2025, the Saudi Court of Appeal issued a final judgment upholding the enforcement of a 2024 CIETAC award. Similarly, recently in October 2025, an arbitral award from SCIA was successfully recognised and enforced by the U.S. Federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Discover more insights into the latest developments in arbitration in 2025 from around the world now
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Yanbing Peng is a legal counsel of the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (“SCIA”). During her time at SCIA, she managed more than 100 international arbitration cases as the legal counsel and in charge of international promotion. Prior to joining SCIA, she worked as legal counsel for large multinational companies, responsible for domestic investment and financing business, as well as foreign-related legal affairs in several Asian countries, including Thailand, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Singapore. She is a founding member of the China VYAP (Very Young Arbitration Practitioners).
Jingjing Li is an associate at Zhong Lun Law Firm and she specialises in international arbitration, including commercial and investment arbitration. She has handled cases under major arbitral rules, including CIETAC, SHIAC, HKIAC, ICC, SIAC, and UNCITRAL. Jingjing also represents clients in sports arbitration (CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport)) and advises clients in investor-state dispute settlement (“ISDS”) matters. Jingjing completed the HKIAC Tribunal Secretary Training Programme with distinction, and she is listed as an Arbitrator for Dispute Resolution on Riot Games’ Esports (EMEA) platform. Jingjing is the LCIA YIAG Regional Representative for Asia Pacific, and a founding member of China VYAP (Very Young Arbitration Practitioners). Jingjing is dual-qualified in China and England & Wales.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
