Arbitration in China: the 2026 law, CIETAC, costs and enforcement

The short version

• The Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China was revised on 12 September 2025 and in force since 1 March 2026. It has 8 chapters and 96 articles, the first full revision since 1994 (art 96).
• It recognises the seat of arbitration, the arbitration’s legal home, for foreign-related cases (art 81), allows limited ad hoc arbitration without an institution (art 82), and makes online proceedings the default unless a party objects (art 11).
• In the 2025 Queen Mary University of London survey, Beijing ranked fourth among preferred seats, up from seventh in 2021, with Shenzhen sixth and Shanghai eighth.
• CIETAC, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, is the main institution; its 2024 Rules have applied since 1 January 2024, and it took 5,736 new cases in 2025, 806 foreign-related.
• A party must apply to set an award aside within three months (art 72), down from six months under the 1994 law (art 59). There is no appeal on the merits.
• Outside the art 82 carve-out a clause must still name a chosen institution (art 27). Foreign awards are enforced under the New York Convention (acceded 1987, reciprocity and commercial reservations); in 2024 the Supreme People’s Court reported 42 foreign-award cases, none refused.^{1,3,8,10,18,25,26}

What law governs arbitration in China?

Two instruments govern. The Arbitration Law covers the agreement, the procedure, the award and setting it aside. The Civil Procedure Law covers the enforcement of foreign awards (its 2023 amendment, in force from 1 January 2024, renumbered the old art 290 as art 304). The Arbitration Law was adopted in 1994, amended in 2009 and 2017, revised on 12 September 2025 and in force from 1 March 2026 (art 96).^1,7

The Model Law is the 1985 template for national arbitration laws published by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), amended in 2006. Mainland China is not a Model Law jurisdiction; UNCITRAL lists only Hong Kong (2010) and Macao (2019). That sets it apart from arbitration in Singapore and arbitration in India, which both adopted it.²⁷

Arbitrability, meaning whether a dispute can be arbitrated at all, covers contract disputes and other disputes over property rights between equal parties (art 3). It excludes marriage, adoption, guardianship, maintenance and succession, and administrative disputes the law assigns to an administrative body. An award is a single, final decision, what the law calls “一裁终局” (art 10), and a tribunal may hear an investment-treaty arbitration (art 94). The revision renamed the “arbitration commission” as the “arbitration institution” throughout (art 89).¹

Why do parties choose China as a seat?

Parties choose China as a seat because the revised law now recognises the seat of arbitration for the first time, a change made for international arbitration in China, and the mainland seats rank higher with users than before. Chapter VII applies to foreign-related cases only (art 78): parties may agree the seat in writing; it fixes the law of the procedure and the supervising court, and the award is deemed made there. Without agreement, the chosen rules decide, then the tribunal (art 81). The law also invites foreign-related parties to pick a Chinese institution and seat, Hong Kong and Macao included (art 87).¹

In the 2025 International Arbitration Survey by Queen Mary University of London, respondents could name up to five seats; London was named by 34 per cent and Singapore and Hong Kong by 31 per cent each. Beijing came fourth, up from seventh in 2021, with Shenzhen sixth and Shanghai eighth, mainly on Asia-Pacific votes, where respondents also favoured the CIETAC and Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) Rules. For how the main common-law seats compare, see arbitration in London and arbitration in Hong Kong.²⁵

The domestic numbers are large. In 2024, 283 institutions accepted 767,846 cases worth 1,212.7 billion renminbi (RMB, China’s currency). Of these, 4,373 involved Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan or foreign parties, about 0.6 per cent, and 448,036, about 58 per cent, ran online.⁹

Which institutions run arbitrations in China, and under what rules?

CIETAC is the main institution, with its CIETAC Hong Kong Arbitration Center. Others include the Shanghai International Arbitration Center (SHIAC), the Beijing Arbitration Commission or Beijing International Arbitration Center (BAC/BIAC), the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) and the China Maritime Arbitration Commission (CMAC). In law each is a public-interest non-profit legal person (art 13), registered with the provincial justice department (art 14), must publish its rules, panel and fees (art 20), and may appoint arbitrators from outside the mainland (art 22).^1,8

The CIETAC Rules 2024 accept foreign-related, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, and domestic disputes (art 3), offer services for ad hoc arbitration (art 2) and let CIETAC administer under other rules (art 4). Chapter VI covers the Hong Kong centre, where Hong Kong is the seat unless agreed otherwise (art 77). Chinese is the language unless CIETAC decides otherwise (art 84).⁸

Its 2025 cases drew parties from 77 countries and regions, and 22 per cent of concluded cases settled through mediation inside the arbitration.¹⁰

Foreign institutions can set up in China. Article 86 lets an institution from outside the mainland open a business office for foreign-related arbitration in a State Council-approved free-trade zone, the Hainan Free Trade Port or a similar area. Article 88 lets China apply reciprocity where a foreign institution discriminates against Chinese parties. The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) are the kind these measures address; which of them have opened offices sits with arbitration in Hong Kong. Shanghai’s measures, in force from 1 June 2025, cover the whole municipality, require an institution to have existed for at least five years, admit foreign-related work only and bar sub-branches. The SHIAC, BAC/BIAC and SCIA rule sites did not open this pass, so the table marks them unverified; see CIETAC in our AI rules tracker.^1,12

What should the arbitration clause say, and what can be arbitrated?

What can be arbitrated is set out above under arbitrability (art 3). A valid arbitration agreement needs three things (art 27): an intention to arbitrate, the matters, and a chosen institution. The revision adds a deemed agreement: where one party asserts one in its application and the other does not deny it before the first hearing, and the tribunal prompts and records this, one is deemed to exist. If the matters or the institution are missing or unclear and no supplement is reached, it is void (art 29); it stands apart from the contract (art 30). A party may ask the institution, now the tribunal, or a court to rule on validity, and where they split the court decides (art 31).¹

A 2006 interpretation fills the gaps: a misnamed institution is fine if it can be identified (art 3); a clause picking rules only chooses no institution unless the rules identify one (art 4); two institutions named means the parties pick one, or the clause is void (art 5); and an arbitrate-or-litigate clause is void unless the other side fails to object in time (art 7). A 2017 interpretation adds that choosing the contract’s law does not choose the agreement’s (art 13), and where the law of the seat and of the institution differ, the court applies whichever upholds the agreement (art 14).^14,15

Ad hoc arbitration is now allowed, but narrowly (art 82): foreign-related maritime disputes, and foreign-related disputes between enterprises registered in a free-trade zone, the Hainan Free Trade Port or another designated area, which can include wholly foreign-owned enterprises (WFOEs). The seat must be China, and the tribunal files the party names, seat, composition and rules with the arbitration association within three working days of forming. It is not a nationwide right. The CIETAC Rules take a written agreement, including by email (art 5), and publish a model clause; a drafter should also set the seat, language and number of arbitrators.^1,8

How does a CIETAC arbitration work, step by step?

The institution accepts a compliant application within five days (art 35). The tribunal is one or three arbitrators, appointed by the institution’s director where the parties do not (arts 42 to 44). An arbitrator must disclose in writing anything casting reasonable doubt on independence or impartiality, and listed grounds force a withdrawal (arts 45, 46). A case is heard unless the parties agree it on documents (art 51); the tribunal must dismiss a claim built on fabricated facts or collusion (art 61), may mediate before the award (art 64), and renders it by majority (art 66). Online proceedings are the default, with equal legal effect, unless a party objects (art 11).¹

The CIETAC Rules add the tools. Jurisdiction passes to the tribunal once it forms (art 6). The tribunal may order interim measures, and an emergency arbitrator is available before it forms (art 23, Appendix III). Hearings may be remote (art 37). A party must disclose any third-party funder (art 48) and may ask for early dismissal (art 50), and CIETAC scrutinises the draft award (art 54).⁸

How long does arbitration in China take, and what does it cost?

How long a case takes depends on the track; the clock above gives the award deadlines, each extendable by the President of the Arbitration Court (arts 51, 65, 74). We give no average duration, because none appears in our sources. Cost turns on the amount in dispute: CIETAC Fee Schedule I, for foreign-related, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan cases, is set out below, and the Rules let CIETAC collect reasonable extra costs (art 85).⁸

What role do Chinese courts play during an arbitration?

Interim relief stays with the courts. For property and conduct preservation, the institution, or in an ad hoc case the tribunal, passes the application to the court, which acts “依法及时”, promptly and according to law; an urgent application before the arbitration begins goes straight to court (art 39). Evidence preservation runs the same way, and in a foreign-related case the intermediate court where the evidence sits has jurisdiction (arts 58, 79). The power to order is the court’s.^1,11

A reporting rule guards consistency. The prior-reporting, or “报核”, provisions have been in force since 1 January 2022. Under them, an intermediate court in a foreign-related or Hong Kong, Macao or Taiwan case must report up before it may find an agreement invalid, set aside an award or refuse to enforce one. It reports to the High People’s Court, and if that court agrees, on to the Supreme People’s Court, whose reply governs. A domestic set-aside on public-interest grounds is also reported up (art 3).¹⁶

For the largest cases there is a further route. Under the 2018 provisions on the China International Commercial Court (CICC), the Supreme People’s Court selects the arbitral institutions for its one-stop platform (art 11). Parties may seek preservation, and apply to set aside or enforce, through the court (art 14). In 2024 Chinese courts concluded 18,566 arbitration judicial-review cases.^17,18

Can you appeal or set aside an arbitral award in China?

There is no appeal on the merits. The only route is to ask the intermediate court where the institution sits (art 71) to set aside the award within three months of receiving it (art 72). The court rules within two months (art 73) and, if it thinks the tribunal can cure the defect, may notify it to re-arbitrate and pause the set-aside (art 74).¹

The grounds differ by case. For a domestic award (art 71): no agreement; a matter outside the agreement or the institution’s authority; a tribunal or procedure that broke statutory procedure; forged or concealed evidence; an arbitrator who took a bribe or bent the law; and the public interest. For a foreign-related award (art 83): no agreement; no notice of the appointment or proceedings, or inability to present a case; a tribunal or procedure out of line with the rules; a matter outside scope; and the public interest.¹

A set-aside ruling is close to final: under the 2017 interpretation it takes effect on service, with no reconsideration, appeal or retrial, except one refusing to accept, dismissing the application, or deciding jurisdiction (art 20). Set-asides are rare: in 2024, of 11,016 applications concluded, courts set aside 245 awards wholly or partly, a rate of 2.22 per cent. For how courts in other seats have treated an award drafted with AI, see AI use and setting aside arbitral awards.^15,18

How are arbitral awards enforced in and from China?

A foreign award is enforced in China under the New York Convention, the 1958 treaty on recognising and enforcing foreign arbitral awards, which has 172 parties; see New York Convention grounds. China acceded on 22 January 1987, in force 22 April 1987, with two reservations: reciprocity, applying it only to awards made in another contracting state, and commercial matters under Chinese law.²⁶

A party enforcing a foreign award applies to the intermediate court where the debtor or its property sits, and the court acts on the treaty or on reciprocity (art 88, matching Civil Procedure Law art 304). In 2024 the Supreme People’s Court reported 42 foreign-award cases concluded and none refused, from 15 countries and including ad hoc awards, and 62 Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan cases, recognising 53.^1,7,18

Hong Kong and Macao awards do not run under the Convention; they are enforced under separate Supreme People’s Court arrangements. That detail belongs with arbitration in Hong Kong.¹⁹

A Chinese award is enforced at home under art 75, refused for a foreign-related award only on the art 84 grounds. To enforce it abroad under the New York Convention, apply directly to a competent foreign court (art 85). For enforcing into other seats, see arbitration in Singapore and arbitration in India.¹

What changed in 2025, and what is still pending?

The revision was adopted on 12 September 2025 and took effect on 1 March 2026, the first full rewrite since 1994. The committee reports record the late changes, from online opt-out and pre-arbitration preservation to the wider ad hoc scope and institution-set fees.^2,4,5,6

Local policy ran ahead: Shanghai’s ad hoc measures (in force 1 June 2025) are broader than art 82 but defer to the national rules (art 3). On 20 October 2026 CIETAC issued an interpretation under which choosing CIETAC counts as agreement to the emergency-arbitrator procedure unless excluded in writing. As of our research no Supreme People’s Court interpretation on the revised law had issued, nor had the State Council registration rules (art 14) or national rules on foreign institutions.^1,11,13

What does China say about AI in arbitration?

China has no legislation on AI written for arbitration; the one text addressed to it is CIETAC’s trial AI Guidelines, covered below. The full picture of AI in arbitration, and the CIETAC entry, sit in AI in arbitration and the AI rules tracker. This section keeps to what is specific to China; for the wider region, see AI in dispute resolution in South-East Asia.²³

CIETAC issued trial AI Guidelines, in force from 18 July 2025, and the text says they are not part of the Arbitration Rules. They rest on three principles: party autonomy, AI as an aid only, and good faith. The tribunal must keep its own independent analysis of the facts and law and must not hand its decision-making to AI, a limit explained under non-delegation. It may invite the parties to disclose AI use and agree which tools to use, limit or avoid, in a procedural order or pre-hearing conference. CIETAC’s online platform took 4,755 filings in 2025.^1,10,23,24

The courts have spoken, but about court cases, not arbitration. The Supreme People’s Court’s 2022 opinions say AI must not replace the judge and may serve only as a reference (para 5). Its 2026 opinions on AI-related disputes say a court is to dismiss the claim of a party who uses AI to obtain false evidence and fabricate a case for a false lawsuit (para 19). Neither mentions arbitration, and nor does the general rulebook: the Cyberspace Administration’s 2023 interim measures on generative AI govern public-facing services only (art 2).^20,21,22

What is still open in Chinese arbitration?

• When the Supreme People’s Court will issue a judicial interpretation on the revised law.
• Whether the State Council registration rules (art 14) and the national rules on foreign institutions will issue, and how the Shanghai measures sit under them.
• The place of the arbitration association that art 82 ad hoc tribunals must file with, and of the China Arbitration Association (art 25).
• How the CIETAC AI Guidelines bear on a challenge, given they sit outside the Rules.
• How the seat (art 81) and the ad hoc carve-out (art 82) work in practice now the law is in force.^1,12,23