On September 12, 2025, the 17th Session of the Standing Committee of the 14th National People's Congress of China revised the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China. The revised Arbitration Law has been in effect and implemented since March 1, 2026.
This marks the first major revision to the Arbitration Law since its enactment in 1995. However, compared to the ambitious 2021 Draft Revision for Public Comment — which aimed for comprehensive alignment with international practices — certain key provisions in this revision have been to certain extent scaled back, warranting close attention in practice.
1. Arbitration Agreement
The revised Arbitration Law continues to require that a valid arbitration agreement must meet the following requirements:
- Be concluded in writing,
- Contain an expression of intent to submit disputes to arbitration,
- Specify the matters to be arbitrated, and
- Designate the arbitral institution.
The 2021 Draft for Comment merely recommended that an arbitration agreement should be a written agreement containing an expression of intent to submit disputes to arbitration.
In practice, to ensure the validity of an arbitration agreement, it is essential that the agreement meets at least the four statutory requirements mentioned above: written form, mutual consent to arbitration, agreement on the matters to be arbitrated, and selection of the arbitral institution. On this basis, consideration should also be given to agreements on the applicable law governing the arbitration agreement, the arbitration rules, the composition of the arbitral tribunal, the place of arbitration, and the language of arbitration, as appropriate to the specific circumstances of the case. In short, ensuring the validity of arbitration agreements and the enforceability of arbitration awards is the fundamental starting point and core objective of all arbitration agreement design and drafting.
2. Ad Hoc Arbitration
Only for two specific types of cases — disputes arising from foreign-related maritime matters and foreign-related disputes between enterprises within free trade pilot zones (port) — the revised Arbitration Law explicitly permits parties to opt for ad hoc arbitration. This alternative procedure allows arbitration to be conducted:
- at a location within China,
- under agreed-upon arbitration rules, and
- by an arbitral tribunal composed of qualified individuals.
The revised Arbitration Law still does not allow parties to choose ad hoc arbitration for non-foreign-related cases or foreign-related cases outside the aforementioned two categories.
The 2021 Draft for Comment proposed that parties to commercial disputes with foreign elements could choose either arbitration administered by an agreed-upon arbitration institution or ad hoc arbitration.
In practice, unless there is a special necessity (and only in the above two types of cases specified by law), it is advisable to exercise caution when choosing ad hoc arbitration to avoid challenges to the validity of the arbitration agreement and unnecessary difficulties when applying for recognition and enforcement of ad hoc tribunal awards in China.
3. Objection to Arbitration Agreement
The revised Arbitration Law stipulates that parties disputing the existence and/or validity of an arbitration agreement shall raise such objections before the first hearing of the arbitral tribunal. In addition to applying for a ruling from a people's court or a decision from the arbitration institution administering the arbitration proceedings, a party may also request the arbitral tribunal to rule on the validity of the arbitration agreement. However, if one party requests a decision from the arbitration institution or the arbitral tribunal while another party simultaneously applies for a ruling from a people's court, the matter shall be decided by the people's court.
The 2021 Draft for Comment proposed that if a party disputes the existence, validity, or other substantive issues of an arbitration agreement, or challenges the jurisdiction of an arbitration case, such objections must be raised within the time limit for filing a statement of defense as prescribed by the arbitration rules, and the arbitral tribunal shall render a decision thereon. The parties may apply to the court for review or reconsideration of the arbitral tribunal's relevant decisions or rulings.
In practice, to avoid forfeiture of rights due to untimely exercise, the parties should raise objections to the existence and/or validity of the arbitration agreement in writing to the arbitration institution or tribunal as early as possible (i.e., in the first substantive statement of defense) and at the latest before the first hearing. To avoid uncertainty and potential delays by the opposing party, a party may even proactively request the competent court to make a final ruling on the validity of the arbitration agreement based on the specific circumstances of the case.
4. Place of Arbitration
The revised Arbitration Law stipulates that the parties to a foreign-related arbitration may agree in writing on the place of arbitration. Unless the parties have agreed otherwise on the governing law applicable to the arbitration proceedings, the place of arbitration shall serve as the basis for determining the governing law of the arbitration proceedings and the jurisdiction of the competent court. The arbitral award shall be deemed to have been rendered at the place of arbitration. If the parties have not agreed on the place of arbitration or if their agreement is unclear, the place of arbitration shall be determined according to the arbitration rules agreed upon by the parties; where the arbitration rules do not provide for it, the arbitration tribunal shall determine the place of arbitration based on the circumstances of the case and in accordance with the principle of facilitating dispute resolution.
The provisions concerning the place of arbitration venue in the 2021 Draft for Comment are not limited to foreign-related arbitration cases but also cover domestic arbitration cases.
In practice, in international cases, the parties may consider agreeing to arbitration administered by a foreign arbitral institution with a place of arbitration within China as the dispute resolution mechanism. According to the relevant opinions of the Supreme People's Court of China and the revised Arbitration Law, such agreements should be valid, and the relevant arbitral awards should be deemed to have been rendered in China for enforcement purposes. However, it remains to be observed whether foreign arbitration institutions can effectively administer arbitration cases in accordance with Chinese law and properly manage their relationship with Chinese courts.
On the other hand, the aforementioned legal provisions on the place of arbitration do not yet apply to domestic arbitration cases in China. In non-foreign-related cases, the court where the administering arbitration institution is located has jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings. Therefore, in non-foreign-related cases, it is advisable to select a reputable arbitration institution in a region with relatively well-developed domestic judicial systems to conduct the arbitration proceedings.
5. Interim Measures
The revised Arbitration Law retains the original legal provisions and stipulates that arbitral tribunals cannot directly issue interim measures such as property preservation, conduct preservation, or evidence preservation. During arbitration proceedings, the arbitration institution shall submit applications for such interim measures to the competent court for processing.
The 2021 Draft for Comment contained a separate, dedicated subchapter and proposed that both arbitral tribunals and courts should have the authority to decide on interim measures. However, the revised Arbitration Law did not adopt this proposal.
In practice, if the parties need to apply for relevant interim measures within China, they may, in urgent situations, directly file an application with the competent court before initiating arbitration. During arbitration proceedings, such applications should be submitted to the competent court through the arbitration institution. Decisions on interim measures made by foreign arbitral tribunals themselves based on foreign arbitration laws and/or rules would likely face significant difficulties in recognition and enforcement by Chinese courts. It also remains to be observed whether or how Chinese courts would handle applications for interim measures submitted by the arbitration parties through foreign arbitration institutions.
Conclusion
While maintaining the existing institutional framework (such as preserving current provisions on arbitration agreements and interim measures), the Revised Arbitration Law introduces prudent adjustments on certain key issues such as:
- ad hoc arbitration (although for two special foreign-related cases only),
- the place of arbitration (although for foreign-related cases only),
- arbitral tribunal's self-determination of jurisdiction (although subject to the court final decision), and
- shortening the time limit for applying to set aside arbitral awards to 3 months.
The revisions signal China’s continued alignment with international arbitration practices, while maintaining certain institutional features distinctive to its legal system. The practical impact of these provisions in judicial practice remains to be observed. For businesses and legal practitioners, timely understanding and proper application of the new law are crucial to ensuring the effectiveness and enforceability of dispute resolution mechanisms.
