On March 1, 2026, the revised Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (中华人民共和国仲裁法) took effect — the first comprehensive overhaul of the law since its original adoption in 1994. The revision was passed by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on September 12, 2025, after three rounds of deliberation beginning in November 2024.
The new law expands from 80 to 96 articles across eight chapters. It aligns China’s arbitration framework with international standards, particularly the UNCITRAL Model Law, while reflecting China’s own institutional arbitration tradition.
Key Changes
Seat of Arbitration (仲裁地)
For the first time, Chinese legislation formally recognizes the “seat of arbitration” — a concept that has been a cornerstone of international arbitration practice but was absent from the previous law. Under the old regime, Chinese courts determined the nationality of an award by reference to the location of the administering institution, creating confusion in cross-border cases. For example, if the ICC in Paris administered an arbitration hearing in Shanghai, it was unclear whether the resulting award was “Chinese” or “French.”
The revised law establishes a three-tier system for determining the seat:
- The parties’ written agreement
- The applicable arbitration rules
- The tribunal’s determination based on convenience
The seat now determines the procedural law, the supervisory court’s jurisdiction, and the nationality of the award.
Ad Hoc Arbitration (临时仲裁)
Article 82 introduces ad hoc arbitration into Chinese law for the first time. Previously, all arbitration in China required an institution — arbitration agreements without a designated arbitration commission were invalid.
The scope is deliberately limited to two categories of foreign-related disputes:
- Foreign-related maritime disputes
- Disputes between enterprises registered in free trade zones, the Hainan Free Trade Port, or other state-designated areas
Ad hoc tribunals must file their composition, the seat, and the applicable rules with the relevant arbitration association within three business days of formation. They have access to the same judicial support for interim relief as institutional proceedings.
Foreign Arbitral Institutions (境外仲裁机构)
Article 86 permits foreign arbitration institutions — such as the ICC, HKIAC, and SIAC — to establish operational offices in free trade zones, the Hainan Free Trade Port, and other approved areas to conduct foreign-related arbitration activities.
Previously, foreign institutions could only set up representative offices in China, limited to information exchange and business liaison. All substantive arbitration functions (case administration, hearings, fee collection, award issuance) had to be managed by their overseas offices. The revision codifies pilot programs that cities like Shanghai and Beijing had been running since late 2023.
Arbitrator Disclosure (仲裁员披露义务)
Article 45 codifies arbitrators’ disclosure obligations for the first time at the statutory level. Arbitrators must promptly disclose in writing any circumstance that may give rise to “justifiable doubts” (合理怀疑) about their independence or impartiality. This adopts the internationally recognized standard used in most common law and civil law jurisdictions.
Other Notable Changes
| Change | Detail |
|---|---|
| Set-aside deadline | Shortened from 6 months to 3 months after receipt of the award |
| Online arbitration | Formally recognized with the same legal force as in-person proceedings (Article 11) |
| Pre-arbitration interim relief | Parties may apply to courts for property or evidence preservation before arbitration commences |
| Evidence gathering | Tribunals may independently collect evidence and seek assistance from relevant authorities |
| Conduct preservation | Added alongside property and evidence preservation as available interim measures |
| Expanded arbitrability | Natural persons, legal persons, and unincorporated organizations may all arbitrate |
| Investment arbitration | Chinese institutions may now handle international investment disputes |
What Hasn’t Changed
The revision is not a full adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Several features distinguish China’s approach:
- Tribunals cannot grant interim measures. Only courts may issue preservation orders. Tribunals transmit applications to the competent court.
- Courts retain priority on jurisdiction. Where both a tribunal and a court receive a jurisdictional challenge, the court’s decision prevails. This is a more conservative approach to kompetenz-kompetenz than most international frameworks.
- Ad hoc arbitration remains limited. It is available only for specific foreign-related disputes in designated zones — not for purely domestic cases.
What This Means for Foreign Businesses
If your company does business in or with China, this law changes the arbitration landscape in three concrete ways.
First, arbitration clauses in existing contracts should be reviewed. The introduction of the seat concept means that specifying the seat in your arbitration agreement now has legal consequences under Chinese law — it determines which court supervises the proceedings and the nationality of any award. Contracts that reference only an institution without specifying a seat should be updated.
Second, new options are available in free trade zones. Companies with operations in Shanghai’s Lingang area, Hainan, or other FTZs can now consider ad hoc arbitration for foreign-related disputes, potentially reducing costs and increasing flexibility. Foreign institutions like the ICC and SIAC can also administer cases from offices in these zones.
Third, the shortened set-aside window matters operationally. The move from six months to three months means that parties dissatisfied with an award must act faster. This compresses the timeline between award and enforcement, which is generally favorable to claimants but requires respondents to be more vigilant.
Key takeaway: China’s new Arbitration Law is the most significant reform to the country’s arbitration system in three decades. While it does not fully adopt international norms — tribunals still cannot grant interim relief, and ad hoc arbitration remains limited — the introduction of the seat concept, the opening to foreign institutions, and the codification of online proceedings represent a genuine shift toward international alignment. Companies operating in or with China should review their dispute resolution clauses now, while the implementing regulations are still being drafted.