- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Law Department Performance and Corporate/Commercial Law topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Banking & Credit, Chemicals and Healthcare industries
II. Efficient and Accessible Interim Measures — On Par
with Domestic Arbitration
Under the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, parties to an arbitration may, before or during the arbi- tral proceedings, apply to the people's court at the place where the other party is domiciled, where the property to be preserved is located, or where the evidence concerned is kept, for interim property and evidence preservation measures.
Using evidence preservation as an example, the 2025 amendments to the Arbitration Law simplify the application process for interim measures in foreign-related arbitration:
New Arbitration Law (as amended in 2025) Article 79:
Where a party to a foreign-related arbitration applies for evidence preservation, the arbitral institution shall forward the application to the intermediate people's court at the place where the evidence is located, and the people's court shall handle the matter promptly in ac- cordance with the law.
Current Arbitration Law (as amended in 2017) Article 68:
Where a party to a foreign-related arbitration applies for evidence preservation, the foreign-related arbitration commission shall forward the application to the inter- mediate people's court at the place where the evidence is located.
Under the Current Arbitration Law, applications for evidence preservation must be submitted through the "Foreign-Related
Arbitration Commission." The New Arbitration Law, however, removes references to such administrative organs, meaning that, in principle, a foreign arbitral institution may directly sub- mit a party's application for interim evidence preservation measures to the competent people's court.
This makes it clear: With the seat of arbitration in China, par- ties can fully access court support for interim measures re- gardless of whether the proceedings are administered by a Chinese or foreign arbitral institution. The process is thus practically as efficient as with a domestic institution.
III. "Deemed Domestic Awards" — Smooth and Direct Enforcement of Arbitration Awards by Foreign Institu- tions
The more profound implication is that, when the seat of arbi- tration is in China, an award rendered by a foreign arbitral institution is incorporated into the Chinese judicial system and enjoys the same legal effect as an award issued by a domes- tic arbitral body.
This arrangement avoids the uncertainties associated with recognition and enforcement of foreign awards under the New York Convention, such as lengthy review processes and possible "public policy defenses" from the other party (i.e., if recognition or enforcement of the foreign arbitral award leads to a result that is contrary to public policy). Bypassing New York Convention procedures significantly enhances both the efficiency and predictability of enforcement.
In fact, Chinese courts have already recognized the enforcea- bility of such awards rendered within Chinese mainland. For example, in a judgment dated 2015, the Guangzhou Interme-
diate People's Court held that an arbitral award rendered by a foreign arbitral institution in Chinese mainland may be re- garded as a foreign-related arbitral award under Chinese law. If the respondent fails to comply with the award, the par- ty seeking enforcement may apply to the intermediate peo- ple's court at the respondent's domicile or at the location of the respondent's property, in accordance with the provisions on the enforcement of foreign-related arbitral awards under the Civil Procedure Law.
The case was recognized by the Supreme People's Court as meaningful and representative, which, for the first time in judi- cial practice, clarified the legal status of arbitral awards ren- dered by foreign arbitral institutions in Chinese mainland. Such awards are treated as foreign-related arbitral awards under Chinese law and can be directly enforced in Chinese mainland.
Against the backdrop of the New Arbitration Law, the process of applying directly to a Chinese court for enforcement of an award with China as the seat of arbitration will be even more straightforward and smooth.
Conclusion
From judicial practice to the New Arbitration Law, China is gradually embracing foreign arbitral institutions, allowing them to conduct foreign-related arbitration activities within China.
Choosing a foreign arbitral institution while designating China as the seat of arbitration offers a dispute resolution solution that combines international standards, neutrality, and local enforceability. This approach enables enterprises to leverage the expertise of international arbitral institutions while fully enjoying the benefits of interim measures and efficient en- forcement under the Chinese legal system.
Driven by globalization and growing international legal coop- eration, the "foreign institution + Chinese seat" model is be- coming the new norm for cross-border commercial dispute resolution. Well-crafted arbitration clauses and strategic use of this mechanism provide robust legal safeguards for parties engaged in international trade.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
