- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with Finance and Tax Executives
- in India
- with readers working within the Oil & Gas and Law Firm industries
Abstract:
China's newly revised Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (2025 Revision) is guided by the principles of "efficiency, practicality, stability, and internationalization". It introduces systematic optimization of arbitration procedures and incorporates several practical developments into the statutory framework, thereby laying a solid foundation for enhancing arbitration efficiency. This article examines institutional changes and their practical implications across the three stages of arbitration – before, during, and after the proceedings – to assist parties in accurately understanding and applying the new rules, comprehensively managing the arbitration process and related risks, and maximizing their interests. At the pre-arbitration stage, the new Law refines the principle of the arbitration agreement's separability, establishes rules for online arbitration, and expands special mechanisms for foreign-related arbitration. At the second stage, while arbitration is ongoing, the revised Law introduces a new system for preservation and interim orders, while clarifying judicial assistance mechanisms for evidence collection. At the post-arbitration stage, the revised Law shortens the time limit for setting aside an arbitral award and standardizes the procedure for courts to remit proceedings back to tribunals. Overall, through comprehensive institutional reforms, the new Law significantly enhances the predictability and enforceability of arbitration, providing parties with a more efficient, flexible, and internationally competitive dispute-resolution pathway.
Background
The Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter the "Arbitration Law") was revised on 12 September 2025 and will formally enter into force on 1 March 2026. As a key mechanism for dispute resolution, arbitration plays an important role in efficiently defusing conflicts and properly addressing disputes. This revision of the Arbitration Law focuses on enhancing efficiency, practicality, stability, and the level of internationalization1. Based on this background, this article examines the institutional differences before and after the revision across the pre-arbitration, mid-arbitration, and post-arbitration stages, thereby providing parties with guidance on selecting more efficient pathways for dispute resolution.
I.Pre-Arbitration Stage: Optimizing Mechanisms for Efficient Arbitration
Before the commencement of arbitration proceedings, parties may rely on the new Arbitration Law to select more efficient approaches to arbitration. Specifically, the revised Arbitration Law refines the principle of separability of the arbitration agreement, introduces a default regime for online arbitration, and adds special provisions for foreign-related matters.
1.Determining the Separability and Validity of the Arbitration Agreement
Before commencing arbitration, a potential claimant must first confirm the validity of the arbitration agreement. In practice, the parties may enter into a stand-alone arbitration agreement, or they may include an arbitration clause within a contract. In either case, the principle of separability must be observed when determining its validity.
The 2017 amendment to the Arbitration Law, in Article 19, addressed the separability of arbitration agreements and addressed four specific contractual contexts: modification, rescission, termination, and invalidity2. However, because the provision did not cover all possible contractual contexts, disputes often arose in practice over whether circumstances not expressly enumerated would affect the validity of the arbitration agreement3. In contrast, Article 30 of the 2025 revised Arbitration Law expressly provides that whether a contract has been formed, and any subsequent situations of modification, ineffectiveness, termination, revocation, or invalidity, do not affect the validity of a duly concluded arbitration agreement4. This revision broadens the scope of covered contractual conditions, particularly by addressing the circumstance in which whether a contract has been formed is itself in dispute, thereby further strengthening separability determinations.
In fact, even before the revision of the Arbitration Law, cases had already arisen involving the question of whether a dispute over the formation of a contract affects the validity of an arbitration agreement. For example, in a 2022 case released by the Supreme People's Court involving Yunyu Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Zhongyuancheng Commercial Investment Holding Co., Ltd.5, the parties had agreed to an arbitration clause. One party issued a draft contract that was signed and stamped by the other, but the formal contract was never executed. This gave rise to a dispute regarding whether a contract had been formed and whether the absence of contract formation affected the validity of the arbitration clause. As the then-effective Arbitration Law did not address such situations, reliance was placed on Article 10(2) of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Certain Issues Concerning the Application of the Arbitration Law of the PRC (2008 Revision), which provides that where the parties reach an arbitration agreement at the time of contracting, the fact that the contract is not formed does not in and of itself affect the arbitration agreement6. Accordingly, before the new revision of the Arbitration Law, solutions to this issue depended on judicial interpretation. The newly revised Arbitration Law now explicitly crystallises this rule at the legislative level, thereby improving the statutory foundation for determining the separability of arbitration agreements.
Based on these provisions, when drafting an arbitration agreement or clause, parties should ensure that it contains a clear expression of their shared intent to arbitrate, specifies the matters subject to arbitration, and identifies the chosen arbitral institution, thereby enhancing clarity and completeness, as well as reducing the risk of disputes over validity. At the same time, parties should preserve evidence related to the drafting, execution, and negotiation of the arbitration agreement so that, should a dispute arise regarding the validity of the contract or the arbitration clause itself, the validity of the arbitration agreement can be confirmed pursuant to the new separability provisions in the Arbitration Law.
2.Online Arbitration Mechanism
Online arbitration has been widely used in arbitration practice in recent years. In 2024, a total of 93 arbitral institutions nationwide handled online arbitration cases, with a combined disputed amount reaching RMB 300 billion7. Beyond online hearings, the scope of online arbitration has also expanded to include ancillary measures such as the preservation of assets and property. For example, in a case involving a Shenzhen construction company that applied for property preservation8, the relevant arbitral institution, upon receiving the application, transmitted it to the court through its digital interface platform. The court registered the case the same day, conducted its review, and promptly issued a civil ruling. This case illustrates the significant advantages of online arbitration in enhancing procedural efficiency.
Although online arbitration has become common in practice, the previous Arbitration Law did not explicitly address its legal effect. Article 11 of the new Arbitration Law adds that "arbitration activities may be conducted online on an information network, unless the parties explicitly disagree to it"9, thereby establishing a default rule for the application of online arbitration, unless expressly rejected by the parties. This provision usefully clarifies the legal validity of online arbitration. While respecting party autonomy, the new Law aligns with the trend toward digitalization in dispute resolution, and markedly improves procedural efficiency.
Accordingly, when selecting the mode of arbitration, parties may actively choose online arbitration to save time and improve efficiency. It is also advisable for parties, when entering into contracts, to include an express clause confirming that "the parties agree that any arbitration proceedings may be conducted online", thereby putting the question of online arbitration beyond peradventure.
3.Special Provisions on Foreign-Related Arbitration
The newly revised Arbitration Law introduces several amendments to the foreign-related arbitration regime to better align with developments in international commercial arbitration.
First, with respect to the regime's scope, Article 78 of the new Law adds a catch-all category of "other foreign-related disputes" in addition to foreign economic and trade disputes, transportation disputes, and maritime disputes10. This expansion broadens the range of foreign-related arbitration cases to include emerging categories such as foreign-related intellectual property disputes like patent disputes, and foreign-related financial disputes such as fraud involving independent guarantees, thereby responding to evolving needs in practice.
Second, regarding the organizational form of arbitration, Article 82 establishes a special arbitration mechanism. In addition to traditional institutional arbitration, parties to foreign-related maritime disputes or foreign-related disputes between enterprises registered in pilot free trade zones approved by the State Council, the Hainan Free Trade Port, or other designated regions, may opt for special arbitration. Under this mechanism, the arbitral tribunal may be constituted by individuals meeting the qualifications prescribed by the Arbitration Law, who may adjudicate the dispute in accordance with the parties' agreed arbitration rules11. This mechanism has been piloted since 2016 in free trade zones and further explored through local legislation in regions such as Shanghai and Hainan12. For instance, in March 2025, the Shanghai Maritime Court accepted its first case concerning the confirmation of the validity of an ad hoc arbitration agreement13. In that case, two enterprises registered in the China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone and the Lingang Section of the same zone disputed expenses related to imported goods. Although they had entered into an "Ad Hoc Arbitration Agreement", they later disagreed over its validity and brought the matter before the court. The Shanghai Maritime Court held that the parties had clearly and consistently expressed their intention to resolve the dispute through "ad hoc arbitration", and therefore confirmed the validity of the agreement. This special arbitration mechanism avoids any untoward deference towards institutional arbitration, and significantly enhances the flexibility of foreign-related arbitration.
Third, regarding the nationality of arbitral awards, Article 81 of the new Law introduces the concept of the "seat of arbitration". It provides that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, it is the law of the seat of arbitration (rather than the law of the arbitral institution's location)14 which shall apply to arbitral procedures15. It also provides that the arbitral award shall be deemed to have been made at the seat of arbitration. This modification clarifies situations in which the seat of arbitration and the location of the arbitral institution differ, and provides a clear basis for determining the nationality of the award. For example, in a prior case involving a machinery company and a Swedish technology company that applied to set aside an arbitral award16, the award was rendered by the ICC International Court of Arbitration, but the seat of arbitration was Beijing. The court held that the award constituted a foreign-related arbitral award made in mainland China by a foreign arbitral institution, and that the determination of the award's nationality should respect the parties' choice of the seat. Accordingly, the award was deemed a foreign-related arbitral award under PRC law. The revision in the new Law will effectively reduce disputes arising from unclear or conflicting designations of the arbitral seat and the arbitral institution.
In light of these provisions, parties entering into foreign-related arbitration agreements should fully consider the implications of the new Law, particularly the application of the law of the arbitral seat and the introduction of the special arbitration mechanism. Parties should clearly stipulate in their arbitration agreements the scope of arbitration, the form of arbitration, the arbitral seat, the arbitration rules, and the applicable governing law, so as to avoid disputes arising from ambiguities or missing elements.
II.During the Arbitral Proceedings: Safeguarding Rights Throughout
During the arbitral hearing process, the revised Arbitration Law adds and improves a series of measures designed to enhance efficiency and protect party interests. For example, in addition to the original system of property preservation, the Law adds a new mechanism for act preservation and clarifies the legal basis for applying preservation measures. The new Law also explicitly provides that parties to an arbitration may apply for judicial assistance, thereby strengthening the role of the courts in arbitration and enhancing arbitration's credibility and enforceability as a dispute resolution mechanism. These changes provide solid protection for both substantive and procedural rights throughout the arbitration process.
1.Preservation Measures in Arbitration
The preservation regime in arbitration is an important mechanism for safeguarding the substantive rights of the parties. Compared with the previous Article 28 of the Arbitration Law, which provided only for property preservation17, Article 39 of the new Law introduces act preservation (in the form of what are essentially mandatory orders)18, aligns with the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter the "Civil Procedure Law"), and clarifies the rules regarding pre-arbitration preservation.
Before the revision, Chinese arbitration practice had already seen cases supporting act preservation through the imposition of mandatory orders. For instance, in the Huntington Company's act preservation case19, the Huntington Company, due to a dispute with Ciming Hospital, applied to CIETAC for orders requesting permission to remove equipment from Ciming Hospital's IVF center and requesting that the hospital cease using and properly safeguard its property. The court ultimately ruled that, except as necessary to preserve extracted eggs, sperm, and embryos, Ciming Hospital must not continue to use the equipment. Although the then-effective Arbitration Law provided only for property preservation, the court relied on Article 100 of the Civil Procedure Law (2017 Amendment)20, which governs act preservation, to grant the Huntington Company's application.
The newly revised Arbitration Law consolidates and affirms this existing practice by providing explicit statutory support for act preservation in arbitration. Under the new Law, parties may apply for both property preservation and act preservation during the arbitration process. In urgent circumstances, parties may also apply to the court for preservation measures even before arbitration begins. For preservation applications submitted by a party through an arbitral institution, the new Arbitration Law further emphasizes that the arbitral institution shall forward the application to the court, and that the court shall handle it in a timely manner in accordance with the law. This strengthens the parties' rights to seek preservation measures and reflects the judiciary's support for, and cooperation with, arbitration. The refinement of the preservation regime under the new Law offers more comprehensive legal safeguards for parties seeking preservation in arbitration and helps them better protect their lawful rights in complex arbitral proceedings.
2.Judicial Assistance in Evidence Collection
Articles 55 and 58 of the new Arbitration Law expressly provide that parties may apply for judicial assistance in evidence investigation and evidence preservation, and they impose corresponding obligations on relevant authorities21. These provisions offer strong support for parties seeking to obtain critical evidence during arbitration.
Although Article 43 of the former Law empowered arbitral tribunals to "collect evidence on their own"22, and Article 46 allowed courts to conduct evidence preservation when evidence was at risk of being lost or would be difficult to obtain later23, the absence of explicit statutory obligations for courts or third parties to cooperate meant that the effectiveness of arbitral tribunals' evidence-collection efforts was often limited and could not be fully utilized in practice.
To address this gap, jurisdictions such as Shanghai have actively explored mechanisms involving arbitral investigation orders. For example, in a dispute arising from a cross-border data service contract24, the arbitral tribunal found that key evidence was difficult to obtain. It therefore applied for judicial assistance from the Shanghai International Commercial Court, requesting that the Court grant an investigation order. Relying on the Measures of the Shanghai High People's Court on Issuing Investigation Orders to Assist Arbitration in Evidence Collection (Trial), the court issued the requested order, thereby facilitating smooth progress in the arbitration.
Although several local jurisdictions have established systems for arbitral investigation orders, such mechanisms had not been uniformly implemented nationwide. With the new revision, however, the Arbitration Law now provides a clear statutory basis for evidence collection in arbitration. This significantly strengthens collaboration between arbitral institutions and the judiciary, and ensures a more systematic and standardized mechanism for evidence collection. For parties, this enhances arbitration's efficiency, convenience, and confidentiality, while further bolstering its credibility and authority.
In light of these provisions, if parties are unable to obtain necessary evidence on their own due to objectively-ascertainable circumstances during arbitration, they may apply for a judicial investigation order. Doing so ensures timely access to critical evidence, enables effective assertion of rights, and facilitates the efficient progress of arbitral proceedings.
III.Post-Arbitration Stage: Standardizing Remedies for the Final Disposition of Disputes
To consolidate the outcomes of arbitration, the new Arbitration Law introduces important improvements to post-arbitration remedies. On the one hand, it shortens the time limit for applying to set aside an arbitral award, urging parties to exercise their rights promptly. On the other hand, it clearly stipulates that once the arbitral tribunal commences a renewed arbitration (in the form of a re-hearing) after the court accepts an application for setting aside, the court must terminate the setting-aside proceedings, thereby ensuring the smooth continuation of the arbitral process.
1.Shortening the Time Limit for Setting Aside an Arbitral Award
Under Article 72 of the revised Arbitration Law, a party applying to set aside an award must do so within three months from the date on which it receives the award25. This shortens the deadline from the former Law's six-month period26. The amendment aims to encourage parties to exercise their rights for judicial review in a timely manner and to improve the efficiency of the arbitral system.
Parties should pay particular attention to this shortened timeframe. Although the new Law does not change the existing rule, it remains important to note that if one party applies for enforcement of the award and the other applies to set it aside, the court will suspend enforcement in accordance with the law27. However, before filing an application to set aside, the party must still comply with the award.
2.Clarifying the Procedure for Re-Arbitration by the Arbitral Tribunal
Under the former regime, if a Court determined that an arbitral tribunal should re-arbitrate the case (by way of re-hearing) after a successful application to set-aside the tribunal's award, the Court would notify the tribunal to recommence arbitration within a specified period and suspend the setting-aside proceedings28. Article 74 of the new Law builds upon this framework by adding that "if the arbitral tribunal commences re-arbitration, the people's court shall rule to terminate the setting-aside procedure"29. This amendment effectively prevents parties, once the arbitral tribunal has commenced re-arbitration, from seeking to revive the original setting-aside proceedings.
For parties, this means that once the tribunal initiates re-arbitration, courts will no longer review or supervise the prior award. The focus of both substantive rights and procedural strategy shifts entirely to the renewed arbitration proceedings.
IV.Conclusion
From the perspective of the parties, the new Arbitration Law reflects an overall legislative intent towards strengthening safeguards for arbitration at the front end, while tightening the ambit and scope for potential challenges at the back end. Before the commencement of arbitration and during the proceedings, the new Law reinforces procedural protection and judicial support by upholding pro-arbitration principles in determining the validity of arbitration agreements, improving the system of preservation measures, and clarifying the courts' obligations to assist in evidence investigation. At the same time, by promoting alignment between China's foreign-related arbitration regime and international rules, the new Law further enhances the predictability and competitiveness of arbitration. After an award is rendered, the new Law shortens the time limit for setting aside an award to three months and specifically provides that re-arbitration will terminate setting-aside proceedings. These changes effectively curb the possibility of a party abusing procedural rights to delay enforcement of the award. While enhancing the efficiency of arbitration and the finality of awards, the revisions also shift parties' duty of prudence further toward the front end, requiring them to identify and mitigate risks in advance when drafting arbitration clauses and navigating key procedural stages, thereby achieving a considered balance between efficiency and the protection of rights.
As China's arbitration system continues to develop and evolve, it is moving toward greater internationalization, digitalization, and specialization. The credibility and enforceability of arbitral awards have been further enhanced. In the future, arbitration, as an efficient method of dispute resolution, is likely to increasingly become the preferred choice for an increasing number of market participants.
Footnotes
1 The newly revised Arbitration Law will come into effect on 1 March 2026, strengthening the support provided by courts and other relevant authorities for arbitration. People's Court Daily. mp.weixin.qq.com/s/fJd-qdGTEMwmVvAtH4-suQ
2 Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (2017 Amendment)
Article 19 An arbitration agreement shall exist independently. The amendment, rescission, termination or invalidity of a contract shall not affect the validity of the arbitration agreement.
3 Chen Jiaxu. A One-Stop Guide to the Major Revisions and Key Interpretations of Judicial Review Provisions under the New Arbitration Law. Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court.
mp.weixin.qq.com/s/YOqo8xVviWLqQ8hqarqyOg
4 Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (2025 Revision)
Article 30 An arbitration agreement shall exist independently. The formation, amendment, pending effectiveness, termination, revocation or invalidity of a contract shall not affect the validity of the arbitration agreement that has been concluded.
5 Yunyu Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Zhongyuancheng Commercial Investment Holding Co., Ltd.,
Civil Ruling on Application for Confirmation of the Validity of an Arbitration Agreement, The
Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China, (2019) SPC Min Te No. 1.
cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/218/180/221/1340.html
6 Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Certain Issues Concerning the Application of the Arbitration Law of the PRC (2008 Revision)
Article 10 Where a contract does not become effective or is cancelled after being formed, the effectiveness of the agreement for arbitration shall be ascertained under Paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the Arbitration Law.
Where the parties concerned reach an agreement for arbitration regarding a dispute when concluding the contract, the effectiveness of the agreement for arbitration shall not be impacted if the contract is not formed.
7 Last Year, 93 Arbitral Institutions Handled Online Arbitration Cases; the Newly Revised Arbitration Law Clarifies the Legal Effect of Online Arbitration. Legal Daily.
legalinfo.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbzhfx/zt/2025nzt0120/xcgvxxddzcf/202510/t20251009_525972.html
8 The Guangdong High People's Court Releases the Second Batch of Model Cases on Judicial Review of Arbitration. Guangdong High People's Court. mp.weixin.qq.com/s/emkigF5CnOQwqMOQRckUlw
9 Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (2025 Revision)
Article 11 Arbitration activities may be conducted online on an information network, unless the parties explicitly disagree to it.
Arbitration activities conducted online on an information network have the same legal effect as offline arbitration activities.
10 Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (2025 Revision)
Article 78 The provisions of this Chapter apply to all arbitration of foreign economic or trade, transportation, maritime, and other foreign-related disputes. In the absence of provisions in this Chapter, other relevant provisions of this Law apply.
11 Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (2025 Revision)
Article 82 Where the parties agree in writing to refer to arbitration a foreign-related maritime dispute or a foreign-related dispute arising between enterprises formed and registered in a pilot free trade zone created with the approval of the State Council, the Hainan Free Trade Port, or other areas designated by the state, they may choose to refer the dispute to an arbitral institution or select the People's Republic of China as the seat of arbitration and refer the dispute to an arbitration tribunal consisting of persons who meet the conditions prescribed in this Law for arbitration in accordance with the agreed arbitration rules, and the arbitration tribunal shall, within three working days of its formation, under recordation with the arbitration association regarding the names of the parties, the seat of arbitration, the composition of the arbitration tribunal, and the rules of arbitration.
12 Press Conference on the Newly Revised Arbitration Law Held by the Ministry of Justice.The State Council Information Office of the People's Republic of China.
www.scio.gov.cn/xwfb/bwxwfb/gbwfbh/sfb/202510/t20251014_935160_m.html
13 First Case! Shanghai Maritime Court Concludes a Dispute over the Application for Confirmation of the Validity of an Ad Hoc Arbitration Agreement. Shanghai Maritime Court.
mp.weixin.qq.com/s/dn17HAFEaExz1wipP4Tr1g
14 Chen Jiaxu. A One-Stop Guide to the Major Revisions and Key Interpretations of Judicial Review Provisions under the New Arbitration Law. Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court.
mp.weixin.qq.com/s/YOqo8xVviWLqQ8hqarqyOg
15 Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (2025 Revision)
Article 81 The parties may agree on the seat of arbitration in writing. Unless the parties have otherwise agreed on the applicable law of the arbitration procedure, the seat of arbitration shall serve as the basis for determining the applicable law of the arbitration proceedings and the court with jurisdiction. An arbitration award is deemed to have been rendered at the seat of the arbitration.
If the parties have not agreed on the seat of arbitration or have agreed ambiguously, the seat of arbitration shall be determined in accordance with the arbitration rules agreed upon by the parties; if the rules of arbitration are silent, the arbitration tribunal shall determine the seat of arbitration based on the circumstances of the case and the principle of facilitating dispute resolution.
16 Typical Cases Supporting and Safeguarding the Development of International Commercial Arbitration Centers (VI). Beijing International Commercial Court. www.bicc.gov.cn/2025-01/17/c_1065190.htm
17 Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (2017 Amendment)
Article 28 A party may apply for property preservation if it may become impossible or difficult for the party to implement the award due to an act of the other party or other causes.
If a party applies for property preservation, the arbitration commission shall submit the party's application to the people's court in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law.
18 Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (2025 Revision)
Article 39 A party may apply for property preservation or request an order that the other party take certain actions or refrain from taking certain actions if it may become impossible or difficult to implement the award or cause other damages to the party by reason of an act of the other party, among others. If a party applies for preservation, the arbitral institution shall refer the party's application to the people's court in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, and the people's court shall handle it in a timely manner in accordance with the law.
In case of emergency, a party to an arbitration agreement may, before applying for arbitration, apply to the people's court for property preservation or request the people's court to order that the other party take or refrain from taking certain actions in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. If a party applies for preservation, the people's court shall handle it in a timely manner in accordance with the law.
19 Hainan Huntington Hospital Management Consulting Co., Ltd. v. Ciming Boao International Hospital Co., Ltd., Civil Ruling on Other Civil Matters, Hainan First Intermediate People's Court (formerly Hainan Intermediate People's Court), (2019) Qiong 96 Xing Bao No. 1. law.wkinfo.com.cn/judgment-documents/detail/MjAyOTU0MDE5OTA%3D?showType=0
20 Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (2017 Amendment)
Article 100 For a case where, for the conduct of a party or for other reasons, it may be difficult to execute a judgment or any other damage may be caused to a party, a people's court may, upon application of the opposing party, issue a ruling on preservation of the party's property, order certain conduct of the party or prohibit the party from certain conduct; and if no party applies, the people's court may, when necessary, issue a ruling to take a preservative measure.
21 Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (2025 Revision)
Article 55 A party shall provide evidence in support of its own claims.
The arbitration tribunal may, as it considers necessary, collect evidence on its own initiative, and may, when necessary, request relevant entities to provide assistance in accordance with the law.
Article 58 Where any evidence may be destroyed or lost or difficult to obtain at a later time, a party may apply for evidence preservation. If a party applies for evidence preservation, the arbitral institution shall refer the application to the primary people's court at the place where the evidence is located, and the people's court shall handle it in a timely manner in accordance with the law.
In case of emergency, a party to an arbitration agreement may, before applying for arbitration, apply to the people's court for evidence preservation in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. If a party applies for evidence preservation, the people's court shall handle it in a timely manner in accordance with the law.
22 Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (2017 Amendment)
Article 43 Parties shall provide evidences in support of their own arguments.
The arbitration tribunal may, as it considers necessary, collect evidences on its own.
23 Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (2017 Amendment)
Article 46 Under circumstances where the evidence may be destroyed or lost or difficult to obtain at a later time, a party may apply for preservation of the evidence. If a party applies for preservation of the evidence, the arbitration commission shall submit his application to the basic people's court in the place where the evidence is located.
24 China's First Case: Shanghai International Commercial Court Issues an Investigation Order to Support Interim Measures in International Arbitration. Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court.
mp.weixin.qq.com/s/-FPCv4OCtt2XrYPqUDKCdg
25 Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (2025 Revision)
Article 72 A party that wishes to apply for revocation of the arbitration award shall submit such application within three months from the date of receipt of the award.
26 Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (2017 Amendment)
Article 59 A party that wishes to apply for setting aside the arbitration award shall submit such application within six months from the date of receipt of the award.
27 Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (2025 Revision)
Article 77 Where one party applies for enforcement of the arbitration award and the other party applies for revocation of the arbitration award, the people's court shall rule to suspend the procedure of enforcement.
If the people's court rules to revoke the arbitration award, it shall rule to terminate the enforcement procedure. If the people's court rules to reject the application for revocation of the arbitration award, it shall rule to resume the enforcement procedure.
28 Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (2017 Amendment)
Article 61 If, after accepting an application for setting aside an arbitration award, the people's court considers that the case may be re-arbitrated by the arbitration tribunal, it shall notify the tribunal that it shall re-arbitrate the case within a certain time limit and shall rule to stay the setting-aside procedure. If the arbitration tribunal refuses to re-arbitrate the case, the people's court shall rule to resume the setting-aside procedure.
29 Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (2025 Revision)
Article 74 Where, after accepting an application for revocation of an arbitration award, the people's court considers that the case may be re-arbitrated by the arbitration tribunal, it shall notify the tribunal that it shall re-arbitrate the case within a certain time limit and shall rule to stay the setting-aside procedure. If the arbitration tribunal commences re-arbitration, the people's court shall rule to terminate the setting-aside procedure. If the arbitration tribunal refuses to re-arbitrate the case, the people's court shall rule to resume the setting-aside procedure.
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.
