Abstract:
In March 2025, the Shanghai Arbitration Commission (the “SHAC”) amended its arbitration rules, formally introducing an early dismissal procedure. This mechanism allows arbitral tribunals to review and dismiss claims that are manifestly without legal merit at an early stage of arbitration. Taking this amendment to the rules as a starting point, this article systematically analyzes the institutional design of the early dismissal procedure under the SHAC Arbitration Rules. It traces the theoretical foundations of this mechanism, which originate in common law, and examines its development in international arbitration practice. The article also compares the early dismissal rules under different arbitration institutions, both domestic and international. The authors argue that, from the perspectives of conserving arbitral resources, shortening procedural timelines, and giving proper effect to parties' expectations of efficient dispute resolution, the early dismissal procedure warrants further promotion and refinement.
The early dismissal procedure refers to a mechanism in arbitration whereby, at an early stage — typically before the hearing — the arbitral tribunal may review an arbitration claim that is manifestly without merit and decide whether to dismiss it.1
In March 2025, the Shanghai Arbitration Commission (the “SHAC”) amended its arbitration rules by adding Article 63, which introduces the early dismissal procedure. The amendment clarifies key aspects of the procedure, including the grounds for application, the scope of the procedure's applicability, the relevant time limits, and the various orders open to a tribunal under the early dismissal procedure.2 Taking this amendment as its starting point, this article analyzes the early dismissal procedure under the SHAC Arbitration Rules, traces its theoretical foundations, examines its practical application in international arbitration, and surveys comparable early dismissal rules across various arbitration institutions.
I. Rules on the Early Dismissal Procedure under the SHAC
Article 63 of the SHAC Arbitration Rules provides as follows:
（1） A party may apply to the arbitral tribunal for the early dismissal of one or more arbitration claims or counterclaims on any of the following grounds:
A. The arbitration claim or counterclaim clearly falls outside the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, or the subject matter of the claim is not arbitrable;
B. The arbitration claim or counterclaim is manifestly without legal merit.
（2） Unless otherwise decided by the arbitral tribunal, a party shall submit a written application for early dismissal as early as possible before the first hearing, stating the facts and legal grounds in support of the application.
（3） The arbitral tribunal shall have the discretion to decide whether to accept an early dismissal application submitted in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article.
（4） The arbitral tribunal may require the party submitting an early dismissal application to provide justifiable reasons and may further require that party to demonstrate that initiating the early dismissal procedure would expedite the overall arbitration proceedings.
（5） If the arbitral tribunal decides to accept the early dismissal application, it shall, after giving both parties an opportunity to present their views, render a decision or award within 30 days from the date of acceptance, and shall provide brief reasons. Upon the arbitral tribunal's request, the Chairman of the Arbitration Commission may grant a one-time extension if there are legitimate reasons and as may be necessary.
（6） Before rendering a decision or award on the early dismissal application, the arbitral tribunal may decide whether and how the arbitration proceedings shall continue.
（7） A decision or award granting or partially granting the early dismissal application shall not affect the arbitral tribunal's continued examination of the remaining arbitration claims and counterclaims.
（8） The arbitral tribunal shall have the discretion to determine the arbitration fees related to the early dismissal procedure in accordance with this Rule.
1. Grounds for Application
According to Article 63 of the SHAC Arbitration Rules, a party may apply for early dismissal only on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, non-arbitrability, or manifest lack of legal merit.
（1） Scope of Jurisdiction
According to Articles 6 and 16 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China,3 the selection of the arbitration commission must be based on the parties' agreement, and arbitration is not subject to the rules of hierarchical or territorial jurisdiction. An arbitration agreement must contain the parties' intention to submit to arbitration, the matters to be arbitrated, and the designated arbitration commission. As is well-established, the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction derives from a valid and effective arbitration agreement between the parties. It should be emphasized that, pursuant to Article 18,4 if the arbitration agreement does not clearly specify the matters to be arbitrated or the arbitration commission, and the parties fail to reach a supplementary agreement, the arbitration agreement shall be deemed invalid for failing to meet the statutory requirements. In such cases, the arbitration agreement loses its legal effect on the grounds of ambiguity or omission in the agreement regarding the matters subject to arbitration or the arbitral institution, and any arbitral tribunal constituted pursuant to such an agreement would lack jurisdiction over the dispute.
The jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal is accordingly strictly confined to the scope of a valid and unambiguous arbitration agreement between the parties. If the agreement does not specify or clearly define the matters to be arbitrated, the dispute cannot be submitted to arbitration. Likewise, if the agreement does not clearly designate an arbitration institution, the dispute will again lack a proper jurisdictional basis for submission to arbitration.
（2） Arbitrability
According to Article 2 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China,5 the scope of arbitration is strictly limited to contractual disputes and other disputes over property rights and interests between citizens, legal persons, and other organizations on an equal footing. Article 36 further clarifies two categories of matters that are not subject to arbitration: (i) disputes involving personal and exclusive rights, such as those concerning marriage, adoption, guardianship, support, succession, and other identity-related issues; and (ii) administrative disputes that should be handled by administrative authorities according to the law, such as administrative penalties or administrative licenses.
Pursuant to those provisions, a dispute must fall within the scope of matters that are legally permitted to be resolved through arbitration in order to be arbitrable. If the subject matter of the dispute does not relate to property, or involves personal, administrative, or other prohibited areas, it shall be deemed non-arbitrable and cannot be resolved through arbitration.
（3） Legal Grounds
According to Article 7 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China,7 when resolving disputes, the arbitral tribunal shall base its decisions on the ascertained facts, strictly apply the relevant legal provisions, and adhere to the principles of fairness and reasonableness. If the arbitration claim submitted by a party lacks a clear legal basis (for example, if the asserted rights are not supported by substantive law or the legal basis for the claim is invalid), or if the claim directly conflicts with existing legal provisions (such as by seeking illegal benefits or exceeding the statutory scope of protection), the arbitral tribunal may dismiss the claim in accordance with the applicable laws.
Therefore, when adjudicating a dispute, the arbitral tribunal must follow the applicable legal provisions. If an arbitration claim lacks a legal basis, the arbitral tribunal may dismiss it pursuant to the relevant laws.
2. Application Procedure
（1） Time and Form of Application
Time Requirement: Unless otherwise decided by the arbitral tribunal, an application for early dismissal shall be submitted before the first hearing and as early as possible.
Form Requirement: The application must be submitted in writing.
（2） Application Content
Substantive Requirements: When applying for early dismissal, the applicant shall specify the factual and legal grounds supporting the application.
Proof of Procedural Necessity: The arbitral tribunal may require the applicant to provide justifiable reasons and demonstrate that initiating the early dismissal procedure is likely to expedite the underlying proceedings.
（3） Decision on Acceptance
The arbitral tribunal shall have the discretion to decide whether to accept the early dismissal application.
（4） Procedure and Time Limits
Time Limit: If the arbitral tribunal decides to hear the early dismissal application, it shall render a decision or award within 30 days from the date of accepting the application, accompanied by brief reasons.
Extension: Upon request by the arbitral tribunal and with the approval of the Chairman of the Arbitration Commission, the said 30-day time limit may be extended once.
Ongoing Proceedings: Before rendering a decision or award on the early dismissal application, the arbitral tribunal shall have the discretion to decide whether and how to proceed with the arbitration proceedings.
（5） Effect and Scope of the Decision
Effect of Partial Dismissal: A decision or award granting or partially granting the early dismissal application shall not affect the arbitral tribunal's continued jurisdiction over the remaining claims and counterclaims.
（6） Fees
The arbitral tribunal shall have the discretion to determine the arbitration fees related to the early dismissal procedure in accordance with the applicable rules.
II. Origins of the Early Dismissal Procedure
The early dismissal procedure in arbitration finds its origin in the “striking out” or “motion to dismiss” mechanisms typically found in common law litigation. Such mechanisms are typically raised at an early stage of a case — not to examine the facts of the case, but to assess the legal sufficiency of the claims pursued. Even if all the facts stated in the complaint are assumed to be true, the court may still dismiss the claims if, as a matter of law, it lacks a sufficient legal basis for continuing proceedings.8 Taking the United States as an example, Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a defendant, at an early stage of litigation, to file a motion requesting that the court dismiss the plaintiff's claims on grounds such as lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, improper venue / forum non conveniens, or defective service of process.9
The early dismissal procedure in arbitration draws upon this institutional design. Its purpose is to promptly address claims that are manifestly without legal merit, without delving into factual examination, thus enhancing procedural efficiency and conserving arbitral resources. This mechanism has been widely adopted in international arbitration. Arbitration institutions such as the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (the “SIAC”), the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (the “SCC”), and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (the “HKIAC”) have incorporated rules authorizing arbitral tribunals to dismiss claims that are clearly untenable at an early stage of the case.
It is worth noting that even where an arbitration institution's rules do not explicitly provide for an early dismissal procedure, arbitral tribunals may still, based on the parties' agreement and their procedural discretion as provided for by the applicable rules, dismiss claims that are manifestly without legal merit in appropriate circumstances. Such practice has been recognized by courts. An example is the 2017 case of Weirton Medical Center, Inc. v. Community Health Systems, Inc. et al..10 In that case, the respondent filed motions for summary disposition. The arbitral tribunal, without holding a hearing, granted the motions and dismissed the plaintiff's claims on the grounds that CHSI was not a proper respondent, several claims were barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel, and the breach-of-contract claim was time-barred. Weirton then applied to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia to set aside the award, arguing that the arbitration agreement, the rules of the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”) and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure did not authorize such summary procedures, and that the arbitral tribunal had therefore exceeded its powers and violated the law. However, the Court ultimately rejected this challenge, reasoning that the arbitration agreement had incorporated the AAA rules, which in turn authorized the arbitral tribunal to adopt procedures it deemed necessary or appropriate to give effect the parties' agreement. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were not applicable to this case. The Court accordingly concluded that the arbitral tribunal had not exceeded its authority by adopting summary procedures.
In sum, while the early dismissal procedure in arbitration originated from common law procedural mechanisms, it has become increasingly institutionalized in arbitration. Given the broad support the procedure receives in both institutional rules and judicial precedent, it is not surprising that the procedure now serves as an important tool for enhancing efficiency and controlling costs.
III. Practical Application of the Early Dismissal Procedure
The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (the “ICSID”) introduced the early dismissal procedure as early as 2006 in its arbitration rules, and the procedure has seen consistent application in practice. In Trans-Global Petroleum, Inc. v. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan,11 the respondent filed a motion under Article 41(5) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules (now Articles 41 and 43 of the 2022 Rules), arguing that the claims made by the claimant were “manifestly without legal merit”, and requesting that the arbitral tribunal to dismiss the claims in limine. One of the claims made by the claimant was that the respondent had breached the “consultation obligation” under Article 8 of the U.S.-Jordan Bilateral Investment Treaty by failing to consult with the claimant in a timely manner. The arbitral tribunal held that this obligation applied only to the contracting states, and that the claimant, as a private investor, did not have the right to invoke this provision. Therefore, the arbitral tribunal held that that particular claim claim was manifestly without legal merit and should be dismissed early. The claimant also agreed to withdraw the claim during the hearing, which was subsequently declared formally withdrawn by the arbitral tribunal.
In Brandes Investment Partners v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,12 the Respondent also invoked Article 41(5) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, asserting that the claimant's claims were “manifestly without legal merit” and should be dismissed in their entirety. The respondent argued in this regard that: (i) the Claimant had expressly waived its right to compensation, thereby depriving the arbitral tribunal of jurisdiction over such claims; and (ii) the Claimant was not an “investor” within the meaning of the ICSID Convention, and thus lacked standing to initiate arbitration on that status. However, the arbitral tribunal found that both issues involved complex legal and factual questions inappropriate for summary disposition, and accordingly rejected the respondent's early dismissal application.
As the above cases demonstrate, although arbitration rules clearly authorize arbitral tribunals to render early dismissals, tribunals apply this mechanism with considerable caution in practice. A high threshold is maintained to prevent procedural streamlining from undermining substantive justice. As a result, early dismissal procedures are infrequently invoked and rarely granted in practice, even across arbitrations held under the auspices of the various leading arbitration institutions. For instance, in 2022, the SIAC received 10 early dismissal applications, only 5 of which were allowed to proceed. Among those, 3 were ultimately rejected, while the remaining 2 were still pending a decision.13 Similarly, between 2017 and 2021, the HKIAC received only 5 early dismissal applications, with both applications filed in 2021 being rejected.14
IV. Comparison of Early Dismissal Procedures
The attached Chart provides a comparative analysis of the early dismissal procedures set out in the arbitration rules of SHAC, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (the “CIETAC”), the Xi'an Arbitration Commission (the “XAAC”), the SIAC, the SCC, and the HKIAC. The comparison focuses on submission timeframes, permissible grounds, application requirements, admissibility, procedural safeguards, and the time limits imposed on arbitral tribunals to render a decision.
V. Conclusion
Overall, the early dismissal procedure, as a mechanism that integrates substantive review with procedural control, has gradually gained recognition and application in both international and domestic arbitration rules. Its core advantage lies in enabling arbitral tribunals to promptly address claims that are manifestly without legal merit at an early stage of arbitration, thereby significantly reducing costs and shortening the arbitration proceedings. This is particularly valuable in commercial arbitrations involving multiple parties, complex disputes, or large monetary stakes, where the procedure provides an efficient means to eliminate unmeritorious claims. It also helps to prevent the abuse of arbitration for purposes of exerting negotiation leverage or causing deliberate delay, thereby promoting the efficient allocation of arbitral resources. Accordingly, the early dismissal procedure holds considerable practical value for further development and institutionalization.
|
Arbitration Rules |
SHAC 2025 |
CIETAC 2024 |
XAAC 2023 |
SIAC 2025 |
SCC 2023 |
HKIAC 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Provision |
Article 63 |
Article 50 |
Article 53 |
Article 47 |
Article 39 |
Article 43 |
|
Time of Application |
Before the first hearing (unless otherwise decided by the arbitral tribunal)
|
Unless otherwise decided by the arbitral tribunal, as early as possible and no later than the submission of the Statement of Defense or the Reply to the Counterclaim. |
Before the first hearing |
None |
None |
As promptly as possible after the relevant points of law or fact are submitted, unless the arbitral tribunal directs otherwise. |
|
Reasons for Application |
1. The arbitration claim or counterclaim clearly falls outside the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, or the subject matter of the claim is not arbitrable; 2. The arbitration claim or counterclaim is manifestly without legal merit.
Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal: 1. Where the parties agree to submit their dispute(s) to SHAC for arbitration in an arbitration agreement, or where it can be inferred from the arbitration agreement that the dispute(s) shall be resolved through SHAC administered arbitration, the parties may submit their dispute(s) to SHAC for arbitration. 2. SHAC accepts cases related to disputes arising between the parties in accordance with the law applicable to the arbitral proceedings, including: A. Domestic arbitration cases in mainland China; B. Arbitration cases related to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Macao Special Administrative Region and the Taiwan Region; C. International and foreign-related arbitration cases. 3. Upon consent of all parties or in accordance with the relevant treaty, SHAC accepts arbitration cases related to international investment disputes between international investor(s) and host state. |
1. The claim or counterclaim is manifestly without legal merit； 2. The claim or counterclaim is manifestly outside the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.
Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal: 1. CIETAC accepts cases involving economic, trade and other disputes of a contractual or non-contractual nature, based on an agreement of the parties. 2. The cases referred to in the preceding paragraph include: (a) international or foreign-related disputes; (b) disputes related to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Macao Special Administrative Region and the Taiwan region; and (c) domestic disputes. |
1. The Application for Arbitration or the defense obviously lacks legal basis； 2. The Application for Arbitration or the defense clearly exceeds the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal； 3. Even if the issue of law or fact is raised by the other party and presumed to be correct, the Arbitral Tribunal could not render an award in favor of that party raising the issue.
Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal: The XAAC accepts any contractual disputes and other disputes over property rights and interests between natural persons, legal persons and unincorporated organization, including: (1) Arbitration cases involving disputes in Chinese Mainland; (2) Arbitration cases involving disputes related to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Macao Special Administrative Region or Taiwan Area; (3) Arbitration cases involving international or foreign-related disputes; (4) Arbitration cases involving international investment disputes between international investors and the host country accepted by the XAAC, with the consent of the parties or in accordance with the provisions of relevant treaties. |
1. A claim or defense is manifestly without legal merit； 2. a claim or defense is manifestly outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal: 1. Where the parties have agreed by contract or otherwise to refer their disputes to SIAC for arbitration or to arbitration in accordance with the SIAC Rules, the parties shall be deemed to have agreed that the arbitration shall be conducted pursuant to and administered by SIAC in accordance with these Rules; 2. These Rules shall apply to domestic and international arbitrations commenced under a contract, treaty, or other instrument; 3. Any dispute which the parties have agreed to submit to arbitration under an arbitration agreement may be determined by arbitration unless it is contrary to public policy to do so. |
Issues of jurisdiction, admissibility, or the merits. It may include, for example, an assertion that： 1. an allegation of fact or law material to the outcome of the case is manifestly unsustainable; 2. even if the facts alleged by the other party are assumed to be true, no award could be rendered in favor of that party under the applicable law; 3. any issue of fact or law material to the outcome of the case is, for any other reason, suitable to determination by way of summary procedure.
Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal: Disputes concerning matters in respect of which the parties may reach a settlement may, by agreement, be referred to one or several arbitrators for resolution. In judicial practice, matters not amenable to settlement include: issues involving significant public interests or third-party rights; labor disputes; fines and sanctions imposed under the Act on Trade Secrets; disputes concerning personal status relationships (e.g., marriage, guardianship).15 |
1. Such points of law or fact are manifestly without merit; 2. Such points of law or fact are manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction; 3. Even if such points of law or fact are submitted by another party and are assumed to be correct, no award could be rendered in favor of that party. |
|
Requirements for Application |
1. Submitting the application in writing; 2. Stating the facts and legal grounds in support of the application； 3. The arbitral tribunal may require the applicant to provide justifiable reasons and demonstrate that initiating the early dismissal procedure would expedite the overall arbitration proceedings. |
1. A Request for Early Dismissal shall be in writing； 2. A Request for Early Dismissal shall state the facts and legal basis supporting the application； 3. In order to prevent the abuse of the request to delay the arbitral proceedings, the arbitral tribunal may require the requesting party to provide justifiable grounds for the request and to demonstrate that the early dismissal process will expedite the overall proceedings. |
Submitting the application in writing |
Stating the facts and legal basis supporting the application |
1. The request shall specify the grounds relied on; 2. The request shall specify the form of summary procedure proposed; 3. Demonstrating that such procedure is efficient and appropriate having regard to all the circumstances of the case. |
Any party making a request for early determination procedure shall communicate the request to the arbitral tribunal, HKIAC and all other parties. The request for early determination procedure shall include the following: 1. a request for early determination of one or more points of law or fact and a description of such points; 2. a statement of the facts and legal arguments supporting the request; 3. a proposal of the form of early determination procedure to be adopted by the arbitral tribunal; 4. comments on how the proposed form referred to in Article 43.4(c) would achieve the objectives stated in Articles 13.1 and 13.5; 5. confirmation that copies of the request and any supporting materials included with it have been or are being communicated simultaneously to all other parties by one or more means of service to be identified in such confirmation. |
|
Whether to Accept |
The Arbitral Tribunal shall have the discretion to decide whether to accept an early dismissal application. |
The arbitral tribunal shall have the power to decide on whether to accept and consider a Request for Early Dismissal after inviting the parties to express their views. |
The Arbitral Tribunal shall make a decision or award on the application. |
The Tribunal shall determine whether the application for early dismissal is allowed to proceed. |
After providing the other party an opportunity to submit comments, the Arbitral Tribunal shall issue an order either dismissing the request or fixing the summary procedure in the form it deems appropriate. In determining whether to grant a request for summary procedure, the Arbitral Tribunal shall have regard to all relevant circumstances, including the extent to which the summary procedure contributes to a more efficient and expeditious resolution of the dispute. |
After providing all other parties with an opportunity to submit comments on the request, the arbitral tribunal shall issue a decision either dismissing the request or allowing the request to proceed by fixing the early determination procedure in the form it considers appropriate. The arbitral tribunal shall make such decision within 30 days from the date of filing the request. This time limit may be extended by agreement of the parties or, in appropriate circumstances, by HKIAC. |
|
Procedural Safeguards |
Giving both parties an opportunity to present their views |
Inviting the parties to express their views |
Giving the parties an opportunity to submit on the application |
Giving the parties the opportunity to be heard |
Giving each party an equal and reasonable opportunity to present its case |
Providing all other parties with an opportunity to submit comments on the request |
|
Time Limit |
The arbitral tribunal shall render a decision or award within 30 days from the date of acceptance, accompanied by brief reasons. Upon the arbitral tribunal's request, the Chairman of the Arbitration Commission may grant a one-time extension if there are legitimate reasons and an extension is necessary. |
The arbitral tribunal shall render a decision or an award on the Request for Early Dismissal with reasons stated within sixty (60) days from the date on which such request is made. At the request of the arbitral tribunal, the President of the Arbitration Court may extend the time period if he/she considers such extension justified and necessary. |
The Arbitral Tribunal shall make a decision or award on the application and briefly give reasons within 20 days from the date of hearing the parties' submissions on the application. |
If the application for early dismissal is allowed to proceed, the Tribunal shall, after giving the parties the opportunity to be heard, make a decision, ruling, order, or award on the application, with reasons which may be in summary form. The decision, ruling, order, or award shall be made within 45 days from the date of filing the application, unless the Registrar extends the time. |
In an efficient and expeditious manner |
If the request is allowed to proceed, the arbitral tribunal shall make its order or award, which may be in summary form, on the relevant points of law or fact. The arbitral tribunal shall make such order or award within 60 days from the date of its decision to proceed. This time limit may be extended by agreement of the parties or, in appropriate circumstances, by HKIAC. |
Footnotes
1. Wang Jingru. An Initial Exploration of the Early Dismissal Procedure in Arbitration. Guangzhou Arbitration Commission (https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/R4gjAnmDt1S7ZixpGXLYEg)
2. Announcement by the Shanghai Arbitration Commission on the Revision of the Arbitration Rules. Shanghai Arbitration Commission (https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/X23nvxki9VT0asJlHIEb2A)
3. Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China
Article 6
The arbitration commission shall be selected by the parties through agreement. In arbitration, there shall be no jurisdiction by level and no territorial jurisdiction.
Article 16
An arbitration agreement shall include arbitration clauses stipulated in the contract and agreements of submission to arbitration that are concluded in other written forms before or after disputes arise.
An arbitration agreement shall contain the following particulars:
(1) an expression of intention to apply for arbitration;
(2) matters for arbitration; and
(3) a designated arbitration commission.
4. Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China
Article 18
If an arbitration agreement contains no or unclear provisions concerning the matters for arbitration or the arbitration commission, the parties may reach a supplementary agreement. If no such supplementary agreement can be reached, the arbitration agreement shall be null and void.
5. Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China
Article 2
Contractual disputes and other disputes over rights and interests in property between citizens, legal persons and other organizations that are equal subjects may be arbitrated.
6. Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China
Article 3
The following disputes may not be arbitrated:
(1) marital, adoption, guardianship, support and succession disputes;
(2) administrative disputes that shall be handled by administrative organs as prescribed by law.
7. Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China
Article 7
In arbitration, disputes shall be resolved on the basis of facts, in compliance with the law and in an equitable and reasonable manner.
8. What is a Dispositive Motion? Bordas and Bordas Attorneys, PLLC (https://www.bordaslaw.com/blog-posts/what-dispositive-motion/)
9. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 12. Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
(b) How to Present Defenses. Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required. But a party may assert the following defenses by motion:
(1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;
(2) lack of personal jurisdiction;
(3) improper venue;
(4) insufficient process;
(5) insufficient service of process;
(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and
(7) failure to join a party under Rule 19.
A motion asserting any of these defenses must be made before pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed. If a pleading sets out a claim for relief that does not require a responsive pleading, an opposing party may assert at trial any defense to that claim. No defense or objection is waived by joining it with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or in a motion.
10. WEIRTON MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., QUORUM HEALTH RESOURCES, LLC, STEPHEN MILLER, MICHAEL ROLPH, ROBERT LOVELL, ROBERT VENTO, DANIEL HAMMAN and JOHN WALTKO, Civil Action No. No. 5:15-CV-00132 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 12, 2017).
11. TRANS-GLOBAL PETROLEUM, INC. v. THE HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN, ICSID CASE NO. ARB/07/25
12. BRANDES INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LP v. BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA, ICSID CASE NO. ARB/08/3
13. Oliver Marsden, Joshua Kelly, Caspar Everett. Summary Dismissal in Arbitration: A Need for Reform to the Arbitration Act 1996?. Amicus Curiae, Series 2, Vol 4, No 3 (2023)
14. Wang Hui. “Beijing Arbitration” Special Feature｜A Study on the Early Dismissal Procedure in International Arbitration. Beijing Arbitration Commission (https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/4WgIA1w0sbk_oAQfwfRioQ)
15. Liu He. Review of the Swedish Commercial Arbitration System (Part II). Guangzhou Arbitration Commission (https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/d40BJS5VcfiZWCE-0TLcOw)
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.
