This is an Insight article, written by a selected partner as part of GAR's co-published content. Read more on Insight

The dynamic development of arbitration in China over the past year continues to attract much attention from the arbitration community. A lot of changes took place in both rules of law and legal practice. China’s leading arbitration institutions, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) and Beijing Arbitration Commission (BAC), promulgated their latest arbitration rules in November 2014 and December 2014 respectively, presenting significant amendments to their previous ones. The judicial decisions rendered by intermediate people’s courts in Shanghai and Shenzhen stirred up a further round of discussion on jurisdictional questions arising from the split of CIETAC. The revised interpretation on the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC (2012) issued by the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) embraces some important judicial explanation on arbitration-related matters. Furthermore, newly published court decisions have clarified some controversial issues, such as whether the Chinese parties may submit their pure domestic dispute for arbitration in a foreign country and whether it is valid for an ICC arbitration clause to designate China as the seat of arbitration.

This chapter highlights the latest development of commercial arbitration and BIT arbitration in China, covering the period from June 2014 to April 2015.

Caseloads of CIETAC and BAC

Despite being entangled in post-split problems, CIETAC made marvellous progress in 2014 to create the highest caseload in history. According to the statistics released on CIETAC’s official website,1 CIETAC accepted a total of 1,610 arbitration cases in 2014, including 387 foreign-related cases and 1,223 domestic cases. The 2014 caseload represents a 28 per cent increase (by 354 cases) from 2013. The total amount of claim of all cases accepted by CIETAC in 2014 reached 37.8 billion renminbi, which represents an increase of 55 per cent or 13.4 billion renminbi from 2013. The parties involved came from 48 countries and regions. In 2014 CIETAC amended its list of arbitrators, and the new list of arbitrators is composed of 1,212 arbitrators from 41 countries. The number of CIETAC arbitrators from foreign countries and Hong Kong and Macao is now 332, corresponding to 27.5 per cent of the total number.

BAC took cognisance of 2,041 cases in 2014, increasing by 25.4 per cent in terms of newly accepted cases compared to that in 2013. Of these, 41 cases are international, corresponding to 2.01 per cent of BAC’s total case number. A remarkable record achieved by BAC in 2014 is that none of its arbitral awards were set aside by the competent people’s court in Beijing, and only one arbitral award was refused enforcement.2

China’s overall arbitration case number in 2014 reached 113,660, an increase of 9 per cent compared to 2013. The total amount of the claims is 265.6 billion renminbi.

The New 2015 CIETAC Rules

CIETAC published its new Arbitration Rules in November 2014, which became effective as from 1 January 2015 (the 2015 CIETAC Rules). The 2015 CIETAC Rules are designed to improve the efficiency of CIETAC arbitral proceedings and bring the CIETAC rules further in line with international best practice. Key amendments include provisions dealing with problems after CIETAC’s split, multiparty arbitration, joinder of additional parties, consolidation of arbitration, arbitrator’s power to order interim protection, emergency arbitrator and special provisions in relation to arbitration administered by CIETAC Hong Kong Arbitration Center. The major changes are summarised as follows:

Provisions dealing with post-split problems

Article 2.6 of the 2015 CIETAC Rules states:

Where the subcommission/arbitration centre agreed upon by the parties does not exist or its authorisation has been terminated, or where the agreement is ambiguous, the [CIETAC] Arbitration Court shall accept the arbitration application and administer the case. In the event of any dispute, a decision shall be made by CIETAC.

This provision aims to address the confusion and ambiguity that followed the secession of the former Shanghai and Shenzhen subcommissions from CIETAC. Since CIETAC reorganised its two subcommissions in Shenzhen and Shanghai on 31 December 2014, this provision will lead to acceptance of cases by CIETAC’s South China Subcommission (located in Shenzhen) or Shanghai Subcommission where an arbitration agreements provides for arbitration by CIETAC Shenzhen (or South China) Subcommission or CIETAC Shanghai Subcommission.

Use of single arbitration concerning multiple contracts

Article 14 of the 2015 CIETAC Rules permits parties to commence a single arbitration concerning disputes arising out of multiple contracts. The claimant may initiate a single arbitration concerning multiple contracts if:

  • such contracts consist of a principal contract and its ancillary contracts or such contracts involve the same parties as well as legal relationships of the same nature;
  • the disputes arise out of the same transaction or the same series of transactions; and
  • the relevant arbitration agreements are identical or compatible.

Joinder of additional parties

Article 18 of the 2015 CIETAC Rules introduces a mechanism for joining additional parties to an ongoing arbitration. It allows third parties to be invited at any stage into the proceedings. A party wishing to add an additional party into the proceedings may file a request with CIETAC if the third party is prima facie bound by the same arbitration agreement on which the arbitral proceedings are founded. CIETAC will make a decision having heard all parties and the party to be joined to the proceedings.

Compulsory consolidation of proceedings

A mechanism for parallel proceedings to be consolidated into a single arbitration on consensus basis was first introduced by the 2012 CIETAC Rules. Article 19 of the 2015 CIETAC Rules further allows a party to have an unprecedented right to request compulsory consolidation of parallel arbitration proceedings even without consent from all the other parties. Under such rule, two or more proceedings can now be compulsorily consolidated by CIETAC at the request of any party if the claims in these arbitrations:

  • share the same arbitration agreement;
  • are made under multiple arbitration agreements that are identical or compatible and the arbitrations involve the same parties and the legal relationships are of the same nature; or
  • are made under multiple arbitration agreements that are identical or compatible, and the multiple contracts involved consist of a principal contract and its ancillary contracts.

Emergency arbitration

A new emergency arbitration procedure has been introduced into the 2015 CIETAC Rules in line with other major international arbitration institutions such as the ICC, AAA, SCC, SIAC and HKIAC. Article 23 allows parties to appoint and apply to an emergency arbitration for urgent interim relief prior to the establishment of the arbitral tribunal in accordance with the procedures set out in Appendix III of the 2015 CIETAC Rules. The emergency arbitrator’s power ceases on formation of the arbitral tribunal, and the existence of emergency proceedings does not preclude a party from applying to any competent court for interim relief concurrently. Since the current Chinese law does not grant an arbitral tribunal with the power to order interim relief measures, the new provisions are understood to apply primarily to arbitration administered by CIETAC Hong Kong Arbitration Center or an arbitration under the auspices of CIETAC with its seat outside mainland China. In Hong Kong or other jurisdictions where an arbitral tribunal’s order for interim measures are recognisable and enforceable, the emergency arbitration may come into play.

Special provisions for CIETAC Hong Kong Arbitration Center

In the 2015 CIETAC Rules, a new chapter has been introduced for arbitration administered by CIETAC Hong Kong Arbitration Center. According to article 74, for the cases administered by CIETAC Hong Kong Arbitration Center, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the seat of arbitration shall be Hong Kong, the law of the arbitration shall be the Arbitration Ordinance of Hong Kong, and the arbitral award shall be a Hong Kong award. The implication is that CIETAC Hong Kong awards will be recognisable and enforceable in China in accordance with the reciprocal enforcement arrangement that exists between mainland China and the Hong Kong SAR. Article 77 expressly provides that CIETAC Hong Kong arbitral tribunals may order interim relief. Whereas CIETAC Hong Kong Arbitration Center possesses a unique dual status (ie, as a Hong Kong-based entity and as a branch of a China-based arbitration body), it is likely that the Center may well take advantage of it by transferring a party’s application for interim measures to a Chinese people’s court for determination if there is a demand for interim measures to be taken in mainland China. Article 82 allows CIETAC Hong Kong Arbitration Center to charge administrative and arbitrators’ fees separately, according to a fee scale in line with international practice. The improved fee scale should increase the transparency of fees allocation as well as the attractiveness of the CIETAC Hong Kong Arbitration Center to top international arbitrators.

Borrowing from the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration and Chinese principles of evidence in civil litigation, CIETAC drew up and published its Guidelines on Evidence, which became effective on 1 March 2015. These Guidelines are not an integral part of the CIETAC Arbitration Rules. The application of the Guidelines is subject to the consent of the parties in each case. The parties may agree to adopt the Guidelines in whole or in part, or they may agree to vary them. In case of conflict between the Arbitration Rules and the Guidelines that the parties have agreed to adopt in a specific case, the arbitral tribunal shall apply the Guidelines.3

The New 2015 BAC Rules

On 4 December 2014, BAC officially released its new Arbitration Rules, which took effect on 1 April 2015 (the 2015 BAC Rules). The revision of its arbitration rules has reflected BAC’s fast-growing experience in arbitration as well as its close attention to the developments in international arbitration practice. Important changes or inputs contained in the 2015 BAC Rules include:

  • The 2015 BAC Rules announces that BAC is also called Beijing International Arbitration Center (article 1). BAC may determine any place as the seat of arbitration (article 26).
  • The arbitral tribunal may, upon authorisation from BAC, make jurisdiction decision by a separate decision, an interlocutory award or final award (article 6).
  • Like the 2015 CIETAC Rules, the 2015 BAC Rules allow joinder of additional parties (article 13), consolidation of arbitration (articles 28-29) and emergency arbitration (articles 62-63).
  • The parties in multiparty arbitration may file claims against each other, even if the parties are on the same side of claimants or respondents. This may allow all parties to have their disputes resolved by the same arbitral tribunal once and for all (article 14).
  • The arbitral tribunal may verify and assess the evidence according to laws, regulations, judicial interpretations and trade usages or other customs of the relevant industry. The arbitral tribunal will examine the evidence comprehensively (article 37).
  • Upon a joint request by both parties, or at a request by one party approved by BAC, BAC may appoint one or more stenographers to record the hearing, and the resulting additional costs shall be borne by the parties or the requesting party (article 40).
  • The arbitral tribunal may impose sanctions on a party who deliberately delays or obstructs the arbitration proceedings by adjusting the allocation of costs. Furthermore, it adds that the recoverable costs include but not limited to attorneys’ fees, costs of preservation measures, travel and accommodation expenses, and notarial fees (article 51).
  • The arbitral tribunal may, according to the prior agreement by the parties, or upon the parties’ consensus during the arbitral proceedings, render its award amiable compositeur or ex aequo et bono, but such award shall not violate the mandatory provisions of law and the public interest (article 69).
  • For international arbitration, the 2015 BAC Rules provide that the administrative fee charged by BAC and the fees paid to the arbitrators shall be separated and that the parties may decide the method for payment of arbitrators’ remuneration. Furthermore, arbitrators’ remuneration may be calculated at an hourly rate as agreed between the arbitrators and the parties, or, in absence of agreement, according to the fee schedule formulated by BAC. The capped hourly rate for arbitrators’ remuneration may reach 6,000 renminbi (article 61 and Appendix 2).

Overall, the changes introduced into BAC’s new Rules are bold and significant compared to the 2008 BAC Rules and may serve better to conduct fair, efficient and less expensive arbitration.

Comprehensive judicial interpretation on Civil Procedural Law

On 30 January 2015, the SPC promulgated its Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law (the Interpretation), which came into effect on 4 February 2015. The Interpretation contains 23 chapters and 552 articles in total. Being the most comprehensive judicial interpretation in SPC’s history, it is a substantive update of the SPC’s previous interpretation on Civil Procedure Law in 1992 and aims to implement the 2012 Civil Procedure Law.

There are at least 17 articles that are directly related to arbitration in the Interpretation, touching on topics such as court jurisdiction, validity of arbitration agreement, interim measures, enforcement, ad hoc arbitration and foreign arbitral award. They include:

  • The court ordering interim protection measures has jurisdiction over claim for losses therefrom if the party requesting interim protection measures fails to initiate arbitration or the request is proved to be wrong (article 27).
  • If the court accepting a case is challenged on the basis that there is a valid arbitration agreement, the court should strike out the action if: (i) the arbitration institution or another court has already upheld the validity of the arbitration agreement; (ii) the parties have not challenged the validity of the arbitration agreement before the first hearing in the arbitration; or (iii) the court itself reaches a decision that the arbitration agreement is valid (article 216).
  • An arbitral award may be partly denied enforcement if the party against whom the enforcement is sought can prove that there exists any of the irregularities enumerated by law as to that part (article 477).
  • The ruling of the court refusing enforcement of an arbitral award is not subject to challenge before or review by the higher level court.
  • As regards the dispute that has been arbitrated, the parties can either enter into a new arbitration agreement to arbitrate their dispute again or submit their dispute to the court (article 478).
  • Where a foreign-related arbitration institution in China transfers a party’s application for asset protection measures, the court grants an order only upon security provided by the applicant. Where the court orders evidence preservation, it has discretion to exempt the applicant from providing security, if the court considers such security unnecessary (article 542).
  • In order to enforce a foreign arbitral award, the applicant must first apply to have the award recognised by the court. Only after the court rules to recognise the award can it then grant enforcement. If the applicant only applies to recognise the award but not to enforce it, the court would only rule on its recognition but not to enforce it (article 546).
  • Recognition and enforcement by the Chinese court of an arbitral award made by an ad hoc tribunal outside the territory of the PRC can be sought according to a treaty to which China accedes or on the basis of reciprocity (article 545).

The Interpretation has extensively enlarged the provisions on taking of evidence, running from article 90 to article 124. Among other things, the Interpretation allows the court to order production of evidence, ask the witnesses to warrant that they will tell the truth, and treat the statement made by a party-appointed expert as that party’s statement. As arbitral tribunals seated in China usually make reference to judicial interpretation when conducting arbitration proceedings, it is expected that the Interpretation will have significant impact on arbitration practice in China.

The SPC gives its Interpretation basically within the current framework of arbitration legislation without addressing some hotly debated issues such as whether ad hoc arbitration may be allowed in mainland China and whether an arbitral tribunal may order interim measures. At this stage, ad hoc arbitration may not be conducted in mainland China and only a court of law may order interim protection measurea.

Judicial decisions on jurisdictional issues after the split of CIETAC

To cope with disputes brought with by the breaking away of the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (SHIAC) and the South China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (SCIA) from CIETAC, the SPC issued its Notice on Certain Issues in Relation to the Correct Handling of Judicial Review of Arbitration Matters (the SPC Notice)4 on 4 September 2013. The SPC Notice set up a level-by-level pre-reporting mechanism for local courts to harmonise judicial review practice in dealing with jurisdictional issues and judicial review over arbitral award in relation to split of CIETAC. Uncertainty and confusion continued, however, as for more than one year after the SPC Notice was published, no judicial decision was unveiled to the public. Therefore, outsiders had no way to know what tests the SPC would use to instruct the local courts to determine and resolve the relevant problems.

On 31 December 2014, CIETAC announced that it had reconstituted its Shanghai and South China subcommissions. In combination with CIETAC’s announcement to terminate its authorisation of SHIAC and SCIA on 31 December 2012, it seems that SHIAC and SCIA would have no jurisdiction over disputes where the parties had agreed to have their disputes administered by CIETAC’s Shanghai Subcommission or CIETAC’s Shenzhen (South China) Subcommission. But with publication of a number of court decisions, this presumption becomes unsustainable and it turns out to be the contrary, at least for those arbitration clauses concluded prior to the split of CIETAC.

Also on 31 December 2014, the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court ruled in the case Ni Laibao and Liu Donglian v Soudal Investment Limited5 that SHIAC, instead of CIETAC, had jurisdiction over a dispute arising from a 2010 contract where the parties had agreed to arbitrate before the  ‘China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission Shanghai Subcommission’. In the civil ruling, the court held that SHIAC’s former name was CIETAC Shanghai Subcommission and it was established in 1988 through formal procedures and legitimately registered with the Bureau of Justice of the Shanghai Municipality. Upholding that SHIAC had jurisdiction deriving from the arbitration clause at issue, the court stated that:

The arbitration commission designated by said arbitration clause, ie, ‘CIETAC Shanghai Subcommission’ (which has now changed its name to SHIAC), is an arbitration commission duly established by law and is competent to accept cases and make awards according to the parties’ arbitration agreement. Therefore, the arbitration clause in this case is a valid arbitration clause. The dispute between the parties in this case shall be administered by SHIAC as expressly agreed in the arbitration clause.

In addition to the above case, SHIAC reported on its website a series of 12 civil rulings by Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court on the same or similar issues, handed down on 8 and 9 January 2015, confirming that the Shanghai court has now adopted a consistent approach to dispose of a number of pending cases that concern the question of CIETAC/SHIAC jurisdiction.6

Joining in chorus with SHIAC, SCIA also posted on its official website a judicial decision in the case Shandong Fuyu Lanshi Tires Co, Ltd v Shenzhen Nianfu Enterprise Development Co, Ltd7 by the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court confirming that SCIA had jurisdiction where the parties agreed to refer arbitration to ‘CIETAC South China Subcommission’. In another case Walmart (Anhui) Commercial Retail Limited v Huangshan Tianyinfudi Property Development Company8 the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court ruled that ‘CIETAC South China Subcommission’ stipulated in an arbitration clause of a property leasing agreement concluded in February 2011 should be construed as SCIA, which is a lawful arbitration institution. Notably, the validity of the same arbitration clause was also filed for examination by the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court, which delivered a civil ruling9declaring that it lacked jurisdiction over the dispute and referring it to the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court for a final adjudication.

According to the SPC Notice on level-by-level report, these decisions must have been reached with consent from the SPC. So some experienced practitioners conclude that the SPC’s position is now also clear: under clauses designating ‘CIETAC Shanghai/South China Subcommission’, the competent institution should be the now independent and renamed SCIA and SHIAC, not the CIETAC Shanghai/South China subcommissions as reorganised in December 2014.10

Nevertheless, it is still uncertain which institution has jurisdiction over the case if an arbitration agreement referring the dispute to CIETAC Shanghai Subcommission or CIETAC South China Subcommission was concluded after 31 August 2012 (when SHIAC and SCIA jointly announced breaking away from CIETAC), or even after 31 December 2014 (when CIETAC announced reconstruction of its Shanghai and South China subcommissions), since all the judicial decisions mentioned above only touched on those arbitration clauses entered into prior to 1 May 2012 (when CIETAC issued the 2012 CIETAC Rules). Further judicial guidelines to clarify the situation in this regard are desirable.

Judicial decision banning domestic disputes being arbitrated outside China

The question as to whether two Chinese parties may agree and submit their dispute for arbitration seated outside mainland China has been examined and adjudicated in two previous civil cases. In the case Jiangsu Aerospace Wanyuan Wind Power Co, Ltd v LM Wind Power (Tianjin) Co, the SPC replied to Jiangsu Province High People’s Court11 that the sales agreement concluded in 2005 between two Chinese parties involves no foreign-related elements because: the parties to the sales agreement are both Chinese legal persons; the subject matter in dispute is located in China; and the conclusion and performance of the sales agreement is in China. The SPC concluded that the arbitration agreement contained in the sales agreement is invalid because the Chinese laws have failed to specify that the Chinese parties may submit their purely domestic dispute for arbitration, either institutional or ad hoc, outside China, and therefore, it is groundless for the parties to have arbitration in a country other than China. Similar views were expressed by the SPC in the case Liupanshui Hengding Development Co, Ltd v Zhang Hongxing.12

In a case reported in July 2014, the Beijing Chaolaixinsheng Sports and Leisure Co Ltd v Beijing Suowangzhixin Investment Consulting Co Ltd, this issue was discussed again in the judicial decision given by the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court. In its civil ruling, the Court reiterated that two Chinese parties are banned from having their domestic dispute arbitrated outside mainland China. This case involved a contract to operate a golf course in Beijing concluded between a Chinese company and a wholly foreign-owned enterprise that was registered in Beijing and owned by a Korean citizen. The arbitration clause provided for arbitration at the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) in Seoul, which rendered an arbitral award on 29 May 2013. In enforcement proceedings the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court, following a reply from the SPC according to the level-by-level report mechanism, gave a civil ruling13 on 20 January 2014 to deny recognition and enforcement of the KCAB arbitral award. The reasoning held by the SPC is that there were no foreign elements in the contract, given that the subject matter was located in China, the contract was concluded and performed in China and the wholly foreign-owned enterprise had the status of a Chinese enterprise. The SPC went on to hold that PRC law did not authorise the parties to refer domestic disputes not involving a foreign element to foreign arbitration and that the arbitration clause was invalid. According to article V(1)(a) (invalid arbitration agreement) and article V(2)(b) (public policy) of the 1958 New York Convention, enforcement of the KCAB arbitral award should be denied.

The Chaolaixinsheng case set off alarm bells that the Chinese judicial authority is far from open-minded as to the possibility of letting domestic disputes go to foreign jurisdictions for arbitration, even though one or both parties to arbitration are wholly foreign-owned companies incorporated in China. To mitigate risks exposed to recognition and enforcement, it is wise to have purely domestic disputes arbitrated by Chinese arbitration institutions.

Opening door to ICC arbitration in China

In the case Longlide Packaging Co Ltd v BP Agnati SRL, the report of which was published by the SPC in April 2014, for the first time the SPC confirmed by a reply to Anhui Province High Court14 the validity of an ICC arbitration clause by which the parties agreed to have arbitration administered by the ICC Court of Arbitration according to its arbitration rules with the seat of arbitration in Shanghai, China.

In the arbitration clause, the parties agreed that:

Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract should be submitted to the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce and be subject to the final award rendered by one or multiple arbitrators appointed by the Rules of the Court of Arbitration. Jurisdiction place should be Shanghai China and the arbitration should be conducted in English.

The SPC held that the arbitration clause complied with the requirements under article 16 of the PRC Arbitration Law that it contained the consensus of arbitration, the matters of arbitration and the appointed arbitration institution. Therefore it is a valid arbitration agreement.

The Longlide decision represents an amazing breakthrough, for it has clarified the long-standing doubt over whether parties may agree arbitration by foreign arbitration institutions in mainland China. According to the SPC, the validity of an arbitration agreement as such shall be upheld, since the ICC Court could be deemed as an arbitration institution under article 16 of the PRC Law, which had been previously misunderstood as providing that the terminology ‘arbitration commission’ in that clause should not include an foreign arbitration body that are not registered under in China.

Commentators contend that in this case the SPC has sent a positive signal that a foreign arbitration institution may be permitted to administer arbitration seated in China, however, they also pointed out that the Longlide decision does not answer what is arguably the more significant question as to how such an award can be enforced in China.15 Indeed, in a recent decision rendered by Hong Kong Court of First Instance in the case Z v A, the Hong Kong Court took the view that there is a risk that an ICC award made in mainland China may not be enforceable in mainland China despite of existence of the Longlide decision.16 If in the future the award made in the Longlide case were enforced by a Chinese court, it would appear that a green light is truly granted for foreign arbitration institutions to provide arbitration services in the PRC.

New development in investment treaty arbitration

In 2014, two more BIT cases involving China were filed at ICSID.

On 4 November 2014, Ansung Housing Co, a Seoul-based developer, filed its claim against China at ICSID, seeking relief concerning a property development project. The claim is based on the 2007 bilateral investment treaty between China and Korea, as opposed to the 2014 tripartite investment agreement between China, Japan and Korea, which also allows for disputes to be resolved through ICSID arbitration. The case was registered as Ansung Housing Co, Ltd v People’s Republic of China (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/25).

On 3 December 2014, a Chinese investor initiated an ICSID arbitration against Yemen for resolving dispute arising from construction of an airport terminal. The case was registered as Beijing Urban Construction Group Co Ltd v Republic of Yemen (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/30).

There should be more BIT arbitrations in the future, either filed by Chinese investors or initiated by foreign investors, given the fact that China has signed over 130 BITs.


  1. CIETAC’s 2014 Work Report and 2015 Work Plan at
  2. BAC’s Arbitration Work Report 2014 at
  3. The context of CIETAC Guidelines on Evidence may be found at
  4. Fa (2013) No.194 issued by the Supreme People’s Court.
  5. (2012) Hu Er Zhong Min Ren (Zhong Xie) Zi No.5 Civil Ruling given by the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court.
  6. See
  7. (2013)Shen Zhong Fa Shewai Zhong Zi No. 133 Civil Ruling given by Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court on 6 January 2015.
  8. (2014) Shen Zhong Fa Shewai Zhong Zi No.191 Civil Ruling given by Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court on 21 January 2015.
  9. (2014) Er Zhong Min Te Zi No. 07708 Civil Ruling given by Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court on 13 February 2015.
  10. Jessica Fei, Justin D’Agostino, Brenda Horrigan, May Tai, Simon Chapman, Shanghai Court ruling confirms SHIAC’s jurisdiction over arbitrations referred to “CIETAC Shanghai sub-commission”, at
  11. (2012) Min Si Ta Zi No. 2 Reply given by the Supreme People’s Court on 31 August 2012.
  12. The case was reported at the SPC’s publication, the Guidelines for Accepting Cases, edited by Case Acceptance Division of the SPC, Vol. 1 (2011).
  13. (2013) Er Zhong Min Te Zi No. 10670 Civil Ruling given by Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court. The context of the Ruling was recited in (2014) San Zhong Min Zhong Zi No. 09403 Civil Ruling given by Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court. It can be visited at
  14. (2013) Min Si Ta Zi No. 13 Reply given by the Supreme People’s Court on 25 March 2013.
  15. John Choong, Lucy Reed and Nicholas Lingard, Looking into 2015: China Arbitration, at
  16. Z v A [2015] HKEC 289.

Unlock unlimited access to all Global Arbitration Review content