CHINA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Jun Gao and Fan Xu, Zhong Lun Law Firm
• the potential impact of the parallel proceedings’ outcome on the arbitration; • the procedural fairness of the parallel proceedings, and whether the accused party has been afforded a full and fair opportunity to participate and present its case; • whether the parallel proceedings are conducted in the arbitral seat – decisions from parallel pro - ceedings in the seat have a decisive impact on the subsequent validity of the award; • the accessibility of evidence in the parallel pro - ceedings; • the potential irreparable harm or unfair tactical advantage that a stay may cause to either party; and • the overall impact of the stay on procedural effi - ciency and the finality of arbitral awards. Criteria for evidence sharing In addition to the issue of stay of proceedings, paral - lel proceedings also involve the co-ordination of evi - dence sharing. Evidence obtained by law enforcement agencies generally carries significant probative val - ue; however, the arbitral tribunal must still safeguard the opposing party’s right to cross-examine such evidence. With regard to evidence transferred from arbitration to parallel proceedings, a balance must be struck between the duty of confidentiality and the statutory duty of disclosure; where necessary, the tri - bunal should issue detailed confidentiality orders and redact sensitive commercial information. Effect of decisions or judgments in parallel proceedings Decisions or judgments rendered in parallel proceed - ings do not automatically have preclusive effect on an arbitration, and the arbitral tribunal retains its independent authority to determine the facts. When assessing the validity of findings from parallel pro - ceedings, the arbitral tribunal focuses on three core criteria: • due process – whether the parallel proceedings fol - lowed due process of law; • consistency of evidentiary standards – whether the standard of proof applied in the parallel proceed - ings aligns with the standard used in the arbitration to address corruption issues; and
• territorial connection – whether the location of the parallel proceedings is the same as the seat of arbitration, as this directly impacts the risk of a subsequent judicial review of the award. Conflicts of Interest and Disclosure: Changes in the Latest Revised ICC Arbitration Rules Disclosure of conflicts of interest is the cornerstone of fairness in international commercial arbitration. Par - ticularly in cases involving corruption, undisclosed hidden financial ties can directly serve as channels for the transfer of benefits, undermining the legitima - cy of the award. The traditional model, in which the disclosure obligation rests solely with the arbitrator, has resulted in a large number of potential conflicts of interest failing to be identified at an early stage of the proceedings. The newly revised ICC Arbitra - tion Rules (“the ICC Rules”), effective 1 June 2026, have reformed the disclosure regime, establishing a new framework involving multiple parties. Proactive party participation in disclosure: from unilateral obligation to collective governance Key innovation of the ICC Rules The most significant innovation of the ICC Rules is the inclusion of the parties themselves in the conflict- of-interest governance framework. At an early stage following the initiation of arbitration proceedings, each party must submit a list to the secretariat identify - ing any person or entity that may have a conflict of interest, along with specific supporting reasons. This change helps improve efficiency and reduce the risk of issues arising at a later stage. Dual reinforcement of disclosure obligations The ICC Rules do not relieve arbitrators of their core disclosure obligations but instead establish a dual safeguard mechanism. On the one hand, arbitrators are still required to independently fulfil their com - prehensive disclosure obligations and disclose all circumstances known to them that may affect their independence; on the other hand, the parties are explicitly required to assist the arbitrators in fulfilling their disclosure obligations, thereby assuming a more proactive role in this regard.
209 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook