CHINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Tim Yimin Liu, Sybil Xueting Yuan and Cassie Wenjing Li, Global Law Office
caution. The court emphasised that refusal to enforce an award on the grounds of public policy shall be lim - ited to situations where enforcement would seriously violate the fundamental principles of Chinese law, infringe upon national sovereignty, jeopardise public security, offend social morality, or undermine the fun - damental interests of China’s public order. Chinese case law further confirms that a mere viola - tion of mandatory provisions of Chinese law does not, by itself, constitute a breach of public policy. Relevant precedents include: • [2003] Min Si Ta Zi No 3; • [2001] Min Si Ta Zi No 12; • [2013] Qingdao Fahai Fashang Chu Zi No 1032; Similarly, the mere perception that an arbitral award is unfair does not satisfy the threshold for a public policy violation. See, for instance: [2008] Min Si Ta Zi No 48 and [2012] Min Si Ta Zi No 12. In practice, Chinese courts primarily apply a “domes - tic public policy” standard, focusing on core principles of Chinese law, fundamental moral values, national sovereignty and public order. While international pub - lic policy is occasionally referenced in cross-border enforcement contexts, its application remains firmly rooted in domestic legal norms and socio-political considerations. China’s centralised and hierarchical reporting and review system for foreign-related and foreign arbitral awards – which requires lower courts to refer cases involving potential non-enforcement to the SPC – has further reinforced the uniform and narrow interpreta - tion of the public policy exception. • [2010] Min Si Ta Zi No 18; and • [2014] Rong Zhi Jian Zi No 5. 13. Miscellaneous 13.1 Class Action or Group Arbitration There is currently no legal basis for group arbitration under Chinese law. Although the arbitration rules of certain institutions – such as CIETAC – provide for the consolidation of arbitral proceedings, such mecha -
nisms differ in nature and scope from the concept of group arbitration. As for now, no regime comparable to group international commercial arbitration exists in China. 13.2 Ethical Codes Ethical Codes for Lawyers In China, lawyers are primarily governed by the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Lawyers, as well as professional codes issued by the All China Law - yers Association (ACLA), including the Code of Pro - fessional Ethics and Practice Discipline for Lawyers and the Code of Conduct for Legal Practice. The core principles underpinning legal practice include:
• loyalty to the Constitution and laws; • acting in the best interests of clients; • maintaining confidentiality; • diligence and competence; and • upholding judicial integrity and fairness. Ethical Codes for Arbitrators
The Arbitration Law does not contain explicit provi - sions on the ethical standards for arbitrators. Arbitra - tors’ conduct is mainly regulated by codes of conduct and internal management rules adopted by individual arbitration institutions. For example, the CIETAC Guidelines for the Assess - ment of Arbitrators’ Conduct (as revised in 2023) set out key principles such as: • independence and impartiality; • diligence; • integrity; • confidentiality; and • strict compliance with disclosure and recusal obli - gations. Arbitrators found to be in breach of these standards may face disciplinary measures imposed by the arbi - tral institution, including:
• warnings; • interviews; • reduction of remuneration; • suspension from handling cases; or • removal from the panel list of arbitrators.
155 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook