CHINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Paul Zhou and Leslie Shen, SGLA Law Firm
filed within three months of the date on which the award is received by the applicant, reduced from the previous six-month period. This change reflects the legislative policy of promoting the final and conclusive nature of arbitral awards and reducing prolonged post-award litigation. • Enhanced confidentiality provisions : The revised law codifies the confidential nature of arbitration proceedings and awards, providing that arbitration hearings are not open to the public and that the parties, arbitrators and institution personnel must maintain the confidentiality of all information relat - ing to the arbitration, subject to limited statutory exceptions. The legislative process for the 2025 Amendment was notably transparent by Chinese standards. The Stand - ing Committee of the NPC published three draft ver - sions for public comment, receiving a total of approxi - mately 4,200 written submissions from stakeholders. Notably, the second draft (published in October 2024) contained a provision that would have permitted ad hoc arbitration for all foreign-related disputes, but this was narrowed in the final version to maritime disputes and free trade zone enterprise disputes fol - lowing objections from certain judicial administrative authorities. This legislative history is relevant to the interpretation of Article 82, as it clarifies that the limi - tation of ad hoc arbitration was a deliberate policy choice rather than an oversight. Under Article 27 of the 2025 Arbitration Law, an arbi - tration agreement must be in writing and take the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or a separate written agreement to arbitrate. The agreement must contain an expression of intent to submit the dispute to arbitration, the subject matter of arbitration and the selected arbitration institution (Article 27). Where the arbitral institution is not specified or is ambiguously specified, the parties may conclude a supplementary agreement, failing which, the arbitration agreement is invalid (Article 29). The principal relaxation introduced by the 2025 Amendment concerns ad hoc arbitration: an arbitration agreement providing for ad hoc arbitra - 3. The Arbitration Agreement 3.1 Enforceability
tion in a foreign-related maritime dispute or a foreign- related dispute arising between enterprises registered within free trade pilot zones or the Hainan Free Trade Port is valid under Article 82, subject to the conditions set out therein. The 2006 SPC Arbitration Interpretation (Article 3) had already established a pro-arbitration presumption, providing that an arbitration agreement is valid if it identifies the arbitration institution or provides a rea - sonable basis for determining the institution. The 2025 Arbitration Law codifies this approach. Additionally, the 2025 Amendment expressly provides that an arbi - tration agreement providing for ad hoc arbitration in a foreign-related maritime dispute or a foreign-related dispute arising between enterprises registered within free trade pilot zones or Hainan Free Trade Port is valid, subject to the requirements of Article 82 (written form, identified arbitral seat within China, and qualified arbitrators). 3.2 Arbitrability Under Article 3 of the 2025 Arbitration Law, disputes that are arbitrable are those involving the rights and obligations of citizens, legal persons and other organi - sations in respect of contractual relationships, prop - erty and other property-related matters. Disputes that are not arbitrable include: (i) disputes concerning mar - riage, adoption, guardianship and support (personal status matters); (ii) administrative disputes; and (iii) matters that are expressly excluded from arbitration by other laws or administrative regulations. The 2025 Arbitration Law expanded the scope of arbitrabil - ity to include certain IP disputes and anti-monopoly (antitrust) disputes, subject to the condition that the dispute involves enforceable property rights or con - tractual obligations. Securities and futures disputes are arbitrable if the parties have concluded a written arbitration agree - ment. However, certain investor protection disputes must be submitted to specialised regulatory dispute resolution mechanisms (for example, the Securities Investor Protection Fund). The 2025 Arbitration Law did not fundamentally alter the arbitrability framework, but SPC judicial interpretations have progressively expanded the scope of arbitrable subject matters in a manner consistent with international practice.
241 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook