The 2025 Annual Conference of the China Academy of Arbitration Law Society and the 18th China Arbitration and Judiciary Forum successfully held

From December 16 to 18, 2025, the 2025 Annual Conference of the China Acacemy of Arbitration Law and the 18th China Arbitration and Judiciary Forum were successfully held in Changsha, Hunan Province. The conference was themed “Building International Commercial Arbitration Centers in the New Era.” It was hosted by the China Acacemy of Arbitration Law and organized by the Hunan Chamber of Commerce of the China Chamber of International Commerce, with support from the All China Lawyers Association, the International Commercial Dispute Prevention and Settlement Organization, and other institutions. Sponsorship was provided by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), relevant law firms, and arbitration institutions. More than 300 representatives from law firms, enterprises, universities, research institutes, and 47 arbitration institutions across the country attended the conference.

Focusing closely on the current international economic and trade landscape and the evolving needs of arbitration practice, the conference featured five forum topics: “Empowering Arbitration Practice through Artificial Intelligence,” “Reforming Arbitration Institutions and Exploring Pathways to High-Quality Development,” “Hot Issues in Construction Project Disputes,” “Innovation and Risk Prevention in Financial Arbitration,” and “New Pathways for Building International Arbitration Centers in the Context of the Amendment of the Arbitration Law.” Nearly 40 renowned scholars and practitioners in the field of arbitration engaged in in-depth discussions on cutting-edge theoretical issues and practical challenges, with lively exchanges and diverse viewpoints.

The conference concluded that, against the backdrop of significantly increasing global economic and trade uncertainty, arbitration is playing an increasingly prominent role in stabilizing international commercial expectations, resolving cross-border commercial disputes, and optimizing the business environment. Participants unanimously agreed on the need to continuously promote institutional innovation and capacity building in arbitration, so as to further enhance the professionalism, internationalization, and credibility of China’s arbitration system.

UAE Company Files the Third-Largest Investment Treaty Arbitration Claim in History Against the Government of Guinea

On December 25, 2025, Axis International Ltd., a company headquartered in the United Arab Emirates, formally initiated arbitration proceedings against the Government of Guinea before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), an institution of the World Bank Group. The claim is based on the 2011 Bilateral Investment Treaty between Guinea and the UAE, as well as Guinea’s 1995 Investment Code, with the amount in dispute reaching USD 28.9 billion. The case is widely regarded as the third-largest investment treaty arbitration claim in global history and the second-largest claim ever submitted to ICSID.

The dispute arose from the Guinean military government’s sudden revocation in May 2025 of more than fifty mining licenses, including the bauxite mining rights in the Boffa region, without prior notice or consultation. Axis International held these mining rights through its Guinean subsidiary. The mine was fully operational, with cumulative investments of approximately USD 250 million in infrastructure and processing facilities. Production reached 18 million tonnes in 2024 and was expected to increase further in 2025. Axis International contends that the government’s justification for revoking the licenses—citing “non-operation” or “insufficient utilization”—lacked factual basis, and that the revocation resulted in the seizure of assets, freezing of bank accounts, and the loss of employment for approximately 5,000 workers.

The case has drawn widespread international attention to the stability of Guinea’s investment environment. Analysts note that if Guinea were to refuse to comply with a future arbitral award, it could face risks such as international financial restrictions and a significant decline in investor confidence, with far-reaching consequences for its mining sector—which is heavily dependent on foreign investment—as well as for the broader national economy.

The Supreme People’ s Court Releases the Annual Report on Judicial Review of Commercial Arbitration (2024)

Recently, the Supreme People’s Court released the Annual Report on Judicial Review of Commercial Arbitration (2024) (the “Report”), which provides a comprehensive overview of nationwide court practices in the judicial review of commercial arbitration during 2024. The Report aims to unify adjudicatory standards and further foster an “arbitration-friendly” judicial environment. It emphasizes that arbitration plays a vital role in efficiently resolving commercial disputes, promoting international economic and trade cooperation, and optimizing a law-based business environment, and that its sound development depends on judicial support and supervision.

According to the Report, courts nationwide concluded a total of 18,566 commercial arbitration judicial review cases in 2024, including 5,475 cases concerning the confirmation of the validity of arbitration agreements, 11,016 cases involving applications to set aside arbitral awards, 1,971 cases concerning non-enforcement of arbitral awards, and 104 cases relating to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In addition, courts concluded 27,069 arbitration-related preservation cases. The overall rate of setting aside arbitral awards for the year was only 2.22%, while the support rate for arbitration-related preservation reached 98.90%, effectively ensuring the smooth conduct of arbitral proceedings and the enforcement of arbitral awards.

The Report further notes that the people’s courts have continued to deepen interregional judicial assistance, supporting the recognition and enforcement in the Mainland of arbitral awards rendered in Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan. Courts have also accurately applied the New York Convention, with no cases in 2024 involving refusal to recognize or enforce foreign arbitral awards. This fully demonstrates China’s judicial stance in supporting international commercial arbitration and advancing the development of international commercial arbitration centers.

Xi’an Intermediate People’s Court:

Failure to Serve the Notice of Tribunal Constitution Within the Time Limit Prescribed by the Arbitration Rules Constitutes Only a Procedural Defect and Does Not Amount to a Violation of Statutory Procedure

Legal Basis:

"Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China"

Article 58

Where the parties concerned can provide evidence disproving the arbitration award in any of the following circumstances, they may request a cancellation of the arbitration award by an intermediate People's Court at the place where the arbitration commission is located:

(1) there was no arbitration agreement;

(2) items for arbitration were not within the scope of the arbitration agreement or were those upon which the arbitration commission had no right to arbitrate;

(3) the establishment of the arbitration tribunal or arbitration procedures are in contravention of legal proceedings;

(4) the evidence upon which the arbitration award is made was counterfeit;

(5) the other party has concealed evidence to the degree that fairness has been affected;

(6) arbitrators have accepted bribes, resorted to deception for personal gain or perverted the course of justice by the award.

Where the People's Court has formed a collegiate bench and has examined and verified that the award was made under one of the aforesaid situations, it shall order the cancellation of the award.

Where the People's Court decides that it should make a ruling to the effect that there has been a violation of the public interest, it shall order the cancellation of the award.

Case Description：

On August 15, 2018, Mr.Li (“Party A”) and a Xi’an-based company (“Party B”) entered into a Housing Lease Entrustment Agency Contract, which stipulated that if Party B terminated the lease early, it should pay Party A liquidated damages equivalent to twelve months’ rent. After several years of performance, disputes arose between the parties regarding contract termination and liability for breach.

In 2025, Mr.Li filed an arbitration application with the Xi’an Arbitration Commission, seeking confirmation that the contract was terminated on May 20, 2025, and requesting that the company pay liquidated damages of RMB 20,400 and housing repair costs of RMB 3,400. On September 3, 2025, the Xi’an Arbitration Commission rendered Arbitral Award No. Xi Zhong Cai Zi (2025) No. 2768, confirming the termination of the contract, ordering the company to pay Mr.Li liquidated damages of RMB 20,400, and dismissing the remaining claims.

Dissatisfied with the arbitral award, the company applied to the Xi’ an Intermediate People’ s Court (the “Court”) to set aside the award, arguing mainly that: (i) the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and the arbitral procedure violated statutory procedures, as the arbitrator was appointed by the Chairman of the Arbitration Commission and the notice of tribunal constitution was not served in accordance with the law; and (ii) the arbitral tribunal mechanically applied the liquidated damages clause without considering factors such as the duration of contract performance and renovation investments, thereby violating the principle of fairness and commercial practice and harming the public interest.

Court's View:

The Court held that this case concerned an application to set aside an arbitral award, and that the scope of judicial review was limited to the statutory grounds for setting aside as provided under Article 58 of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China.

With respect to the arbitral procedure, the Court noted that, pursuant to the Arbitration Rules of the Xi’an Arbitration Commission, disputes involving an amount not exceeding RMB 1 million may be heard by a sole arbitrator, who may be appointed by the Chairman of the Arbitration Commission in accordance with the law and the arbitration rules. Upon examination, the court found that the arbitral tribunal had issued a notice of tribunal constitution and had confirmed at the hearing that the company had received such notice, and that the company expressly stated during the hearing that it had no objections to the arbitral procedure. Even if there were defects in the timing of service, such defects did not affect the parties’ exercise of fundamental procedural rights, including the right to make statements and present arguments, and therefore did not constitute a “violation of statutory procedure.”

Regarding the allegation of harm to public interest, the Court held that public interest refers to interests jointly enjoyed by an unspecified majority of persons. This case involved a housing lease contract dispute between specific parties, and the arbitral award merely adjusted the rights and obligations between the two parties without implicating public interest. The company’s claim that the alleged unfairness of the award harmed public interest lacked legal basis.

In conclusion, the Xi’an Intermediate People’s Court found that none of the grounds asserted by the company for setting aside the arbitral award were established, and accordingly ruled to dismiss the application to set aside the arbitral award.

Jakarta Central District Court: 

Affirming the Validity of CIETAC Arbitration Clauses and the Enforceability in Indonesia of Recognized CIETAC Arbitral Awards

Case Description：

On July 11, 2008, PT Srirejeki Perdana Steel, an Indonesian company (the “PT”), entered into a Sales Contract (the “Contract”) with Hyundai Corporation of Korea (the “Hyundai Corporation”), under which Hyundai Corporation agreed to sell 2,000 metric tons of cold-rolled steel strips to the PT for a total contract price of approximately USD 2.1 million. Article 6 of the Contract expressly provided that any dispute arising out of or in connection with the contract should be submitted to arbitration before the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), and that the arbitral award would be final and binding upon both parties.

During the performance of the contract, the PT failed to open a letter of credit within the agreed time limit. Hyundai Corporation, through its trading partner, Tianjin [a certain] Metal Materials Sales Co., Ltd., shipped the goods in advance. After the goods arrived in Indonesia, they were seized by Indonesian customs due to the lack of complete customs documentation and the absence of letter-of-credit security. In response, Hyundai Corporation initiated arbitration before CIETAC in accordance with the arbitration clause in the contract.

On May 4, 2011, the CIETAC arbitral tribunal rendered Arbitral Award No. R201002880. The tribunal held that Hyundai Corporation bore certain breach and risk responsibilities for shipping the goods without having received the letter of credit, but that the PT’s refusal to open the letter of credit also constituted a breach of contract. The tribunal ultimately ordered the PT to pay Hyundai Corporation economic losses in the amount of RMB 2,410,292, together with the corresponding arbitration costs.

On December 19, 2013, the Jakarta Central District Court issued Decision No. 075/2013.Eks, granting exequatur to the CIETAC arbitral award and confirming its enforceability in Indonesia. Thereafter, in an attempt to avoid enforcement of the award, the PT filed a separate civil lawsuit in 2014, alleging “tort” and seeking to deny the validity of the arbitral award and to claim damages.

Court's View：

First-Instance Court (Jakarta Central District Court):

The Jakarta Central District Court held that the core issue of the case was whether the court had jurisdiction over the dispute. Pursuant to Articles 3 and 11 of Indonesia’s Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, a lawful and valid written arbitration agreement excludes the jurisdiction of the courts.

Although the PT brought the action on the grounds of “tort,” the factual basis of its claims arose entirely from the performance of the Sales Contract, including the shipment of goods, documentary arrangements, and the arbitral award itself. The dispute therefore fell within the scope of “disputes arising out of or in connection with the contract” and was subject to the CIETAC arbitration clause. Moreover, the arbitral award in question had already been recognized by an Indonesian court and granted exequatur, and thus had legal effect equivalent to a final and effective civil judgment. The parties were not permitted to indirectly challenge the validity of the arbitral award through separate litigation.

Accordingly, the court held that it lacked absolute jurisdiction over the case and dismissed the PT’s claim.

Second-Instance Court (Jakarta High Court):

On appeal, the Jakarta High Court further noted that both Indonesia and China are contracting states to the New York Convention and are therefore bound by international law obligations to recognize and enforce arbitral awards. The prior decision confirming the enforceability of the CIETAC award in Indonesia, as well as the first-instance court’s findings on the exclusive jurisdiction of arbitration and the binding effect of the arbitral award, were consistent with Indonesian domestic law and the requirements of the Convention.

The High Court emphasized in particular that the plaintiff had in fact participated in the CIETAC arbitration proceedings, including the appointment of arbitrators and the submission of defenses and counterclaims. Its subsequent attempt to deny the validity of the arbitration violated the principle of good faith.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the first-instance judgment, ruled to confirm that the dispute was governed by the CIETAC arbitration clause, and ruled to order the Indonesian company PT Srirejeki Perdana Steel to bear the costs of the appeal.