The Newly Revised Arbitration Law to Take Effect on 1 March 2026

On September 12, 2025, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress adopted the Amendment to the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (hereafter referred to as “Arbitration Law”). The newly revised Arbitration Law will officially take effect on March 1, 2026. The amendment adds 20 new articles, deletes 4 articles, revises 57 articles, and makes substantive changes to 34 articles, increasing the total number of articles from 80 to 96.

The key revisions to the Arbitration Law include:

1. Clarifying the overall direction for the development of arbitration: aligning the arbitration system with national strategies for high-quality development and further opening-up, and supporting the establishment of a market-oriented, law-based, and internationalized business environment.

2. Improving the foreign-related arbitration regime: expanding the scope of foreign-related cases, supporting arbitration institutions in “going global” and “attracting international participation”, and providing for the handling of international investment arbitration cases.

3. Enhancing governance of arbitration institutions: clarifying the public-interest and non-profit legal status of arbitration institutions, improving their internal governance structures, and standardizing the appointment and tenure management of arbitrators.

4. Promoting innovative arbitration practices with Chinese characteristics: introducing provisions on online arbitration, expanding the methods for recognizing arbitration agreements, and refining rules on service of arbitral documents and the appointment of presiding arbitrators.

This amendment marks the first comprehensive revision of the Arbitration Law since its implementation in 1995, aiming to improve the efficiency and transparency of arbitration and to further align China’s arbitration framework with internationally accepted rules and practices.

Beijing Fourth Intermediate People’ s Court Assists Arbitral Institution in Evidence Collection for the First Time

Recently, the Beijing Arbitration Commission, in the course of hearing a housing lease contract dispute, encountered practical difficulties in conducting evidence collection on its own. It therefore submitted an application to the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the “Beijing Fourth Intermediate Court”) seeking judicial assistance in obtaining evidence related to a specific accident. Relying on the cooperation mechanism for arbitral evidence collection established between the two institutions, the Beijing Fourth Intermediate Court promptly reviewed the application materials and issued an official investigation letter. The presiding judge then visited the relevant administrative authority to efficiently complete the retrieval and transfer of the requested evidence, thereby resolving the arbitration institution’s evidentiary difficulties. This marks the first time a Beijing court has assisted an arbitration institution in evidence collection.

For a long time, arbitral proceedings have faced challenges in evidence collection. The Regulations on the Establishment of the Beijing International Commercial Arbitration Center, which came into effect on December 1, 2023, expressly provide that people’s courts may offer assistance upon application by arbitration institutions. On this basis, the Beijing Fourth Intermediate Court and the Beijing Arbitration Commission established a cooperation mechanism that clarifies the scope of application, operational procedures, and allocation of responsibilities, thereby providing institutional support for its implementation.

Article 55 of the newly revised Arbitration Law, which will take effect on March 1, 2026, also expressly provides for judicial assistance in evidence collection. This practice not only implements local legislative requirements but also responds proactively to the national-level framework, offering a model for improving coordination between arbitration and the judiciary.

U.S. Court Clarifies that New York Convention Awards Fall Within the Sovereign Immunity Arbitration Exception and Rejects Guatemala’s Stay Application

On February 11, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Guatemala’s application to stay enforcement of an arbitral award of nearly USD 38 million and denied its motion to dismiss the enforcement action on the basis of sovereign immunity.

The case arose from a dispute concerning the early termination of a highway construction contract. After obtaining an arbitral award against Guatemala, a road construction company filed an application before the U.S. court seeking recognition and enforcement. The Government of Guatemala subsequently initiated proceedings, arguing that it was entitled to sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and requesting either dismissal of the enforcement action or a stay of the proceedings. In its ruling, the court made clear that arbitral awards rendered pursuant to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”) against a foreign state are arbitrable under U.S. law and may trigger the arbitration exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. This finding confirms that a foreign state cannot automatically avoid enforcement of an arbitral award in the United States merely by invoking sovereign immunity.

Two months earlier, the same court had rejected similar sovereign immunity defenses raised by Guatemala in relation to three other arbitral awards obtained by the same award creditor.

Anshan Intermediate People’ s Court:

Given the Significant Impact of an Arbitration Clause, It Must Be Subject to General Authorization, Specific Authorization, or Subsequent Ratification by the Principal; Otherwise, the Principal Should Not Be Deemed a Party to the Arbitration Clause

Legal Basis:

"Arbitration Law of the People’ s Republic of China"【At the time of hearing and rendering the ruling in this case, the newly revised Arbitration Law had not yet entered into force. Therefore, the pre-amendment version of the Arbitration Law (enacted in 1994 and amended in 2017) applied.】

Article 4

Where the disputing parties choose arbitration as a method for dispute resolution, both parties shall do so voluntarily and shall reach an arbitration agreement. Where there is no arbitration agreement and only one party makes an application, an arbitration commission shall not deal with the case.

Case Description：

On November 15, 2011, the “Inner Mongolia Wanhua Foundry Project Management Department of China XX Group Co., Ltd.” entered into a Color Steel Panel Construction Agreement with Mr.Du, under which Mr.Du was to undertake subcontracted color steel panel works with an estimated contract price of RMB 2 million. The agreement provided that any disputes arising therefrom would be submitted to the Anshan Arbitration Commission for arbitration.

The agreement bore only the signature of Shi Qiguang, without the official seal of either the project management department or the company. After completion of the works, a dispute arose, and Mr.Du applied for arbitration based on the arbitration clause. China XX Group Co., Ltd. subsequently applied to the Anshan Intermediate People’s Court (hereafter referred to as the “Court”) for confirmation that the arbitration clause was invalid, arguing that it had no contractual relationship with Mr.Du and had neither authorized nor ratified Mr.Shi’s agreement to the arbitration clause.

Mr.Du contended that Mr.Shi’s conduct constituted apparent authority and that the arbitration clause, being separable from the main contract, remained valid, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the arbitral institution.

Court's View:

The Court held that the key issue was whether the arbitration clause in the agreement was binding upon China XX Group Co., Ltd.

Pursuant to Article 4 of the Arbitration Law, an arbitration agreement must be based on the genuine and voluntary intention of the parties. As an arbitration clause determines the forum for dispute resolution and significantly affects the parties’ rights and interests, it requires clear authorization from the principal.

In this case, although the agreement identified the project management department as the contracting party, it bore only Shi Qiguang’ s personal signature and lacked the company’ s official seal. From the face of the document, it could not be established that Mr.Shi executed the agreement on behalf of the company. Even assuming apparent authority, such authority does not automatically extend to granting general or specific authorization for agreeing to arbitration. An arbitration clause differs from ordinary contractual terms and must be supported by explicit authorization from the principal or subsequent ratification.

Mr.Du failed to provide evidence that he had verified Mr.Shi’ s authority with the company or that the company had ratified the arbitration clause. Accordingly, there was insufficient proof that the company had expressed a genuine intention to submit disputes to arbitration.

Therefore, the Court ruled that the arbitration agreement was invalid as against China XX Group Co., Ltd.

Grand Court of the Cayman Islands Grants Enforcement of CIETAC Interim Measures in Support of Arbitration

Case Description：

Ienforcedn 2016, the applicant and the respondent entered into a Share Transfer Agreement under which the applicant agreed to sell 78,874,106 shares in Global Cord Blood Corporation (GCBC)—a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands and listed on the New York Stock Exchange—for RMB 5.764 billion. A supplemental agreement provided for deferred payment and an additional USD 10 million. The respondent paid only part of the consideration, leaving approximately RMB 2.002 billion outstanding. Nevertheless, the applicant completed the transfer of most of the shares in 2018 and later claimed that the respondent held the relevant shares on a constructive trust basis.

In 2023, the applicant commenced arbitration before the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC). On December 13, 2024, the arbitral tribunal issued interim measures prohibiting any dealing in the relevant GCBC shares or alteration of the shareholding structure in order to preserve the status quo. On July 18, 2025, the High Court of Hong Kong granted enforcement of the interim measures.

The applicant subsequently applied to the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands for recognition and enforcement of the CIETAC interim measures, seeking to have them enforced as an order of the Court.

Court's View：

The Court relied on section 52 of the Cayman Islands Arbitration Act 2012, which provides that interim measures issued by a foreign arbitral tribunal shall in principle be recognized as binding and enforced, unless one of the limited grounds for refusal set out in section 53 applies. 

The Court referred to the case of Al Haidar v Rao【Al Haidar v Rao (2023 1 CILR) is a civil case heard by the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, published in Volume 1 of the Cayman Islands Law Reports 2023. The case primarily concerns investment partnership disputes and the fulfilment of fiduciary duties, offering reference value for trustee liability and the confirmation of partnership interests under Cayman law.】, emphasizing that the grounds for refusal must be interpreted narrowly and that the burden of proof lies with the respondent.

Upon review, the Court found that: the arbitral tribunal was properly constituted and had jurisdiction; the respondent had been given proper notice and participated in the hearing; the interim measures did not exceed the tribunal’ s authority; the measures remained valid and had not been terminated or suspended; and there was no conflict with Cayman public policy or the Court’ s supervisory jurisdiction in insolvency proceedings. No security had been ordered by the tribunal, and thus no issue arose in that respect.

Accordingly, the Court ruled that the CIETAC interim measures should be recognized and enforced as an order of the Grand Court, so as to preserve the status quo of the shares pending the final arbitral award.