There is little question that the quality of international arbitration in China has improved significantly over time. Rules have been updated to come into greater conformity with international best practices; the independence of arbitration commissions and tribunals has been strengthened; and the number of commissions seeking regularly to administer foreign-related arbitrations has increased, which may lead to greater competition – and along with it, further improvements and innovation – among such institutions.
The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Centre (CIETAC) remains the largest administrator of foreign-related arbitrations in China. Of the more than 1,000 arbitrations CIETAC routinely administers each year, approximately one-third are foreign-related. It is therefore quite frequently the institution foreign parties first consider when selecting a Chinese arbitration commission to administer a potential arbitration.
Although there has been increased convergence of CIETAC’s arbitral practice with international norms, there remain notable differences between what could be considered the typical procedure before a CIETAC tribunal seated in China and that before a tribunal seated in, say, London, Paris or even Hong Kong, and governed by the rules of one of the other major international arbitration institutions.
You must be a
subscribersubscribersubscribersubscriber
to read this content, please
subscribesubscribesubscribesubscribe
today.
For group subscribers, please click here to access.
Interested in group subscription? Please contact us.
你需要登录去解锁本文内容。欢迎注册账号。如果想阅读月刊所有文章,欢迎成为我们的订阅会员成为我们的订阅会员。
The author, Lord Goldsmith QC, is chair of European and Asian litigation at Debevoise & Plimpton