CIETAC and HKIAC arbitration rules compared (part 2)

By Jim Qiu, Yao Liang Law Offices

In the last issue, we compared the arbitration rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) in terms of objections to an arbitration agreement and/or the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal, the appointment of arbitrators and formation of an arbitral tribunal, the language of arbitration, and preservation orders.

This article examines the differences between the two sets of rules in terms of evidence, time periods, fees and costs, and the enforcement of arbitral awards.


Jim Qiu 邱靖, Yao Liang Law Offices 耀良律师事务所, Partner 合伙人
Jim Qiu
Yao Liang Law Offices

There is no substantial difference between the two sets of rules with regard to evidence. In both, the burden of proof lies with the party who claims, and both set out regulations on the time limits for producing evidence, cross-examination, and the competence of the arbitral tribunal. However, each set of rules has its own characteristics. The CIETAC rules empower an arbitral tribunal to undertake investigations and collect evidence, which is helpful to parties that encounter difficulty collecting evidence. The HKIAC rules allow witnesses to testify by written statement, which is cheaper than having witnesses attend in person.

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.



Jim Qiu is a partner in the Shanghai office of Yao Liang Law Offices

701/702 Huaxia Bank Tower

256 Pudong Nan Road

Pudong New Area

Postal code: 200120

Tel: + 86 21 5155 0338

Fax: + 86 21 5155 0051