Ready for take-off

International arbitration in the age of digital intelligence

A new wave of technological revolution and industrial reform is upon us, with digital and intelligence technologies forging the path. International arbitration is no exception, with the widespread usage of artificial intelligence (AI), algorithms and cloud computing presenting unprecedented opportunities and challenges.

As the nation’s oldest and most representative permanent international arbitration institution, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) has consistently set its sights on the frontier of the development of international arbitration. By exploring the integration of digital intelligence technologies and arbitration practice, CIETAC aims to provide more expedient and high-quality services to domestic and foreign parties, advance the building of an open, collaborative, smart and efficient international arbitration ecosystem, and contribute Chinese wisdom and strength to resolving international disputes in the age of digital intelligence.

Boosting digital and AI applications is essential to tackling the internationalisation and complexity of arbitration. In recent years, many international arbitration institutions have published statistics showcasing a constant climb in the number of international arbitration cases against the backdrop of profound global economic and trade shifts. In the five-year period between 2021 and 2025, CIETAC also witnessed a significant step-up in terms of internationalisation of cases.

First, the number of foreign-related cases and their disputed amounts have risen dramatically. During the five-year period, CIETAC accepted a total of 3,487 foreign-related cases, with an average of 697 cases per year. In 2024, it accepted 758 foreign-related cases, marking an 18% increase over the previous year; the total disputed amount reached RMB81.1 billion (USD11.6 billion), representing 41% of the disputed amount of foreign-related cases across all institutions from the Chinese mainland. In 2025, CIETAC accepted 806 foreign-related cases, marking a 6.3% rise over 2024; the disputed amount reached RMB88.1 billion, an 8.6% increase. During the five-year period, CIETAC accepted 362 cases with both parties from abroad, including 82 in 2025, a 10.8% increase over the previous year.

Meanwhile, the number of countries involved continues to climb. So far, CIETAC cases involve a total of 170 countries and regions around the globe, with 37 added since 2019. Foreign arbitrators also enjoy a high level of participation, with a good variety of procedural languages and governing laws. The five-year period saw 615 instances of foreign arbitrator participation across 566 cases, with 155 instances in 2025 alone, more than doubling that of 2020. During the five-year period, CIETAC accepted 549 cases with English, or both English and Chinese, designated as the procedural language. In addition, the governing laws are also becoming more diversified.

In view of the continuously growing number of arbitration cases and their mounting level of internationalisation and complexity, technical empowerment of international arbitration is as practically important as it is inevitable. For example, the application of the virtual hearing technology facilitates parties, agents and arbitrators from all over the world to participate in the oral hearings.

For another example, with case facts and legal issues ramping up complexity, AI may be leveraged to help the parties and the arbitral tribunals to streamline the facts and documents, search for laws and cases, and thus improving the quality and efficiency of dispute resolution.

Leveraging digital intelligence strengths is a key engine for driving up arbitration quality and efficiency. During the pandemic, virtual hearing technology played a significant role in arbitration procedures. CIETAC’s self-developed smart hearing system also passed the test, and no case had to be put on pause. Now, with rapid strides made in big data, cloud computing and AI fields, digital intelligence explorations in arbitration have begun to bear fruit.

Taking CIETAC as an example, the number of online case filings has consistently grown in the past three years. A total of 12,247 cases were filed online, involving 28,351 individuals from 129 countries and regions, with an average annual growth rate of more than 50%. In the same period, CIETAC held 6,554 online hearings, serving 14,219 individuals from 79 countries and regions. In 2025, 4,755 cases were filed online, about 2.5 times the number of 2022.

To advance the deep integration of “AI + arbitration”, and to ensure the secure, stable and efficient operation of the digital and intelligent arbitration system, CIETAC has established a digital and intelligent supporting system integrating rule innovation, platform construction, institutional development and ethical governance.

In terms of rule innovation, the 2024 edition of CIETAC’s arbitration rules introduces pioneering provisions, such as prioritising electronic service of arbitration documents, granting arbitral tribunals the authority to decide to conduct the oral hearings by remote virtual conference, recognising the validity of arbitrators’ electronic signatures, and the service of electronic versions of arbitral awards. These measures proactively adapt to the evolving demands of the digital and intelligent era.

In terms of platform development, CIETAC has upgraded its ODR platform centred on “multi-device connectivity, bilingual compatibility and full-process coverage”. This enables efficient co-ordination across the entire arbitration process, including online case filings, document exchanges, virtual hearings, as well as administrative and financial services. All participants – parties, arbitrators and arbitration institutions – are empowered by intelligent role-based technologies.

In terms of institutional development, CIETAC’s digital institution construction has entered a new phase of integration and intelligence. The official Chinese and English websites have been completely revamped, guided by the core principles of “digital connectivity, centralised integration and open sharing”. This has systematically established CIETAC’s digital twin, integrating four key functionalities: the digital arbitration court; the digital office space; the digital event hub; and the digital library. Through systematic resource consolidation and enhanced technological empowerment, the efficiency of arbitration services has been significantly elevated.

In terms of ethical governance, CIETAC issued the Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology in Arbitration (for Trial Implementation), the first guidance of its kind in the Asia-Pacific region. Grounded in the fundamental principles of party autonomy, auxiliary adjudication and good faith, these guidelines promote the safe and prudent application of AI technology, achieving a scientific balance between enhancing arbitration efficiency and managing risks.

The comprehensive integration of digital and intelligent technologies into arbitration procedures will translate into enhanced efficiency, accessibility and credibility, serving as a new driving force for the high-quality development of international arbitration. In September 2025, the 17th session of the Standing Committee of the 14th National People’s Congress of the PRC passed the newly revised Arbitration Law, explicitly stipulating that “arbitration proceedings may be conducted online via information networks, except where the parties expressly disagree”. This marks a crucial step towards regulating the application of digital and intelligent technologies in arbitration.

Strengthening international co-operation is a crucial cornerstone for building a new ecosystem for future arbitration. While digital and intelligent technologies present development opportunities for international arbitration, they also give rise to new challenges against data security, algorithmic transparency, due process and ethical governance. These issues urgently require joint efforts through enhanced international co-operation.

Looking back, strengthening international co-operation has gained broad consensus within the international arbitration community. On a global scale, CIETAC spearheaded the establishment of an arbitration co-operation mechanism centred on the Beijing Joint Declaration of the “Belt and Road” Arbitration Institutions, deepening multilateral exchanges. Advancing regional legal collaboration, CIETAC has built arbitration co-operation platforms among the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), Latin America, Central Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation.

At the China Arbitration Summit 2025 & China-Latin America International Arbitration Forum, CIETAC formally launched the Joint Action Plan for Promoting the Development of International Arbitration in the Digital Intelligence Era (the Joint Action Plan). To date, it has garnered broad support from the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and 74 international organisations and dispute resolution institutions.

The four principal goals of the Joint Action Plan are as follows: (1) promoting inclusiveness and narrowing gaps, and thus advancing technical exchanges and capacity building among global arbitration institutions; (2) respecting rights and safeguarding procedures to ensure the independence and integrity of arbitral proceedings; (3) enhancing transparency and promoting fairness by advocating for appropriate disclosure of AI applications; and (4) advancing collaborative governance and building standards by calling on parties to build international consensus and rules.

Moving forward, CIETAC will be guided by the Joint Action Plan to actively foster collaboration among the global arbitration community, the technology sector and academia, pooling international expertise and resources to jointly explore development pathways for intelligent arbitration, enabling AI to become a significant force in promoting the stability of the international economic and trade order, realising fairness and justice, and advancing the rule of law worldwide.

New Arbitration Law’s impact on maritime arbitration

On 12 September 2025, China’s revised Arbitration Law was passed at the 17th session of the 14th National People’s Congress. In many ways, the revised law, which is to be implemented on 1 March 2026, is expected to provide a systematic guarantee for China’s maritime arbitration.

Systematic innovation further caters to the specialised demands of maritime arbitration. Maritime arbitration tends to be more specialised and international when compared with regular commercial arbitration. The revised Arbitration Law takes the unique features of maritime arbitration fully into consideration, providing a solid systematic foundation for the furthering of China’s maritime arbitration.

Most prominently, the revised law expands the scope of foreign-related arbitration to encompass all economic, trade, transport and maritime issues. This sheds light on using arbitration to resolve foreign-related maritime disputes, making the option readily available for all parties in the shipping trade.

The revised law also aligns with international standards by formally adopting the concept of the “seat of arbitration”, which serves as the basis for determining the governing law of the arbitration proceedings and the court with jurisdiction. The arbitral award shall be deemed to have been made at the seat of arbitration, and the country or region where it is located.

Being able to determine the “nationality” of arbitral awards by the seat of arbitration represents a big step towards aligning China’s arbitration mechanism with the 1958 UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, also known as the New York Convention, clearing the way for Chinese maritime arbitral awards to be recognised and enforced overseas. With China’s arbitration mechanism increasingly aligning with international rules, the nation has taken a step forward towards becoming a desirable seat of arbitration for domestic and international parties alike.

Most notably, the revised law affirms for the first time the legal status of ad hoc arbitration and its applicability to foreign-related maritime arbitration. For the longest time, parties to foreign-related maritime contracts avoided picking China as the seat of arbitration due to the non-recognition of ad hoc arbitration.

By enabling parties to foreign-related maritime disputes to resolve their disputes via ad hoc arbitration on the Chinese mainland, the revised law lands well with the current status of international arbitration disputes, where ad hoc arbitration exists side by side with institutional arbitration. With parties’ procedural options expanded, China is a more attractive destination within the global maritime arbitration market.

Even before the revision, the China Maritime Arbitration Commission (CMAC) had taken practical steps towards ad hoc arbitration. In 2022, the CMAC, working in tandem with the China Maritime Law Association (CMLA), formulated and implemented the CMLA Ad Hoc Arbitration Rules and the CMAC Ad Hoc Arbitration Service Rules, spearheading the ad hoc arbitration services in China.

Since 2023, the CMAC, based on the relevant legislative interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court, has been advancing ad hoc arbitration across pilot free-trade zones (FTZs), with the Guidelines on Ad Hoc Arbitration issued in the FTZs of Fujian, Zhejiang, Liaoning, Shandong, Guangxi, Guangdong and Yunnan. Going forward, the CMAC will continue to leverage its expertise to advance the steady development of China’s ad hoc arbitration.

Judicial support and supervision join hands to create an arbitration-friendly legal environment. The revised law strikes a fine balance between judicial support and supervision, creating a more stable and predictable judicial environment for maritime arbitration.

In terms of judicial support, the revised law improves the preservation and interim-measure mechanisms. The ability for parties to apply for the arrest of a vessel and cargo preservation before or during arbitration is essential, given the high mobility of ships, cargo and other assets involved in maritime arbitration. This effectively alleviates common challenges such as trial in absentia of the defendant and inability to enforce awards, improving arbitration efficiency and the authority of the awards.

In terms of judicial supervision, the revised law refines and makes consistent the rules on the revocation and non-enforcement of arbitral awards, sheds light on the applicable scenarios for re-arbitration, and limits the undue interference by the courts, which greatly unifies the judicial supervisory scope and standards, improves the transparency and certainty of the process, and further contributes to the building of an arbitration-friendly ecosystem.

By adopting a “support with moderate supervision” approach, the revised law demonstrates respect for the professionalism of arbitration, safeguards the impartiality of the procedure, and provides a strong judicial guarantee for the development of maritime arbitration.

Encourage international exchanges and co-operation. The revised law encourages Chinese arbitration institutions to “go global”, while opening the door for foreign institutions, advancing the internationalisation of China’s arbitration and supporting the domestic maritime arbitration to compete globally.

With the revised law, domestic arbitration institutions are encouraged to increase foreign exchanges, participate in the formulation of international rules, and set up shop overseas. This creates favourable conditions for the CMAC to conduct international exchanges and expand its global footprint through its Hong Kong arbitration centre.

On the other hand, overseas arbitration institutions satisfying relevant requirements are permitted to conduct foreign-related arbitration businesses in designated areas of the Chinese mainland, which demonstrates the openness of China’s arbitration market and leaves ample room for domestic institutions to go global. While this inevitably leads to greater competition for domestic institutions, it also pushes them to reach for the highest international standards, improve quality and efficiency, and achieve a state of high-quality development.

Besides being a standing UN Commission on International Trade Law observer, the CMAC enjoys close ties with the Comité Maritime International, the Baltic and International Maritime Council and other international organisations, as well as friendly and co-operative relations with nearly 30 international arbitration institutions. By hosting high-level dialogues and issuing joint initiatives, the CMAC is dedicated to co-ordinating the development of international maritime arbitration and to building an open, collaborative and inclusive international arbitration ecosystem.

The implementation of the revised Arbitration Law is not only a milestone in the development of China’s arbitration system, but also a critical moment for China’s maritime arbitration to fit into the bigger international picture and achieve high-quality development. The CMAC will seize the strengths endowed by the revised law, continue to improve the credibility of maritime arbitration, and contribute its unique wisdom and China approach to global maritime governance.

Li Hu is the vice chairman and secretary-general of the China Maritime Arbitration Commission

---

Complex arbitration involving Chinese parties: Developments at HKIAC

The rapid internationalisation of Chinese enterprises has generated a significant volume of cross-border commercial disputes, many of which feature multi-layered contractual structures, diversified financing arrangements and complex corporate governance dimensions. Against this backdrop, international arbitration has become the principal mechanism for resolving such disputes.

Having first introduced mechanisms allowing joinder and consolidation in its 2013 administered arbitration rules, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) has emerged as a leading institution in handling complex disputes involving multiple parties and multiple contracts.

Its experience offers valuable insight into how arbitral practice has evolved to address increasingly intricate commercial activities involving Chinese parties.

Growth in caseload and the changing landscape of China-related disputes. The HKIAC’s recent caseload reflects both quantitative growth and qualitative transformation. In 2024, the institution recorded historic highs in both the number of cases and the amount in dispute, administering 352 cases with a total amount in dispute of USD13.6 billion.

Parties from 53 jurisdictions participated in these arbitrations, with 76.4% of all arbitrations and 86.1% of all administered arbitrations being international in nature.

Within this firmly international landscape, based on case data from 2022 to 2024, the HKIAC also sees strong participation from Chinese mainland parties in international cases, accompanied by a notable rise in the total amount in dispute. This trend underscores their active involvement in international arbitration in a global commercial environment.

The most frequent types of disputes administered by the HKIAC – corporate, construction, commercial and international trade – reflect the diversification of Chinese outbound and inbound economic activity.

The underlying issues are often intricate, involving valuation adjustments, shareholder rights, structured financing packages, regulatory obligations and long-term performance frameworks.

As a result, disputes may extend beyond straightforward breach of contract claims and engage issues of corporate control, multi-party responsibility, and interdependent contractual obligations.

Multi-party, multi-contract disputes

The HKIAC’s 2024 data shows a substantial number of arbitrations involving multiple parties, multiple contracts or both. In 2024, 352 arbitrations administered by the HKIAC involved 1,042 parties and 510 contracts. Of those, 134 arbitrations involved multiple parties or contracts and 51 were single arbitrations initiated under multiple contracts.

The data indicates that a substantial proportion of the HKIAC’s caseload now arises from transactions structured through interconnected instruments such as share purchase agreements, shareholders’ agreements, subscription agreements, loan facilities, guarantees and security documentation.

In these settings, disputes are seldom confined to a single contract. Instead, they involve a network of parties with rights and obligations that are embedded within related contractual frameworks.

This trend is also observed in disputes involving Chinese parties, which frequently feature layered offshore-onshore structures, the use of special-purpose vehicles, and other complexities inherent in structured finance arrangements.

Claimants often seek relief against several respondents, including project companies, holding entities, guarantors and beneficial owners. The growing need to address all such claims within a single arbitral proceeding underscores the importance of institutional mechanisms designed to accommodate complex transactional arrangements.

Institutional adaptation: HKIAC’s framework for multi-party and multi-contract arbitrations. The HKIAC has progressively refined its procedural framework in response to these developments.

Provisions on joinder of third parties (article 27), consolidation (article 28), the commencement of a single arbitration under multiple contracts (article 29), and concurrent proceedings (article 30), which have featured in the 2013, 2018 and 2024 editions of its Administered Arbitration Rules (HKAIC rules), are the four key complex arbitration mechanisms under the HKIAC’s administered arbitrations.

These mechanisms allow for efficient administration of disputes arising out of interdependent contractual frameworks, reduce the risk of inconsistent outcomes and promote the overall coherence of arbitral proceedings.

To utilise the mechanisms under articles 28 and 29 of the HKIAC rules, one of the criteria is that “the arbitration agreements under which those claims are made are compatible”. To provide further guidance to users in this regard, the HKIAC issued the Practice Note on Compatibility of Arbitration Clauses under the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules in January 2025.

While each case must be assessed on its specific circumstances, the practice note outlines the HKIAC’s general approach to assessing the compatibility of arbitration clauses in multi-party and multi-contract cases under both its 2018 and 2024 Administered Arbitration Rules, and explains the institution’s established practice in the constitution of arbitral tribunals in such circumstances.

Where a transaction involves more than one contract, parties are encouraged to use the HKIAC’s model arbitration clause in each contract and to provide for the same seat, the number of arbitrators, the governing law of the arbitration agreement, and the language of the arbitration.

If there are indeed differences across the arbitration agreements, in assessing compatibility, the HKIAC considers all relevant factors, including:

1. 1. Whether, given the differences in the arbitration agreements, it is practically feasible and procedurally efficient for the claims to be heard in a consolidated or single arbitration;
   2. Whether the differences in the arbitration agreements undermine the parties’ consent – through their agreement to adopt the HKIAC rules – to the possibility of determining claims under multiple contracts in a consolidated or single arbitration; and
   3. Whether permitting consolidation or a single arbitration would alter the parties’ agreement regarding arbitral procedure in a manner that might expose the award to a future challenge.

When making determinations under articles 28 and 29, the HKIAC adopts a pragmatic approach, guided by its overarching objective of ensuring the fair, efficient and cost-effective resolution of disputes.

While the practice note neither amends the HKIAC rules nor carries a binding effect, it serves as a useful reference for parties in similar circumstances and reflects the centre’s strong commitment to transparency in its general practices.

Reinforcing institutional presence

Procedural innovations alone cannot fully address the challenges posed by complex China-related disputes. The HKIAC has therefore complemented its rule making initiatives with strategic institutional expansion to strengthen connections with practitioners and end users.

The establishment of its Beijing office in 2024, following the opening of a Seoul office in 2013 and a Shanghai office in 2015, marks a significant milestone.

As the first offshore arbitral institution with a formal presence in China’s capital, the HKIAC not only deepens its engagement with Chinese mainland stakeholders, but also enhances its role as a bridge enabling international parties to access and navigate the mainland legal and business environment more effectively.

The Beijing office supports training, professional exchanges and policy dialogue, and provides facilities for hearings and related services in accordance with Chinese mainland laws.

It is fully equipped to offer facilities in support of the HKIAC’s dispute resolution services within the scope of applicable regulations. Notably, it has already hosted a hearing in which a witness testified remotely in co-ordination with its headquarters in Hong Kong.

Conclusion

The evolution of the HKIAC’s caseload and institutional practices reflects broader transformations in the global arbitration landscape. As Chinese enterprises engage in increasingly complex forms of cross-border commerce, their disputes require procedural mechanisms capable of managing multi-party relationships, interdependent contractual frameworks and multi-jurisdictional legal considerations.

The HKIAC’s response, including refining its procedural rules, publishing practical guidance on compatibility of arbitration agreements, and expanding its institutional presence, demonstrates how arbitral institutions can adapt to these demands.

The HKIAC’s experience suggests that future Chinese mainland-related arbitrations will not only continue to grow in volume, but will also become more structurally complex. Institutions equipped with coherent procedural frameworks, transparent practices, and a deep understanding of commercial realities will support fair and efficient dispute resolution in an increasingly interconnected global economy.

---

Joanne Lau is the secretary-general and Zhang Xi is the head of China relations and chief representative (Beijing office) at the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre

---

Beyond the rulebook: Toolkits of international arbitration

Rules, regulations and procedures form the foundation of international arbitration. Arbitration laws in different jurisdictions, the rules of arbitral institutions, and evidentiary rules and guidelines issued by bodies such as the International Bar Association together create a relatively stable framework.

For practitioners actively engaged in cross-border dispute resolution, however, these rules are often only the “visible layer”. Many of the factors that ultimately determine outcomes, efficiency and the parties’ experience lie beyond the rules themselves in areas such as procedural design, dispute management tools, and practical communication strategies.

This article divides these “beyond the rulebook” approaches into two toolkits: (1) a procedural toolkit; and (2) a toolkit for dispute resolution and prevention, which provides a systematic and operational framework for understanding and applying these methods.

Procedural toolkit

The procedural toolkit is a core accelerator in international arbitration. Without altering the rules themselves, it can significantly change how those rules are applied, shaping the pace of proceedings, the structure of the evidentiary record, and the tribunal’s overall grasp of the case. In high-value, multijurisdictional, or technically complex disputes an effective set of procedural tools often has a greater impact on the direction of the case than the substantive legal issues.

Terms of reference (ToRs). In arbitration proceedings administered by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Court of Arbitration, the ToRs are a core procedural document prepared by the tribunal after receipt of the case file, in accordance with the ICC Arbitration Rules. Its primary function is to establish a clear and controllable framework for the entire arbitration, making the process more efficient, predictable and streamlined.

The ToRs typically include the parties’ details and addresses for service, a summary of the relevant facts and issues in dispute, the parties’ claims and the amounts in issue, the matters to be determined, details of the tribunal, the seat of arbitration, applicable procedural rules, and the language of the arbitration.

Introduced in the first edition of the ICC Arbitration Rules, in 1923, the ToR have in the past century become one of the ICC’s most distinctive procedural mechanisms and a key document for aligning the understanding of the tribunal and the parties.

In practice, experienced legal teams will often prepare at an early stage an internal document that sets out the issues in dispute and the evidentiary structure in greater detail. This helps to plan evidentiary strategy, document production, expert evidence, and potential procedural milestones in advance. Although such “shadow ToRs” are not formal procedural documents, they are a standard feature of efficient and well-organised teams.

Case management conference (CMC). This is one of the most critical procedural tools for enhancing efficiency in international arbitration, allowing the proceedings to be “tailor made” to the specific needs of the case. An increasing number of ICC tribunals now hold CMCs online, reducing costs and facilitating cross-border communication.

At the early stage of the tribunal’s constitution, an early CMC is typically convened to address key issues that shape the overall structure of the arbitration. These include the number of rounds of written submissions, the scope and rules of document production, the use of early determination of issues, whether the proceedings should be bifurcated, and the number of fact and expert witnesses and how their evidence will be presented.

They also include the format, duration and location of the hearing and related technical arrangements, the use of virtual hearings or real-time transcripts, and whether a list of issues will be adopted.

CMCs are highly flexible. If new parties, evidence or procedural disputes arise at later stages, the tribunal may reconvene CMCs at any time to make adjustments. Experienced tribunals do not default to standard templates or rely on ad hoc procedural decisions.

Instead, they consider, at the outset of each procedural phase, customised arrangements with a reasonable cost profile and predictable efficiency. The tribunal may invite the parties to submit procedural proposals in advance. Where the parties agree, the tribunal should adopt their proposal. Where they do not, the tribunal will decide.

Dispute management toolkit

In international commerce, the ultimate objective of substantive disputes is often not simply to “win”, but to achieve sustainable business relationships and balanced commercial outcomes. Accordingly, international arbitration offers, beyond its formal procedures, a range of tools for facilitating settlement, managing risk and preventing disputes.

Mediation window. The arbitration rules of the ICC and other international institutions have mechanisms linking mediation and arbitration, creating structured opportunities for settlement. A mediation window is, in essence, a procedural pause that allows the parties, at critical stages of the arbitration, to reassess risk and commercial objectives.

In practice, such windows are most commonly scheduled at: (1) the conclusion of the initial exchange of pleadings, when the factual disputes, claim structure and defence framework have largely crystallised and risk can be reassessed; (2) before document production, to avoid significant cost being incurred and positions becoming entrenched; and (3) prior to the submission of expert reports, particularly in technical or engineering disputes. In most international arbitrations, a window of four to six weeks is typical and should generally not exceed eight weeks.

The existence of a mediation window allows companies to explain to boards or audit bodies that a “structured settlement opportunity” is being pursued, reducing internal concerns about appearing to negotiate from a position of weakness.

At the arbitration clause negotiation stage, Chinese companies may, depending on their needs, proactively seek to include mediation window provisions to prevent disputes from escalating into uncontrolled procedural battles.

Preliminary views. Drawing on German civil procedure, some arbitral tribunals provide non-binding preliminary views at an early stage of the arbitration. The ICC rules permit tribunals, where appropriate, to express such views to facilitate settlement.

This does not compromise the tribunal’s independence or its final decision, but it gives the parties an early indication of how the decision makers may approach the core issues of the case. In some ICC cases, tribunals provide preliminary views after the first CMC, before addressing issues of governing law, or following the submission of the first round of written pleadings.

As a settlement facilitation tool, the value of preliminary views lies primarily in their ability to provide management with an “objective rationale” for pursuing settlement when the tribunal identifies weaknesses in a party’s position, without this being perceived internally as an excessive concession. In addition, preliminary views reduce the uncertainty of a “complete loss”, making parties more willing to engage in negotiations.

Bifurcation and partial awards. In complex arbitrations, substantive issues may be divided into separate phases of “liability” and “quantum”, a process known as bifurcation, which can also serve as an effective settlement facilitation tool. Once liability is determined, commercial negotiations tend to become more manageable.

In many cases, parties found liable are more willing to settle the damages through negotiation, avoiding costly quantum experts and lengthy hearings.

When deciding whether to bifurcate proceedings, experienced tribunals typically consider whether it will lead to meaningful cost savings, whether liability and quantum can be clearly separated, and whether bifurcation is likely to narrow the scope of the dispute.

The corresponding use of a partial award provides the parties with a clear and binding decision point. Practice shows that this is often the real catalyst for subsequent commercial settlement.

Sealed offer. Originating in the UK, sealed settlement offers are designed to encourage parties to accept reasonable settlement proposals. A sealed offer places procedural pressure on the receiving party; if a party rejects a sealed offer that is equal to or more favourable than the final award, it may be ordered to bear all or a substantial portion of the arbitration costs, regardless of the substantive outcome.

The mechanism operates as follows. Party A makes a sealed settlement offer to party B on a “without prejudice, save as to costs” basis, which party B rejects. The arbitration then proceeds, with the tribunal deciding liability and quantum before turning to costs.

At that stage, party A may disclose the sealed offer to the tribunal. If A can demonstrate that the offer was equal to or more favourable to B than the final award, the rejected offer may be considered as a significant factor in the tribunal’s costs decision.

Sealed offers can operate effectively, whether made by the claimant or the respondent. Tribunals may discuss at an early stage of the proceedings (for example, at the first CMC) whether to adopt a sealed offer procedure, with the institution’s secretariat assisting in its implementation.

The value of this mechanism lies in encouraging parties to assess risk rationally, avoid unnecessary procedural confrontation, and reconsider settlement opportunities in light of potential cost exposure. The sealed nature of the offer also protects the offering party, ensuring that proposing settlement terms and figures does not undermine its negotiating position.

---

Donna Huang is the director of arbitration and ADR for North Asia at the International Chamber of Commerce

---

Harmonious disaccord: An evolution in commercial mediation

Mediation has enjoyed a long history in China, yet commercial mediation remains underdeveloped. The main reason lies perhaps in the lack of finality and enforceability of mediation outcomes. If one party refuses to comply, the dispute would have to be reverted to arbitration or litigation, failing to save either time or cost.

For many years, the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) has taken a party-centric approach and explored practical solutions to this challenge, promoting the “oriental experience” within international arbitration by encouraging parties to voluntarily submit their disputes to mediation conducted by the arbitral tribunal. Each year, about 20% of the SCIA’s arbitration cases are concluded through mediation agreements or consent awards.

However, tribunal-facilitated mediation has long attracted doubts that, if mediation fails, views expressed and concessions made during the process may affect the arbitrators’ independence and impartiality in subsequent proceedings.

Although the SCIA has, since 2012, emphasised the independence of mediation in its arbitration rules – providing that, where mediation fails, acceptance or opposition, expressed in any statement, view, opinion, proposal or proposition by either party, or by the arbitral tribunal in mediation, cannot be invoked by either party as grounds for supporting any claims, defences or counterclaims in subsequent proceedings – such market concerns have never been fully dispelled.

To address this issue, the SCIA has for nearly two decades pursued a model that integrates independent, non-tribunal-facilitated mediation with arbitration, and has continued to innovate in its mechanisms, aiming to strengthen the independence, finality and enforceability of commercial mediation through co-ordinated rules.

Furthermore, it has adopted party-centric cost arrangements and an openness-oriented approach to institutional co-operation, enabling Chinese and foreign parties alike to resolve commercial disputes amicably, swiftly and at lower cost. This article focuses on six harmonious dispute resolution (HDR) mechanisms developed by the SCIA for integration with its arbitration proceedings.

Exhibition mediation

The first practical application of this mechanism dates back to 2007, when the SCIA, together with the China Hi-Tech Fair and the Shenzhen Intellectual Property Administration, established the China Hi-Tech Fair Centre for Dispute Resolution, creating an exhibition-based mechanism combining event management, administrative co-ordination, commercial mediation and commercial arbitration, with a particular focus on resolving IP disputes involving high-tech enterprises.

The mechanism was applied on a much broader scale at the China Import and Export Fair (the Canton Fair). Since 2007, the SCIA has, as the exclusive dispute resolution institution designated by the Ministry of Commerce, provided on-site, pro bono mediation services at the fairs.

By the close of the 138th Canton Fair in 2025, the SCIA had amicably resolved more than 1,500 international trade disputes on site, with a mediation success rate exceeding 70%. The parties involved hail from 123 countries and regions, and the model has been widely recognised as a global best practice for dispute resolution at international trade fairs.

Chamber of Commerce mediation

In 2007, the SCIA supported the Shenzhen Association of Enterprises with Foreign Investment in establishing a commercial mediation committee, creating a new dispute resolution mechanism that closely integrates chamber-based mediation with arbitration, with a focus on resolving foreign investment disputes.

Building on this experience, the SCIA in 2009 supported the establishment of the commercial mediation committee of the Hong Kong Chinese Enterprises Association, extending the SCIA’s “mediation + arbitration” services to Hong Kong, with a focus on cross-jurisdictional commercial disputes involving Chinese enterprises.

In addition, the SCIA supported the creation of the mediation and arbitration centres of the Guangdong Federation of Industry and Commerce and the Shenzhen General Chamber of Commerce, in 2011 and 2012, to facilitate the amicable resolution of disputes between private enterprises.

SCIA Mediation Centre

In 2008, the SCIA Mediation Centre was formally established with the approval of the Shenzhen government. It encourages parties to seek independent mediation either before or outside arbitration proceedings and, through effective linkage with arbitral awards, has helped resolve many commercial disputes, domestic or foreign-related, in an amicable, efficient and cost-effective manner.

In 2015, the SCIA Mediation Centre accepted and successfully mediated a Sino-US cross-border investment dispute involving RMB13.4 billion (USD1.9 billion), the largest commercial mediation case in China to date, based on publicly available data.

The case involved six days of independent mediation followed by seven days of linked arbitration. Fifteen lawyers representing three parties from five jurisdictions participated, and all spoke highly of this HDR mechanism with distinct Chinese characteristics.

Securities mediation

In 2013, with the support of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, the SCIA worked with securities regulators, industry self-regulatory bodies and relevant trade associations to establish the Shenzhen Securities and Futures Dispute Mediation Centre, China’s first mediation institution dedicated to the capital markets.

In 2017, drawing on its integrated four-pillar dispute resolution model – combining specialised mediation, commercial arbitration, industry self-regulation and administrative oversight – the centre successfully resolved a four-year control dispute between Shanghai-listed Changyuan Technology Group and Shenzhen-listed Woer Heat-Shrinkable Material. The outcome delivered a win-win solution and was described by domestic and international media as a “textbook case” in China’s capital markets.

With a focus on protecting the legitimate rights and interests of small and medium-sized investors, the mechanism offers pro bono mediation services to this group. To date, it has handled nearly 4,000 mediation cases with a success rate of nearly 60%, and has been widely praised by market participants for “greasing the wheels” of China’s capital markets.

GBA alliance mediation

In 2013, the SCIA and the SCIA Mediation Centre initiated the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Commercial Mediation Alliance in Qianhai, Shenzhen, bringing together 14 leading commercial mediation institutions from the three jurisdictions. The alliance established a cross-jurisdictional platform for the harmonious resolution of commercial disputes.

Built on the arrangements for mutual recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards between the Chinese mainland, Hong Kong and Macau, and supported by the SCIA arbitration, the platform has promoted the co-ordinated development of commercial mediation across the Greater Bay Area (GBA). By 2015, the alliance had expanded to 18 member institutions.

It was renamed the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Arbitration and Mediation Alliance in 2018, with its own set of rules for dispute resolution issued in 2019, further deepening mutual recognition, interoperability and integration of rules and mechanisms across the three jurisdictions.

In 2019, the SCIA Arbitration Rules formally incorporated alliance member institutions into the relevant linkage mechanisms. Article 49 provides that parties may apply for mediation with mediation institutions recognised by the SCIA, and may request the arbitral tribunal to render an award or a mediation statement in accordance with the settlement agreement reached through mediation.

To prevent “sham mediation”, the SCIA Arbitration Rules require parties to ensure the legitimacy and authenticity of settlement agreements and related transactions, and that they do not harm third-party or public interests. If the arbitral tribunal has reasonable doubts in this regard, it shall reject the parties’ application.

Article 26 of the Regulations on Commercial Mediation, promulgated by China’s State Council on 31 December 2025, provides that: “Support shall be given to the alignment of commercial mediation rules and mechanisms in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area, to promote the co-ordinated development of commercial mediation across the region.”

Foreign arbitration

In 2019, the SCIA was invited to attend the signing ceremony of the Singapore Convention on Mediation (SCM). As at 13 January 2026, the SCM had 59 signatories, but only 20 states (China not included) had ratified it, meaning that the cross-border enforceability of mediated settlement agreements remains limited.

To promote international commercial dispute resolution, the SCIA and the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) signed a memorandum of understanding to launch the SIMC-SCIA Med-Arb Protocol in 2022. Both parties jointly conduct international mediation training programmes. Under the New York Convention, arbitral awards issued by the SCIA on the basis of settlement agreements are enforceable in 172 contracting states.

Takeaways

In addition to the above-mentioned six HDR mechanisms, the SCIA has actively explored other dispute resolution methods integrated with arbitration.

In 2016, the SCIA established China’s first negotiation facilitation centre and issued the country’s first set of negotiation facilitation rules. In 2017, this mechanism helped bring about a successful resettlement agreement for what was then China’s largest shanty town renovation project – covering about 1.3 million square metres and affecting more than 86,000 residents – with a 98% signing rate.

The SCIA’s HDR innovations have been incorporated into the world’s first piece of dedicated legislation governing a specific arbitration institution. Article 5 of the Regulations of the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration provides that, in addition to arbitration, the SCIA may resolve commercial disputes through mediation, negotiation facilitation and other mechanisms organically linked with arbitration.

The arbitration centre’s innovations and practices in HDR mechanisms reflect the broader trajectory of commercial mediation in China. With the Regulations on Commercial Mediation set to come into force on 1 May 2026, China’s commercial mediation framework is poised to enter a new phase of development.

---

Liu Xiaochun is president of the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration

---

SHIAC’s pursuit of ‘world class’ under new Arbitration Law

China is actively promoting the development of world-class institutions with Chinese characteristics. The newly revised Arbitration Law further strengthens the institutional framework for arbitration and encourages institutions to “go global” and participate in the formulation of international rules. How to build a “world-class institution” has therefore become a new and pressing question for Chinese arbitral institutions, including the Shanghai International Arbitration Centre (SHIAC).

Rethinking ‘world class’

For global commercial parties, a world-class arbitral institution provides a stable procedural framework that delivers predictable outcomes and controllable costs. For Chinese arbitral institutions, this value proposition comprises three key elements.

Governance structure should align with internationally accepted understandings of how institutions operate. Taking the SHIAC as an example, when it was established in 1988, it adopted the internationally recognised model of an arbitral institution set up by a chamber of commerce.

Its functional positioning was clearly defined as a private and independent arbitral institution, using internationally accepted arbitration practices to resolve commercial, trade and investment disputes.

Recently, a party to an SHIAC arbitration applied to a US court for assistance in obtaining evidence from a US company pursuant to section 1782 of title 28 of the US Code. The court held that, in light of the 2022 US Supreme Court decision limiting the scope of section 1782 to governmental or intergovernmental adjudicatory bodies, the SHIAC did not qualify.

Although it was established with official approval, the court found that, based on its functions, operational independence and the fact that its adjudicatory authority derives from party consent, the SHIAC is in substance a private commercial arbitral institution and therefore falls outside the scope of section 1782.

This case indirectly illustrates the professional and commercial character that the SHIAC has consistently maintained.

Alignment of arbitration rules and case management practices with international standards. For more than three decades, the SHIAC has consistently incorporated internationally accepted case management practices into its arbitration rules.

From the China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone Arbitration Rules issued in 2014 to the rule framework effective in 2024, comprising “main rules, special rules and procedural guidelines”, the SHIAC’s rules have continually reflected the latest developments in international arbitration.

Concepts such as good faith arbitration, digital and intelligent arbitration, the seat of arbitration, and competence-competence have all been incorporated into China’s revised Arbitration Law, greatly advancing the alignment of Chinese arbitration law with international practice.

Between 2018 and 2024, the total amount in dispute in SHIAC cases recorded a compound annual growth rate of 23.3%, with overseas arbitrators participating in more than 300 instances. In a pharmaceutical licence-in dispute, a foreign party commented that “the ability of SHIAC and other mainland arbitral institutions to conduct proceedings in English and manage cases in line with internationally accepted practices highlights their adaptability and flexibility”.

Awards that meet commercial parties’ expectations. The SHIAC has long encouraged tribunals, while respecting party autonomy, due process and efficiency, to exercise independent judgment in procedural arrangements, fact finding, the application of law, and adjudicative methodology, producing awards that more closely align with the commercial objectives for which parties choose arbitration.

Taking the financial and capital markets sector as an example, the SHIAC has accepted 3,273 cases in this field in the past five years, accounting for about 22% of its total caseload.

This proportion is broadly comparable to that of leading arbitral institutions located in international financial centres, such as the London Court of International Arbitration and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, with the amounts in dispute exceeding RMB200 billion (USD28.7 billion).

In these cases, which involve cutting-edge transactions such as share repurchases, securities issuances by listed companies, asset-backed securitisation products and public REITs (real estate investment trusts), SHIAC tribunals have generally been able to accurately identify the commercial logic of the investments and respect industry practice. The resulting awards have demonstrated a strong track record in subsequent judicial review.

World-class expectations

The revision of the Arbitration Law reflects China’s proactive response to global arbitration developments and the application of indigenous wisdom to China’s foreign-related rule of law. Chinese arbitral institutions can leverage this framework to pursue “world-class” status.

Supporting outbound investments as a starting point for enhancing international competitiveness. Besides continually aligning with internationally accepted rules, Chinese arbitral institutions in pursuit of “world-class” status should also play to China’s natural strengths. This includes leveraging practical experience in handling high case volumes, deploying tech tools, and translating that experience into rule innovations that better respond to international arbitration users’ demand for efficient, convenient and diverse procedural options.

The SHIAC’s pre-constitution mediation integrates China’s “harmony” culture with safeguards and has been well received.

Similarly, the SHIAC’s promotion of digital and intelligent arbitration services has enabled fully online proceedings while significantly enhancing procedural efficiency through milestone-based case management, big data analysis and AI-assisted tools.

Average case duration since 2013 is at 150.2 days, a timeframe that, compared with many international arbitral institutions, is better aligned with the practical needs and expectations of Chinese businesses.

Work with Chinese courts in driving rule innovation. Judicial decisions by Chinese courts that support rule innovations adopted by Chinese arbitral institutions are among the most effective forms of international endorsement for Chinese arbitration. The SHIAC has long emphasised close co-ordination with courts at all levels, particularly in the context of judicial review of arbitral proceedings and the “one stop” dispute resolution mechanism.

Since the establishment of the Shanghai International Commercial Court (SICC), an internal division of the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court, the SHIAC has worked with it closely to explore mechanisms for aligning arbitration rules with judicial support.

In 2025, in a foreign-related digital services trade dispute administered by the SHIAC, a Hong Kong-seated sole arbitrator carefully assessed the reasonableness, necessity and enforceability of a party’s request for evidence taking and decided to grant the request.

The SICC reviewed the application and the tribunal’s decision transmitted by the SHIAC and, on that basis, issued an order for judicial assistance in evidence collection.

Leveraging favourable policies to support the “going global” expansion of China’s legal services sector. The revised Arbitration Law expressly supports Chinese arbitral institutions in establishing overseas offices. At present, institutions in Shanghai, Beijing and Shenzhen have already taken the first steps towards setting up operations overseas.

The SHIAC believes that overseas offices should serve as forward bases for driving the global expansion of China’s legal services sector.

Its Hong Kong centre, which opened in May 2024, has achieved several milestones within just one year, including: being listed as a recognised institution under the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; being designated as a temporary arbitration venue under Hong Kong’s Immigration Facilitation Scheme for Persons Participating in Arbitral Proceedings in Hong Kong (the scheme); and being authorised as a designated institution under the Greater Bay Area arbitrator roster.

To date, SHIAC Hong Kong has received two arbitration cases between the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong, with the amounts in dispute exceeding HKD350 million (USD44.9 million).

In one financial loan dispute, SHIAC Hong Kong appointed an arbitrator from the Chinese mainland who has long been active in the international arbitration community, adopted a “two-tier” fee structure consistent with international practice, and applied a tribunal-led case management model. This approach enabled the proceedings to be conducted efficiently and the award to be rendered on time.

To facilitate the participation of mainland counsel engaged by mainland enterprises in hearings held in Hong Kong, SHIAC Hong Kong issued the first certificate under the scheme. It enabled access to its online hearing system from Hong Kong.

We hope these targeted, outward-facing initiatives provide useful lessons for Chinese arbitral institutions seeking to go above and beyond.

---

Wang Weijun is the secretary-general of the Shanghai International Arbitration Centre

---

SIAC rules 7th edition: A pragmatic and professional overhaul

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC)’s 7th edition arbitration rules (“2025 SIAC Rules”) came into effect on 1 January 2025, marking the first major and comprehensive revision in nine years. Drawing on the arbitration centre’s experience of administering more than 3,000 international arbitration cases under the SIAC rules 6th edition, the new rules introduce numerous innovations and address the needs and concerns of arbitration users worldwide.

This article focuses on two key highlights of the 2025 SIAC Rules – the streamlined procedure and the emergency arbitrator procedure – while also briefly addressing other important updates.

Streamlined procedure

The streamlined procedure (rule 13, schedule 2) applies to disputes with an amount in controversy not exceeding SGD1 million. It features a sole arbitrator, significantly shortened timelines for tribunal constitution, and a simplified process typically conducted on a documents-only basis, without document production, witness statements or hearings. It aims to render an arbitral award within three months after the constitution of the tribunal. Fees are also substantially reduced, capped at 50% of the maximum limits under the schedule of fees.

In particular, main differences between the streamlined procedure and the expedited procedure are summarised below:

Chinese users should note the following:

(1) Complexity of the case. Cases with a small amount in dispute but complex facts are not suitable for the streamlined procedure.

(2) Number of arbitrators. The streamlined procedure applies automatically when the conditions are met, and the case will be heard by a sole arbitrator, regardless of whether the parties have agreed on one or three arbitrators. If the parties wish to have a three-member tribunal, they should apply to exclude the application of the streamlined procedure.

Emergency arbitrator procedure

The SIAC introduced the emergency arbitrator (EA, rule 12, schedule 1) procedure in 2010, becoming one of the first major arbitral institutions in the world to adopt such a mechanism. Under this procedure, parties may apply for urgent interim relief even before the arbitral tribunal is constituted.

Specifically, if the SIAC president decides to accept the application, the president will appoint an emergency arbitrator within 24 hours of receiving the application, and the emergency arbitrator must issue an order or award on the request for urgent interim relief within 14 days of accepting the appointment.

The 2025 SIAC Rules enhance the EA procedure in the following two aspects:

(1) Applicants may now request the appointment of an emergency arbitrator prior to submitting a notice of arbitration, provided that the notice shall be filed within seven days, failing which the EA application shall be deemed withdrawn on a without prejudice basis; and

(2) A party may file an ex parte application for a protective preliminary order, requesting the president to appoint an emergency arbitrator to direct a party not to frustrate the purpose of the emergency interim or conservatory measure requested (e.g., not to call on a performance bond).

The emergency arbitrator is required to determine the request for a protective preliminary order within 24 hours after its appointment. An applicant must promptly transmit any such order and other documents to the counterparty within 12 hours of the order being issued, failing which the order shall expire three days after the date of issuance.

The introduction of this procedure recognises the potential need for immediate and urgent relief at the early stages of a dispute, while balancing the need to preserve procedural integrity and fairness.

Other key updates

The 2025 SIAC Rules also include several other significant updates.

SIAC Gateway (rule 4). A case management platform for use by parties and tribunals in SIAC arbitrations at no additional cost. Parties may submit a notice of arbitration online through the SIAC Gateway platform. After consulting the parties and the tribunal, the registrar may direct the parties to file all written communications via this platform.

Promotion of the use of mediation (rules 6.4, 7.3, 32.4 and 50.2). Parties and tribunals are encouraged, through multiple provisions of the new rules, to consider amicable dispute resolution mechanisms such as the SIAC-SIMC Arb-Med-Arb Protocol.

Third-party funding (rule 38). With third-party funding becoming increasingly common in international arbitration, this provision imposes clear disclosure obligations and related requirements to prevent conflicts of interest and to safeguard procedural fairness.

Co-ordinated proceedings (rule 17). This procedure enables the co-ordinated management of multiple arbitrations involving common legal or factual issues where the same tribunal has been appointed. Unlike the consolidation under rule 16, the co-ordinated proceedings do not require the consent of all parties, nor do they require that all claims, counterclaims and cross-claims be made under the same arbitration agreement, or that the arbitration agreements be compatible.

Time limit for draft awards (rule 53.2). The new rules require tribunals to submit a draft award to the SIAC secretariat within 90 days after the last directed oral or written submissions in respect of the proceedings to which the award relates, unless the registrar determines otherwise. Under rule 32.3 of the 2016 SIAC rules, the draft award was required to be submitted within 45 days from the date on which the tribunal declared the proceedings closed. The new rule 53.2 establishes a more objective and transparent timeline.

---

Zhang Cunyuan is the director and head (China) of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC)