On 12 September 2025, China adopted a comprehensive revision of its Arbitration Law (English version; Chinese version), which will enter into force on 1 March 2026 (“2025 Arbitration Law”), replacing the 2017 version currently in force (“2017 Arbitration Law”) (English version; Chinese version).
Brief Legislative History
China’s Arbitration Law was first adopted on 31 August 1994 and came into effect on 1 September 1995. It has since undergone its first amendment in 2009, its second amendment in 2017 (effective from 1 January 2018), and now its third (and most significant) amendment in 2025 (effective from 1 March 2026). The legislation has, thus, been in operation for over 30 years.
For ease of reference, the key documents are listed below:
- China’s 2025 Arbitration Law in English (machine translation);
- China’s 2025 Arbitration Law in Chinese;
- China’s 2017 Arbitration Law in English (machine translation);
- China’s 2017 Arbitration Law in Chinese;
- NPC Observer’s Summary on China’s Arbitration Law;
- Press Release of China’s Ministry of Justice dated 12 September 2025.
On 29 September 2025, the Ministry of Justice also held a press conference to introduce the newly revised 2025 Arbitration Law and to answer questions from reporters:
Structure of the 2025 Arbitration Law
The 2025 Arbitration Law comprises 96 articles divided into 8 Chapters, as follows:
- Chapter I: General Provisions (Articles 1–12)
- Chapter II: Arbitration Institutions, Arbitrators and Arbitration Associations (Articles 13–26)
- Chapter III: Arbitration Agreement (Articles 27–31)
- Chapter IV: Arbitration Procedure
- Section 1: Application and Acceptance (Articles 32–41)
- Section 2: Composition of the Arbitral Tribunal (Articles 42–50)
- Section 3: Hearing and Award (Articles 51–70)
- Chapter V: Application for Setting Aside an Award (Articles 71-74)
- Chapter VI: Enforcement (Articles 75–77)
- Chapter VII: Special Provisions on Foreign-Related Arbitration (Articles 78–88)
- Chapter VIII: Supplementary Provisions (Articles 89–96)
Not a Model Law Country
China has not adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“(UNCITRAL) Model Law”).
A key divergence from the Model Law is that arbitral tribunals seated in mainland China are not empowered to grant interim measures, such as freezing orders, injunctions, or evidence preservation. These powers remain exclusively vested in local courts, under both the 2017 and 2025 Arbitration Laws.
By contrast, Article 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law authorizes arbitral tribunals to grant interim measures, allowing parties in Model Law jurisdictions to obtain urgent relief directly from their tribunal during the arbitral process.
Other leading arbitral jurisdictions, such as London, Paris, and Geneva, have not adopted the Model Law either, but they have, nevertheless, developed strong and functionally equivalent arbitration regimes. In all three jurisdictions, for instance, tribunals are empowered to order interim measures, in line with international best practice.
Key Changes
The 2025 Arbitration Law introduces significant reforms to modernize China’s arbitration framework and align it with international standards, but with a few caveats, as discussed further below.
Shortened Time Limits for Setting Aside Awards
The time limit for setting aside arbitral awards was six months under the 2017 Arbitration Law (Article 59). This was shortened to three months in the 2025 Arbitration Law under Article 72 to accelerate finality and efficiency in dispute resolution.
Formal Recognition of Arbitration Seat for Foreign-Related Arbitrations
The 2017 Arbitration Law did not formally acknowledge the concept of the seat of the arbitration, which left matters ambiguous. In mainland China, the equivalent to a seat is usually the place where the arbitration institution is located.
The 2025 PRC Arbitration Law remedies this gap by explicitly recognizing the seat of arbitration, in Article 81, though only for foreign-related arbitrations.
In particular, Article 81 provides that, in foreign-related arbitrations, parties may agree in writing on the place of the arbitration, which shall serve as the basis for determining the governing law of the arbitration proceedings and the courts with supporting or supervisory powers. Article 81 also stipulates that the arbitral award shall be deemed to have been made at the place of arbitration. Article 81 further provides that absent an agreement of the parties on the place of the arbitration, it shall be determined by the applicable arbitration rules and if the applicable arbitration rules do not provide for this either, then it shall be determined by the arbitral tribunal in accordance with the principle of convenience.
Article 81 aligns with the UNCITRAL Model Law, Article 20(1), which contains similar wording: “The parties are free to agree on the place of arbitration. Failing such agreement, the place of arbitration shall be determined by the arbitral tribunal having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the convenience of the parties.”
With this reform, the 2025 Arbitration Law brings Chinese arbitration into closer harmony with established global standards, giving commercial parties greater certainty about the law governing their proceedings and the courts with supporting or supervisory powers, at least in foreign-related arbitrations.
Interim Measures
As mentioned above, the 2025 Arbitration Law maintains the principle that only Chinese courts have the authority to grant interim measures in support of arbitration (Articles 39 and 58), as was the case under the 2017 Arbitration Law (Articles 28 and 46).
Specifically, Article 39 of the 2025 Arbitration Law provides that applications for interim relief, such as asset preservation, must be submitted to the court by the arbitration institution. This is what Article 28 of the 2017 Arbitration Law also stipulated. Article 39 of the 2025 Arbitration Law now further specifies that, in urgent cases, parties may apply directly to the court even prior to the commencement of arbitration.
Similarly, Article 58 of the 2025 Arbitration Law provides that applications for preservation of evidence (where evidence may be lost or become difficult to obtain subsequently) shall be submitted to the court where the evidence is located. This is what Article 46 of the 2017 Arbitration Law also stipulated. Article 58 now further clarifies that, in urgent cases, an application may be made even before initiating arbitration.
Arbitral tribunals in mainland China remain without the power to independently order interim measures, a stark contrast to many leading arbitration jurisdictions worldwide and the UNCITRAL Model Law (Article 17). The exclusive reservation of interim relief to Chinese courts reflects a cautious, judiciary-centric regulatory approach, which potential users of arbitration should carefully consider before deciding on Chinese arbitration.
Competence-Competence Principle Strengthened, But With Judicial Oversight
The 2017 Arbitration Law did not recognize the principle of competence-competence (the tribunal’s authority to rule on its own jurisdiction). This stands in stark contrast with international practice and the Model Law, Article 16(1), which explicitly provides that “[t]he arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement.”
Article 31 of the 2025 Arbitration Law now grants arbitral tribunals or arbitration institutions the authority to rule on the validity of the arbitration agreement. However, parties retain the right to seek a ruling from a Chinese court on the same issue. Importantly, if concurrent applications are made both to the tribunal (or institution) and the court, the matter shall be determined by the court.
This means that despite the progressive reforms introduced in the 2025 Arbitration Law, the determination of jurisdiction can still be taken out of the tribunal’s hands, for example, where a non-cooperative party races to the local court simply to disrupt or delay arbitration proceedings. While the new regime brings Chinese arbitration closer to international standards, it does not fully align with the UNCITRAL Model Law, which gives primacy to the tribunal’s jurisdictional determination, subject to limited court intervention.
Parties should thus be mindful of this dual pathway and potential for judicial interference when choosing China as the arbitral seat.
Limited Liberalization of Ad Hoc Arbitration
Ad hoc arbitration (as opposed to institutional arbitration) is a type of arbitration where the parties conduct the arbitration without the involvement or administration of any arbitral institution. Under the 2017 Arbitration Law, ad hoc arbitration was not recognized, and all arbitrations were institutionally administered.
The 2025 Arbitration Law introduces, through Article 82, a cautious expansion permitting ad hoc arbitration, though limited to (1.) foreign-related maritime disputes and (2.) foreign-related cases involving enterprises in designated free trade zones, reflecting a measured approach to flexibility.
While this change aligns China closer to international norms, its narrow scope means ad hoc arbitration still remains largely unavailable for most foreign-related disputes and domestic cases.
Enhanced Arbitrator Independence and Disclosure
Article 45 of the 2025 PRC Arbitration Law introduces an explicit obligation for arbitrators to disclose any circumstances that might give rise to “reasonable doubts” regarding their independence or impartiality. The 2017 Arbitration Law lacked an express statutory provision mandating this duty. This requirement aligns with international standards, such as Article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law and General Standard 2 (Conflicts of Interest) of the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration.
Recognition of Online Arbitration
Article 11 of the 2025 Arbitration Law expressly permits arbitration proceedings to be conducted electronically, except where the parties expressly disagree. This means that virtual hearings, electronic submission of documents, and other online procedures are treated as equivalent to their physical counterparts, as is the case in practice, unless the parties agree otherwise. By adopting an opt-out model for online arbitration, the law keeps pace with technological advancements in the digital age, enhancing the efficiency of arbitrations.
Foreign Arbitral Institutions in Pilot Zones
The 2017 Arbitration Law limited foreign arbitral institutions to representative offices without authority to administer cases (Article 66). The ICC, for instance, has maintained a representative office in Shanghai’s Free Trade Zone since 2016 (see here).
Article 86 of the 2025 Arbitration Law marks a significant shift by providing that foreign arbitration institutions may be permitted to establish business offices in areas, such as the pilot free trade zones and the Hainan Free Trade Port approved by the State Council, and to conduct foreign-related arbitration activities in accordance with relevant national regulations.
This reform opens the door for foreign arbitral institutions to operate more substantively in China, signaling greater openness to international arbitration practices. However, its practical implementation and regulatory framework remain to be tested.
Final Remarks
The 2025 Arbitration Law represents a significant reform, modernizing China’s arbitration framework after three decades of its operation. It introduces significant advancements, such as the formal recognition of the arbitration seat, the partial liberalization of ad hoc arbitration, and the embrace of online arbitration, bringing Chinese practice closer to international standards. The shortened timeline for setting aside awards also underscores China’s commitment to procedural efficiency and finality in dispute resolution.
At the same time, the new law preserves distinctive features of China’s arbitration system, notably the courts’ continuing dominance over interim measures and jurisdictional rulings. This cautious, judiciary-centered model reflects China’s incremental approach to reform, balancing modernization with legal certainty and state oversight.
For commercial parties, these amendments provide greater predictability, transparency, and flexibility in cross-border arbitration, while signaling China’s ambition to become a more attractive and credible seat for international dispute resolution. Yet, users should remain mindful of the practical implications of court involvement and the limited scope of ad hoc arbitration.
Overall, the 2025 Arbitration Law is an important milestone in China’s journey toward a globally integrated arbitration regime, one that blends international best practices with Chinese legal realities, potentially setting the stage for further liberalization in the years to come.
