China’s 2025 Arbitration Law Comes into Effect: Practical Implications for International Companies

This alert is published in both English and Chinese.

China’s amended Arbitration Law (the “2025 Law”) came into force on March 1, 2026. It represents the most significant reform to China’s arbitration framework in three decades. The reforms do not fundamentally redesign the PRC arbitration regime, but clarify long-standing structural ambiguities, better align the framework with international practice, and enhance procedural certainty.

For international companies doing business in or with China, the changes warrant attention, since among other things they:

• codify the concept of the arbitration seat,
• expand access to foreign-related arbitration,
• strengthen court support for interim relief, and
• allow ad hoc arbitration within a limited scope.

We discuss below the main implications of the 2025 Law and suggest key takeaways and areas of follow-up for international companies.

1. Broader Scope for “Foreign-Related Arbitration” (Article 78)

Disputes classified as “foreign-related” under PRC law benefit from a more flexible and internationally aligned arbitration regime than purely domestic cases. This includes greater latitude in selecting arbitral institutions and seats outside Mainland China.

The 2025 Law expands the statutory definition of foreign-related disputes beyond traditional categories such as foreign trade and maritime matters to include “other foreign-related disputes.” Although this phrase is not defined, it aligns with a broader judicial and regulatory trend toward a more functional assessment of foreign elements in commercial disputes—including the role of foreign investment, cross‑border contractual performance, or overseas assets.

Practical Implication:

Going forward, a broader range of disputes may be classified as “foreign-related” and enjoy the associated enhanced procedural flexibility. Companies involved in cross-border transactions with a China element should monitor latest judicial developments and, when structuring the dispute resolution clause for a new agreement, consider whether, with the expanded scope, disputes are eligible for more flexible arrangements such as the selection of an offshore seat or a non-PRC arbitral institution.

2. Concept of “Seat of Arbitration” Formally Recognized (Article 81)

The 2025 Law formally recognizes the concept of the arbitration seat—a foundational principle in international arbitration that had previously lacked a clear statutory foundation in PRC law. Article 81 provides that parties to a foreign-related arbitration may now agree in writing on the seat of arbitration. It further clarifies that an arbitral award is deemed to be made at the seat, and absent agreement to the contrary, the seat determines both the procedural law governing the arbitration and the court with supervisory jurisdiction.

Practical Implication:

Before the 2025 Law, PRC arbitration legislation did not clearly articulate the concept or legal consequences of an arbitral “seat.” This created uncertainty in cross-border disputes over which procedural law applied, which courts had supervisory authority, and the nationality of the award for enforcement purposes. In some cases, the PRC courts determined the nationality of an arbitral award by reference to the location of the foreign administering arbitration institution—even where the parties had agreed on a different seat—thereby introducing added complexity and risk in cross‑border enforcement strategy. Codifying the concept of the arbitration seat helps resolve these uncertainties and enhances predictability in matters such as annulment, judicial support, and enforcement. Companies should review their template arbitration clauses to ensure that seat designations are clear, reasonable, and aligned with their dispute resolution and arbitral award enforcement strategy.

3. Limited Introduction of Ad Hoc Arbitration (Article 82)

For the first time, PRC law expressly permits ad hoc arbitration in defined circumstances, including certain foreign-related maritime disputes and disputes involving enterprises registered in designated pilot-free trade zones and the Hainan Free Trade Port. Historically, arbitration in Mainland China has been institution-based.

Practical Implication:

In most cross-border transactions, institutional arbitration is likely to remain the preferred option due to the administrative infrastructure, established procedural rules, and enforcement track record of established arbitral institutions. However, companies operating in eligible sectors or zones may wish to assess whether ad hoc arbitration offers meaningful advantages in specific contexts.

4. Stronger Judicial Support and Procedural Safeguards

The 2025 Law enhances the role of the PRC courts in supporting arbitration, and strengthens procedural safeguards designed to improve fairness, efficiency, and enforceability:

• Emergency Interim Relief (Articles 39 and 58). The 2025 Law broadens the availability of court‑ordered interim measures beyond property and evidence preservation orders to include conduct preservation. It also permits parties, in urgent circumstances, to apply directly to a PRC court for interim relief—including before arbitration proceedings are formally commenced. Courts are required to determine such applications promptly in accordance with the Civil Procedure Law.
  
  Practical Implication:
  
  For arbitrations seated in Mainland China, the expanded availability of conduct preservation from PRC courts may materially strengthen parties’ leverage. The reform also brings the scope of interim measures available for Mainland-seated arbitrations more closely in line with those available to Hong Kong–seated arbitrations under the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the HKSAR. Where Mainland assets, counterparties, or evidence are involved, legal teams should take full account of these enhanced preservation tools in their dispute planning and seat-selection strategy from the outset.

• Deemed Existence of Arbitration Agreements (Article 27). Article 27 provides that where a party asserts the existence of an arbitration agreement in its application for arbitration and the opposing party does not deny it before the first hearing, the agreement will be deemed to exist, provided that the tribunal has reminded the party of this consequence and recorded the matter.  However, since the statute does not clarify whether “hearing” includes procedural hearings, respondents intending to challenge the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement should raise an objection at the earliest possible stage—ideally before any procedural or case management conference.
  
  Practical Implication:
  
  Jurisdictional challenges must now be carefully managed and escalated quickly. Internal dispute protocols should ensure that underlying arbitration clauses are carefully reviewed immediately upon receipt of a claim.

• Arbitrator’s Duty of Disclosure (Article 45). Earlier iterations of China’s Arbitration Law imposed an impartiality obligation on arbitrators, but no proactive disclosure obligation. The 2025 Law now requires arbitrators to disclose any circumstances that may give rise to reasonable doubts as to their independence or impartiality.
  
  Practical Implication:
  
  Codifying a clear disclosure duty aligns the PRC framework with international standards and is likely to enhance transparency in Mainland China-seated proceedings. It may also reduce the risk of successful challenges to awards, including at the enforcement stage in foreign jurisdictions.

• Shortened Time Limit for Setting Aside Awards (Article 72). For arbitrations seated in Mainland China, the deadline to apply to set aside an award has been reduced from six to three months.
  
  Practical Implication:
  
  Post-award review timelines need to be accelerated. Companies should ensure that internal escalation and decision-making procedures allow sufficient time to assess grounds for challenge within the shorter window.

• Clearer Framework for Recognizing and Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards (Article 88). The 2025 Law provides a clearer statutory basis for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards rendered outside the PRC, supplanting provisions previously scattered among the Civil Procedure Law and judicial interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court.
  
  Practical Implication:
  
  The substantive grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement remain aligned with the New York Convention framework. However, the 2025 Law’s clearer articulation of these grounds enhances transparency and strengthens the coherence of the enforcement regime. This may offer international companies greater confidence when evaluating enforcement prospects in Mainland China and when selecting an offshore seat for a China-related dispute.

Takeaways

The 2025 Law is evolutionary not revolutionary. Its practical impact will depend on judicial application in the coming years. Nonetheless, international companies doing business in or with China should consider:

• Reviewing transaction structures to assess whether foreign-related classification may be available. Where appropriate, arbitration clauses—particularly provisions concerning seat designation and institutional choice—should be tailored accordingly, and agreements should clearly reflect relevant foreign elements that support access to the foreign-related regime;
• Reassessing interim relief strategy in disputes involving Mainland China assets, conduct, or evidence;
• Updating internal dispute protocols to reflect shorter set-aside deadlines and earlier jurisdictional objection requirements; and
• Monitoring judicial practice, especially regarding interpretation of “foreign-related” disputes.

2025年《中华人民共和国仲裁法》正式实施：对国际企业之实务影响

经修订的《中华人民共和国仲裁法》（以下简称“2025年仲裁法”）于2026年3月1日正式实施。这标志着中国仲裁框架近三十年来最为重要的一次改革。此次改革虽未从根本上重构中国仲裁体系，但其澄清了长期存在的结构性模糊问题，使仲裁框架更加契合国际惯例，并进一步提升了程序确定性。

对在中国境内或与中国开展业务的国际企业而言，这些变化值得关注，其中包括:

• 在法律层面明确了仲裁地概念；
• 扩大了涉外仲裁的适用范围；
• 强化了法院对临时救济的支持；以及
• 在有限范围内允许进行临时仲裁。

以下我们将探讨2025年仲裁法的主要影响，并提出对国际企业的重要启示及后续关注重点。

一.  “涉外仲裁”范围扩大（第七十八条）

相较于纯国内案件，根据中国法律被归类为“涉外”的纠纷可适用更灵活且更符合国际惯例的仲裁制度。这包括在选择仲裁机构及中国内地以外的仲裁地方面享有更大的自主空间。

2025年仲裁法将涉外纠纷的法定定义从传统的外贸、海事等类别扩展至包括“其他涉外纠纷”。尽管该表述尚未被明确定义，但其契合更广泛的司法和监管趋势，即在商业纠纷中对涉外因素采取更具功能性的评估标准——包括外国投资的参与、跨境合同的履行，或境外资产等因素。

实务影响：

今后，更广泛的纠纷可能被归类为“涉外”纠纷，并因此享有相应的提升了的程序灵活性。参与涉及中国因素的跨境交易的企业应关注最新司法动态，并在设计新协议纠纷解决条款结构时，应结合扩大后的适用范围，考虑纠纷是否具备选择境外仲裁地或非中国仲裁机构的资格。

二.  正式确立“仲裁地”概念（第八十一条）

2025年仲裁法正式确立了仲裁地概念——这一国际仲裁中的基础性原则此前在中国法律中缺乏明确的法律依据。第八十一条规定，涉外仲裁的当事人现在可以书面约定仲裁地。该条进一步明确，仲裁裁决视为在仲裁地作出；除非当事人另有约定，仲裁地同时决定仲裁所适用的程序法以及具有监督管辖权的法院。

实务影响：

在2025年仲裁法之前，中国仲裁立法并未明确界定“仲裁地”的概念及其法律后果。这导致跨境纠纷中存在诸多不确定性：例如适用何种程序法、由哪个法院行使监督权、以及为执行目的如何确定裁决的国籍等。某些情况下，中国法院参照外国仲裁管理机构所在地判定仲裁裁决国籍——即使当事人已约定不同仲裁地——因而为跨境执行策略增加了复杂性和风险。在法律层面明确仲裁地概念有助于解决此类不确定性，并增强撤销、司法协助及执行等事项的可预见性。企业应审查其仲裁条款模板，确保仲裁地指定明确、合理，并与纠纷解决及裁决执行策略保持一致。

三.   有限引入临时仲裁（第八十二条）

中国法律首次明确允许在特定情形下采用临时仲裁，包括某些涉外海事纠纷及涉及在指定自由贸易试验区和海南自由贸易港设立登记企业的纠纷。历史上，中国内地的仲裁一直以机构仲裁为主。

实务影响：

在多数跨境交易中，因成熟的仲裁机构具备完善的行政基础设施、既有的程序规则以及良好的裁决执行记录，机构仲裁很可能依旧是首选方案。然而，在符合资格的行业或区域内开展业务的企业可能希望评估在特定情形下临时仲裁是否具有实质性优势。

四.  强有力的司法支持与程序保障

2025年仲裁法强化了中国法院对仲裁的支持作用，并加强了旨在提升公平性、效率及可执行性的程序保障措施：

• 紧急临时救济（第三十九条及第五十八条）。2025年仲裁法将法院可裁定的临时措施范围从原来的财产和证据保全令扩展至行为保全。其同时允许当事人在紧急情况下可直接向中国法院申请临时救济——包括在仲裁程序正式启动前申请。法院须依据《民事诉讼法》及时对该等申请做出裁定。
  
  实务影响：
  
  对于仲裁地在中国内地的仲裁，新增的行为保全措施制度可能显著增强当事人的谈判筹码。此次改革亦使内地仲裁可获得的临时措施范围，更加接近于根据《关于内地与香港特别行政区法院就仲裁程序相互协助保全的安排》下香港作为仲裁地时可获得的临时措施范围。当涉及内地资产、 交易对手方或证据时，法律团队应从一开始就在纠纷规划和仲裁地选择策略中充分考虑这些增强的保全工具。

• 仲裁协议的推定存在（第二十七条）。第二十七条规定，如一方当事人主张存在仲裁协议，而另一方当事人在首次开庭前且经仲裁庭提醒后仍未予以否认，则该协议将被视为存在。然而，由于法律条文未明确“开庭”是否包含程序性聆讯，拟对仲裁协议存在或有效性提出异议的被申请人应尽早提出反对意见——理想情况下应在任何程序性会议或案件管理会议之前。
  
  实务影响：
  
  对于管辖权异议，现在必须予以审慎管理并快速升级处理。内部纠纷处理机制应确保在收到仲裁请求时立即对相关仲裁条款进行严格审查。

• 仲裁员披露义务（第四十五条）。以往的中国仲裁法虽要求仲裁员保持公正，但并未规定主动披露义务。现在，2025年仲裁法要求仲裁员需披露任何可能引发对其独立性或公正性产生合理怀疑的情形。
  
  实务影响：
  
  在法律层面明确披露义务使中国仲裁框架与国际标准接轨，有望提升仲裁地设在中国内地的仲裁程序的透明度。同时，这也可能降低仲裁裁决被成功质疑的风险——包括在外国司法管辖区执行阶段面临的质疑。

• 撤销裁决期限缩短（第七十二条）。对于仲裁地设在中国内地的仲裁案件，申请撤销仲裁裁决的期限由六个月缩短至三个月。
  
  实务影响：
  
  裁决后的审查时间安排需相应加快。企业应确保其内部升级报告及决策程序有足够时间，能在缩短的窗口期内评估质疑理由。

• 更加明确的外国仲裁裁决承认与执行框架（第八十八条）。2025年仲裁法为承认和执行在中国领域外作出的仲裁裁决提供了更加明确的法律依据，取代了此前分散于《民事诉讼法》及最高人民法院司法解释中的相关规定。
  
  实务影响：
  
  拒绝承认与执行的实质性理由仍与《纽约公约》的框架保持一致。不过，2025年仲裁法对这些理由作出了更清晰的阐述，提升了透明度并增强了执行制度的一致性。这可能在评估在中国内地的执行前景时，以及为涉华纠纷选择境外仲裁地时，为国际企业提供更大的信心。

要点

2025年仲裁法属于渐进式改革，而非颠覆性变革。其实际影响将取决于未来数年的司法实践。尽管如此，在中国境内或与中国开展业务的国际企业仍应考虑：

• 审查交易结构，以评估是否可适用涉外分类。必要时应相应调整仲裁条款——特别是关于仲裁地指定和仲裁机构选择的条款，并在协议中明确体现支持适用涉外制度的相关外国因素；
• 在涉及中国内地资产或证据的纠纷中，重新评估临时救济策略；
• 更新内部纠纷处理机制，以适应更短的撤销期限和更早的管辖权异议要求；以及
• 关注司法实践动态，尤其是关于“涉外”纠纷的解释。