header-logo header-logo

Modernising arbitration in the PRC

247149
© Getty images
Deborah Ruff, Julia Belcher & Charles H Golsong analyse the key changes in the revised Chinese Arbitration Law
  • The 2026 amendments modernise China’s arbitration law to better align with international standards and increase its appeal as a global arbitration seat.
  • The reforms introduce more interim measures and enhance party and tribunal autonomy.
  • They also open the market to foreign arbitration institutions while strengthening enforcement mechanisms and procedural clarity.

On 1 March 2026, the amendments to the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), adopted on 12 September 2025, came into force. The amendments are extensive and are aimed at improving the arbitration framework in the PRC. The amended law expressly states that the aim is that ‘the development of arbitration shall… serve the national objectives of high-quality development and high-level opening up, foster a market-oriented, law-based and internationalised business environment, and play a role in resolving economic disputes’ (Art 2). The law does not apply to Hong Kong, which is a Special Administrative Region of the PRC and has separate executive,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll