Key highlights of China’s revised Arbitration Law

16 October 2025

On 12 September 2025, the People’s Republic of China’s (“PRC”) Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress adopted the newly revised Arbitration Law (“Law”), which will come into effect on 1 March 2026. These amendments (“2025 amendments”) follow from its inception in 1995 and two minor revisions in 2009 and 2017.

The 2025 amendments provide a substantial overhaul of the Law, aligning it with international arbitration norms such as endorsing the concept of an arbitral seat, the separability of an arbitration agreement from the main contract, and partially adopting the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle relating to an arbitral tribunal’s ability to rule as to its own competence on the issues before it.

This article provides an overview of some of the key provisions of the Law.

Arbitration agreement

Implied consent

The Law retains the formalities of what constitutes an arbitration agreement but includes a method to imply consent to arbitrate where (1) one party pleads the existence of an arbitration agreement when applying for arbitration; (2) the other party does not deny the existence of arbitration agreement before the first hearing; and (3) the arbitral tribunal reminds the parties and thereafter records these circumstances.

The inclusion of this provision is in line with established practice relating to determining parties’ opinions and is similar to article 7(5) (Option I) of the 2006 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law”), where the consent is implied through the exchange of statements of claim and defence. The requirement in the Law for the arbitral tribunal to “remind and record” is not found in the Model Law.

Separability of arbitration agreement

The Law specifies that an arbitration agreement exists independently of the contract within which it resides and is unaffected by changes to the contract or to its validity.

Challenges to validity

If a party challenges the validity of an arbitration agreement, it may either request a ruling from the competent People’s Court (“Court”) or a decision from the chosen arbitration institution or tribunal. If in such case one party requests a ruling from the Court while another party asks for a decision by the arbitration institution or tribunal, the ruling of the Court shall prevail.

While the Law appears to have endorsed the internationally accepted principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz by providing that an arbitral tribunal or arbitration institution is empowered under the Law to rule on its own jurisdiction, which necessarily involves a review of the validity of the arbitration agreement, “upon the request of a party”, the primacy of the Court’s decision in these matters is an important caveat. 

Institutional governance and arbitrator regulation

Governance structure of arbitration institutions

The Law replaces the term “arbitration commission” with “arbitration institution”, and makes clear that an arbitration institution is a “public welfare non-profit legal person”. This reflects that arbitration institutions are independent of administrative institutions and there is no hierarchical relationship between them.

Under the Law, each arbitration institution must have a governing body comprising one chairperson, two vice-chairpersons, and seven to 11 additional members, at least two-thirds of whom must possess an expertise in law, trade and economics, or science and technology, with practical work experience. The term of office of each member of the arbitration institution is five years. When the term of office expires, a new term shall be held in accordance with the law, and no less than one-third of the members shall be replaced.

Appointment of presiding arbitrator

The Law enhances procedural flexibility in the constitution of arbitral tribunals by providing that in cases involving a three-member tribunal, the parties may choose one of several modes for appointing the presiding arbitrator: appointment by the chairperson of the arbitration institution, mutual agreement by the parties, or joint appointment by the two party-appointed arbitrators. Judges, prosecutors, and civil servants are expressly prohibited from serving as arbitrators. It also expands eligibility by allowing foreign experts in law, trade, economics, maritime affairs, and technology to serve as arbitrators in Chinese arbitration institutions.

Arbitrators are also expressly required to disclose in writing to their arbitration institution any circumstance that could give rise to reasonable doubts about their independence or impartiality.

Foreign arbitration institutions in Free Trade Zones (“FTZs”)

Foreign arbitration institutions remain prohibited from administering domestic disputes.

However, foreign arbitration institutions from outside China are now allowed to establish entities in Chinese FTZs, the Hainan Free Trade Port, and in other regions approved by the PRC Government.

Arbitration proceedings

Ad hoc arbitration

For the first time, the Law permits ad hoc arbitration; however, its use is restricted to foreign-related maritime and commercial disputes involving enterprises registered in designated FTZs or other approved regions. Article 82 also provides that an ad hoc tribunal must file a notice with the China Arbitration Association (“CAA”) within three working days upon its constitution. The CAA is a self-regulatory organisation that supervises the behaviour of arbitration institutions, their members, staff, and arbitrators in arbitration activities in accordance with its charter. It has, at the time of writing, yet to be established.

Online arbitration

The Law formally recognises online arbitration as a legally valid form of proceedings, providing that arbitration may be conducted online except where parties expressly disagree. Arbitration activities conducted online shall have the same legal effect as in-person hearings.

Enhanced evidence collection rules

Arbitral tribunals may collect evidence themselves and also request authorities to assist them in such measures. This gives the tribunals more power to independently collect evidence rather than mainly relying on their requests to the claimants and respondents to provide evidence.

Seat of arbitration in foreign-related arbitration

For foreign-related arbitrations, the parties may agree in writing on the seat of arbitration; absent a different choice of procedural law, the seat determines the law governing the arbitration procedure, the court with supervisory jurisdiction, and the place where the award is deemed to be made.

If the parties have not clearly agreed on the seat, it is determined according to agreed arbitration rules; where the rules are silent, the tribunal may designate the seat based on what best facilitates resolution of the dispute.

Time frame for setting aside applications

The time limit for applying for setting aside an arbitral award has been amended from six to three months from the date of receipt of the award.