header-logo header-logo

03 May 2012 / Anthony Connerty
Issue: 7512 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

Great changes

Anthony Connerty provides a guide to the 2012 revision of the rules of CIETAC

The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission—CIETAC—is one of the world’s major permanent arbitration institutions. On a case-load basis it is one of the busiest of the arbitral institutions. Formerly known as the Foreign Trade Arbitration Commission, CIETAC was set up in April 1956. CIETAC has its headquarters in Beijing and has four sub-commissions in Shanghai, Shenzhen, Tianjin and Chongqing.

Pattern of international arbitration rules

The rules of the major international commercial arbitral institutions such as CIETAC tend to follow a similar pattern, and broadly will set out rules covering an arbitration from its commencement through to the making of the award.

The 74 Articles of the CIETAC 2012 rules are divided into six chapters covering general provisions, the arbitration proceedings, the award, summary procedure, special provisions for domestic procedure and supplementary provisions.

This article looks at some of the significant changes made to the CIETAC rules by the 2012 revision. Some of the changes are aimed at

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll