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

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll