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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll