An Unexclusive Comparative Analysis of the New Chinese Arbitration Law and the English Arbitration Act 2025

This article undertakes an in-depth comparison of the two most significant recent legislative developments in China and the United Kingdom: the sweeping 2025 revision of the Chinese Arbitration Law ("2025 PRC Law”) and the focused yet impactful English Arbitration Act 2025 (“2025 English Act”).  The analysis elucidates not only statutory changes but also the underlying architectural philosophies of each regime.  It highlights both convergences (such as the move towards party autonomy and pro-arbitration policies) and enduring divergences (such as the role of courts, scope of interim measures, and treatment of arbitrator independence).  These are examined in light of international standards, most notably the UNCITRAL Model Law, the New York Convention (1958), and the 2024 IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration (“IBA Guidelines”).

The New Chinese Arbitration Law: Modernization and Harmonization

Legislative Evolution and Historical Background

The 1994 Arbitration Law as China’s first national legislation governing arbitration.  Early on, it focused on promoting arbitration as a distinct alternative to state courts but imposed strict institutional requirements.  Over the years, incremental reforms, most notably the 2017 “Amendment” introduced valuable clarifications.  However, foreign investors and practitioners persistently identified several limitations:

1. the exclusive reliance on arbitral commissions.
2. the non-recognition of agreements to ad hoc arbitration.
3. a court-dominated interim relief regime.
4. inconsistent procedural transparency and arbitrator accountability.

With the phenomenal growth of Chinese outbound investment, the Belt and Road Initiative, and the increasing prominence of China-based commercial actors in global markets, the reform momentum gained force.  The 2025 PRC Law ultimately positions the Chinese Mainland as a more modern, international arbitration hub with ambitions rivalling Paris, London, Singapore, and Hong Kong.

Recognition of Ad Hoc Arbitration

Previously, all arbitrations in the Chinese Mainland had to be institutionally administered by a domestic arbitration commission.  This administrative model discouraged commercial parties familiar with the flexibility, and in some cases, confidentiality, of ad hoc proceedings as practiced under the UNCITRAL Model Law and in major commercial seats worldwide (notably London, Paris, and Geneva).

New Law: Monitored Liberalization

Pursuant to Article 82 of the 2025 PRC Law, ad hoc arbitration has, for the first time, received formal recognition under China's national unified legislation. Compared with ad hoc arbitration in the UK, ad hoc arbitration in Mainland China, remains, for now, limited to foreign-related matters and designated geographic areas.  There may be judicial interpretations setting forth further procedural requirements and safeguards.  The enforcement of ad hoc awards is expressly recognized by reference to the criteria stipulated in the PRC Civil Procedure Law and international conventions.  International practitioners should remain alert to the more restricted scope and potentially evolving regulatory framework for ad hoc arbitration in China.

Institutional Governance: From “Commissions” to “Institutions”

The 2025 PRC Law replaces the term “arbitration commission” (仲裁委员会), which carries connotations of public administration, with “arbitration institution” (仲裁机构).  This terminological shift aligns linguistic and legal concepts with international practice, emphasizing the professional and quasi-private character of these bodies.

The 2025 PRC Law also introduces structural and governance requirements for arbitration institutions, mainly including separation of functions among their governance, operational, and supervisory bodies and greater transparency through the publication of rules, decision-making procedures, arbitrator rosters, fee schedules, and annual reports.

By embracing a “corporate governance” philosophy now prevalent in international arbitral institutions, these reforms are expected to increase trust among foreign parties and reduce the perceived protected status of local actors.

Expanded Scope of Arbitrable Disputes

The 2025 PRC Law broadens the definition of eligible parties to “natural persons, legal persons, and unincorporated organizations” (Article 3), clarifying standing for entities such as partnerships, limited liability partnerships, foundations, trusts, and joint ventures.  This effectively positions Chinese arbitration institutions—particularly those in Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, and Hainan—as competitors to ICSID, PCA, ICC, and the SCC in high-stakes international disputes, including investment disputes which Chinese institutions are now explicitly authorized to administer.  However, matters of public law (notably administrative and certain family disputes) remain expressly excluded from arbitration, upholding the classic “arbitrability” boundaries found in both Chinese and English law.

Interim Measures: Expanded and Modernized Regime

Historically, interim relief in Chinese arbitration was obtainable only through national courts and was mainly limited to “property preservation.”  Under the 1994 Arbitration Law, applications had to be passed to national courts through the local arbitration institutions, causing delays and practical uncertainty, frequently rendering relief ineffectual in fast-moving commercial contexts.

The 2025 PRC Law broadens the scope of interim measures, which now include property preservation, evidence preservation, and conduct preservation (comparable to prohibitory or mandatory injunctions).  Crucially, parties may apply directly to the competent Intermediate People’s Court for urgent measures even before the formal commencement of arbitral proceedings (Articles 39 and 58).  The 2025 PRC Law defers to the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC (2023) on matters of pre-arbitration preservation. According to Article 104 of the Civil Procedural Law, if such an application is granted, the party must initiate arbitration within thirty days.  A claimant with evidence of asset dissipation by a counterparty may, before filing a request for arbitration, seek an ex parte freezing order from the court, ensuring assets remain available for enforcement.  Courts must decide on applications within 48 hours, improving upon previous timelines that were often protracted and unpredictable.

The 2025 PRC Law moves closer to international standards.  Nevertheless, certain challenges remain. Tribunals still lack the authority to order interim measures directly.  There is not yet a provision for “emergency arbitrator” mechanisms of the kind available under certain institutional rules.  National courts retain the primacy to decide on applications for interim relief.  Even after the tribunal is constituted, applications for interim relief must pass through the arbitral institution but are ultimately decided by the courts.

Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

The 2025 PRC Law harmonizes and narrows the grounds for setting aside awards, bringing the legal framework further into alignment with the grounds listed in Article V of the New York Convention.  Time limits for challenging arbitral awards are shortened (Article 72), and the scope for inconsistent local practices are curtailed through clearer statutory enumeration and prospective guidance from the Supreme People’s Court.

Comparative Analysis: 2025 PRC Law vs. English Act

Interim Measures: Judicial vs. Dual-Track Regimes

While the 2025 PRC Law dramatically expand availability of interim relief and enhances procedural clarity, the PRC paradigm remains court-centric: the arbitral tribunal, even after constitution, cannot itself order interim measures that are enforceable within the Mainland China.  The philosophy behind this model is deeply rooted in the long-standing culture of China as well as a rather cautious mind to balance the interests between the claimant and respondent.

The English Act allows the parties to agree on the powers of the tribunal to grant interim measures.  Major institutions rules provide for the tribunal’s power to grant interim or conservatory measures.  Meanwhile, the court retains robust powers (as extended in the 2025 English Act) to grant interim measures not only against parties but also against third parties.

The English model represents a more widely accepted standard and is broadly harmonized with Article 17 and 17J of the UNCITRAL Model Law.  The Chinese model, while advancing, still reflects a more cautious, state-supervised ethos.

Law of the Arbitration Agreement

Following extensive debate and the influential decision in Enka v Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, Section 6A of the 2025 English Act clarifies that:

1. The law chosen by the parties governs the arbitration agreement (lex arbitri).
2. Absent express choice, the law of the seat applies.

The 2025 PRC Law, while modernized on most fronts, contains no specific provision on the law governing the arbitration agreement.  However, Article 18 of the PRC Law on the Application of Law to Foreign-Related Civil Relations, enacted in 2010, provides that failing the parties’ agreement, the law of the arbitral seat or the law of the location of the arbitral institution applies to the arbitration agreement.

Duty of Disclosure and Arbitrator Independence

Both the 2025 PRC Law and English Act now impose express standards for arbitrator impartiality and the duty of transparency, but their implementation differs.

Article 26 of the 2025 PRC Law requires arbitrators to proactively disclose, in writing, any circumstance that may “reasonably” cause doubts about their independence or impartiality.  The law also sets out grounds for challenges with specific examples (e.g. prior appointment by a party, family/business connections, prior involvement in the subject matter).  It leaves room for institutional rules to elaborate or apply different standards in cross-border or investment disputes. This approach mirrors international standards in that it requires disclosure to protect both the appearance and actuality of impartiality.

Section 23A of the English Act codifies the duty to disclose “any circumstances which might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts” as to impartiality but does not identify specific examples of conflicts in the statute.  This duty is continuous, extending from initial contact through to the rendering of the award.  The English approach codifies judicial developments, especially Halliburton v Chubb [2020] UKSC 48, and is heavily influenced by the IBA Guidelines on both subjective and objective standards for disqualification.

Summary Disposition of Claims

Section 39A of the English Act empowers tribunals to dismiss on a summary basis claims or defenses lacking “a real prospect of succeeding” unless prohibited by the parties’ agreement.  It reflects best practice for efficient and early disposal of clearly unmeritorious claims (with inspiration from Rule 41(b) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules and summary judgment applications in common law courts).

In contrast, the 2025 PRC Law does not expressly empower tribunals to award summary disposal, but arbitral tribunals may exercise case management discretion subject to due process and proper notice, and arbitral institutions are likely to develop procedural rules to fill this lacuna.

Practical Implications, Strategic Considerations, and Future Developments

Selecting the Seat and Drafting Arbitration Clauses

With the 2025 reforms, China becomes increasingly attractive as a venue for parties seeking to arbitrate commercial and investment disputes with a nexus to China.  For parties with operations or assets in both China and the UK, careful consideration remains essential vis-à-vis the following aspects:

1. Be explicit about ad hoc vs. institutional arbitration and, if relevant, the language, rules, and seat of arbitration;
2. Pay particular attention to the applicable law;
3. Consider providing for summary dismissal in the arbitration agreement;
4. In high-value or sensitive disputes, consider a multi-tiered dispute resolution clause (negotiation, mediation, and arbitration); and
5. Specify explicitly whether interim relief is to be obtained from the tribunal, the courts, or both.

Arbitrator Selection and Disclosure

The expanded and expressly codified disclosure requirements mean that both parties and prospective arbitrators must undertake careful, affirmative investigation of any professional, financial, or personal relationships that could arguably pose a risk of challenge.  Institutions are likely to supplement these rules with detailed protocols, thus harmonizing practice and providing guidance to practitioners.  In cross-border matters, parties may consider selecting arbitrators with a deep understanding of the IBA Guidelines, soft international law, and relevant domestic standards so as to enhance procedural legitimacy.

Future Directions

Both the Chinese and English regimes are expected to continue evolving.  The growing entrenchment of international guidelines (such as the IBA Guidelines) and best practices for arbitral procedure, increasing cross-fertilization among arbitration practitioners, and ongoing judicial dialogue are likely to drive further harmonization, despite inevitable differences in procedural details.

The Chinese model’s embrace of limited ad hoc arbitration, direct pre-arbitral interim measures by courts, and expanded arbitrable subject matters puts it squarely on the path to compete with leading global jurisdictions not just in high-value commercial disputes but also in investment arbitration and specialized sectors such as maritime, construction, and energy. The UK, meanwhile, has reinforced its position with predictable, efficient, and party-friendly reforms, ensuring that London remains at the forefront of the global arbitration map.

Conclusion

The 2025 reforms to the Chinese Arbitration Law and the English Arbitration Act 2025 mark significant milestones in the evolution of global arbitration law.  Both jurisdictions, in reflecting but also recalibrating international standards and best practices, have enhanced their attractiveness as hubs for international dispute resolution.

Both statutes now enshrine arbitrators’ principal duties of impartiality, independence, and disclosure, codify expanded availability of interim relief, and promote party autonomy.  This comparative review demonstrates not only a convergence of substantive and procedural requirements but also the enduring particularities related to domestic legal culture and state involvement.

Practitioners drafting arbitration clauses or conducting proceedings in either legal system must, however, remain vigilant given the nuanced distinctions in implementation and actively leverage evolving international guidance to inform best practice at every procedural stage.