Effective 1 March 2026
This note addresses four changes introduced by the amended PRC Arbitration Law. The sections below are ordered by practical impact, from immediate deadline risk to longer-term drafting considerations.
Articles 41 and 72 should be read together. Article 41 governs service of arbitral documents, including the award; Article 72 measures the set-aside window from the date of receipt. Where electronic service is used, the speed of internal escalation becomes a legal risk matter, not merely an operational one.
The statutory period within which a party may apply to set aside an award has been reduced from six months to three months, running from the date of receipt.
Article 41 permits the parties to agree on a reasonable method of service for arbitral documents. Absent agreement, or where the agreement is unclear, service follows the method prescribed by the applicable institutional rules. Many institutions routinely apply electronic service, whether by email or through case-management platforms.
Because the limitation period runs from receipt, the start date often turns on how service was effected. In PRC practice, electronic service is commonly treated as complete on the date the information reaches the addressee's designated system — the relevant email account or platform inbox. For multinational groups involving a local entity, group legal, and external counsel, this can mean the limitation clock begins running before group legal becomes aware of the award.
Article 81 makes the seat of arbitration a central organising concept. Unless the parties separately agree otherwise, the seat determines the law governing the arbitral procedure, the court with supervisory jurisdiction, and the legal place where the award is deemed to have been made.
Absent any separate procedural agreement, the seat serves as the basis for: the lex arbitri; judicial jurisdiction over arbitration-related matters; and the place of making of the award.
Article 81 sets out a clear hierarchy where the seat has not been agreed or is unclear: the seat is first determined in accordance with the agreed arbitration rules; if the rules do not address the seat, the tribunal determines it having regard to the circumstances of the case, with convenience and efficiency as the guiding standard.
State the seat expressly. If the parties intend to make any procedural arrangement beyond what the law of the seat and the chosen institutional rules provide, that arrangement should also be stated expressly and separately to avoid subsequent dispute.
Article 11 confirms that arbitral activities may be conducted online and that online proceedings have the same legal effect as offline proceedings, unless a party expressly objects. This is best understood as legislative confirmation of a mode of hearing and case management already adopted by many institutions, rather than as a departure from existing practice.
The immediate practical benefit for multinational parties is the ability to have key personnel and counsel participate without travelling to China, allowing hearings and procedural conferences to be scheduled more quickly and with the relevant decision-makers present.
Under many institutional rules, the choice between in-person and remote hearings has historically fallen largely within the tribunal's discretion, following consultation with the parties. Article 11 shifts the baseline: online conduct is permitted unless a party expressly objects.
The statute does not specify whether an express objection must be unanimous in multi-party cases. Where one party seeks an online hearing and another objects, the tribunal will need to manage the process, including recording the objection, determining the timing and format of the hearing, and considering whether a fully offline or hybrid arrangement is appropriate.
Pre-arbitration routes for evidence and property preservation exist under the PRC Civil Procedure Law. The amended Arbitration Law operationalises these mechanisms within the arbitration framework and expressly recognises conduct preservation — measures requiring a party to act or refrain from acting — as a category of interim relief in support of arbitration.
Article 39 confirms that interim measures in support of arbitration include not only property preservation but also court orders requiring a party to take, or to refrain from taking, specified actions. In urgent circumstances, a party to an arbitration agreement may apply to the competent PRC court directly before commencing arbitration, by reference to the CPL.
Article 58 retains the evidence preservation route available during arbitration, under which the institution transmits the application to the primary-level people's court at the location of the evidence. It also expressly confirms an urgent pre-arbitration direct-to-court route by reference to the CPL.
These provisions strengthen the statutory basis for urgent preservation relief in support of PRC-seated arbitrations and reduce scope for procedural argument about how pre-arbitration preservation should operate within the arbitration framework. This is particularly relevant in cross-border transactions where the parties have chosen a PRC seat while selecting a foreign law to govern the underlying contract: the substantive law choice can be maintained while a clear route remains open to seek urgent preservation from PRC courts at the outset of a dispute.
Welcome to our website. To provide you with a better service experience, we use cookies and similar technologies. Please read ourandfor details.
Used for session management, authentication, and security.
Help us understand site usage. Data is anonymized.
Form and AI data processed per Privacy Policy, not sold to third parties.
⚠️ AI info is for reference only, not legal advice.