China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

How Do Chinese Courts Review CIETAC, BAC and CMAC-related Arbitration Cases?

Sun, 05 Apr 2020
Categories: Insights

avatar

Beijing Fourth Intermediate People’s Court’s statistical report on the judicial review of arbitration will give you a glimpse of how Chinese courts review cases related to China’s top arbitration institutions.

On 10 Dec. 2019, Beijing Fourth Intermediate People’s Court (B.F.I.P.C.) and China Arbitration Institute (CAI) of China University of Political Science and Law jointly released the Big Data Research Report on Judicial Review of Arbitration Cases of Beijing Fourth Intermediate People’s Court (北京市第四中级人民法院仲裁司法审查案件大数据研究报告).

B.F.I.P.C. has jurisdiction over the judicial review of arbitration cases related to China’s top three arbitration institutions, which handle the vast majority of cross-border arbitration cases in China. Therefore, if you want to arbitrate in China, you may probably have to deal with B.F.I.P.C..

The aforementioned three arbitration institutions are China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), Beijing Arbitration Commission (BAC)  and China Maritime Arbitration Commission (CMAC).

These three institutions are the most important arbitration institutions for cross-border dispute resolution in China. They account for one-fifth of China’s arbitration market share, and in 2018, the amount in controversy of the cases accepted reached 20 billion CNY.

Given that B.F.I.P.C. has been in charge of these arbitration cases since Feb. 2018, the big data report covers the cases closed from 8 Feb. 2018 to 1st Sept. 2019.

There are mainly three types of judicial review cases under the jurisdiction of B.F.I.P.C., including cases of application for determining the validity of arbitration agreements, cases of application for setting aside arbitral awards, and cases of application for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

During the reporting period (from 8 Feb. 2018 to 1st Sept. 2019), the trial divisions have closed a total of 968 cases of these three types, among them, 316 cases of application for determining the validity of arbitration agreements, 647 cases of application for setting aside arbitral awards, and 5 cases (2 from Hong Kong S.A.R. and 3 from foreign arbitration institutions) of application for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

 

The report gives statistics of the time limit for the court to hear cases concerning judicial review of arbitration, and specifies the average trial time for cases not withdrawn by parties and substantively ruled by the court. Generally, the trial time of foreign-related cases is 4-6 times that of domestic cases, while the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards takes an average of 409 days.

This report collects the rulings of the cases of application for determining the validity of arbitration agreements. Most of them were applications for a declaration of invalidity of arbitration agreements, the total number of which was 252, while only 2 cases were applications for verifying the validity of arbitration agreements. As a result, there are only 9 cases where the court supported applications for invalidating arbitration agreements.

The report also analyzes the statistics on the rulings of the cases of application for setting aside arbitral awards, with only a few arbitral awards (5 in total) being set aside or subject to re-arbitration. This shows that generally, B.F.I.P.C. will recognize the arbitral awards.

The laws applied by B.F.I.P.C. in cases of application for determining the validity of arbitration agreements are as follows:

The following form shows the number of cases handled by different arbitration institutions that the parties apply to B.F.I.P.C. to set aside the arbitral awards. We can see that BAC handles more domestic cases while CIETAC handles more foreign-related ones.

The rulings of the cases of application for setting aside arbitral awards are as follows. We can see that most of the applications were dismissed, except that 3 arbitral awards of CIETAC were ruled to set aside and CIETAC and BAC each had 1 award ruled to re-arbitrate.

The report is prepared by CAI under the entrustment of B.F.I.P.C.. Being the most important arbitration research institute in China, CAI  publishes the Quantitative Research Report on China’s Arbitration Credibility Assessment (中国仲裁公信力评估量化研究报告) annually.

CAI announces that it will cooperate with B.F.I.P.C. to publish relevant reports with English translations available on a regular basis.

 

 

Photo by zhang kaiyv(https://unsplash.com/@zhangkaiyv) on Unsplash

Contributors: Guodong Du 杜国栋 , Meng Yu 余萌

Save as PDF

You might also like

China Strengthens Criminal IP Protection with New Rules

In April 2025, China’s top court and procuratorate jointly issued a new judicial interpretation to clarify standards for handling criminal intellectual property infringement cases, aiming to strengthen IP protection, particularly in the service sector.

SPC’s 2024 Typical IP Cases Include AI Face-Swap Ruling

In April 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court released eight typical IP cases, highlighting judicial responses to emerging issues in AI, gaming, and biotech, including a landmark ruling on AI face-swapping copyright infringement.

Chinese Courts Bolster Pregnant Workers' Rights Protection

In April 2025, China's Ministry of Human Resources and Supreme People's Court released typical labor dispute cases emphasizing stronger protection of pregnant employees' rights, including a case where unlawful job reassignment and salary reduction were ruled illegal.

China’s SPC Issues Foreign State Immunity Case Guidelines

In March 2025, China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) issued procedural guidelines for handling civil cases involving foreign state immunity, implementing the country's shift from absolute to restrictive immunity under the new Foreign State Immunity Law.

SPC Issues Prepaid Consumption Rules & Typical Cases

In March 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued a judicial interpretation and six guiding cases to tackle prepaid consumption disputes, invalidating unfair terms, protecting consumer refunds, and penalizing merchants who abscond with prepayments.

SPP Releases Guiding Cases on Civil Adjudication Supervision

In March 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP) released new guiding cases to strengthen supervision over civil judgments, ensuring fairness and correcting errors in court rulings, covering disputes like private loans and traffic accidents.

First Tort Suit Under China’s Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law

In March 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) reported the first-ever tort suit under the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, enabling a Chinese firm to recover over CNY 84 million after a European partner withheld payment invoking a third country’s sanctions.