JunHe LLP
3 Contributions by JunHe LLP Experts
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note considers challenges to the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals under the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (the Arbitration Law).
This Practice Note has been revised to reflect the 2025 amendments, taking effect on 1 March 2026, by the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China. All citations to provisions of the Arbitration Law are to the amended law. Disputes over a Chinese arbitral institution’s competence commonly turn on whether the arbitration agreement is binding. Under Article 5 of the Arbitration Law (as amended in 2025), arbitral tribunals have exclusive competence to hear disputes where the parties ‘have concluded an arbitration agreement’. Correspondingly, Article 5 also restrains PRC courts from taking jurisdiction ‘unless the arbitration agreement is null and void’. Accordingly, a jurisdictional objection typically targets the validity and binding effect of the parties’
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
Interim measures in support of arbitration in China
This Practice Note reviews the availability of interim measures in aid of arbitration in China under the law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The references to ‘China’ and ‘PRC’ denote Mainland China, excluding Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. It has been updated to reflect the 2025 amendments that take effect on 1 March 2026, and all citations to the Arbitration Law are to the law as amended. In China, arbitral tribunals have no authority to grant interim measures, irrespective of the arbitration rules selected. They are also barred from doing so even where the applicable rules expressly purport to confer such powers. Put simply, a party seeking interim measures must first submit its request to the arbitration institution, which will then transmit the application to the competent court. Arbitration
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
The National People’s Congress of the People’s of China
Under PRC law, a party to arbitration may petition a PRC court to challenge or set aside an arbitral award. In many jurisdictions, the set-aside is termed vacation or annulment. This Practice Note has been updated to account for the 2025 amendments, which come into force on 1 March 2026. All references to articles of the Arbitration Law are to the law as amended.
Jurisdiction of the PRC courts and general procedure
As a matter of statute, PRC courts may annul only those arbitration awards seated in Mainland China and issued by arbitration institutions in Mainland China (Article 72 of the Arbitration Law, as amended in 2025). The Arbitration Law has no binding effect on awards seated outside those territories. Consequently, PRC courts have no power to set aside awards seated in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, or in
Arbitration
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
