Why Litigation & Arbitration in China Is Different
Arbitration in China operates on a model that can differ in meaningful ways from other jurisdictions. Merits disputes and quantum disagreements are universal; what differentiates China is the structural architecture of the dispute itself — which forum will accept the case, what procedural rules will govern it, and whether the eventual outcome can be enforced where it matters.
On the forum side, the Chinese court system is organized into Basic, Intermediate, High, and Supreme People’s Courts, with jurisdiction allocated by f. Foreign-related commercial cases typically begin at the Intermediate court level. Arbitration in China runs alongside the courts but on its own track — through institutions such as CIETAC, SHIAC, BAC, and SCIA — each with its own rules, panel composition, and procedural style. The choice between Chinese court litigation and Chinese commercial arbitration is rarely about preference; it is governed by what the contract actually says, by whether the dispute is foreign-related, and by which forum produces the most enforceable outcome.
On the procedural side, evidence rules are narrower than foreign litigators expect. There is no common-law-style discovery; parties must produce their own evidence, and notarized or apostilled documents are often required for foreign-origin material. Witness testimony plays a smaller role than in adversarial systems, and written submissions carry proportionally more weight. The language of proceedings is Chinese; foreign-language documents must be translated by qualified providers.
On the enforcement side, the asymmetry is sharper still. Foreign court judgments remain difficult to enforce in China outside of dozens of bilateral treaties, while foreign arbitral awards enjoy a far better path through the New York Convention. This single asymmetry shapes how cross-border contracts with Chinese parties should be drafted long before any dispute arises — and how a dispute, once it arises, should be channeled.
Chinese Court System & Litigation
The Chinese court system is structured in four tiers — Basic People’s Courts, Intermediate People’s Courts, High People’s Courts, and the Supreme People’s Court. For foreign parties, most foreign-related commercial cases are heard by Intermediate People’s Courts or by designated Basic People’s Courts in cities that handle foreign-related matters. Specialized IP and Maritime Courts handle their subject matter directly.
Jurisdiction is determined by domicile, place of contract performance, location of the subject matter, and — in foreign-related cases — by a valid jurisdiction or arbitration clause. A foreign company suing or being sued in China generally cannot freely choose its venue: the rules are set by contract or by statute, and an objection to jurisdiction is usually the first procedural battle.
The practical challenges are well known and worth pricing upfront. Proceedings are conducted in Chinese; foreign documents require translation, notarization, and consular legalization (or apostille, for Convention countries); local counsel must be engaged because foreign lawyers cannot represent parties before Chinese courts; and procedural timelines, while increasingly disciplined, are not those of common-law litigation. None of these is fatal on its own, but together they make litigating in China a meaningfully different exercise from litigating against a Chinese counterparty in London or New York.
Arbitration in China
For foreign parties, China arbitration is often the preferred route for disputes with a Chinese counterparty — driven less by neutrality concerns than by enforcement reality. China’s PRC Arbitration Law was comprehensively revised on 12 September 2025 and entered into force on 1 March 2026, replacing the 1994 statute. The revision introduces the international “seat of arbitration” concept, recognizes ad hoc arbitration in foreign-related cases, permits proceedings to be conducted online, and shortens set-aside applications from six months to three.
- CIETAC — the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, based in Beijing with sub-commissions in Shanghai, Shenzhen, and elsewhere — is the leading institution for foreign-related commercial cases. Its rules accommodate three-arbitrator tribunals, an open panel for foreign-related cases, and English-language proceedings on consent.
- SHIAC — the Shanghai International Arbitration Center — and BAC — the Beijing Arbitration Commission — together with SCIA in Shenzhen, have in recent years gained increasing traction with foreign parties on the strength of their professionalism and service quality. Each offers bilingual case management, panels of qualified foreign arbitrators, and rules that have moved closer to international institutional standards.
Under China arbitration law, a distinction exists between domestic arbitration and foreign-related arbitration: the latter category allows for foreign-seated arbitrators, English-language proceedings, and rules that closely track institutional norms elsewhere. For foreign investors and exporters, the practical question is whether the dispute qualifies as foreign-related — a determination that turns on factors such as party nationality, the location of the subject matter, and the place of contract performance.
Commercial arbitration law in China is also distinguished from international arbitration seated outside the mainland — Hong Kong (HKIAC) and Singapore (SIAC) remain frequent third-seat choices, preserving enforceability in China under the New York Convention or the mainland–Hong Kong Mutual Enforcement Arrangement.
Dispute Strategy & Forum Selection
The most important decision in a China-related dispute is usually made before the dispute begins — when the contract is drafted. A poorly drafted arbitration clause, a forum that the local court will not recognize, or a governing law that produces a result no one can enforce, are problems that surface only when it is too late to fix them.
For Chinese contracts, the foundational choice is between Chinese litigation and arbitration — and, within arbitration, between a seat onshore (CIETAC, SHIAC, BAC, SCIA) and offshore (HKIAC, SIAC, or further afield). Onshore arbitration offers procedural familiarity for the Chinese counterparty and direct enforcement domestically. Offshore arbitration offers distance, international panel composition, and — through the New York Convention — a path to enforcement in China that is more reliable than the path for foreign court judgments.
The applicable law in international commercial arbitration is a separate question from the seat. Parties frequently select PRC law as the governing law of a contract performed primarily in China, while arbitrating offshore; equally, they may select a neutral substantive law (Swiss, English, Hong Kong) while seating arbitration in Asia. The combination has to work: the governing law determines what the contract means, the seat law determines how the arbitration is supervised, and the institutional rules determine how it actually runs.
For international trade arbitration — sale-of-goods, distribution, manufacturing, and supply disputes between Chinese and foreign counterparties — the workable combination is often: substantive law negotiable, seat outside mainland China, institution with both Chinese-language and English-language capability, and an arbitration clause drafted to survive any later challenge to its validity under PRC law.
Evidence & Procedure
Evidence rules in Chinese proceedings differ materially from those in common-law systems. Each party bears the burden of producing its own evidence; there is no broad disclosure obligation comparable to US discovery or English standard disclosure. Where evidence is in the other party’s hands, applications for court or tribunal-ordered production exist but are narrower in scope and less frequently granted.
Documentary evidence carries the highest weight. Foreign-origin documents must be notarized in their country of origin and either consular-legalized or apostilled (China joined the Apostille Convention in 2023). Translations into Chinese must be provided by qualified translation agencies; mistranslations have been known to derail otherwise strong cases. Original contracts, invoices, shipping documents, and correspondence with chops or signatures carry the strongest evidentiary value.
Witness testimony plays a more limited role than in adversarial systems. Cross-examination exists in both court and arbitration proceedings, but is narrower in scope. Especially in commercial matters, expert evidence on quantum, accounting, and technical issues is gaining acceptance — more so in arbitration than in court.
Enforcement in China & Cross-Border
Arbitration award enforcement in China is part of a Chinese dispute that decides whether everything that preceded it was worth doing. Chinese court judgments are enforced through the issuing court or the court where the assets sit; the regime is mature, but identifying enforceable assets — particularly equity holdings, receivables, and property registered under affiliated entities — is its own workstream.
Foreign arbitral awards travel into China through the New York Convention, to which China is a party with the usual commercial and reciprocity reservations. Awards seated in Hong Kong are enforceable under the Mainland–Hong Kong Mutual Enforcement Arrangement on similar terms. Recognition is the rule rather than the exception, but applications can be refused on the limited Convention grounds — improper notice, lack of capacity, scope of submission to arbitration, public policy — and Chinese courts apply these with some rigor.
Foreign court judgments occupy the most restrictive category. Enforcement depends either on a bilateral treaty or on reciprocity, and while the Supreme People’s Court has moved toward a more open reciprocity standard in recent years, the path remains case-specific and slower than arbitral enforcement. For contracts with significant Chinese-asset exposure, this asymmetry is the single strongest argument for arbitration over litigation.
Our Role as a China Litigation & Arbitration Law Firm
As an international arbitration law firm with a resident China practice, we sit on both sides of the dispute at the same time. Our PRC-licensed lawyers in Shanghai handle proceedings before the People’s Courts and CIETAC, SHIAC, BAC, and SCIA; our European and broader Asian network — across Italy, Hong Kong, India, Vietnam, and the UAE — handles the home-jurisdiction questions that the contract, the corporate group, and the enforcement strategy all sit on top of.
With offices across Europe and Asia, our dispute resolution practice is built for foreign parties navigating disputes in China — whether as claimant or respondent, in court or in arbitration. We advise on the legal framework in which the client makes decisions, then translate the position into what is admissible, arguable, and enforceable on the Chinese side.
Working with the right arbitration lawyer on a China case is, in practice, the difference between a dispute that produces a usable result and one that produces an award no one can collect. For most clients, this means being served — from the contract drafting that prevented the dispute, through the proceedings, to the day the money actually moves — by one firm, which delivers greater continuity and consistency end-to-end.
