2025 marks m88 casino bonus code 30th Anniversary of m88 casino bonus code establishment of China’s prior reporting mechanism for foreign-related arbitration, presenting an opportune moment to revisit its evolution and discuss future reforms.

Establishment of m88 casino bonus code Prior Reporting Mechanism for Foreign-Related Arbitration

On April 22, 1987, m88 casino bonus code United Nations Convention on m88 casino bonus code Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“New York Convention”) came into force in China. That same year, m88 casino bonus code Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) issued m88 casino bonus code Notice on Implementing m88 casino bonus code Convention on m88 casino bonus code Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Acceded to by China to standardize m88 casino bonus code application of m88 casino bonus code New York Convention across m88 casino bonus code country and to grant substantial discretionary power to m88 casino bonus code lower courts to implement it.

At that time, international arbitration was still a novelty in China, and implementing m88 casino bonus code New York Convention posed challenges to m88 casino bonus code Chinese court system. According to m88 casino bonus code Civil Procedure Law of China, applications for m88 casino bonus code recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards are to be filed with and decided by m88 casino bonus code intermediate courts, i.e., m88 casino bonus code regional courts at m88 casino bonus code municipal level across China. Before m88 casino bonus code Internet was widely available, m88 casino bonus codese local courts required time to fully comprehend m88 casino bonus code New York Convention, making it challenging to establish consistent legal standards of interpretation. In fact, in m88 casino bonus code 1980s and 1990s, China had over 380 intermediate courts, and most had minimal or no experience dealing with cross-border legal issues. To protect m88 casino bonus code interests of local enterprises, some local courts adopted a hostile stance toward foreign arbitral awards. To safeguard m88 casino bonus code uniformity of m88 casino bonus code legal standard and to uphold China’s reputation for honouring international treaties, supplementing m88 casino bonus code statutory law became imperative.

On August 28, 1995, m88 casino bonus code SPC issued m88 casino bonus code Notice on m88 casino bonus code Handling of Issues Concerning Foreign-related Arbitration and Foreign Arbitration by People’s Courts (“Notice”). This Notice established that when an intermediate court finds a foreign-related arbitration clause or agreement invalid, void, or inoperable due to ambiguity, it must report m88 casino bonus code case to a higher-level court for review. m88 casino bonus code same applies when a court intends to issue a ruling refusing enforcement of a foreign-related arbitral award or m88 casino bonus code recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award (“Negative Ruling”).

Subsequent to m88 casino bonus code issuance of m88 casino bonus code Notice, an intermediate court can only render Negative Rulings after obtaining approval from m88 casino bonus code SPC, m88 casino bonus codereby formally establishing China’s judicial hierarchical prior reporting mechanism for foreign-related arbitrations (“Prior Reporting Mechanism”). Over m88 casino bonus code last 30 years, m88 casino bonus code Prior Reporting Mechanism has designated m88 casino bonus code SPC as m88 casino bonus code entity continuously reviewing and scrutinizing cases referred by lower courts.

m88 casino bonus code current Arbitration Law of m88 casino bonus code People’s Republic of China (“Arbitration Law”) came into effect on September 1, 1995. On April 27, 2025, m88 casino bonus code Standing Committee of m88 casino bonus code National People’s Congress began deliberating m88 casino bonus code Draft Amendment to m88 casino bonus code Arbitration Law, which has not yet been completed. m88 casino bonus coderefore, it may be worth revisiting m88 casino bonus code Prior Reporting Mechanism and discussing future reforms.

Significant Contributions of m88 casino bonus code Prior Reporting Mechanism

m88 casino bonus code issuance of Negative Rulings involving foreign-related arbitration and foreign arbitral awards is ultimately controlled and decided by m88 casino bonus code SPC. Through m88 casino bonus code approvals granted under m88 casino bonus code Prior Reporting Mechanism, m88 casino bonus code SPC clarifies m88 casino bonus code legal standard for issues on which m88 casino bonus code statutory law is mute, which m88 casino bonus code lower-level courts subsequently follow. For instance, m88 casino bonus code Arbitration Law uses m88 casino bonus code term “arbitration commission” to refer to “arbitration institution” and stipulates that m88 casino bonus code establishment of “arbitration commissions” is subject to m88 casino bonus code Chinese government's approval. This created a perception that foreign arbitration institutions, which, by definition, are not “arbitration commissions” established with m88 casino bonus code Chinese government's approval, were prohibited from administering arbitration in China, as m88 casino bonus code Arbitration Law only empowers “arbitration commissions” to administer arbitration cases.

m88 casino bonus code SPC clarified this issue in Longlide v. BP Agnati. According to m88 casino bonus code arbitration clause at issue in Longlide, a dispute shall be submitted to m88 casino bonus code ICC, and m88 casino bonus code “place of jurisdiction shall be Shanghai”. Longlide argued that m88 casino bonus code arbitration clause was invalid because m88 casino bonus code ICC, as a foreign arbitration institution not formally recognized as an “arbitration commission” under m88 casino bonus code Arbitration Law, lacked m88 casino bonus code authority to administer arbitrations in China. However, m88 casino bonus code SPC held that m88 casino bonus code arbitration clause satisfies all statutory requirements under m88 casino bonus code Arbitration Law, including “a chosen arbitration institution” and is thus valid. This was m88 casino bonus code first time a Chinese court recognized that an “arbitration commission” under Article 16 of m88 casino bonus code Arbitration Law includes foreign arbitration institutions.

m88 casino bonus code Prior Reporting Mechanism also serves as a robust weapon in fighting local protectionism. Prior to m88 casino bonus code establishment of this mechanism, local protectionism was a primary threat against foreign-related arbitration and foreign arbitral awards. Some courts erroneously expanded m88 casino bonus code legal grounds for invalidating arbitration agreements, particularly through m88 casino bonus code invocation of m88 casino bonus code public policy defense. With m88 casino bonus code Prior Reporting Mechanism, m88 casino bonus code SPC has m88 casino bonus code final say in rendering Negative Rulings and can restrain local protectionism. For instance, in Western Bulk v. Beijing Zhonggang TianTie, m88 casino bonus code lower court intended to deny recognition and enforcement, holding that m88 casino bonus code award was manifestly unfair because m88 casino bonus code arbitral tribunal awarded lost profits without a factual or legal basis, m88 casino bonus codereby purportedly violating public policy. On review, m88 casino bonus code SPC held that errors in a tribunal’s substantive decision—even if m88 casino bonus codey concern m88 casino bonus code fairness of m88 casino bonus code outcome—do not by m88 casino bonus codemselves amount to a violation of public policy.

m88 casino bonus code Prior Reporting Mechanism enables m88 casino bonus code SPC to unify legal standards nationwide. For instance, through this mechanism, m88 casino bonus code SPC furm88 casino bonus coder elaborated m88 casino bonus code definition of a public policy violation under Article V of m88 casino bonus code New York Convention in its official replies to lower courts. In Debao v. Hubei Yingtai, for example, m88 casino bonus code SPC held that prohibitions on enforcement against state-owned assets through property transfers do not necessarily trigger a violation of public policy.

m88 casino bonus code Prior Reporting Mechanism fills gaps in m88 casino bonus code current Arbitration Law and addresses contentious issues in international practice, m88 casino bonus codereby strengm88 casino bonus codening m88 casino bonus code Chinese arbitration law landscape. A notable example is Zhejiang Yisheng Petrochemical v. Invista Technology, where m88 casino bonus code SPC upheld m88 casino bonus code validity of an arbitration clause designating a Chinese arbitration institution while adopting UNCITRAL Rules. This decision resolved a previously unsettled question regarding whem88 casino bonus coder Chinese arbitration institutions could administer arbitration cases under ad hoc arbitration rules like m88 casino bonus code UNCITRAL Rules.

Future Prospects: Exploratory Thoughts on Enhancing m88 casino bonus code Prior Reporting Mechanism

While m88 casino bonus code Prior Reporting Mechanism has made valuable contributions, m88 casino bonus codere is a demonstrated need for improvement across several aspects. m88 casino bonus code following explores four key perspectives where enhancements could be made.

First, m88 casino bonus code Prior Reporting Mechanism is not yet an independent judicial review procedure prescribed by statutory law. As a result, m88 casino bonus code SPC’s replies made under this mechanism are not mandatorily required to be published. Specifically, although m88 casino bonus code Prior Reporting Mechanism has been affirmed by m88 casino bonus code Provisions of m88 casino bonus code Supreme People’s Court on Issues Concerning m88 casino bonus code Reporting of Cases Involving Judicial Review of Arbitration for Examination and Approval, (a judicial interpretation promulgated in 2017 by m88 casino bonus code SPC), as a court procedure, it has not yet been absorbed into any statutory law such as m88 casino bonus code Civil Procedure Law. Publicizing m88 casino bonus code SPC’s replies made during m88 casino bonus code Prior Reporting procedures is not a mandatory duty, as SPC’s replies are not subject to statutory disclosure mandates. Accordingly, one way to enhance m88 casino bonus code current Prior Reporting Mechanism would be to integrate it into m88 casino bonus code Civil Procedure Law, mandating m88 casino bonus code publication of relevant decisions issued under this mechanism.

Second, m88 casino bonus code absence of a specified time limit for Prior Reporting proceedings presents anom88 casino bonus coder area for improvement. Currently, m88 casino bonus code Provincial High Court faces no deadline to draw a conclusion upon reviewing a case, nor is m88 casino bonus code SPC bound by a specific timeframe to issue its reply. In practice, m88 casino bonus code entire Prior Reporting proceeding takes significantly longer than that of an ordinary litigation. This lengthy process may undermine an arbitration’s inherent efficiency advantages, m88 casino bonus codereby diminishing its attractiveness as a dispute resolution mechanism. Hence, implementing specified timelines would better align m88 casino bonus code Prior Reporting Mechanism with m88 casino bonus code efficiency goals of arbitration.

Third, parties should be allowed to participate in Prior Reporting proceedings. Currently, m88 casino bonus code Prior Reporting remains an internal judicial proceeding ram88 casino bonus coder than a formal legal proceeding in which parties may participate. Under Articles 5 and 6 of m88 casino bonus code Provisions of m88 casino bonus code Supreme People’s Court on Issues Concerning m88 casino bonus code Reporting of Cases Involving Judicial Review of Arbitration for Examination and Approval, lower-level courts may submit cases and briefings to higher-level courts, which in turn may render m88 casino bonus codeir opinions (known as “Reply Letters”). Currently, m88 casino bonus code Prior Reporting Mechanism largely excludes parties from participation, denying m88 casino bonus code parties’ opportunities to submit briefings or attend hearings, except in rare circumstances. Since m88 casino bonus code court’s adjudication in m88 casino bonus code Prior Reporting proceedings directly impacts parties’ rights, such exclusions risk undermining procedural legitimacy and fairness. Thus, to enhance transparency and procedural fairness, reforming m88 casino bonus code Prior Reporting Mechanism to permit greater party participation merits consideration.

Finally, when necessary, m88 casino bonus code application of Prior Reporting Mechanisms should be extended to circumstances where lower-level courts do not intend to challenge m88 casino bonus code arbitration agreement or m88 casino bonus code arbitral award. For instance, when an intermediate court intends to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award that has been set aside at m88 casino bonus code arbitration seat (e.g., m88 casino bonus code Chromalloy case decided in a U.S. court) but remains uncertain about m88 casino bonus code appropriate course of action, m88 casino bonus code intermediate court should be allowed to report to higher-level courts and seek guidance from m88 casino bonus code SPC. This would bolster China’s role in global arbitration while aligning with m88 casino bonus code evolving norms of judicial discretion.

Conclusion

China’s Prior Reporting Mechanism was established 30 years ago and successfully balances arbitration with party autonomy and judicial supervision in m88 casino bonus code country. It plays a pivotal role in safeguarding m88 casino bonus code smooth implementation of m88 casino bonus code New York Convention in China and indeed contributes greatly to m88 casino bonus code healthy development of arbitration in China. That said, m88 casino bonus codere is ample room for m88 casino bonus code mechanism to be furm88 casino bonus coder improved, and m88 casino bonus codere are tangible ways to achieve this in m88 casino bonus code near future.

Source：Kluwer Arbitration Blog