Mainland China has historically relied on <span class="news-text_medium">institutional arbitration</span>, with ad hoc proceedings neither formally recognised under the PRC Arbitration Law nor widely practised. In recent years, however, a gradual opening has taken place. The first step was the Supreme People’s Court’s (“<span class="news-text_medium">SPC</span>”) 2016 Opinions on Judicial Support for Pilot Free Trade Zones, which introduced the “Three Specific Elements.” These allowed enterprises registered in designated zones to resolve disputes through ad hoc arbitration, provided arbitrators met statutory qualifications, mutually agreed rules were adopted and the arbitration was seated in a designated Mainland location.
Following this, Zhuhai Hengqin in Guangdong Province became the first to issue dedicated ad hoc arbitration rules. Momentum grew further with the 2021 Consultation Draft of the Revised PRC Arbitration Law, which proposed allowing ad hoc arbitration in foreign-related commercial disputes, igniting a national debate on whether China might ultimately embrace this model.
Shanghai has been at the forefront of experimentation. In August 2024, it rendered the country’s first foreign-related maritime ad hoc arbitral award in a dispute between two Shanghai-registered enterprises. The parties chose ad hoc arbitration, set their own procedures and appointed a maritime expert as sole arbitrator. This case showcased Shanghai’s ambition to position itself as an international arbitration hub.
Supporting this development, municipal authorities, including the Standing Committee of the Shanghai People’s Congress and the High People’s Court, have issued legislative and policy documents to build a legal framework for ad hoc arbitration in foreign-related commercial and maritime disputes. Parties seated in Shanghai can now design their own procedures or adopt existing institutional rules and arbitrators can be drawn from the Shanghai Arbitration Association (“<span class="news-text_medium">SAA</span>”), registered institutions, or beyond. Judicial support is also available for issues such as interim measures, validity of agreements and enforcement of awards.
Hainan followed closely, achieving its first ad hoc arbitration in July 2024 under provincial legislation. The framework permits ad hoc proceedings for disputes involving enterprises registered in Hainan or with foreign enterprises, including those in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. Parties can select one or three arbitrators, agree on procedures and seek interim measures from local courts. The legislation also provides mechanisms for judicial assistance in evidence collection, agreement validity reviews and enforcement.
The Greater Bay Area has also played a pioneering role. In 2020, Shenzhen introduced regulations to expand ad hoc arbitration beyond free trade zones to special economic zones. Zhuhai followed in 2021, authorising its local arbitration body to provide services for ad hoc proceedings.
China’s leading arbitral institutions are adapting to the trend. The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“<span class="news-text_medium">CIETAC</span>”) incorporated services for ad hoc arbitration into its 2025 rules, offering administrative support such as arbitrator appointments, award scrutiny and hearing facilities. The China Maritime Law Association (“<span class="news-text_medium">CMLA</span>”) also issued its own ad hoc arbitration rules in 2022, complemented by service rules from the China Maritime Arbitration Commission (“<span class="news-text_medium">CMAC</span>”). In 2023, CMAC even published a redacted ad hoc arbitral award under these rules, underscoring their practical application.
One of the main challenges remains the absence of a unified statutory framework for interim measures in ad hoc arbitrations. Current PRC law does not generally extend court assistance to such proceedings, except in limited circumstances. Notably, under the Arrangement on Interim Measures between Hong Kong and Mainland China, parties seated in Hong Kong may apply for interim relief from Mainland courts—but only in institutional cases, excluding ad hoc arbitration. Maritime law provides another exception, allowing preservation of assets such as ships or cargo in extraterritorial maritime disputes, even if conducted ad hoc.
For foreign ad hoc awards, enforcement is relatively clear. Article 543 of the SPC’s Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law directs courts to treat foreign ad hoc awards the same as institutional awards. Indeed, in 2025 the SPC confirmed this approach in a guiding judgment enforcing a Swedish ad hoc award. Similarly, awards from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan may be recognised under existing cross-border arrangements.
For domestic ad hoc awards, however, enforcement is patchy. Only a few regions, such as Shanghai and Hainan, have created frameworks supporting recognition. The New York Convention also creates uncertainties: while Article 5 requires arbitration agreements to be valid under governing law, the PRC Arbitration Law only validates institutional arbitration agreements.
Awards issued under regional legislative frameworks (such as in Shanghai and Hainan) may satisfy Convention requirements, but those rendered under non-legislative rules (such as Hengqin or CMLA) face greater uncertainty. Enforcement of Mainland ad hoc awards in Hong Kong remains doubtful, as current arrangements apply only to awards recognised under the PRC Arbitration Law.
The recent milestones in Shanghai and Hainan signal a significant step forward for ad hoc arbitration in China. The issuance of the first foreign-related maritime ad hoc award in 2024 has heightened expectations that ad hoc proceedings will increasingly be accepted nationwide. Encouragingly, these regional frameworks already embody hallmarks of international arbitration practice, such as party autonomy and robust judicial support.
Nevertheless, the absence of a national legal framework creates uncertainty, particularly concerning interim measures and enforcement of domestic awards. Until revisions to the PRC Arbitration Law codify ad hoc arbitration, parties may remain cautious in choosing it over institutional arbitration.
Looking ahead, legislative reform is expected to clarify the status of ad hoc arbitration in Mainland China. If successful, this would not only align China more closely with international standards but also further establish its role as a global arbitration hub.
