China – Focus On Ad Hoc Arbitration: How To Break The Deadlock In Court Formation.
I. Introduction to the Problem: Revision of the Arbitration Law
In 2018, the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council issued the “Several Opinions on Improving the Arbitration System and Improving the Credibility of Arbitration”, which clearly stated that “ we must accelerate the reform and innovation of the arbitration system ”. To this end, the Ministry of Justice took the lead in drafting and released the “Draft for Comments on the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (Revised)” (hereinafter referred to as the “Draft for Comments on the Arbitration Law (Revised)”) in 2021. Among them, Articles 91-93 specifically stipulate the ad hoc arbitration system, which officially kicked off the introduction of the ad hoc arbitration system into law in China [1] . Ad hoc arbitration and institutional arbitration are two types of arbitration under the framework system. Compared with institutional arbitration, ad hoc arbitration can better meet personalized needs. The parties can freely agree on and select arbitration rules, and can also formulate, amend, supplement or authorize others to formulate, amend and supplement ad hoc arbitration rules according to their own wishes. However, at the same time, the conduct of the arbitration procedure depends on the mutual trust and active promotion of the parties. Once an agreement cannot be reached or there are defects in the agreement, or in order to reduce the risk of a final decision, the procedure is deliberately delayed in various ways, which can easily lead to a deadlock in the formation of the court and the malfunction of the ad hoc arbitration procedure [2] . In April 2022, the 13th National People’s Congress Standing Committee listed the revision of the Arbitration Law as a “preliminary review project” in its legislative work plan. Currently, the revision of the Arbitration Law is in full swing.
Before the draft of the Arbitration Law (Revised) planned to include the ad hoc arbitration system, China had already carried out preliminary exploration and practice of the system. This process began in 2016 when the Supreme People’s Court issued the Opinions on Providing Judicial Guarantees for the Construction of Pilot Free Trade Zones (Fa Fa [2016] No. 34, referred to as the Opinions on Free Trade Zones), marking the positive response of the domestic legal environment to the needs of the construction of free trade zones. Subsequently, the Hengqin Rules and the Rules on the Docking of Ad Hoc Arbitration and Institutional Arbitration, which were successively issued in 2017, laid a solid foundation for the ad hoc arbitration system to take root in my country.
It is worth noting that although my country, as a member of the New York Convention, follows the provisions of the convention to recognize and enforce foreign ad hoc arbitration awards in foreign trade, ad hoc arbitration has long been blank in the domestic legal system, resulting in asymmetry in the enforcement of domestic and foreign arbitration awards. This situation not only limits the competitiveness of my country’s arbitration services in international trade, but also fails to fully meet the needs of open economic zones such as free trade zones for efficient and flexible dispute resolution mechanisms. Given the unique advantages of ad hoc arbitration in resolving cross-border commercial disputes, including its high flexibility and timeliness, it is highly consistent with the free trade environment pursued by free trade zones. Therefore, the introduction of the ad hoc arbitration system is not only an inevitable move to improve my country’s arbitration legal system, but also a key step to improve my country’s foreign-related legal services and enhance its status as an international arbitration center. This move will not only help to quickly respond to the dispute resolution needs in globalized trade, but also enhance the international recognition and credibility of my country’s legal system through deep integration with the international legal system.
To this end, on the one hand, my country has actively explored and constructed a temporary arbitration system framework that suits my country’s national conditions from a legislative level through the revision of the “Draft Opinion on the Arbitration Law (Revised)”; on the other hand, it has carried out pilot practices of temporary arbitration in frontier areas such as free trade zones, aiming to test the system design through practice, accumulate valuable experience, and lay a solid foundation for the comprehensive promotion and optimization and improvement of the subsequent system.
This article aims to provide a possible solution to the deadlock in the ad hoc arbitration system based on an in-depth analysis of the potential impact of the Draft Arbitration Law (Revised) on my country’s ad hoc arbitration system, combined with successful cases and institutional practices at home and abroad.
II. The revision of the ad hoc arbitration system in the Draft for Comments on the Arbitration Law (Revised) and its impact
1. Limitation of Scope of Application
The Draft for Comments on the Arbitration Law (Revised) limits the scope of application of ad hoc arbitration to handling commercial disputes with foreign elements, aiming to promote the alignment of my country’s arbitration mechanism with international standards. However, some scholars have questioned this issue.
1. Starting from the actual needs of the development of my country’s arbitration system
Some scholars have pointed out that the promotion of ad hoc arbitration does not only rely on the external legal environment, social credit system or citizen quality, but also on the perfection and adaptability of the system itself. At present, my country has made significant progress in these aspects, laying a solid foundation for the full implementation of ad hoc arbitration. Therefore, it seems that the reason for limiting its scope of application simply on the grounds of national conditions is insufficient and logically flawed, and it fails to fully consider the inherent needs of the development of the arbitration system itself.
2. From an international perspective
Limiting the scope of application of ad hoc arbitration to foreign-related commercial disputes is obviously contrary to the common practice in the field of international arbitration. International conventions such as the New York Convention and the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration do not impose similar restrictions on the scope of application of ad hoc arbitration, but rather grant parties the right to freely choose the form of arbitration, regardless of the nature of the case, which reflects the autonomy and flexibility of arbitration as a dispute resolution method.
3. From the perspective of the parties involved
Limiting the scope of application of ad hoc arbitration to specific areas may not meet their reasonable expectations for the diversification and flexibility of the arbitration system. In modern commercial activities, parties tend to choose more efficient and convenient dispute resolution methods, and ad hoc arbitration, with its unique advantages, can better meet this demand. Therefore, limiting its scope of application may weaken the attractiveness of the arbitration system and affect its competitiveness in international commercial dispute resolution.
Although the Draft for Comments on the Arbitration Law (Revised) provides for temporary arbitration of foreign-related commercial cases, it does not specify the criteria for determining foreign-related factors. According to Article 520 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on the Implementation of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, a civil case is considered foreign-related if any of the elements of the subject, habitual residence, subject matter and legal facts are foreign-related. In arbitration, as long as the civil and commercial legal relationship is foreign-related or involves international commercial interests, it is considered foreign-related arbitration. If China’s Arbitration Law only provides for temporary arbitration of foreign-related commercial cases, in the future it may happen that debtor A and creditor B, who both have their place of business in China, successfully resolve their dispute over investment matters in the United States through temporary arbitration; while debtor A and creditor B, who both have their place of business in China, can only resolve their dispute over investment matters in China through institutional arbitration, and cannot resolve their dispute through temporary arbitration [3] . This institutional difference is very likely to cause the parties to distrust China’s arbitration system and question the credibility of arbitration.
(II) Proposed solutions to resolve ad hoc arbitration deadlocks
In order to effectively deal with the deadlock in court formation that may be encountered during ad hoc arbitration and ensure the smooth progress of the arbitration procedure and the fairness of the award, the “Draft Amendment to the Arbitration Law” has innovatively designed two parallel solutions in Article 92, paragraph 1, based on in-depth research and extensive solicitation of opinions from all sectors of society, aiming to flexibly and efficiently resolve the difficulties in court formation.
This clause clarifies the first solution under certain circumstances: when the formation of the arbitral tribunal is hindered for some reason, such as the inability to select arbitrators in a timely manner due to serious disagreements between the parties, or when the need for arbitrators to recuse themselves directly affects the integrity of the arbitral tribunal, the parties are allowed and encouraged to jointly entrust a neutral and professional arbitration institution to assist in the formation of the arbitral tribunal through friendly consultation. This path emphasizes the principle of party autonomy and, at the same time, provides a quick and effective solution to the deadlock in forming the tribunal by leveraging the professionalism and neutrality of the arbitration institution.
In case the two parties cannot reach a consensus on entrusting an arbitration institution to assist in forming a tribunal, Article 92, Paragraph 1 of the Draft Amendment to the Arbitration Law further provides for a second alternative path: that is, in this deadlock, the statutory authority may intervene and designate a suitable arbitration institution to assist in determining the composition of the arbitral tribunal. Specifically, the statutory authority here refers to the intermediate people’s court where the arbitration is located, the intermediate people’s court where the parties’ main place of business or residence is located, or the intermediate people’s court in the place with the closest connection to the dispute. This design not only reflects the judicial support and supervision of arbitration, but also fully considers the actual connection of the dispute, ensuring that the designated arbitration institution can be close to the essence of the dispute and assist in solving the problem of forming a tribunal in a more fair and reasonable manner.
(III) Some elements of arbitration procedure have not yet been clarified
In terms of system design, the Draft for Comments on the Arbitration Law (Revised) is committed to optimizing my country’s arbitration legal system and strengthening the core position of arbitration in the diversified dispute resolution system. However, it still has deficiencies in key links such as defining the functional boundaries between courts and arbitration institutions and refining the rules for the appointment of arbitration institutions and arbitrators. These deficiencies may affect the transparency, efficiency and predictability of the arbitration process, and thus weaken the authority and social acceptance of arbitration awards.
Specifically, although Article 92, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Draft for Comments clearly define the power of the court to designate arbitration institutions or arbitrators under certain circumstances and grant them finality in their decisions, the purpose is to maintain the smoothness and efficiency of the arbitration process. However, the content of the clause is relatively general and fails to fully define the specific scenarios, operating procedures and scope of supervision of the activities of arbitration institutions in which the court intervenes. This may lead to unclear boundaries between the responsibilities of the court and the arbitration institution in practice, endangering the autonomous spirit and independence of arbitration.
In addition, in the selection of arbitration institutions and arbitrators, although the draft for comments proposes the principle of considering factors such as the will of the parties, the qualifications of the arbitrators, the nationality and the seat of arbitration, aiming to ensure the fairness, independence and efficiency of the arbitration process, it lacks specific operational guidelines or quantitative standards. For example, the draft for comments fails to provide clear guidance on complex issues such as how to balance respect for the parties’ right to choose and the professional judgment of the arbitration institution, and how to balance the nationality diversity of arbitrators and the specific needs of the case in international arbitration. This ambiguity may increase uncertainty in the initiation and conduct of arbitration proceedings, and affect the decision-making efficiency and credibility of arbitration. Therefore, further improving relevant clauses and clarifying and refining operational specifications are crucial to improving the overall effectiveness of the arbitration system.
III. Institutional Experience in Resolving Ad Hoc Arbitration Deadlocks at Home and Abroad
1. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law
The Model Law was adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on June 21, 1985. Ad hoc arbitration is also one of the core systems of the Model Law. Although the Model Law does not have mandatory legal effect, it has had a huge demonstrative impact on the arbitration legislation of many countries [4] .
Within the framework of the Model Law, courts and authorized institutions assume the important function of assisting and supervising ad hoc arbitration, which covers matters such as the appointment of arbitrators and applications for recusation in specific situations. In order to promote the goal of ” centralized management, clear division of professional labor, and improved “, Article 6 of the Model Law specifically stipulates that these powers should be granted to courts or institutions with corresponding powers clearly designated by each country.
Regarding the mechanism for selecting arbitrators, the Model Law clearly provides the parties with a legal remedy when an ad hoc arbitration encounters a deadlock, that is, when the arbitrator selection procedure agreed upon by both parties fails to be performed (including when one party breaches the contract, the two parties fail to reach an agreement as per the contract, or a third party such as an arbitration institution fails to perform its procedural entrustment duties), any party has the right to make a request to the above-mentioned designated court or institution, requiring them to intervene and take necessary measures to appoint an arbitrator. This provision ensures that when the arbitrator selection procedure agreed upon in the agreement cannot be carried out effectively, there are other legal and effective ways to appoint arbitrators, thereby maintaining the continuity and fairness of the arbitration procedure.
In order to ensure that the fairness and efficiency of ad hoc arbitration can be maintained while resolving deadlocks, the Model Law clearly stipulates that specific matters involving designated courts or other authorized institutions should follow the principle of finality of one ruling. In terms of the selection of arbitrators, the law emphasizes ” proper consideration ” of the qualifications of arbitrators to ensure the independence and fairness of the selected arbitrators, and points out that when appointing a sole arbitrator or the third arbitrator, the benefits of introducing arbitrators who are not the nationals of the parties should be considered to further promote the fairness of arbitration.
Comparing the Arbitration Law (Revised) Draft for Comments with the Model Law’s deadlock resolution mechanism, both are rooted in respect for the parties’ autonomy to ensure the independence, fairness and efficiency of ad hoc arbitration. However, in terms of practical operation, the Model Law demonstrates its unique advantages: it grants any party the autonomy to directly file a request with the court or other authorized agency under certain conditions (such as the other party or third party fails to perform its rights or obligations within a reasonable period of time). This provision clarifies the specific triggering conditions for judicial or institutional intervention, and enhances the operability and responsiveness of the system.
(II) Hong Kong Arbitration Centre
Before the promulgation of the Arbitration Ordinance in 1963, Hong Kong’s arbitration system mainly operated in the form of ad hoc arbitration, which demonstrated a high degree of flexibility and adaptability. Since June 1, 2011, Hong Kong has implemented the new Arbitration Ordinance. This landmark legislation not only clarifies that the scope of ” arbitration ” covers both ad hoc arbitration and institutional arbitration, but also establishes the principle of applicable law based on the seat of arbitration – Hong Kong. All arbitration activities conducted in Hong Kong are subject to the Ordinance. The construction of this Ordinance is deeply influenced by the internationally accepted Model Law, while retaining the essence of Hong Kong’s local arbitration system, promoting the integration of domestic and foreign arbitration practices, and enhancing the coherence and unity of the legal system.
In the process of promoting the development of ad hoc arbitration, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) has played an indispensable role. HKIAC provides solid support for the arbitration process through its Local Arbitration Rules and detailed guidelines, while adhering to the principle of respecting the autonomy of the parties and demonstrating its unique operating philosophy [5] . Compared with traditional and mainland arbitration institutions, HKIAC is more inclined to play an advisory role, providing professional advice on procedural management to the parties to the arbitration. At the same time, it maintains institutional operations through a reasonable fee structure, reflecting the concept of balancing efficiency and fairness.
The procedural design of Hong Kong’s arbitration system also demonstrates a deep respect for party autonomy. The court’s intervention in the arbitration process is kept at a low level, and the arbitral tribunal is given extensive autonomy, including self-jurisdiction. This arrangement not only speeds up the arbitration process, but also enhances the credibility of the award. In addition, Hong Kong has strict appeal restrictions, allowing only one appeal to the original court against the arbitral tribunal’s decision, ensuring the finality of the arbitral award.
It is worth noting that ad hoc arbitration tribunals are endowed with broad powers similar to those of institutional arbitration. This design not only maintains the flexibility of ad hoc arbitration, but also draws on the normativeness of institutional arbitration, effectively reducing the management burden of institutions such as HKIAC and promoting the optimal allocation of arbitration resources. In addition, Hong Kong has also implemented a system of awarding costs on the basis of indemnity, which aims to encourage parties to exercise their rights prudently through economic means, reduce unnecessary arbitration applications, thereby saving valuable arbitration resources and improving arbitration efficiency and effectiveness.
3. Institutional Exploration of my country’s Free Trade Zones: Zhuhai’s Hengqin Rules
In order to actively explore the Chinese solution of temporary arbitration, on December 30, 2016, the Supreme People’s Court issued the “Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Providing Judicial Guarantees for the Construction of Pilot Free Trade Zones” (Fa Fa [2016] No. 34) (hereinafter referred to as the “Free Trade Zone Opinions”). Article 9 of the “Free Trade Zone Opinions” stipulates: “If enterprises registered in the pilot free trade zone agree with each other to arbitrate relevant disputes at a specific location in the mainland, in accordance with specific arbitration rules, and by specific personnel, the arbitration agreement can be deemed valid. If the people’s court believes that the arbitration agreement is invalid, it shall report it to the higher court for review. If the higher court agrees with the opinion of the lower court, it shall report its review opinion to the Supreme People’s Court, and make a ruling after the Supreme People’s Court responds. ”
The Opinions on the Free Trade Zone fully respects the autonomy of enterprises registered in the Pilot Free Trade Zone in accordance with the principle and spirit of trial implementation, and defines the Chinese version of ad hoc arbitration from the three perspectives of ” specific location, specific rules, and specific personnel “, opening a valuable window for the development of ad hoc arbitration in China. The Supreme People’s Court stated: ” We will summarize practical experience in due course, strive to elevate it to a practice that can be replicated and promoted, and promote the revision of the Arbitration Law. ” In March 2017, the Zhuhai Hengqin New Area Management Committee of the Guangdong Pilot Free Trade Zone and the Zhuhai Arbitration Commission jointly promulgated the Hengqin Rules, marking the birth of the first ad hoc arbitration rules in mainland China. The rules deeply integrate the essence of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and the international advanced ad hoc arbitration system, and cleverly integrate the local practice characteristics, laying a solid rule foundation for the implementation of ad hoc arbitration in the Pilot Free Trade Zone.
The key highlights of the Hengqin Rules include:
First, it draws on international best practices and builds a mechanism for selecting arbitrators and forming an arbitral tribunal that highly respects the autonomy of the parties, ensuring that the arbitration procedure is close to the actual needs and wishes of the parties;
Secondly, the rules clarify the dominant role of the arbitral tribunal in the arbitration process and grant it full independence and autonomy. This principle runs through all aspects of the arbitration procedure and strengthens the fairness and efficiency of the arbitration.
Thirdly, by introducing the institutional intervention model and relying on the strong support of the Zhuhai Arbitration Commission, a reliable guarantee was provided for the smooth progress of the arbitration procedure;
In addition, the rules have innovatively expanded the scope of third-party services, allowing them to provide paid services to the arbitral tribunal, including financial management, secretarial support, venue rental, case management, document delivery and preservation assistance, further enhancing the professionalism and convenience of arbitration services;
Finally, the rules innovatively designed a path for the conversion of interim arbitration awards and mediation documents into institutional arbitration awards and mediation documents. That is, after being reviewed and confirmed by the Zhuhai Arbitration Commission and affixed with its official seal, an interim arbitration award or mediation document can be converted into an award or mediation document officially issued by the Zhuhai Arbitration Commission. This measure greatly enhances the authority and enforceability of interim arbitration awards. [6]
IV. Solutions to the deadlock in ad hoc arbitration
1. Accurately define the scope of application of ad hoc arbitration
The provisions of the Arbitration Law (Revised) for ad hoc arbitration mainly focus on special provisions in the foreign-related field. Therefore, accurately defining ” foreign-related factors ” will help the practice of the ad hoc arbitration system. Regarding the identification of foreign-related factors, China currently still adopts the traditional three-element standard of legal relations, that is, at least one element of the subject, object or content of the legal relationship is related to a foreign country, that is, it has foreign-related factors. In terms of the definition of foreign-related factors, Article 1 of the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Application of Law to Foreign-Related Civil Relations (I)” and Article 522 of the “Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Civil Procedure Law” both made basically similar provisions, and set a catch-all clause at the end of the article to give judges the discretion to determine foreign-related factors [7] . When determining the foreign-related nature of arbitration, the courts have also experienced a process of developing from a relatively restrictive attitude to a gradual relaxation of the review standards.
The revision of the Arbitration Law is based on the summary of the arbitration practice experience of more than 20 years in the past, and is conducive to the national development strategy of further opening up to the outside world. Therefore, it is natural to keep pace with the times in the identification of foreign-related factors. When determining whether an arbitration is foreign-related, the court should make a moderately expanded interpretation based on the three elements of the traditional legal relationship standard, and fully examine whether the dispute involved has a substantial connection with a foreign country. In terms of the subject of foreign-related, in addition to formally examining the parties’ nationality, habitual residence, principal place of business and other habitual connection points, the foreign-owned enterprises are considered as the subject of foreign-related. Currently, it is limited to the scope of the free trade zone. Whether it will be promoted and applied needs to be further clarified by legislative revision and judicial practice. In terms of the object and content of foreign-related, when examining the entire process of the generation, change and extinction of legal facts, it should be flexibly and flexibly considered from the perspective of whether the contract actually has an impact on more than one jurisdiction, and the time range of the occurrence of legal facts, the transaction habits of the parties, the format text adopted by the contract, the applicable law agreed in the contract and other factors should be comprehensively judged.
2. Clarifying the Boundary between Judicial Intervention and the Independence of Arbitration Institutions
The Draft for Comments on the Arbitration Law (Revised) gives the courts the function of assisting the parties in designating arbitration institutions, which is also an inevitable requirement for the coordinated promotion of domestic rule of law and foreign-related rule of law. However, it should be noted that the underlying logic of justice is legality or illegality, and the underlying logic of arbitration is consensus or non-consensus. Therefore, in this process, judicial organs should not excessively interfere in temporary arbitration, but should use ” limited supervision to guide it ” [8] .
In the process of forming an ad hoc arbitration tribunal, it is necessary to carefully balance the power of judicial intervention and the assistance of arbitration institutions to break the deadlock of forming a tribunal. The core lies in that we must unswervingly respect the autonomy of the parties and ensure the flexibility and autonomy of the arbitration procedure, while introducing external forces when necessary to promote the smooth progress of the arbitration. Judicial intervention should be used as a last resort, and its boundaries should be clear and cautious. It can only be initiated when the parties’ independent efforts fail and the arbitration procedure is blocked, so as to maintain the fairness and efficiency of the arbitration. At the same time, the assistance of the arbitration institution should play an auxiliary role, using its professionalism and neutrality to provide the parties with necessary guidance and assistance. At the same time, it should not cross the line and interfere with the parties’ autonomous choice. The precise grasp of this balance point is not only a respect for the autonomy of the parties, but also a dual guarantee for the flexibility and fairness of the arbitration system, which is conducive to the effective operation and sustainable development of the ad hoc arbitration system.
The reason why the parties choose ad hoc arbitration is that ad hoc arbitration respects autonomy of will, has simple and flexible procedures, and has strong credibility. Therefore, when the court designates an arbitration institution to help the parties select arbitrators, if the designated arbitration institution is not qualified and credible enough, or the designation criteria are unclear, then for foreign parties, there will be concerns about whether to choose China as the seat of arbitration. Therefore, it is very necessary to formulate rules and guidelines on how judicial organs designate arbitration institutions as soon as possible, both to increase the attractiveness of my country’s arbitration market to foreign parties and to enhance the credibility of my country’s judiciary.
In summary, judicial organs should be cautious in selecting arbitration institutions. From the perspective of judicial support for arbitration, judicial organs should not interfere with the substantive content of arbitration, but should still take into account the efficiency and fairness of temporary arbitration in my country.
3. Improvement of the Arbitrator Selection Mechanism
At present, my country’s arbitrator management system mainly revolves around the arbitrator list system of each arbitration commission. However, in the new context of exploring the ad hoc arbitration system, the traditional list management model can no longer meet the development needs and is in urgent need of change. To this end, we should actively learn from the advanced management mechanism in the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance, take this as an opportunity, and proactively promote the revision of the Arbitration Law in the future, aiming to build a modern and efficient arbitrator organization system and realize the self-management and industry supervision of arbitrators.
In the selection of arbitrators, the application of the arbitral rules should be further strengthened. The first principle is to fully respect the parties’ right to choose independently and encourage them to appoint arbitrators based on trust and professional considerations. At the same time, in cases where the parties have unclear agreements or have not made any agreements, a flexible judicial appointment mechanism should be established to ensure the smooth progress of the arbitration procedure. To achieve this goal, we can rely on arbitrator organizations to uniformly register and file arbitrators who meet strict standards, and open query rights to courts and arbitration institutions, so as to provide parties with more convenient and comprehensive arbitrator information services.
In terms of arbitrator qualification standards, we can refer to international and Hong Kong International Arbitration Center standards and set scientific and reasonable entry barriers. Arbitrators are required to meet basic requirements in terms of age, professional background, moral character, etc., and their rich practical experience and deep industry expertise in the field of arbitration should be emphasized to ensure the professional quality and credibility of the arbitrator team, so as to build an arbitrator team that meets the needs of the development of my country’s arbitration system practice and provide a solid talent guarantee for the healthy development of my country’s arbitration cause.
In addition, in order to ensure the fairness of ad hoc arbitration, a sound supervision mechanism for arbitrators needs to be established. Some scholars also pointed out that a roster system and a negative list system should be gradually established to give the parties the right to question the fairness of arbitrators, and to clarify the arbitrators’ recusation, information disclosure and accountability system in the ad hoc arbitration rules to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the parties. At the same time, attention should also be paid to protecting the legitimate rights of arbitrators, such as immunity and personal rights, to ensure that arbitrators are not improperly interfered with when performing their duties, and to promote the healthy development of the ad hoc arbitration system.
For further information, please contact:
Wei Xueping, Partner, Anjie Broad Law
weixueping@anjielaw.com
Notes:
[1] Wu Aibin. On the introduction of ad hoc arbitration system into the Arbitration Law[J]. Social Scientists, 2022(04):104-112.
[2] Xu Kai, Zhu Yueqing. Analysis of intervention paths to break the deadlock in ad hoc arbitration tribunals[C]//Shanghai Law Society. Journal of Legal Practice, Vol. 2, 2023 – Collection of Arbitration Research Papers.
[3] Li Jianzhong. China’s attempt at ad hoc arbitration: institutional dilemma and practical path — from the perspective of China’s pilot free trade zones[J]. Research on Rule of Law, 2020(02):31-43.
[4] Xu Kai, Zhu Yueqing. Analysis of intervention paths to break the deadlock in ad hoc arbitration tribunals[C]//Shanghai Law Society. Journal of Legal Practice, Vol. 2, 2023 – Collection of Arbitration Research Papers.
[5] He Jingjing, Shi Shaoliang, International Comparative Study of Ad Hoc Arbitration, Social Sciences Academic Press, 2020, p. 52.
[6] Li Jianzhong. China’s attempt at ad hoc arbitration: institutional dilemma and practical path — from the perspective of China’s pilot free trade zones[J]. Research on Rule of Law, 2020(02):31-43.
[7] Xiao Wen. Construction of ad hoc arbitration system under the perspective of revision of the Arbitration Law[J]. Journal of Chongqing University of Technology (Social Sciences), 2022, 36(08): 154-165.
[8] Xu Kai, Zhu Yueqing. Analysis of intervention paths to break the deadlock in ad hoc arbitration tribunals[C]//Shanghai Law Society. Journal of Legal Practice, Vol. 2, 2023 – Collection of Arbitration Research Papers.
