Introduction:

Generally speaking, domestic arbitration is divided into commercial arbitration and labor dispute arbitration. This series of articles on practical research into arbitration judicial review only explores commercial arbitration, namely arbitration arising from “contract disputes and other property rights disputes between citizens, legal persons, and other organizations as equal subjects” as stipulated in Article 2 of the “Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China” (hereinafter referred to as the “Arbitration Law”).

This series of articles is divided into three parts: Part 1 provides a brief analysis of remedies available to parties dissatisfied with domestic commercial arbitration awards; Part 2 focuses on the judicial review standards for “whether the parties have an arbitration agreement”; and Part 3 comparatively studies the similarities and differences between applications for revocation of arbitration awards and applications for non-enforcement of arbitration awards, as well as issues concerning system articulation.

I. Similarities and Differences Between the Two Systems

(I) Similarities

As known from Part 1, the statutory grounds for applications for revocation and non-enforcement of arbitration awards in the Civil Procedure Law and the Arbitration Law are substantially identical. Except for public interest review, all are procedural reviews of awards, basically consisting of factual judgments on procedural matters. Specifically as follows:

Article 58 of the Arbitration Law	Article 248 of the Civil Procedure Law
If a party presents evidence proving that the award falls under any of the following circumstances, it may apply to the intermediate people’s court where the arbitration commission is located for revocation of the award:	If the respondent presents evidence proving that the arbitration award falls under any of the following circumstances, the people’s court shall, after review and verification by a collegial panel, order non-enforcement:
(1) There is no arbitration agreement;	(1) The parties have not included an arbitration clause in the contract nor reached a written arbitration agreement afterwards;
(2) The matters awarded are not within the scope of the arbitration agreement or the arbitration commission has no jurisdiction over the arbitration;	(2) The matters awarded are not within the scope of the arbitration agreement or the arbitration institution has no jurisdiction over the arbitration;
(3) The composition of the arbitration tribunal or the arbitration procedure violates statutory procedures;	(3) The composition of the arbitration tribunal or the arbitration procedure violates statutory procedures;
(4) The evidence on which the award is based is forged;	(4) The evidence on which the award is based is forged;
(5) The other party has concealed evidence sufficient to affect impartial arbitration;	(5) The other party has concealed from the arbitration institution evidence sufficient to affect impartial arbitration;
(6) The arbitrator has committed bribery, favoritism, or irregularities, or rendered the award by bending the law in arbitrating the case.	(6) The arbitrator has committed corruption, bribery, favoritism, or irregularities, or rendered the award by bending the law in arbitrating the case.
If the people’s court determines that the award violates social public interest, it shall order revocation.	If the people’s court determines that enforcement of the award violates social public interest, it shall order non-enforcement.

(II) Differences

1. Applicants

· Application for Revocation of Arbitration Award

The “Reply of the Supreme People’s Court on Whether Chongzheng International Alliance Group’s Application for Revocation of Arbitration Award Should Be Accepted by People’s Courts” [[2001] Min Li Ta Zi No. 36] clearly states: “Beijing Higher People’s Court: Your court’s ‘Request for Instructions on Whether a Third Party Outside the Case May Apply for Revocation of Arbitration Awards’ has been received and studied. After research, the reply is as follows: The ‘party’ as stipulated in Article 70 of the ‘Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China’ refers to the applicant or respondent in the arbitration case. Chongzheng International Alliance Group is neither the applicant nor the respondent in arbitration case V19990351. The company does not have the subject qualification to apply for revocation of that arbitration award. Therefore, the people’s court shall not accept the application.”

Additionally, on the issue of “whether arbitration institutions and third parties outside the case can apply for revocation of arbitration awards,” the Civil Trial Division of the Supreme People’s Court’s “Civil Trial Q&A” (Legal Publishing House, 2021 Edition, pages 417-418) clearly provides an answer: “There is no legal basis for an arbitration commission to apply for revocation of arbitration awards. Moreover, as the subject of the arbitration award, it cannot be the applicant to revoke its award. A third party outside the case specifically refers to a person other than the parties whose legal interests may be harmed by the execution act—i.e., a person with an interest in the execution subject matter. Since Article 58 of the ‘Arbitration Law’ only grants the right to apply for revocation of arbitration awards to parties and does not grant it to third parties outside the case, based on current law, they also cannot become the applicant for revocation of arbitration awards.”

From this, it can be known that under current law, the applicant for revocation of arbitration awards is limited to the parties to the arbitration award.

· Application for Non-Enforcement of Arbitration Award

According to the aforementioned Article 248 of the Civil Procedure Law, the subject with the right to apply for non-enforcement of arbitration awards is the person against whom enforcement is applied.

Additionally, Article 9 of the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Arbitration Award Enforcement Cases by People’s Courts” stipulates: “If a third party outside the case applies to the people’s court for non-enforcement of an arbitration award or arbitration mediation document, it shall submit an application and evidence materials proving its request is established, and meet the following conditions: (1) There is evidence proving that the arbitration case party maliciously applied for arbitration or conducted false arbitration, damaging its legitimate rights and interests; (2) The legitimate rights and interests the third party outside the case claims involve execution subject matter that has not yet been fully executed; (3) The application is made within 30 days from the date the people’s court took execution measures on that subject matter.” From this, it can be known that qualified third parties outside the case also have the right to apply for non-enforcement of arbitration awards.

2. Application Time Limits

· Application for Revocation of Arbitration Award

Article 59 of the Arbitration Law stipulates that if a party applies for revocation of an award, it shall be made within six months from the date of receipt of the award.

· Application for Non-Enforcement of Arbitration Award

Article 8 of the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Arbitration Award Enforcement Cases by People’s Courts” (Effective Date: March 1, 2018) stipulates that if the person against whom enforcement is applied applies to the people’s court for non-enforcement of an arbitration award, it shall submit a written application within 15 days from the date of service of the execution notice; if there are the circumstances mentioned in items (4) and (6) of Paragraph 2 of Article 237 of the Civil Procedure Law (now the aforementioned items (4) and (6) of Paragraph 2 of Article 248 of the Civil Procedure Law) and the execution procedure has not yet concluded, it shall submit a written application within 15 days from the date of knowing or should have known the relevant facts or case. If the time limit mentioned in the first paragraph of this article has not expired, and the person against whom enforcement is applied has applied to the people’s court with jurisdiction for revocation of the arbitration award and such application has been accepted, the time limit shall be recalculated from the effective date of the people’s court’s ruling rejecting the application for revocation of the arbitration award.

3. Jurisdiction Court

· Application for Revocation of Arbitration Award

Article 58 of the Arbitration Law stipulates: “If a party presents evidence proving that the award falls under any of the following circumstances, it may apply to the intermediate people’s court where the arbitration commission is located for revocation of the award…”

· Application for Non-Enforcement of Arbitration Award

Article 29 of the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China” stipulates: “If a party applies for enforcement of an arbitration award case, the intermediate people’s court in the domicile of the person against whom enforcement is applied or the location of the property to be enforced has jurisdiction.” Accordingly, the application for non-enforcement of arbitration awards should be submitted to the court that specifically accepts the arbitration award enforcement case.

4. Application Fees

· Application for Revocation of Arbitration Award

Article 14, Item (5) of the “Measures for Payment of Litigation Fees” stipulates: “For application for revocation of arbitration awards or confirmation of the validity of arbitration agreements, a fee of 400 yuan shall be paid per case.”

· Application for Non-Enforcement of Arbitration Award

Currently there is no clear regulation requiring fee payment. In judicial practice, courts generally do not require applicants to pay fees related to applications for non-enforcement of arbitration awards.

5. Review Period

· Application for Revocation of Arbitration Award

Article 60 of the Arbitration Law stipulates: “The people’s court shall make a ruling to revoke the award or reject the application within two months from the date of accepting the application for revocation of the award.”

· Application for Non-Enforcement of Arbitration Award

Article 12 of the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Arbitration Award Enforcement Cases by People’s Courts” (Effective Date: March 1, 2018) stipulates: “The people’s court’s review of cases of non-enforcement of arbitration awards shall be completed and a ruling shall be made within two months from the date of filing; if special circumstances require extension, it may be extended for one month upon approval of the court’s president.

6. Conditions for Suspending Enforcement After Application

· Application for Revocation of Arbitration Award

According to Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Arbitration Award Enforcement Cases by People’s Courts,” if the person against whom enforcement is applied has applied for revocation of the arbitration award and such application has been accepted by the people’s court, the execution court shall order suspension of enforcement.

· Application for Non-Enforcement of Arbitration Award

According to Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Arbitration Award Enforcement Cases by People’s Courts,” if the person against whom enforcement is applied or the third party outside the case has applied for non-enforcement and provided appropriate guarantee, the execution court shall order suspension of enforcement. During suspension of enforcement, the people’s court shall stop disposal measures, except where the applicant for enforcement provides sufficient and effective guarantee and requests continued enforcement; before the expiry of the sealing,扣押 (seizure), or freezing period for the execution subject matter, the people’s court may, based on the party’s application or ex officio, handle procedures for continuing sealing, seizure, or freezing.

7. Whether People’s Courts Can Notify Arbitration Tribunals to Re-Arbitrate After Review

· Application for Revocation of Arbitration Award

There are two possible outcomes for the court’s review of an application for revocation of arbitration awards: (1) If the reason is not established, order dismissal of the application; (2) If the reason is established, depending on the circumstances, notify the arbitration tribunal to order revocation of the arbitration award or re-arbitration.

The specific basis is:

Article 19 of the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China” stipulates: “If a party applies for revocation of an arbitration award on grounds that the award matters exceed the scope of the arbitration agreement, and upon examination this is confirmed to be true, the people’s court shall revoke the over-reach part of the arbitration award. However, if the over-reach part is inseparable from other award matters, the people’s court shall revoke the arbitration award.” Article 21 further states: “If a party’s application for revocation of a domestic arbitration award falls under one of the following circumstances, the people’s court may, according to Article 61 of the Arbitration Law, notify the arbitration tribunal to re-arbitrate within a specified period: (1) The evidence on which the award is based is forged; (2) The other party has concealed evidence sufficient to affect impartial arbitration. The people’s court shall explain the specific reasons for requiring re-arbitration in the notification.”

Additionally, it should be noted that according to Article 64 of the Arbitration Law: “If one party applies for enforcement of the award and the other party applies for revocation of the award, the people’s court shall order suspension of enforcement. If the people’s court orders revocation of the award, it shall order termination of enforcement. If the application for revocation of the award is dismissed, the people’s court shall order restoration of enforcement.”

· Application for Non-Enforcement of Arbitration Award

There are two possible outcomes for the court’s review of an application for non-enforcement of an arbitration award: (1) If the reason is not established, order dismissal of the non-enforcement application; (2) If the reason is established, order non-enforcement of the arbitration award.

However, regardless of which review outcome, after the ruling is made, the arbitration tribunal cannot be notified to re-arbitrate.

The specific basis is:

Paragraph 2 of Article 19 of the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Arbitration Award Enforcement Cases by People’s Courts” stipulates: “If the person against whom enforcement is applied or the third party outside the case applies for non-enforcement of the arbitration award, upon examination the reason is established, the people’s court shall order non-enforcement; if the reason is not established, it shall order dismissal of the non-enforcement application.”

Additionally, it should be particularly noted that Article 9 of the Arbitration Law clearly stipulates: “If an award is revoked or non-enforcement is ordered by the people’s court’s ruling according to the law, the parties may, based on the arbitration agreement they have newly reached, apply for arbitration, or file a lawsuit with the people’s court regarding the same dispute.

8. Remedies

· Application for Revocation of Arbitration Award

Articles 157, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulate: “Rulings apply to the following scopes: (1) Non-acceptance; (2) Objection to jurisdiction; (3) Dismissal of prosecution; (4) Preservation and advance execution; (5) Permission or refusal of withdrawal of prosecution; (6) Suspension or termination of litigation; (7) Correction of errors in judgment documents; (8) Suspension or termination of enforcement; (9) Revocation or non-enforcement of arbitration awards; (10) Non-enforcement of creditor’s rights documents with compulsory enforcement effect certified by notary institutions; (11) Other matters requiring ruling resolution. Appeals may be filed against rulings in items (1) through (3) of the preceding paragraph.”

Article 379 of the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2022 Amendment)” stipulates: “If a party believes that a non-acceptance or dismissal of prosecution ruling that has taken legal effect is erroneous, it may apply for retrial.”

Article 8 of the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Hearing of Arbitration Judicial Review Cases” stipulates: “If the people’s court, after filing, discovers the application does not meet acceptance conditions, it shall order dismissal of the application. If the case where the ruling dismissing the application falls under the preceding paragraph, and the applicant applies again and meets acceptance conditions, the people’s court shall accept. If a party is dissatisfied with the ruling dismissing the application, it may file an appeal.” Article 20 stipulates: “Rulings made by the people’s court in arbitration judicial review cases, except rulings on non-acceptance, dismissal of applications, and jurisdictional objections, become legally effective upon delivery. Parties applying for reconsideration, filing appeals, or applying for retrial shall not be accepted by the people’s court, except as otherwise provided by laws and judicial interpretations.”

From this, it can be known that under current law, for applications for revocation of arbitration awards, after the people’s court’s substantive review, regardless of whether the ruling is to dismiss the application or to revoke the arbitration award or notify the arbitration tribunal to re-arbitrate within a specified period, parties cannot apply for reconsideration, file appeals, or apply for retrial against that ruling.

At the same time, it should be particularly noted that regarding rulings dismissing applications for revocation of arbitration awards, if the people’s court, after filing, discovers the application does not meet acceptance conditions and therefore rules dismissal of the application, appeals may be filed against that ruling; however, if the people’s court has filed the case and after substantive review rules dismissal of the application for revocation of arbitration awards, appeals cannot be filed against that ruling.

Regarding this, the Supreme People’s Court’s “Selected Q&A from Fatiewang (Fourteenth Batch)—Arbitration Judicial Review Special Topic” published on December 26, 2024 also specifically mentions:

“Question 2: If a people’s court makes a ruling dismissing an application on grounds that the party exceeded the time limit for applying for revocation of arbitration awards, can such rulings be appealed or applied for retrial? If appeal and retrial are permitted, and such rulings simultaneously include review content on grounds for award revocation, how should this be handled?

Answer: According to Article 59 of the Arbitration Law, if a party applies for award revocation, it shall be made within six months from the date of receipt of the award. If a party applies for revocation of the arbitration award after the six-month period, because it does not meet the conditions for the people’s court to accept an application for revocation of an arbitration award case, it shall order non-acceptance; if already accepted, it shall order dismissal of the application.

Such rulings belong to procedural dismissal rulings, different from rulings made after the people’s court enters the arbitration judicial review procedure and conducts review based on statutory grounds for revocation of arbitration awards as stipulated in the Arbitration Law.

According to Articles 7, 8, and 20 of the ‘Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Hearing of Arbitration Judicial Review Cases,’ for rulings on non-acceptance and rulings dismissing applications that do not meet acceptance conditions, applicants may file appeals and may apply for retrial. Accordingly, for rulings of non-acceptance or dismissal due to parties exceeding the award revocation application time limit, parties may file appeals and may apply for retrial.

If a party applies for revocation of the arbitration award, and after the people’s court accepts it believes the six-month period has been exceeded, it shall directly rule dismissal of the application without reviewing the grounds for award revocation raised by the party. If the people’s court simultaneously conducts a review and rules dismissal of the application, in the appeal and retrial review procedure, the people’s court shall only review whether the original ruling’s determination that the award revocation application exceeded the time limit is correct, and does not need to review whether the grounds for applying for revocation of the arbitration award are established.”

· Application for Non-Enforcement of Arbitration Award

Article 248, Paragraph 5 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates: “If an arbitration award is ordered non-enforcement by the people’s court’s ruling, the parties may, based on the written arbitration agreement they have newly reached, apply for arbitration, or file a lawsuit with the people’s court.”

Article 22 of the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Arbitration Award Enforcement Cases by People’s Courts” stipulates: “After the people’s court rules non-enforcement of an arbitration award, dismisses, or non-accepts an application for non-enforcement of an arbitration award, if a party raises an execution objection or applies for reconsideration against that ruling, the people’s court shall not accept. If the people’s court orders non-enforcement of an arbitration award, the parties may, based on the written arbitration agreement they have newly reached, apply for arbitration, or file a lawsuit with the people’s court. If the people’s court, based on a third party’s application, orders non-enforcement of an arbitration award or arbitration mediation document, and a party is dissatisfied, it may apply for reconsideration to the people’s court at the higher level within 10 days from the date of ruling delivery; if the people’s court rules dismissal or non-acceptance of a third party’s application for non-enforcement of an arbitration award or arbitration mediation document, and the third party is dissatisfied, it may apply for reconsideration to the people’s court at the higher level within 10 days from the date of ruling delivery.”

The Supreme People’s Court’s execution ruling (2021) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Shen No. 12 made on March 31, 2021 clearly determines: The Civil Procedure Law and its interpretation’s provision that “if an arbitration award is ordered non-enforcement by the people’s court’s ruling, the parties may, based on the written arbitration agreement they have newly reached, apply for arbitration, or file a lawsuit with the people’s court” only stipulates that if a party raises an execution objection or applies for reconsideration against a non-enforcement ruling, the people’s court shall not accept, but does not prohibit the people’s court from initiating execution supervision procedures for such rulings according to the law. In this case, Wuhan Baixing filed a complaint rather than an execution objection or reconsideration against Enshi Intermediate Court’s (2017) E 28 Zhi No. 9 execution ruling. Hubei Higher Court also made (2019) E Zhi Jian No. 16 execution ruling through the execution supervision procedure according to Article 129 of the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Execution Work of People’s Courts (Trial)” (which was amended in 2020, now Article 71), which does not procedurally violate the above judicial interpretation’s provisions.

Article 71 of the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Execution Work of People’s Courts (Trial) (2020 Amendment)” stipulates: “Higher-level people’s courts shall supervise lower-level people’s courts’ execution work according to the law. The Supreme People’s Court shall supervise local各级 (all levels of) people’s courts and specialized courts’ execution work according to the law.”

Because the subjects with the right to apply for non-enforcement of arbitration awards include persons against whom enforcement is applied and qualified third parties outside the case. According to the above legal provisions, remedies are divided into the following three situations:

(1) If the people’s court, based on the application of the person against whom enforcement is applied, orders non-enforcement of the arbitration award, the parties may, based on the written arbitration agreement they have newly reached, apply for arbitration, or file a lawsuit with the people’s court, and may also file a complaint to the people’s court at the higher level through the execution supervision procedure. However, if a party raises an execution objection or applies for reconsideration against that ruling, the people’s court shall not accept.

(2) If the people’s court, based on a third party’s application, orders non-enforcement of an arbitration award or arbitration mediation document, and a party is dissatisfied, it may apply for reconsideration to the people’s court at the higher level;

(3) If the people’s court, based on a third party’s application, rules dismissal or non-acceptance of a third party’s application for non-enforcement of an arbitration award or arbitration mediation document, and the third party is dissatisfied, it may apply for reconsideration to the people’s court at the higher level.

II. System Articulation

Article 20 of the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Arbitration Award Enforcement Cases by People’s Courts” stipulates: “If a party applies to the people’s court for revocation of an arbitration award and the application is dismissed, and the party subsequently raises a non-enforcement application based on the same circumstances in the execution procedure, the people’s court shall not support this; if a party applies to the people’s court for non-enforcement and the application is dismissed, and the party subsequently applies for revocation of the arbitration award based on the same circumstances, the people’s court shall not support this.

During the review period of a non-enforcement arbitration award case, if a party applies to the people’s court with jurisdiction for revocation of the arbitration award and such application is accepted, the people’s court shall order suspension of the review of the non-enforcement application; if the arbitration award is revoked or decided to re-arbitrate, the people’s court shall order termination of enforcement and termination of the review of the non-enforcement application; if the application for revocation of the arbitration award is dismissed or the applicant for enforcement withdraws the application for revocation of the arbitration award, the people’s court shall restore the review of the non-enforcement application; if the person against whom enforcement is applied withdraws the application for revocation of the arbitration award, the people’s court shall order termination of the review of the non-enforcement application, except for third parties’ applications for non-enforcement of arbitration awards.”

From this, the articulation rules for the two systems of applying for revocation of arbitration awards and applying for non-enforcement of arbitration awards are as follows:

(1) During the review of revocation or non-enforcement of arbitration awards, if a party’s application in one procedure is dismissed and the party subsequently initiates another remedy procedure based on the same circumstances, the people’s court shall not support this;

(2) When both remedy procedures are simultaneously initiated, the litigation review procedure for revoking arbitration has priority. At this time, the people’s court that accepted the non-enforcement application shall order suspension of the review of non-enforcement;

(3) If the person against whom enforcement is applied simultaneously initiates both review procedures and withdraws the application for revocation of the arbitration award, this shall be deemed as the party has withdrawn the application for non-enforcement of the arbitration award, and the review of the non-enforcement application shall be terminated.

In judicial practice, there has been a voice proposing that the two arbitration judicial review systems of revoking and non-enforcing arbitration awards overlap in review grounds, and may inevitably be maliciously used by some parties as tools to abuse procedures and delay debt payment. It is hoped that the parties’ remedy procedures can be simplified and the two systems of revocation and non-enforcement can be exercised at the party’s choice.

To this end, the Supreme People’s Court clearly pointed out in its “Reply to Suggestion No. 6463 of the Fourth Session of the 13th National People’s Congress” on July 14, 2021: The two arbitration judicial review systems of revoking and non-enforcing arbitration awards reflect thorough protection of arbitration parties’ remedy rights, and have similarities, but currently still cannot replace each other. The main considerations are:

(1) The non-enforcement system denies the enforceability of arbitration awards. That is, the applicant’s rights cannot be guaranteed through state compulsory force, but this does not negate the award’s effect between the applicant and the respondent, which is not exactly the same as the effect of revoking an arbitration award. Accordingly, the two differ in terms of applicants, application circumstances, application time, and whether the people’s court can initiate ex officio, which can form complementary救济 (remedies) for different subjects.

(2) When enforcement of an arbitration award violates social public interest, the people’s court can review ex officio and order non-enforcement. However, revocation of an arbitration award must be based on the premise of the award party applying for revocation.

(3) To combat and curb the increasingly frequent acts in judicial practice of applying for enforcement or affecting other creditors’ legitimate rights and interests through false arbitration, the Supreme People’s Court created the system of third parties applying for non-enforcement of false arbitrations in the judicial interpretation on arbitration award enforcement, providing remedy channels for third parties whose rights have been infringed, and this system was established based on the non-enforcement arbitration award system stipulated in the Civil Procedure Law.

Moreover, the author believes that the aforementioned Article 20 has clarified the articulation rules for the two systems, which has in fact significantly reduced the possibility of duplicate review during the application of the two procedures. This can largely prevent persons against whom enforcement is applied from maliciously using judicial procedures to delay enforcement progress and尽可能 (as much as possible) protect the legitimate rights and interests of applicants for enforcement. The author also believes that with the further development of the socialist market economy and changes in reform, as well as the further development of opening up, the internal conflicts between the two systems will be further straightened out to better adapt to social development and arbitration practice needs.

III. Concluding Remarks

Arbitration is an internationally common dispute resolution method, an important “element” in China’s diversified dispute resolution mechanism, and plays an irreplaceable important role in protecting parties’ legitimate rights and interests, ensuring the healthy development of the socialist market economy, and promoting international economic exchanges.

Since 2017, the Supreme People’s Court has successively issued judicial interpretations such as the “Notice on Several Issues Concerning the Centralized Handling of Arbitration Judicial Review Cases,” “Relevant Provisions on the Reporting and Approval of Arbitration Judicial Review Cases,” “Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Hearing of Arbitration Judicial Review Cases,” and “Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Arbitration Award Enforcement Cases by People’s Courts.” On July 3, 2021, the Ministry of Justice drafted and publicly solicited opinions on the “Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (Revised) (Draft for Comments)” and its explanation. All of these fully reflect the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council’s high importance on arbitration work and arbitration judicial review work.

Accordingly, the author, combining current legal provisions and judicial practice, has formed this series of articles, cutting in from different angles, divided into three parts, to explore together with readers. The author believes that with the further improvement of the arbitration system and the further improvement of arbitration credibility, China’s arbitration will surely usher in higher-quality development, and the arbitration system will also play a greater role in improving national governance and social governance capabilities.