Conflictoflaws

 

I. Introduction

It is not uncommon for scholars to debate whether private international law is needed as a distinct discipline, and whether it is truly indispensable. After all, could one not save the effort and complexity of applying foreign law by simply treating all cases as purely domestic? From a theoretical standpoint, the answer is yes, since no State is under an inherent obligation to apply foreign law. Yet, such an approach entails serious shortcomings, particularly when it comes to respecting vested or acquired rights, meeting the legitimate expectations of the parties, and fostering cross-border commerce. It follows that the costs of refusing to recognize and apply foreign law are far greater than the difficulties associated with maintaining a system of private international law. It is therefore unsurprising that private international law has established itself as a common language for managing the legal diversity inherent in transnational relations.

However, private international law is not uniform across jurisdictions. In some States, its operation may be severely constrained by the temptation to treat cases involving foreign elements as purely domestic. The situation becomes even more delicate when such an approach is not merely a matter of judicial practice but is elevated to explicit State policy. This is precisely the issue raised by the UAE’s civil personal status legislations and related court practice, where the very raison d’être of the new system appears to be the avoidance of the applying foreign law. Indeed, since the application of foreign law “in practice … could be costly, time consuming and complex”, the lawmakers chose to (quasi) substitute it with a new system of civil personal status, described as “a better cultural fit for the expatriate community, particularly those who are non-Muslim.” (Abu Dhabi Judicial Department, Civil Marriage Law and Its Effect in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi (Q & A), 1st ed. 2023, p. 4).

This raises important questions about the balance between the “lofty ideals” that inspired the introduction of the civil personal status legislations and the “sour realities” of legitimate expectations being overlooked, or, at times, entirely disregarded.

 

II. Lofty Ideals …

In what can surely be considered an iconoclastic initiative in the region, the Emirate of Abu Dhabi introduced in 2021 a new system regulating civil marriage and its effects (“2021 ADCML”) in parallel to the existing system of personal status based on and influenced by Islamic rules and principles (the 2024 Federal Decree Law No 41 on Personal Status (“2024 PSL”), which replaced the 2005 Federal Act on Personal Status as subsequently amended). The latter constitutes the droit commun (lex generalis), codifying various aspects of Islamic family law, whereas the former operated as a special law (lex specialis) entirely grounded in secular, non-religious values, most notably equality and non-discrimination between the parties regardless of gender, nationality, or religion; at least insofar as parties are non-Muslims, or if foreign Muslims, are nationals of countries that do not primarily apply Islamic sharia in matters of personal status (Article 5 of the 2022 Procedural regulation concerning the Marriage and Civil Divorce Procedures in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi). The system was later extended to the entire federation through the adoption in 2022 of Federal Decree-Law No. 41 on Civil Personal Status) (“2022 CPSL”), with the notable difference that the 2022 CPSL is strictly limited to non-Muslims, whether UEA citizens or foreigners (Article 1 of the 2022 CPSL; for a comparison between the two legislations, see my comments here).

The newly introduced system has been praised as one that “acknowledges the complexities of [the UAE’s] global population”, provides “ a comprehensive legal framework addressing family law matters through a lens of inclusivity and equality”, and “[w]hile maintaining respect for cultural sensitivities”, “embrace[s] principles long associated with international human rights and progressive family law: gender and parental equality, the imposition of greater financial consequence and obligation in divorce and the prioritisation of children’s welfare” (Byron James, United Arab Emirates: Family Law).

Indeed, as explicitly stated in Article 2 of the 2021 ADCML, the system aims to “provide a flexible and elaborate judicial mechanism for resolving family disputes” that is “in line with international best practices,” and which guarantees litigants “to be subject to an internationally recognised law that is close to them in terms of culture, customs and language.” The law also seeks to “consolidate the Emirate’s position and global competitiveness as one of the most attractive destinations for human talent and skills.” These ideals are reflected, inter alia, in article 16 of the 2021 ADCML, echoed by Article 4 of the 2022 CPSL, concerning “equality between men and women as to rights and duties” in matters of testimony evidence, inheritance, right to request (unilateral) no-fault divorce and joint custody.

In a nutshell, the newly adopted legislations, which are “specifically designed to assist the expatriate community”, strive to provide “tourists and residents” a “simple”, “effective” “modern and flexible judicial mechanism” regulating their family relationships in the UAE “in accordance with civil principles as opposed to religious principles” and “protect the rights of all individuals by providing family law principles that are in line with best international practices as well as an accessible and straightforward judicial process” (Abu Dhabi Judicial Department, Civil Marriage Law and Its Effect in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi (Q & A), 1st ed. 2023, pp. 3, 5).

 

III. … Sour Realities

1) Regarding the avoidance of applying foreign law

As I noted in earlier posts (see here and here), doubts remain as to whether relying almost entirely on a substantive law approach that is based on the direct application of the civil personal status legislations in disputes involving foreign elements can truly achieve the objectives of the newly introduced family law system.

In practice, this approach risks being disruptive, undermining the ideals of private international law, namely decisional harmony and respect for the parties’ legitimate expectations, regardless of how well-crafted the applicable substantive law may be. Under the new framework, it is often enough for judges to assume jurisdiction on tenuous grounds (see my comments here) for the civil personal status legislations to be applied almost automatically. It makes no difference whether, under the parties’ lex patriae or the law normally applicable according to UAE choice of law rules (the lex loci celebrationis according to article 13 of the 1985 Federal Act on Civil Transactions), divorce is not permitted (as in the Philippines or certain Christian communities in the Middle East), or whether divorce would not be recognized unless the parties’ personal law were applied (as in India).

It is true that under the federal law (though not in Abu Dhabi, as the wording of the law suggests), either party may request the application of their own law (Article 1 of the 2022 CPSL, on this provision see my comments here). In practice, however, this mechanism has rarely proved effective, as courts not only treat foreign law as a matter of fact whose content must be established by the party invoking it, but also impose onerous requirements, rendering the application of foreign law almost illusory (see my comments here).

 

2) Regarding the subsidiary application of the general law based on Islamic Sharia

The lofty ideals of the newly introduced civil personal status legislations also fade when the legal issue to be addressed is not covered by them. In such cases, the matter has  to be governed by “the laws and legislation in force in the State” (Article 15 of the 2022 CPSL). In other words, the legal issue falls back on the general law of personal status (the 2024 PSL), which is based – as explained above – on Islamic rules and principles. This creates an extremely intricate situation: while the very purpose of the civil personal status law is to prevent non-Muslims from being subjected to the local Sharia-based legislation, and instead to provide them with a “an internationally recognised law that is close to them in terms of culture, customs and language” (Article 2 of the 2021 ADCML), certain matters nonetheless remain governed by the local legislation in its subsidiary application.

The question of is guardianship (wilaya) provides a quintessential example. The civil personal status legislation regulates only custody (hadhana) but says nothing about guardianship (wilaya). In the absence of relevant rules, UAE judges turn to the general personal status law (the 2024 PSL) to fill the gap. The problem, however, is that under this law – which reflects Islamic law principles – guardianship (wilaya) is mainly the father’s prerogative. As a result, the combined application of the civil personal status law and the general personal status law often leads UAE judges to grant joint custody (hadhana mushtarika) to both parents under the civil personal status laws, while conferring sole guardianship (wilaya) over the person and property of the child to the father in application of the general personal status law.

Again, these provisions apply automatically, irrespective of the parties’ lex patriae or the law normally applicable according to UAE choice-of-law rules.

 

III. Reactions Abroad

The experience of many litigants, mainly wives, with civil personal status litigation in the UAE has left them with bitter memories, as the lofty ideals of the newly adopted legislations did not meet their legitimate expectations. This is particularly true when their efforts to invoke and apply their national law, permitted in principle under Article 1 of the 2022 CPSL, proved futile for the reasons mentioned above (III(1)). Many have shared their stories on social media, including dedicated Facebook accounts. Recently, local media such as newspaper articles or radio podcasts have begun to shed light on the practice of civil personal status litigation in the UAE, drawing attention to the negative aspects of litigating personal status disputes in the UAE. For instance, a recent article published in the French newspaper Le Parisien, titled “ Dubaï, nouvel eldorado des divorces express (Dubai, the new haven for first-track divorces)” describes the experiences and hardships of several women who went through such proceedings. Similar reports have also been broadcasted on radio programs in France and Switzerland. More importantly, the phenomenon risks taking a political turn, as the question of the application of civil personal status law and the protection of the rights of French citizens in the UAE has been formally brought to the attention of the French authorities through a parliamentary question addressed to the Government by a member of the Senate, concerning international divorce proceedings in the UAE involving French couples.

Last but not least, reactions from some European courts were not long in coming: they have refused to recognize divorces issued in the UAE under the civil personal status legislation on the grounds of procedural irregularities (see Alejandra Esmoris, Recognition of Abu Dhabi divorce ruling in Switzerland: Case Law Analysis). Similar reactions are likely to multiply as more parties voice dissatisfaction with the system, particularly when its operation fails to meet the procedural guarantees and substantive safeguards expected under the standards of their personal (European) law. For instance, the Le Parisien article mentioned above, refers to petition filed in France by a French lawyer to bar the recognition of a Dubai court’s divorce decision rendered in application of the 2022 CPSL. This trend may signal the beginning of broader scrutiny, and perhaps resistance, to the recognition of judgments rendered under the UAE’s civil personal status framework.

 

IV. Way forward

Several measures are needed to improve the current situation, the most important of which are a reconsideration of the role that private international law can play and the facilitation of the application of foreign law.

In addition, other procedural aspects require attention. These include the overly broad grounds for taking international jurisdiction, the complete disregard of parallel proceedings (see example, Abu Dhabi Civil Family Court, Judgment No. 86/2024 of 17 May 2024), the refusal to recognize foreign judgments and decrees unless they are first declared enforceable (see my comment here), and the practice of indiscriminately serving notifications via SMS in Arabic without English translation. The way cases are conducted online as reported in the abovementioned Le Parisien article (which described a party being represented by her lawyer while seated in her car with her seatbelt on, during a trial conducted by a judge who had not turned on his camera) also raises concerns. Unless such issues are addressed, judgments rendered under the civil personal status legislations will continue to face denial of recognition and enforcement abroad (see Esmoris, op. cit.).

 

(This post is written by Dr. Chen Zhi who is an Attorney at Zhiheng Law Firm Guangzhou Office, PRC).

I. Introduction

On September 12, 2025, the newly revised Arbitration Law (hereinafter New Arbitration Law) of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter “PRC”) was adopted by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (hereinafter as “SCNPC”) with the subsequent promulgation by the President of PRC, and will take effect on March 1, 2026. The New Arbitration Law features novelties such as the introduction of “arbitration seat”, limited liberalization of ad hoc arbitration, enshrining online arbitration, a higher threshold for eligibility of arbitrator, and a shorter duration for applying for annulment of arbitral award from six months to three months. Nonetheless, some articles of the New Law leave room for further discussion. This article combs through the history of revision, delves into the highlights and remaining gaps of the New Arbitration Law, and provides insights into its significance for the development of commercial arbitration in Mainland China from the perspective of an arbitration practitioner in Mainland China.

II. A Snapshot of The Revision History

Since the enactment of the Arbitration Law in 1995, commercial arbitration in Mainland China has undergone overwhelming development from a blank slate to a non-ignorable hub in the arena of international arbitration. Nonetheless, for nearly three decades, the PRC Arbitration Law itself was left largely untouched, receiving only minor revisions to keep pace with other legislation in 2009 and 2017 (hereinafter collectively as the Old Arbitration Law).

On 30 July, 2021, a Draft Amendment to the Arbitration Law (hereinafter as 2021 Draft) released by the Ministry of Justice sparks the overhaul of arbitration legal framework, making it more in line with the common practice in international commercial arbitration such as the UNCITRAL Model Law by embedding competence-competence principle, tribunal’s power over interim relief, extension of arbitration agreements, etc., while a long-term silence emerged in the subsequent three years with no further official documents.

However, the first amendment draft issued on 4 November 2024 (hereinafter as 1st Draft) by SCNPC had given rise to controversies and generated criticism, as many of the novelties and reformative features aligning Chinese arbitration with the international standards as set out in the 2021 version were removed, including the abovementioned two articles concerning the non-signatory issues. The 1st Draft gave rise to strong criticisms from the circles of research and practice[i]. Nonetheless, some articles concerning foreign-related arbitration, inter alia, auxiliary proceedings for ad hoc arbitration by the court of the seat were retained.

On 1st May, 2025, the Second Draft Amendment (hereinafter as 2nd Draft) was issued, even though one of the most controversial proposed clauses was removed, inter alia, Art. 23 (3) in the 1st Draft, endowing the administrative bureau with the power to fine arbitration institutions, the conservative stance remained unchanged. After that, the New Arbitration Law was enacted in mid-September of 2025 with minor revisions compared to the 2nd Draft.

As there have been plenty of comments making comparisons between the New Arbitration Law and the former version of the Arbitration Law, with a myriad of appreciations[ii], this article brings into focus the substantial differences between the adopted version and the working drafts to offer a more neutral and objective comment.

III. Revisions Concerning Arbitration Agreement: Breakthroughs and Limits

1. Revisions on the Formality and Substance of the Arbitration Agreement

Generally, the New Law retains the written-form requirement and the parties shall fix an arbitral institution. In case of any ambiguity about the arbitration institution, the parties shall reach a supplementary agreement subsequently, failing which the arbitration agreement will be rendered null and void as stipulated in Article 27 (1) and Article 29 of the New Arbitration Law. This promulgation is identical to that in the Old Arbitration Law[iii].

However, there are two novelties as to the arbitration agreement:

First, there is the implied consent to arbitrate by conduct as per Article 27 (2) of the New Arbitration Law, where the implied consent can be deemed to be reached if: (1) one party pleads the existence of an arbitration agreement when filing the Request of Arbitration; (2) the other party fails to object the existence of arbitration agreement before the first hearing on merits; (3) the silence is recorded in writing after express notice by the tribunal. The provision is in line with arbitral practice that tribunals routinely inquire parties’ opinions on the jurisdiction and record via the minutes of hearing, while it is nuanced with the conduct-based estoppel as set out in Article 7 Section (5) (option I) of the 2006 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration[iv](hereinafter as UNCITRAL Model Law) where the implied consent is reached through exchange of statements of claim and defence, in other words, there will be no implied consent to arbitrate under Article 27 (2) in document-only hearing. The New Arbitration Law also sets up a higher threshold for implied consent by adding to the tribunal’s obligation to notice and record, which is not found in the corresponding part of the 1st Draft.

Second, the recognition of ad hoc arbitration to a limited extent. Under the new law, ad hoc arbitration is permitted only for:(i) foreign-related maritime disputes; or(ii) foreign-related commercial disputes between enterprises registered in the Pilot Free Trade Zone permitted by the PRC State Council, Hainan Free Trade Port or other districts permitted by relevant regulations. This scope is therefore drastically narrower than the promulgation in the 2021 Draft and the 1st Draft, which allowed for ad hoc arbitration in “foreign-related cases”[v]. Moreover, arbitrators of ad hoc proceedings must satisfy the statutory qualification requirements applicable to institutional arbitrators, superseding the looser requirement for “arbitrators engaging in foreign-related arbitration” as set out in the 1st Draft[vi].

Crucially, the New Law deletes the seat court’s power to assist arbitration through the appointment of an arbitrator when the parties to ad hoc arbitration fail to agree upon the constitution of the tribunal (Art. 92 of the 1st Draft), and the deposit of the award by ad hoc tribunal (Art. 93 of the 1st Draft). Instead, the New Arbitration Law only stipulates that the tribunal must file a notice with the China Arbitration Association (which is yet to be established) within three working days upon its constitution. With the auxiliary role of the judiciary being vastly weakened, without the icebreaking function of the judiciary, the ad hoc proceedings will confront a grave challenge while deadlock arises, in particular where the parties are uncooperative as to the designation of arbitrators.

2. Introduction of the Arbitral Seat

For the first time, the New Arbitration Law defines the “seat” (???) to ascertain the “legal gravity” of the award, where the law governs the arbitration proceedings and the court possesses the power of supervision over the arbitration. A three-stage test is advanced in the ascertainment of the seat of arbitration: (i) party agreement; (ii) failing which, the arbitration rules; (iii) in the absence of such rules, the tribunal’s determination. This sequencing aligns with international common practice as well as the courts’ repeated judicial practice in Mainland China[vii].

Because courts’ powers to assist with ad hoc arbitration have been repealed, the seat court’s functions are largely confined to post-award judicial review. Also, the conflict-of-law rule that would have subjected the validity of the arbitration agreement to the law of the seat Art. 21) was also eliminated. Given that Art. 18 of the Law on the Application of Laws to Foreign-Related Civil Relations 2011 already provides an identical choice-of-law formula, the deletion avoids redundancy and potential inconsistency.

3. Determination of Jurisdiction and the Chinese Style Competence-competence

The New Arbitration Law reinstates the separability doctrine of arbitration agreement from the matrix contract, adding up that the non-conclusion, ineffectiveness or rescind of main contract are not detrimental to the effectiveness of arbitration clause incorporated therein.

Art. 31 of the New Arbitration Law empowers the tribunal or the arbitration institution to rule on its own jurisdiction “upon the request of a party”. This is considered the incorporation of competence-competence in statute by some commentators[viii]. However, Art. 31 is materially different from the competence-competence as set out in Art. 16 (3) of the Model Law, which only allows for the parties to resort to the court after the decision rendered by the tribunal, also promulgation of the New Arbitration Law fails to ensure“negative effect” of competence-competence which requires a prima facie review over the arbitration agreement by state court in pre-award stage, which is well established in jurisdictions like Singapore[ix],  France[x], the UK[xi], and Hong Kong SAR[xii]. Under the New Arbitration Law, the court’s priority regarding the decision on arbitral jurisdiction in most circumstances remains unchanged[xiii]. As per some commentators, this may give rise to problems such as the violation of the “minimal intervention principle”[xiv]. Therefore, Art. 31 of the New Arbitration Law is at best a Chinese-style competence-competence.

Overall, unlike the liberal approach in the 2021 Draft and the 1st Draft, the New Arbitration Law takes a more conservative stance, leaving room for further perfection. Nonetheless, there are some laudable novelties concerning arbitration agreements in integrating the well-settled arbitration practice (including the common practice by the judiciary) during the past 30 years.

IV. Revisions Concerning Arbitration Proceedings and Judicial Review

The New Arbitration Law makes minor revisions as to the conduct of arbitration proceedings and judicial review over the arbitral award, compared with the parts of the arbitration agreement. There are several aspects to be delved into below:

1. Novelties Concerning Arbitration Proceedings and Judicial Review

1.1. The Recognition of Online Arbitration

Art. 11 of the New Arbitration Law explicitly states that arbitration can be handled through electronic means, hence the virtual hearings , electronic delivery of files, and other relevant conduct online are put on the same footing as their physical equivalents, unless the parties have otherwise agreed. The opt-out model for online arbitration aligns the statute with the technical development in internet-era, ensuring the efficiency of commercial arbitration.

1.2. Separated Standard for Proper Notice in Arbitration

Article 41 of the New Arbitration Law clarifies that the proper notice issue in arbitration is subject to the parties’ agreement or the applicable arbitration rules, rather than rules for service in civil litigation, this article has integrated Article 14 of the 2018 Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Cases Regarding Enforcement of Arbitral Awards by the People’s Courts and can be extended to proceedings of setting aside. This ensures the confidentiality, efficiency and flexibility of proper notice in arbitration.

1.3 Stringent Rules for Qualification and Disclosure of Arbitrator

Articles 14 and 43 of the New Arbitration Law refine the appointment of the presiding or sole arbitrator: the parties may agree that the two co-arbitrators nominate the presiding arbitrator, failing which the presiding arbitrator or sole arbitrator must be appointed by the director of the arbitration institution “in accordance with the procedure laid down in the arbitration rules” instead of the mere discretion of the director, this provides more transparency in appointment of arbitrators.

Moreover, the New Arbitration Law also introduces a continuing obligation of disclosure by arbitrators where there is any circumstance that is likely to give rise to justifiable doubts, which builds up arbitrators’ ongoing statutory duty of disclosure in the ascertainment of the arbitrator’s impartiality and neutrality to ensure the integrity of arbitration proceedings[xv]. While the legislature cannot exhaust all circumstances, detailed guidance from institutions and practitioners—such as the three color lists provided by the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitrations—is required for more legal certainty.

Art. 22 of the New Arbitration Law succeeded the high condition for a qualified arbitrator to be listed in the roster of an institution, which is traditionally summarized as “three eight-year working experiences, two senior titles” (????)[xvi]. The New Arbitration Law provides more draconian requirements, i.e., the limits and prohibitions on civil servants being qualified as part-time arbitrators[xvii], and the mandatory removal of arbitrators from the roster while they are disqualified from certain certificates (i.e., disqualified from being a lawyer due to a criminal offence)[xviii]. This high threshold is applicable to ad hoc arbitration with foreign-related factors. The high threshold is set up for fairness and integrity of arbitration, while whether the state’s deep involvement in a gatekeeping role is more appropriate than the choice by the market-reputation is open to debate.

1.4. Shortening Time Limit for Application Setting Aside

For post-award judicial review, the time limit to apply for annulment is cut from six months upon the receipt of the award to three, bringing the law in line with international common practice like Article 34 (3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law. This warrants the finality of awards.

2. Regulations That Remain Unchanged

Many comments stress that the New Law adds pre-arbitral preservation and conduct preservation[xix], but from the author’s perspective, these merely fill the loophole by aligning the statute with the Civil Procedural Law revised in 2012, which is not so notable. Article 43 of the 2021 Draft, which empowered both the court and tribunal to order interim relief in arbitration (two-tier system), is removed, leaving Mainland China among the few jurisdictions where arbitrators cannot issue interim measures (one-tier system). while this is to some extent compatible with the arbitration practice in Mainland China, which shall not be criticized heavily for the following reasons:

First, Chinese courts are likely to employ relatively lower threshold for granting asset preservation, which is always confined to a preliminary review on the formalities (i.e., whether there is a letter by the arbitration institution, or guarantee letter issued by competent insurance companies), instead of a review on merits concerning the risk of irreparable harm, proportionality, and urgency rate like the tribunal in international commercial arbitration seated outside Mainland China[xx]. Hence, the lower standard for issuance of interim relief by courts in Mainland China ensures the efficiency and enforceability of interim relief and may overall meet the requirements of parties.

Second, the two-tier system for issuance of interim relief may give rise to problems concerning the conflict of powers, as per the decision of the Gerald Metals case[xxi] by the High Court of England and Wales, courts can only grant interim relief while the power of the tribunal is inadequate. Hence, the one-tier system may be more suitable for common practice in Mainland China, as courts are more preferable for their efficiency and enforcement in granting asset preservation.

Last but not least, some commentators disagree with the author’s opinion for the reason that the lower standard is only applicable to asset preservation, while not applicable to other types of judicial preservation where the thresholds are relatively higher, and the tribunal shall be empowered to issue interim relief for recognition of the interim order outside Mailand China[xxii]. Nonetheless, the author disagrees with this position, as per the author’s experience, in most arbitration cases, asset preservation is the only concern of parties; preservation of evidence and preservation of conduct are rarely seen. Also, the enforcement of interim relief outside Mainland China is insufficient to justify the tribunal’s power over interim relief, for whether such relief is enforceable depends heavily on the law where the enforcement is sought, instead of the law where the order is rendered, see Art. 17 H (1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law: “An interim measure issued by an arbitral tribunal shall be recognized as binding and, unless otherwise provided by the arbitral tribunal, enforced upon application to the competent court, irrespective of the country in which it was issued, subject to the provisions of article”.

Other unchanged parts concerning arbitration proceedings and judicial review are not preferred, i.e., the high threshold for document-only hearing that only by the parties explicit agreement, the tribunal is not liable to conduct a hearing on evidence (unlike the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rule, which provides that a hearing shall be conducted at the request of one party). The evidence adduced shall be presented in the hearing for the comment by other parties ????, while the comment on evidence by exchange of written submissions, which has been widely used in arbitration practice, has been omitted, producing uncertainty for the efficiency and flexibility of arbitration. Also, the statutory limbs for annulment of arbitral award remain untouched, that the concealment of evidence or forgoing evidence may lead to the annulment of the award, which opens the door for review on the merits of the arbitral award, incompatible with the minimal intervention.

V. Other Changes in the New Arbitration Law

The New Arbitration Law makes notable adjustments to the terminology of arbitral institutions. It replaces the former term “arbitration commission” with “arbitral institution” across the board, clarifies that no hierarchy exists among different institutions, and expressly defines their legal nature as “non-profit legal persons” as per Art. 13 (2) of the New Arbitration Law, which keeps the arbitration institution’s independence from governmental institutions and avoids administrative intervention. In Art. 86, it also encourages domestic institutions to expand overseas and allows foreign institutions to operate within China on a limited basis. This reflects the ruling party’s enthusiasm for improving the arbitration system and establishing world-class arbitration institutions, as revealed in the Resolution by the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in its third plenary session dated 18 July 2024.[xxiii]

As for the long-delayed and yet to be founded China Arbitration Association, the New Law once again underscores its role in supervision of arbitration institutions across the country, however, whether this will accelerate its establishment remains to be seen.

VI. Conclusion

In short, while the New Law runs substantially longer than the Old Arbitration Law, its substantive changes fall short of the 2021 Draft and even the 1st Draft, taking “two steps forward and one step back.” Yet many of its revisions merit praise: they consolidate three decades of innovation in Chinese arbitration practice and should help advance both the arbitration sector and the broader rule-of-law business environment. Through a skyrocket development in the past 30 years, Mainland China has been a non-negligible hub for commercial arbitration, with collectively 285 institutions, 60,000 listed arbitrators by 31 July 2025, and 4,373 foreign-related arbitrations being handled by Chinese institutions in 2024[xxiv], the revision of Arbitration Law worthy more in-depth discussion.

 

[i] Zhong, Li , Dissecting the 2024 Draft Amendment to the PRC Arbitration Law: A Stride Forward or a Step Back?, available at https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2024/12/03/dissecting-the-2024-draft-amendment-to-the-prc-arbitration-law-a-stride-forward-or-a-step-back/, last visited on 19 September, 2025.

[ii] See i.e., Mingchao Fan, An Unexclusive Comparative Analysis of the New Chinese Arbitration Law and the English Arbitration Act 2025, available at Shanghai Arbitration Commission, https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/l-Q0HUEoAdJ09H8AkkjgnQ, See also Juanming He, A Quick Comment on 2025 Arbitration Law with 10 Thousand Words: Walking Steadily with Promising Future (?????????2025???——??????????), available at https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/lUPUysV1bAfUHjGhP4DS0Q , last visited on 19 September, 2025.

[iii]That includes:”(a) an expression of the parties’ intention to submit their dispute to arbitration; (b) the matters to be submitted for arbitration; and (c) the parties’ chosen ‘arbitration commission’ which is generally recognized as the equivalent of an ‘arbitral institution’.” See Art. 16 of the Old Arbitration Law, see also Art. 27 (1) of the New Arbitration with only one minor revision (replacing arbitration commission with arbitration institution)

[iv](5) Furthermore, an arbitration agreement is in writing if it is contained in an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of an agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by the other.

[v] Art. 91 of the 1st Draft: “Parties to commercial disputes with foreign-related factors may either refer the dispute to agreed arbitration, or submit to an ad hoc arbitral tribunal agreed upon by the parties. Ad Hoc arbitration commences upon the date when the respondent receives the request for arbitration by the claimant. In the event the seat is absent or ambiguous, the tribunal may decide on the place of arbitration base on circumstances of specific case.”(Original text: “?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????”)

[vi] Article 88 of the 1st Draft: “Professionals who are specialized in law, arbitration, economy and trade, scientific technology can be designated to be arbitrators in foreign-related arbitrations.” (Original text: “????????????????????????????????????????????????”)

[vii] Gao Xiaoli: positive practice of Chinese courts in recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards, available at https://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/219/199/203/805.html, last visited on 19 September, 2025

[viii] See i.e. Author Dong, Chen, Yuwai, Comments on the Highlights, Expectation and Outlook ??????????<???>?????????????, available at https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/nl4R_V77AS0c_P88hXIoAw, last visited on 19 September, 2025.

[ix] Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and Another v. Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals [2015] SGCA 57.

[x] See Société Coprodag et autre c Dame Bohin, Cour de Cassation, 10 May 1995 (1995?, cf. Nadja Erk-Kubat, Parallel Proceedings in International Arbitration: A Comparative European Perspective, (Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2014), p.39.

[xi] Joint Stock Company ‘Aeroflot-Russian Airlines v. Berezovsky & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 784.

[xii] Private Company “Triple V” Inc v. Star (Universal) Co Ltd & Another [1995] 2 HKLR 62.

[xiii] See i.e. Article 3 of Reply of the SPC on the Confirmation of the Validity of Arbitration Agreements, which states that: “1. If one party requests the arbitration institution to confirm the validity of the arbitration agreement while the other party requests the people’s court to declare the arbitration agreement invalid, the people’s court shall reject the party’s request provided that the arbitration institution has already ruled on the validity of the arbitration agreement. 2. If the arbitration institution has not yet made a ruling, the people’s court shall accept the request and order the arbitration institution to terminate the arbitration.” Cf. Fu, Panfeng, The Doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz A Sino-French Comparative Perspective: Hong Kong Law Journal, Vol. 52 Part 1 (2022), p. 276.

[xiv] See Xie, Xiaosong, Reform of Arbitration System from The Len of New Arbitration Law: Highlights and  Shortcomings? ????????????????????????? available at https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/1PWooLr9unRoBfs7nfys9Q, last visited on 19 September 2025

[xv] Art. 45 of the New Arbitration Law: ”Where any circumstance exists that may give rise to justifiable doubts as to an arbitrator’s impartiality or independence, the arbitrator shall, without delay, disclose such circumstance in writing to the arbitral institution.” (Original text:?????????????????????????????????????????????????”)

[xvi]These conditions are:“(1) engaged in arbitration work for (at least) eight years;(2) practiced as a lawyer for (at least) eight years;(3) served as a judge for (at least) eight years;(4) been involved in legal research or law teaching as well as holding a senior academic title; or(5) been professionally involved in economic and trade matters, and also possess an understanding of the law as well as having a senior academic title or its specialized equivalent.” Lu, Song, National Report for China (2020 through 2024), in Lise Bosman (ed), ICCA International Handbook on Commercial, Kluwer Law International 2023, p. 14. It is also notable that “three eight-year working experiences, two senior titles” applies only to nationals domiciled in Mainland China, persons with identities of foreign country or Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan are generally not subject to it.

[xvii] Art. 22 (2) of the New Arbitration Law: ”Where laws like the Supervisory Officials Law, the Judges Law or the Public Prosecutors Law of the People’s Republic of China provide that the relevant public officials may not concurrently serve as arbitrators, those provisions shall prevail; any other public official who wishes to serve simultaneously as an arbitrator shall comply with the applicable regulations” (Original text: “????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????”)

[xviii] Art. 23 (2) of the New Arbitration Law : “Arbitrators who are disqualified from civil servant, lawyer’s license or senior titles, or the occurrences of other circumstances that deprive him of condition for arbitrator, shall be removed from the roster of institution ” (Original text:“??????????????????????????????????????????????????????”)

[xix] See i.e. Author Dong, Chen, Yuwai, Comments on the Highlights, Expectation and Outlook ??????????<???>?????????????, available at https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/nl4R_V77AS0c_P88hXIoAw, last visited on 19 September, 2025.

[xx] Stephen Benz, Strengthening Interim Measures in International Arbitration, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Vol. 50, 2018, p. 147.

[xxi] Gerald Metals v. Timis and ors, [2016] EWHC 2327(Ch), para. 8 (Accordingly, it is only in cases where those powers, as well as the powers of a tribunal constituted in the ordinary way, are inadequate, or where the practical ability is lacking to exercise those powers, that the court may act under section 44.)

[xxii] See Xie, Xiaosong, Reform of Arbitration System from The Len of New Arbitration Law: Highlights and Shortcomings (????????????????????????), available at https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/1PWooLr9unRoBfs7nfys9Q, last visited on 19 September, 2025.

[xxiii] Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Further Deepening Reform Comprehensively to Advance Chinese Modernization, available at https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202407/22/WS669db327a31095c51c50f2f8.html, last visited on 20 September, 2025.

[xxiv] The statistic is drawn from the conference concerning foreign-related arbitration hosted by Ministry of Justice on 31 July, 2025, available at https://www.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbgw/fzgz/fzgzggflfwx/fzgzggflfw/202409/t20240910_505751.html, last visited on 20 September, 2025.

The private international law experts from the University Rovira i Virgili (URV-Tarragona) and the University of Lleida (UdL) together with the Notarial Association of Catalonia, are organizing I INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE REVIEW OF REGULATION (EU) 650/2012 AFTER TEN YEARS OF APPLICATION.

– The deadline for receiving abstracts has been extended until 29 September 29 2025.
– The scientific committee will decide on the acceptance on 14 October 2025.
– The conference will take place in Barcelona, on 11 and 12 of November 2025.

The call is open for any of the main thematic areas: scope, definitions, jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforceability and enforcement of decisions and documents, the European Certificate of Succession and other complementary provisions. Communications accepted will be presented in person during the seminar for approximately five or seven minutes each. Applications to present a communication proposal must meet the following requirements: identification of the author and his/her academic category, the subject to which the paper belongs, the title of the communication, an abstract of the communication, which should be between 300 and 500 words in length.

The application should be sent to: reglamentosucesiones@urv.cat

Communications will be selected according to their relevance in terms of the chosen thematic area; quality in the treatment of the topic and originality.
This Conference is part of the research project: “The review of Regulation 650/2012, in matters of succession: application assessment and proposals for amendments”, which is funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (reference PID2023-149454NB-I00). The duration of the project is four years (2024-2028) and this Conference is the first international scientific meeting planned among the project activities.

More information i available at the official web page.

This guest post is written by Jie Zheng, Assistant Professor & Research Fellow, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics

 

On 12th September 2025, the 17th session of the Standing Committee of the 14th National People’s Congress passed the Amendment to the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter “Chinese Arbitration Act”) to be effective from 1st March 2026[1], which was first adopted in 1994. Since its adoption, China has undergone enormous economic reforms and a more urgent need to align the legislation with international arbitration practices. There were only two minor revisions in 2009 and 2017 to fix technical inconsistencies with other procedural laws. In July 2021, the Ministry of Justice of China released a Draft Revision of the Arbitration Law for public consultation. [2] This was the first comprehensive reform since 1994. The draft was reviewed by the Sanding Committee of the National People’s Congress three times.

 

The first draft was reviewed by the Standing Committee of the NPC in November 2024, covering legal aspects of foreign-related arbitration reforms, improvement of the international reputation of Chinese arbitration, streamlining of procedure rules, and arbitration institutional reforms.[3] The second draft was reviewed in April 2025, focusing on the internal governance of arbitration institutions and the judicial support and review of arbitration.[4] The third draft review was completed on 12th September 2025 (the latest Amendment), adding rules on online arbitration and interim measures in the pre-arbitration stage, ensuring the investigation powers of the arbitral tribunal, and expanding the scope of ad hoc arbitration as outlined in the previous draft.[5]

 

I.              The urgent necessity of the amendment to the Chinese Arbitration Act

The current Chinese Arbitration Act has been effective since 1995. Back then, there were a few arbitration institutions, among which, CIETAC, CMAC are the most famous ones. According to the statistics, by August 2025, there are currently 285 arbitration institutions in China, taking over cases of parties from more than 100 nations or regions, involving financial disputes, e-commerce disputes, construction disputes, maritime disputes, intellectual property disputes, etc. [6]

 

Facing the global economic recession and anti-globalization trend, China has furthered its opening-up policies, including the initiation of its Belt and Road projects for foreign investment, establishing free trade zones and free trade ports to test advanced trade policies to be in alignment with the global trade practices. The amendment of the Chinese Arbitration Act is one of the necessary legislative reforms to promote the use of arbitration in international commercial disputes and enhance the attractiveness of foreign investment in China. The latest Amendment intends to serve for a high-quality and advanced level of opening-up, and create a business attractive environment to settle economic disputes. It includes Chinese characteristic features, together with foreign-related arbitration rules compatible with international practices.

 

II.           Major aspects of the latest Amendment to the Chinese Arbitration Act

• Arbitration institutional reforms

Legal nature of the arbitration institution in China

The term “arbitration institution” is applied to replace the old term “arbitration commission”. This shows the understanding of Chinese legislators towards the nature of arbitration institutions. The wording “arbitration commission” represented an administrative and bureaucratic feature, as they were established by the local government and business associations. Now, it is clearly stipulated in Article 13 of the amendment that arbitration institutions are charitable not-for-profit legal persons, stressing the independence of arbitration institutions.

 

The Amendment no longer distinguishes between domestic arbitration institutions and foreign-related arbitration institutions, as most arbitration institutions in China accept foreign-related arbitration disputes nowadays. Nevertheless, unlike in other jurisdictions where arbitration institutions are self-regulated under their statutes and supervised by judicial powers[7], in China, the arbitration institutions are still registered and supervised by the administrative department of justice pursuant to Article 14 and Article 26 of the Amendment.

 

Internal governance of arbitration institutions

The arbitration institution shall comprise one chairman, two vice chairmen, and seven to eleven members. There is an additional requirement on the qualifications of the members in Article 18 of the Amendment. Firstly, at least two-thirds of the members shall have expertise in law, trade and economics, and scientific technology. Secondly, the composition of the members should be adjusted every five years, and at least one-third of the members should be replaced to avoid conflict of interest.

 

• Support for online arbitration

Online arbitration has become a common practice in recent years in China.[8] Article 11 of the Amendment has confirmed the legality of online arbitration and the effectiveness of online arbitration. The parties may opt out of online arbitration if they do not agree.

 

• Arbitrators

Article 22 of the Amendment has excluded the double-heading of arbitrators who are prosecutors, judges, or any civil servants, who are restricted by law to act as arbitrators. It also welcomes foreign experts in law, trade and economics, maritime, and scientific technology to act as arbitrators.

 

Article 45 further requires the arbitrators to disclose any potential situations to the arbitration institutions in which a reasonable doubt could be cast on the independence or impartiality of the arbitrator.

 

Regarding the appointment of the third arbitrator in case of a three-member arbitral tribunal, Article 43 allows the parties can agree on different options: 1) the chief of the arbitration institution to appoint; 2) the parties to appoint themselves; 3) the already appointed two arbitrators to appoint.

 

• Interim measures in pre-arbitration proceedings

Article 39 of the Amendment has confirmed the possibility of the parties to apply for interim measures or injunctions before the initiation of the arbitration proceedings. The people’s court has the responsibility to proceed with the parties’ application.

 

• Arbitral tribunal’s extended powers

Article 55 empowers the arbitral tribunal’s power to collect evidence and request that relevant authorities assist. In the past, the arbitral tribunal had limited resources to collect evidence, except for requesting the parties to provide relevant evidence. With this latest amendment, the relevant authority has the duty to assist the arbitral tribunal if the evidence is hard to obtain by the arbitral tribunal.

 

• Setting aside and non-enforcement of arbitral awards

According to Article 72 of the latest Amendment to Chinese Arbitration Act, the time limit for applying for setting aside an arbitral award has been changed from 6 months to 3 months only. This is to enhance the efficiency of arbitration and avoid the party abusing the right of objection to delay the enforcement of arbitral awards.

 

During the enforcement stage, the respondent can invoke the same legal grounds of setting-aside the arbitral awards in Article 71 first paragraph to resist the enforcement of the arbitral awards. The Amendment has unified the legal grounds for setting-aside and non-enforcement applications of arbitral awards.

 

• Foreign-related Arbitration

Foreign-related arbitration refers to the two-track regime of arbitration in China, where domestic arbitration falls within a stricter judicial review over arbitral awards.[9] China traditionally uses a three-tiered approach to determine whether a dispute involves foreign-related elements: it looks at (1) who the parties are to the disputes, it assesses the (2) subject matter of the disputes, and looks at the (3) legal natures of the disputes.

Seat of arbitration

Before, Chinese Arbitration Act used the word “location of the arbitration commission” to determine the nationality of the arbitral awards. This point of view has been shifted by the judiciary towards the “seat theory” together with the development of case law.[10] In Article 81 of the Amendment, it is emphasized that the seat of arbitration should be chosen by the parties. In the absence of such choice in the arbitration agreement, the arbitration institutional rules should be used to determine the seat of arbitration. If there are no stipulations in the arbitration institutional rules regarding the seat of arbitration, the arbitral tribunal has the power to determine the seat of arbitration in accordance with the convenience principle. In the absence of the parties’ agreement, the applicable law to the arbitration proceedings and to the judicial review of arbitral awards should be the law of the seat of arbitration. The legislative bodies have confirmed the judicial practices supporting the seat theory and explored ways to ascertain the seat of arbitration.

 

Ad hoc arbitration

Article 82 of the Amendment allows parties in foreign-related maritime disputes, and parties from Free Trade Pilot Zones[11], Hainan Free Trade Port, and other regions approved by the Chinese government to choose ad hoc arbitration. The parties should nevertheless inform the Association of Chinese Arbitration about the parties’ names, seat of arbitration, the composition of the arbitral tribunal, and the arbitration rules, within three days after the establishment of the arbitral tribunal. The people’s courts should provide judicial support for the interim measures applied by the parties.

 

Foreign arbitration institutions welcomed in China’s FTZs

Article 86 of the Amendment supports foreign arbitrations to establish business entities in the free trade pilot zones, Hainan Free Trade Port, or other regions that are approved by the government in China. No further stipulations are made regarding the types of activities that such entities can engage in.

 

III.         Future alignment with international commercial arbitration practices: the way ahead

Compared with the 1994 Chinese Arbitration Act, the latest Amendment is an applaudable endeavor showing the determination of the Chinese government to modernize its arbitration laws and align with international practices. Nevertheless, in contrast to the draft amendment by the Ministry of Justice in 2021, the latest Amendment was a step backward.

 

First of all, the validity requirement of the arbitration agreement has not been amended. Considering that ad hoc arbitration is currently only allowed in a limited scope of practices, the requirement of a named arbitration institution has been kept. However, as perceived from the Longlide case[12], the validity requirement of a named arbitration institution also includes foreign ones.

 

Secondly, the Amendment did not change the competence-competence rules in the Chinese Arbitration Act. The court still has the primary role in determining the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, but it is worth mentioning that Article 31 of the Amendment has added the arbitral tribunal, together with the arbitration institution and the court, to be able to determine the jurisdiction of the tribunal in case the parties have objections against the validity of the arbitration agreement.

 

Thirdly, the tribunal still has no power to rule on parties’ applications for interim measures, which is left to the people’s court. Such an application must be passed from the arbitral tribunals to the courts.

 

Lastly, it’s a pity that ad hoc arbitration has a limited scope of application. It is restricted to maritime disputes and parties from FTZ-related areas, without further expansion to foreign-related arbitration.

 

As a conclusion, the Amendment demonstrates major advancement of the arbitration rules, but much can be done in the future with the economic development and international commercial practices proceeding in China.

[1] Amendment to the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China, President’s Order No. 54, <https://www.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbgw/gwxw/xwyw/202509/t20250913_525029.html> accessed 15 September 2025.

[2] Ministry of Commerce, Draft Amendment to the Arbitration Law of the PRC for public consultation, < https://www.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbgw/lfyjzj/lflfyjzj/202107/t20210730_432967.html> accessed 15 September 2025.

[3] He Rong, Minister of Ministry of Justice, Explanations on the Draft Amendment to the Arbitration Law of the PRC, < http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c2/c30834/202509/t20250912_447719.html> accessed 15 September 2025.

[4] NPC, the Second Draft Amendment of the Arbitration Law of the PRC intends to further implement the foreign-related arbitration regime, < http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c2/c30834/202504/t20250425_444888.html> accessed 15 September 2025.

[5] Xinhua Net, Amendment to Arbitration Law of the PRC, effective from 1st March 2026, < http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c2/c30834/202509/t20250912_447759.html>. The full text of the Amendment can be accessed via < https://www.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbgw/gwxw/xwyw/202509/t20250913_525029.html > accessed 15 September 2025.

[6] People’s Court Daily?Chief of the National People’s Congress Legislative Committee Civil Law Branch Answering Questions regarding the amendment of Chinese Arbitration Act,<https://www.zcia.cn/info/10990.html> accessed 15 September 2025.

[7] Such as ICC, SIAC, ICSID.

[8] See Online Arbitration Rules of various arbitration institutions, including CIETAC, Guangzhou Arbitration Commission, Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration, etc.

[9] See Article 71 and Article 83 of the Amendment to Chinese Arbitration Act.

[10] Brentwood Industries v. Guangdong Fa Anlong Machinery Equipment Co., Ltd. (2015) Sui Zhong Fa Min Si Chu Zi No. 62. In this case, Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court rendered a judgment considering an arbitral award made by an ICC tribunal in Guangzhou as a foreign-related Chinese award that is subject to the enforcement regime under the Chinese Civil Procedure Law.

[11] China has approved 22 Free Trade Zones and 1 Free Trade Port (Hainan) across the country to experiment with new regulations and explore ways to improve business environment. See < https://investinchina.chinaservicesinfo.com/investspecials/chinapilotfreetrade/> accessed 17 September 2025.

[12]  Longlide Packaging Co Ltd v BP Agnati SRL [2013] Min Si Ta Zu Di 13 Hao.

An advanced article on conflict of laws for issue three of 2025 for Uniform Law Review was recently published.

Cayetana Santaolalla Montoya, “The challenges of blockchain arbitration from a private international law perspective”

This article aims to explore the emergence of blockchain arbitration and the legal challenges it poses from a private international law perspective. It examines the legal implications of this new type of arbitration and its feasibility under international regulatory frameworks (including the European Union, the USA, and the 1958 New York Convention), and it assesses leading decentralized justice platforms such as Kleros, Aragon, and Jur. The study highlights the fundamental differences between blockchain arbitration and traditional arbitration, identifying challenges such as the absence of a seat, the anonymity of parties and arbitrators, and the tension between decentralization and legal oversight. Finally, it explores future trends and proposes recommendations to adapt existing regulatory frameworks, concluding that, while blockchain arbitration will not replace classical arbitration in the short term, it could establish itself as a valuable complement to resolve disputes in the global digital economy.

The first view article of the third issue of the ICLQ for 2025 was published yesterday. It contains the following article on conflict of laws:

 

Ardavan Arzandeh, “Anti-Suit Injunctions in Support of Foreign Dispute-Resolution Clauses”

Courts in England ordinarily grant anti-suit injunctions when proceedings are (or will soon be) initiated in a foreign court in breach of clauses which subject disputes to the exclusive jurisdiction of courts, or refer them to arbitration, in England. Would they, however, grant such relief in support of foreign dispute-resolution clauses? In UniCredit Bank v RusChemAlliance, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom answered this question in the affirmative, thus expanding the English courts’ power to issue anti-suit injunctions. This article seeks to assess the likely extent of this expansion and the future implications it could have for the law on anti-suit injunctions in England. The article also examines the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on the other significant issue in the case concerning the law governing arbitration agreements and their potential effect following the enactment of the Arbitration Act 2025.

Readers of this blog who are keen on the theme of commercial courts might be interested in the recent report ‘An interim assessment during the start-up phase of the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC)’. This document is authored by T. Geurts, Y.N. Overvelde & M.P.C. Scheepmaker. The authors conducted an empirical study for the Research and Data Centre (WODC), an independent knowledge agency of the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security.

Along with the full report in Dutch, a summary in English and a helpful accompanying post are available online.

The report provides several insights, including information on the NCC’s caseload in the past years, the countries where the litigating parties were domiciled, and the legal practitioners’ familiarity with the NCC’s work. Furthermore, the authors reflect on the future perspectives of the NCC.

Earlier posts on commercial posts are available here, with further links.

Gina Gioia, Jordi Nieva-Fenoll, and Seyedeh Sajedeh Salehi are inviting submissions for a Special Issue of the Italian-Spanish Journal of Procedural Law, which will be published under the title “From Gavel to Grid: Reimagining Civil Justice in the Digital Era”.

The details can be found in the attached Call for Papers.

We are happy to share the attached Call for Abstracts from the European Yearbook of International Economic Law for its 2026 volume, which will be dedicated on the “Reconstruction of International and European Economic Law”.

Abstracts can be submitted until 30 November 2025.

I have long argued – in articles, blog posts, and amicus briefs – that it violates due process to invoke a forum selection clause to obtain personal jurisdiction over a defendant who was not a party to the agreement in which the clause appears. This position has not yet achieved universal acceptance. The state courts in New York, in particular, have repeatedly held that forum selection clauses can be used to assert personal jurisdiction over non-party defendants who are “closely related” to the parties or the transaction. In this blog post, I use a recent case—Bandari v. QED Connect Inc.—decided by Magistrate Judge Gary Stein (SDNY) to highlight some of the problems with the “closely related” test.

The dispute in Bandari grew out of a stock purchase agreement. The plaintiff, Jalandher Bandari, was a resident of Texas. He agreed to purchase shares in QED Connect, Inc., a New York holding company, from David Rumbold, a resident of Illinois. The sale was orchestrated by Nanny Katharina Bahnsen, the chief executive officer of QED and a resident of Colombia. There were three parties to the stock purchase agreement: Bandari, Rumbold, and QED. (Bahnsen signed the contract on behalf of QED.) The agreement contained an exclusive forum selection clause choosing the state and federal courts sitting in New York City.

Although Bandari tendered the purchase price (approximately $150,000), he never received the shares he was promised. When Bandari asked for his money back, Bahnsen made excuses and eventually stopped responding to his emails. Bandari subsequently brought a lawsuit in federal court in New York against QED, Rumbold, and Bahnsen. After none of the defendants appeared to defend the suit, Bandari moved for a default judgment.

The federal courts in New York will not grant a default judgment until they determine that personal jurisdiction exists. The court quickly concluded that it had personal jurisdiction over Rumbold and QED because they had signed the contract containing the New York forum selection clause. The court then went on to conclude—wrongly, in my view—that Bahnsen was also subject to personal jurisdiction in New York because she had negotiated the sale and signed the contract on behalf of QED:

A party to a contract with a forum-selection clause may invoke that clause to establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant that is not party to the contract but that is “closely aligned” with a party, or “closely related” to the contract dispute itself, such as corporate executive officers. As the CEO of QED and the individual who negotiated the transaction with Bandari and signed the Agreement on behalf of QED, Bahnsen is “closely related” to both a party to the Agreement and to the dispute. Thus, she is also bound by the forum selection clause.

This conclusion is inconsistent with basic principles of agency law; an agent is not a party to a contract that the agent signs on behalf of a disclosed principal. It is inconsistent with basic principles of contract law; a person may not be bound by an agreement without their express consent. And it is inconsistent with basic principles of personal jurisdiction; a person who lacks minimum contacts with the forum is not subject to personal jurisdiction unless she consents. Nevertheless, the court concluded that Bahnsen was subject to personal jurisdiction in New York because she was “closely related” to the parties and the transaction.

This conclusion is made all the more jarring by that fact that the court also held that Bandari had failed to state a valid claim for breach of contract against Bahnsen because she was not a party to the agreement. In the court’s words:

[A]lthough Bandari’s breach of contract claim is asserted against all three Defendants, there is no basis for a finding of contract liability as to Bahnsen. Bahnsen is not a party to the Agreement and she signed the Agreement solely on behalf of QED. It is well established that a corporate officer who signs a contract on behalf of the corporation cannot be held personally liable for the corporation’s breach, absent a showing that the officer was the alter ego of the corporation. The Complaint does not adequately plead an alter ego theory of liability against Bahnsen and hence it does not state a viable breach of contract claim against her.

The court held, in other words, that Bahnsen (1) was subject to personal jurisdiction in New York by operation of the forum selection clause, but (2) could not be held liable for breach of contract because she was not a party to the agreement containing the forum selection clause. The hand that authored the personal jurisdiction section of the opinion was seemingly unaware of what the hand that authored the breach of contract section of the opinion was doing.

One can, of course, reconcile these conflicting statements by taking the position that forum selection clauses are not subject to the usual rules of agency law, contract law, and personal jurisdiction. There are, however, constitutional problems with such an approach. Under this line of reasoning, a person residing in a foreign country (Colombia) is subject to personal jurisdiction in New York when she negotiates and signs a contract that contains a New York forum selection clause on behalf of the entity that employs her even though she is not the alter ego of the company and is not herself a party to the agreement. These actions are, in my view, insufficient to subject her to personal jurisdiction in New York.

Although the court declined to enter a default judgment against Bahnsen on the claim for breach of contract, it did enter a default judgment against her on the plaintiff’s claims for securities fraud and common law fraud. A contract to which she was not a party, therefore, paved the way for the assertion of jurisdiction and the imposition of liability. New York has long sought to attract litigation business from around the world. It has been largely successful in those efforts. If that state continues to assert personal jurisdiction over foreign executives merely because they negotiate and sign contracts in their corporate capacity, however, one wonders whether these executives may start directing the company’s attorneys to choose another jurisdiction.

[This post is cross-posted at Transnational Litigation Blog.]

We are delighted to share the Call for Papers for a virtual early-career conference on ‘Global Harm, Local Justice | The Future of Cross-Border Torts’, hosted by K.C. (Kirsten) Henckel and M.A.S. (Martin) Bulla from the University of Groningen on 6 February 2026.

Abstracts of 300–500 words must be submitted by 1 December 2025.

The second issue of the Chinese Journal of Transnational Law for 2025 was just published. It contains a special issue on “Private International Law and Sustainable Development in Asia” with Ralf Michaels,  Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Hans van Loon as guest editors. It builds on The Private Side of Transforming our World – UN Sustainable Development Goals 2030 and the Role of Private International Law.

Ralf Michaels, Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Hans van Loon, “Private International Law and Sustainable Development in Asia”

Since the publication of ‘The Private Side of Transforming our World – UN Sustainable Development Goals 2030 and the Role of Private International Law’ in 2021, the importance of private international law for sustainable development is increasingly being recognised. The article describes the background to that project and surveys its subsequent reception and further development in scholarly literature. Moreover, it traces the need for, and trend towards, regionalization of the relevant research, including in Latin America, Africa and Asia-Pacific. It can thus serve as introduction to the special issue on private international law and sustainable development in Asia.

Jiabao Zhou, “Private International Law as Foreign Relations Law? Orienting Chinese Private International Law Towards Sustainable Development”

The Chinese Foreign Relations Law (‘the FRL’) – a collection of rules legalizing China’s foreign policies – was enacted in 2023. While technically a set of policy goals and public law rules, it provides an opportunity to orient Chinese private international law (‘PIL’) towards sustainable development. Notably, the FRL connects Chinese PIL with sustainable development for the first time and revisits the conceptions of what is being understood as ‘domestic’ versus ‘foreign’, and ‘public’ versus ‘private’. This article explores how PIL can leverage this shift to accommodate sustainability as a normative value, foster positive interactions with foreign laws and courts, and develop a robust and tailored regulatory function. By doing so, Chinese PIL, as a form of foreign relations law, can expand its function beyond conflict resolution and develop a role in China’s foreign policy and global sustainability governance.

 

Ke Mu, “The Role of State-Owned Enterprises in the Pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals”

Business conduct and enterprises’ commitment to social responsibility have a far-reaching impact on corporate shareholders and external stakeholders, but they are not effectively aligned with the globally recognized agenda of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The necessity and difficulty of studying state-owned enterprises’(SOEs) roles in corporate governance and the SDGs agenda stem from their unique position at the intersection of various legal sectors and their underrated status within the SDGs schemes and relevant studies. In particular, the issue of characterizing SOEs from the perspective of private international law is emblematic, raising doubts about whether to treat SOEs as private or state entities in international dispute resolution and how such categorization may affect their performance of sustainability obligations. A sovereign function test is routinely invoked for deciding whether state immunity applies to SOEs. This test proposes four criteria: (a) state ownership and control, (b) nature of the activities at issue, (c) principal purposes of the entities, and (d) specific purposes of the activities at issue. However, given the limitations of this test, an additional criterion can be added consisting in examining whether the SOEs could have carried out the same act – or could have seized the same property – without relying on state power. Zihao Fan, “Promoting Cities’ Sustainable Development vis Access to Justice: Observations on the Jurisdiction of Chinese Mainland” This article explores how transnational jurisdiction influences cities’ sustainable development in view of providing access to justice in SDG 16. While cities are often regarded as administrative units within a State, effective jurisdictional designs can promote transnational access to justice on city-level, providing efficiency, transparency and predictability, which in turn attracts people, capital and technology required to advance the sustainability objectives embodied in SDG 11. By analysing China’s jurisdictional framework, this article examines both general jurisdictional rules and special jurisdictional arrangements that impact cities. The revised monistic approach of the 2023 Civil Procedure Law indirectly affects cities by determining how foreign-related cases are allocated, while special jurisdictional arrangements, such as China International Commercial Courts and local International Commercial Courts, directly strengthen selected cities’ dispute resolution capabilities. Additionally, the evolution of China’s centralised jurisdiction system demonstrates the importance of adapting jurisdictional strategies to economic development and judicial expertise. Adeline Chong and Stefanie Schacherer, “Extra-territorial Liability and Enforcement: Finding Ways to Tackle Haze Pollution is Southeast Asia” Periodic transboundary haze pollution resulting from land fires in Southeast Asia poses significant sustainability challenges for the region. The majority of transboundary haze is attributed to peatland fires in Indonesia, with winds bringing haze pollution to other countries in the region. Attempts have been made to tackle this problem. At the public international law level, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) concluded the ASEAN Transboundary Haze Agreement which entered into force in 2003. However, the lack of sanctions for breach and the adoption of the principle of non-interference between ASEAN member states meant that this agreement and other policy-oriented measures have had limited effect. In the hopes of ameliorating the problem, Singapore enacted the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act in 2014. This act, which is extraterritorial in scope, imposes criminal and civil liability on entities responsible for haze pollution which causes damage in Singapore. Nevertheless, practical issues still remain. This paper examines regional efforts to deal with the transboundary haze pollution problem. In particular, it accesses the Singapore Act from a private international law viewpoint, by considering jurisdictional, choice of law, and judgement enforcement issues. Lastly, suggestions are made as to concrete steps forward.

Bùi Th? Qu?nh Trang and Nguy?n Th? H?ng Trinh, “Exploring the Potential for Climate Change Litigation in Vietnam: A Forward-Looking Assessment”

Climate change litigation is increasingly recognized not just as a strategic tool but also as an effective method for advocating more robust climate change mitigation and adaptation targets and ensuring the enforcement of environmental laws by governments and private actors alike. In several developed countries, climate change litigation emerged, with typical cases setting precedents in other jurisdictions. In the context of Vietnam, a developing country with a unique communist legal system, climate change litigation presents a novel area of inquiry; thus, this study explores the nascent field of climate litigation, assessing its viability in Vietnamese judicial practices. Notably, the study suggests that in Vietnam’s typical jurisdiction, the vertical climate actions are less likely to materialize compared to horizontal cases. Furthermore, in these international horizontal litigations, the choice of law rules primarily mandate the application of local law.

Anselmo Reyes, “The Impartial Judge, Climate Change and the Conflict of Laws”

The article reflects on how an impartial judge might approach disputes involving environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, especially climate change. Section II expresses doubts about the efficacy of a purely private international law analysis in dealing with climate change litigation and suggests ways of addressing such concerns. Section III focuses on Asia and comments on the extent to which the observations in section II are applicable to the Asian context. Section IV offers tentative thoughts, in light of sections II and III, on how judges can and should conduct themselves in ESG disputes relating to climate change.

 

Zixuan Yang, “Providing Legal Identity for All: A Comparative Study of the Cross-Border Recognition of Personal Status in the European Union and Asian Regionalization”

In this paper, I argue that the civil registration and its distance from the private international law (PIL) pose peculiar challenges for achieving the goal of ‘Providing Legal Identity for All’ among the Asian intra-regional circular migrants. Civil registration of personal and family status combines public administration with private law. More public registration of personal status means more involvement of local public order and interest. Therefore, registration regulations are less attentive than PIL to the potential foreign-related legal situations. Hence, will greater public involvement in registration raise a conflict between the defence of ordre public and individuals’ aspirations to maintain their personal status? The territorial limits of administrative act have so far foreclosed the possibility of transnational civil registration. When it comes to the identity that does not fit into the domestic categories, questions arise whether and how to recognize them in the domestic legal system. This poses special burdens and additional costs for intra-regional circular migrants if their legal identity cannot be well defined and recognized in the several jurisdictions concerned, which is essentially contrary to the presumed erga omnes effect of individuals’ identity rights.

 

Stellina Jolly and  Prakriti Malla, “International Child Abduction Jurisprudence in India and Nepal: An Evaluation of Gender Consideration in the Attainment of SDG 5″

Despite the growing incidence of child abduction facilitated by the mobility and prevalence of non-resident marriages involving Indian and Nepalese citizens with foreign nationals, both India and Nepal have refrained from acceding to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Indian executive has vocally supported criticisms against the Abduction Convention, advocating for the inclusion of domestic violence as a basis for exception under the Abduction Convention and proposed domestic legislation. In contrast, the official position of Nepal remains undisclosed, with recent case law offering limited insight into its engagement with the Abduction Convention. Against this backdrop, the article scrutinizes the recognition of gender perspectives in statutory provisions and case law in India and Nepal concerning international child abduction. It should be noted that Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5, which calls for the elimination of all forms of violence against women and girls in the public and private spheres – including trafficking, sexual and other types of exploitation – also includes addressing domestic violence in family spheres. This article, therefore, considers the inclusion of gender considerations within the realm of child abduction as a core consideration in the attainment of SDG 5.

 

Rong-Chwan Chen, “Taiwan’s Path Toward Sustainable Development Goal 5 in Private International Law”

Sustainable Development Goal 5 (SDG 5) has different implications for countries. This paper explores Taiwan’s path toward SDG 5 and examines the legal environment surrounding this path. Taiwan’s unilateral implementation of UN conventions effectively bridges certain gaps between itself and the international community. Reforms in private international law and the legalization of same-sex marriage have further promoted gender equality from a conflict-of-laws perspective. The recognition of the exceptional validity of polygamous marriages illustrates the pursuit of justice in cross-border legal conflicts. It is observed that alternative applicable laws, ordre public, and overriding mandatory provisions serve as effective tools for states to advance SDG 5. Taiwan’s traditional rules on ancestor worship associations collide not only with modern legislation on estate succession but also with foreign laws when the membership disputes involve foreign elements. This paper argues that the nature of rules on estate succession should be distinguished from that of ancestor worship or family lineage, and that SDG 5 is helpful in modernizing the local customary rules on ancestor worship associations. It further suggests that the provisions on legal persons in the Choice of Law Act 2010 may be applied by analogy to determine the governing law for the membership of unincorporated ancestor worship associations.

 

The third issue of the Journal of Private International Law was published today. It contains the following articles

Andrew Tettenborn, “English conflicts law at sea – the transfer and creation of proprietary interests in ships”

Surprisingly, the law applicable to the creation and transfer of proprietary interests in ships remains remarkably obscure as a matter of the English conflict of laws. In this article an attempt is made to investigate the relevant authorities and to reconcile them. The conclusion is that, subject to exceptions, English courts will recognise transfers if they are effective under any one or more of (1) the lex situs, (2) the law of the registry and (3) (in the case of equitable interests) English law.

 

Gerard McCormack, “Hands up for UK joining the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 but lukewarm on the UK returning to the Lugano Convention 2007”

This article considers the relative merits of the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 and the Lugano Convention 2007 for the UK in the post-Brexit era viewed primarily from the extent of the insolvency exceptions in both Conventions (and in the Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005) as they apply to UK schemes of arrangement and UK restructuring plans for companies. The article briefly takes account of some broader issues relating to arbitration and exclusive choice of court agreements, primarily through the lens of The Prestige litigation, before reaching a conclusion in favour of the UK having become a Party to the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 in 2025 and against the UK rejoining the Lugano Convention 2007.

 

Guangjian Tu and Tiezheng Yang., “The doctrine of public policy in Chinese courts’ choice of law in the modern age”

It is generally agreed that in private international law the doctrine of public policy plays a fundamentally important role in the application of foreign law and can work as a safety valve. This doctrine has also been reflected in Chinese legislation as in many other jurisdictions. However, the application of this doctrine in Chinese courts is inconsistent, which could not only lead to uncertainty but also jeopardise justice. This article examines how the doctrine of public policy has been applied in choice of law in Chinese courts since 2010 when the new Chinese choice of law codification was made. It finds that there are basically four main types of cases in which Chinese courts have applied the doctrine of public policy to exclude the application of foreign laws. After detailed analysis and reflection, it is suggested that this doctrine continue to be applied for some of those cases but not for others.

Katja Karjalainen, “Acquiring a child abroad and paths to parenthood in Finland: The difference between private adoptions and international surrogacy arrangements”

The article delves into issues of legal tourism and global justice. By referencing the Hague Adoption Convention as well as Finnish legal approaches and case law with respect to the confirmation of a child-parent relationship following private intercountry adoptions and international surrogacy arrangements (ISAs), the article elaborates on the problematics of recognition. Doubts with respect to ethical and commercial aspects of arrangements and the deprivation of rights of vulnerable individuals have been presented with respect to both cases. The article shows the paradox between the legal approaches in these two cases that both entail an independent endeavour to get a child abroad. In doing so, the article underlines how the regulatory framework built up by the Hague Adoption Convention for the area of intercountry adoptions creates more space for global justice and collective interests than non-regulation, but may, in some cases, be detrimental to individual rights and interests. Non-regulation of ISAs underlines individual rights and interests and at the same time erodes domestic legal norms.The article delves into issues of legal tourism and global justice. By referencing the Hague Adoption Convention as well as Finnish legal approaches and case law with respect to the confirmation of a child-parent relationship following private intercountry adoptions and international surrogacy arrangements (ISAs), the article elaborates on the problematics of recognition. Doubts with respect to ethical and commercial aspects of arrangements and the deprivation of rights of vulnerable individuals have been presented with respect to both cases. The article shows the paradox between the legal approaches in these two cases that both entail an independent endeavour to get a child abroad. In doing so, the article underlines how the regulatory framework built up by the Hague Adoption Convention for the area of intercountry adoptions creates more space for global justice and collective interests than non-regulation, but may, in some cases, be detrimental to individual rights and interests. Non-regulation of ISAs underlines individual rights and interests and at the same time erodes domestic legal norms.

 

Maria Hook, “Are “extraterritorial” consumer laws anti-internationalist?”

This article asks whether extraterritorial consumer laws, defined as laws that create a risk of regulatory overlap, are anti-internationalist. Drawing on New Zealand law as a case study, the article argues that extraterritorial consumer laws may recognise intersecting but legitimate regulatory interests. If the plaintiff gets to choose the law, indirectly or directly, there is an appropriate process for identifying the applicable law based on the principle of favor laesi. In this sense, extraterritorial consumer laws do not just give effect to local interests, to be balanced with competing internationalist concerns. Rather, they themselves may reflect an internationalist approach to private international law, even if the approach is not universally adopted. The article then explores potential implications of this argument for the court’s analysis of the applicable law and jurisdiction. Courts may be more willing to embrace an extraterritorial interpretation of consumer laws, and to lean into the plaintiff’s ability to rely on foreign law despite local law also being applicable in principle (as has happened in New Zealand). Courts may also treat the plaintiff’s choice of forum with deference when they decide whether to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of the doctrine of forum (non) conveniens.

 

Aleksandrs Fillers, “Venue in the Brussels Ia Regulation”

Anybody who has even superficial knowledge of EU private international law has heard about its cornerstone – the Brussels Ia Regulation. Typically, the major issue when dealing with the said regulation is to determine which Member State can hear the dispute. However, the Brussels Ia Regulation has a second layer. In addition to rules of international jurisdiction, the Regulation, as interpreted by the CJEU, contains venue rules that determine which specific court can hear a case. This issue is far less known to courts and practitioners and often glossed over by scholars. The article aims to provide a comprehensive study of venue rules in the Brussels Ia Regulation.

The third issue of Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2025 has recently been published. It contains two private international law case notes and a book review.

Andreas Giannakopoulos, “Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses and EU Exceptionalism”

Matthew Hoyle, “Full Service: Freezing Injunctions and Service Out (Again)”

Thomas Raphael, “The Virtues of Symmetry”

This guest post is posted on behalf of Kamakshi Puri, Senior Associate at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Delhi, India, and dual-qualified lawyer (India and England and Wales).

 

The Singapore High Court recently clarified the scope of the court’s jurisdiction over foreign non-parties to the arbitration. In an application to set aside two interim injunctions, in Alphard Maritime Ltd. v Samson Maritime Ltd. & Ors. (2025) SGHC 154,[1] the court held that the the seat per se did not confer jurisdiction against non-parties to an arbitration, and that jurisdiction would first have to be established through regular service-out procedures before the seat court could grant an injunction against a non-party.

 

Factual Background

 

Briefly, the applicant, Alphard Maritime (“Alphard”), initiated SCMA arbitration[2] against its debtor, Samson Maritime (“Samson”), and Samson’s wholly owned subsidiary, Underwater Services (“Underwater”), for alleged breach of a settlement agreement for the sale of approx. nine vessels and Samson’s shareholding in Underwater to Alphard (“Subject Assets”). Alphard initiated arbitration upon receiving information of the pledge/mortgage of the Subject Assets to J M Baxi Marine Services (“Baxi”) in breach of the Settlement Agreement. In addition to the ex-parte freezing order against Samson and Underwater, Alphard had received from the seat court, acting in support of the arbitration, an ex-parte prohibitory injunction restraining Baxi and other creditors of Samson from assisting in or facilitating the dissipation of, or dealing with, any of Samson and Underwater’s assets worldwide. Baxi was not a party to the Settlement Agreement. While one of the defendants was based out of Singapore, Samson and Underwater were bound by the jurisdiction conferred to the seat court; however, Baxi was a foreign non-party to the arbitration.

 

While the interim freezing injunction against Samson and Underwater was vacated on the finding that there was no evidence of dissipation or risk of dissipation of assets, and the court observed that there was no basis for the injunction which in effect prohibited Baxi and/or the lenders from asserting their own contractual rights or enforcing proprietary rights against Samson which pre-dated the Settlement Agreement, the injunction was vacated primarily on the finding that the Singapore court, as the seat court, had no jurisdiction over Baxi or the foreign lenders.

 

Seat Court’s Jurisdiction over Foreign Defendants

 

A court must have in personam jurisdiction to grant an injunction against a party. Under Singapore law, which follows the English law on jurisdiction, jurisdiction is based on service of proceedings, and the court assumes jurisdiction over a foreign party (not having a presence in Singapore and not having submitted to the proceedings) through permission for service out of the claims. [3] The court allows permission for service out where “the Singapore Court is the appropriate forum for hearing the proceedings”.[4] For the assessment of whether permission for service out should be granted, i.e., that Singapore Court is the appropriate forum, the claimant is required to meet the following three-prong assessment: [5]

 

1. A good arguable case that there is sufficient nexus with the Singapore court;
2. Singapore is the forum conveniens; and
3. There is a serious question to be tried on the merits of the claim.

 

The “sufficient nexus” refers to the connection between the court and the defendant and follows the logic that a party may only be called to a foreign court where they have a sufficiently strong connection to the state. Practice Directions 63(3)(a) to (t) set out “Factors” that guide as to the possible connection that the foreign defendant may have with the Singapore court. [6]

 

Alphard relied on 2 factors – first, PD 63(3)(d), a claim to obtain relief in respect of the breach of a contract governed by the laws of Singapore. This was held to be inapplicable, as Baxi was neither a party to the contract, nor committed any breach. Second, PD 63(3)(n) claims made under any other written law of Singapore. In this regard, it was contended that the claim against Baxi was under Section 12A of the International Arbitration Act, i.e., an exercise of the Singapore court’s power to grant an injunction against non-parties in support of Singapore-seated arbitration, which wide power ensured that non-parties did not collude with the defendants to frustrate the fruits of a claim. The court accepted PD 63(3)(n) as a relevant factor.

 

However, since sufficient nexus with the court is not enough for permission to service out, the court proceeded to the next equity, i.e., whether Singapore was the ‘forum conveniens’. Forum conveniens is an exercise in determining the most appropriate court for deciding the lis. It is the assessment of the connection of the dispute with the Singapore court. The ‘dispute’ here was the prohibitory injunction against Baxi. The court held that to be the ‘appropriate court’ for interim relief against a specific party, it required more than the arbitration being seated in Singapore. The seat court would be the appropriate court if the dispute with the specific party could be traced to the arbitration, or assets/obligations were substantially that of party to the arbitration, i.e.,

 

1. Was the non-party bound by the arbitration agreement even if it was not a party to the arbitration?
2. did the non-party hold assets in Singapore, which arguably belonged beneficially to a party to the arbitration (non-party was a trustee / pass-through for the assets)
3. was the non-party a corporate entity held/owned by the party to the arbitration, and therefore, did the dissipation of assets of the party amount to the dissipation of value of the party (merger of identity between the party and non-party)?

 

The Court held that in the absence of any of the above, the seat court would not be the de facto appropriate forum for injunctions against all non-parties even when the injunction is in aid of Singapore-seated arbitration. The court did not find any reason for Baxi, an entity pursuing its independent remedy against the Alphard, to be brought before the Singapore court.

 

Notably, Alphard had already pursued interim relief under Section 9 of the (Indian) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the Defendants, including Baxi, before the High Court of Bombay. [7] The Bombay High Court, acting further to its power for making interim orders for protection of the subject matter in arbitration, including in international commercial arbitration where the place of arbitration is outside India [8], granted a status quo injunction, including on Baxi, on further dealing in or creating any further third-party interests in the shares held by Samson in Underwater and a disclosure order in respect to the transaction for pledge created in favour of Baxi.

 

Concluding Thoughts

 

For the known benefits of enforcement and limited grounds of challenge of awards under Singapore law and before Singapore courts, foreign parties regularly opt for Singapore as the neutral seat of arbitration. In such cases, the only nexus of the dispute with the court is its designation as the seat court. Separately, arbitral tribunals do not have jurisdiction over non-parties to an arbitration; thus, courts assume adjudication for interim relief applications against non-parties to the arbitration. With this decision, the Singapore court has confirmed the non-seat court’s interference for interim reliefs where parties require protective orders vis-a-vis non-parties to the arbitration.

[1] Available here.

[2] Arbitration under the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration (“SCMA”) Rules.

[3] S. 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969: “16.—(1)  The General Division has jurisdiction to hear and try any action in personam where — (a) the defendant is served with an originating claim or any other originating process — …(ii) outside Singapore in the circumstances authorised by and in the manner prescribed by Rules of Court or Family Justice Rules.”

[4] Rules of Court 2021, Rule 1(1) of Order 8 of ROC 2021 “1.—(1)  An originating process or other court document may be served out of Singapore with the Court’s approval if it can be shown that the Court has the jurisdiction or is the appropriate court to hear the action” .

[5] Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021, Para 63(2).

[6] Prior to 2021, this condition was similar to English law, i.e., the “Good and arguable case that a gateway applies”. While “gateways” have been done away with, the Practice Directives have set out a non-exhaustive list of factors (PD 63(3)(a)–(t)) which a claimant “should refer to” in order to meet the requirement under PD 63(2)(a). These factors mirror the gateways with were earlier found in the Rules of Court 2014. See Ardavan Arzandeh, The New Rules of Court and the Service-Out Jurisdiction in Singapore, (2022) Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 191–201.

[7] Alphard Maritime Ltd. v Samson Maritime Limited & Ors. Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No.7499 of 2025, Order dated 02.04.2025, available here.

[8] Section 9 read with Section 2(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1996.

The fourth annual APILA Conference will take place in person at Doshisha University in Kyoto (Japan) on Saturday 13 (Day 1) and Sunday 14 (Day 2) December 2025.  The APILA Conference will be in the form of two days of roundtable discussions in English.  Persons whose abstracts have been selected (see next paragraph) will deliver oral presentations in turn on Days 1 and 2.  Each presentation will run for about 10 minutes and be followed by a discussion of about 10 to 15 minutes in which participants will have the opportunity to comment on the presentation.  The objective of the APILA Conference is to assist presenters to refine prospective research papers with a view to eventual publication. 

Persons who are interested in delivering presentations at the APILA Conference are invited to submit abstracts of their proposals in English.  While proposals may be on any topic, they should (1) focus on private international law issues and (2) somehow relate to Asia (broadly defined).  Further, while every effort will be made to fit in as many presentations as possible, given the constraints of time, it may not be feasible to accept all proposals.  Inevitably, in that case, some selection may be necessary.  APILA apologises in advance for this.  Everything else being equal, priority will be given to proposals exploring cutting edge questions (albeit not necessarily definitively answering them) in one or more of the following areas: (1) international dispute resolution (especially international arbitration and mediation), (2) data protection and data privacy, (3) competition law (including within digital markets), (4) family law (including succession), (5) intellectual property rights, (6) Islamic private international law, (7) environmental issues (including climate change), (8) business and human rights, (9) cryptocurrency and the blockchain, (10) sanctions and counter-sanctions, (11) the economic analysis of private international law rules, and (12) artificial intelligence.

Abstracts are to be submitted by email to reyes.anselmo@gmail.com by Saturday 25 October 2025.  Persons whose abstracts have been accepted will be so informed by Saturday 1 November 2025. The latter persons are thereafter requested to submit their presentations in PowerPoint format or (if the presentation is in the form of a draft paper) in pdf format by email to reyes.anselmo@gmail.com by Saturday 22 November 2025.  All PowerPoints and draft papers received will be circulated in advance electronically among APILA Conference participants.  Participants will thus be able to read into the topics to be discussed in advance of the APILA Conference.  Oral presentations can then focus on succinct statements of key takeaways and more time can be allotted to discussion.

Please note that APILA’s available funding is limited.  Therefore, in the normal course of events, APILA regrets that it will not be able to provide funding for the travel and accommodation expenses of presenters and attendees.

With a slight delay – entirely due to myself – I am pleased to announce the release of the second 2025 issue of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP, published by CEDAM). This issue features:

Francesco Pesce, Associate Professor at the University of Genoa, Il riconoscimento delle decisioni straniere in materia civile tra previsioni sulla competenza funzionale del giudice interno e comunicazioni alla Commissione europea (Recognition of Foreign Decisions in Civil Matters between Provisions on the Functional Jurisdiction of National Courts and Communications to the European Commission; in Italian)

The implementation of the Regulations adopted by the EU in the context of so-called civil judicial cooperation has assumed an increasing importance over the last twenty years, due to the progressive expansion of the areas of intervention of the legislator of the European Union. Nonetheless, some of the repercussions of such uniform legislation do not seem to have been appropriately reversed, by the Italian national legislator, into the code of civil procedure and into the other special provisions aimed at ruling civil proceedings. With regard to the recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions, it appears that notwithstanding the ever more pressing need to address the matter in a complete and organic manner, a situation of inertia has prevailed in the Italian legal system, moving from the idea that, where compatible with the new EU Regulations, the domestic procedural rules could also be adapted to the intra-European circulation of judgments. This has resulted in a rather fragmentary and incomplete internal regulatory framework of civil procedure, so affecting the principle of legal certainty due to the lack of specific provisions aimed at implementing the EU discipline dedicated to the free movement of decisions. Moreover, the EU Regulations here considered require that each country informs the Commission, by means of a formal communication, of the internal procedures that may be relevant in the application of the uniform discipline (with particular reference to the competent national authorities and to the specific applicable procedures): in this regard – even after the 2022 ‘Cartabia’ reform of civil procedure – it seems that the content of the Italian communications is, in some cases, not only devoid of an adequate legislative basis of reference from the point of view of the national system, but even unreasonable and incoherent if observed in a systemic perspective.

This issue also comprises the following comments:

Curzio Fossati, Postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Cagliari, L’incidenza dell’obbligo di riconoscimento dello status filiationis nell’Unione europea sugli ordinamenti nazionali (The Impact on National Legal Systems of the Obligation to Recognise Filiation Status within the European Union; in Italian)

This article examines whether each Member State of the European Union is obliged to recognise the filiation established in another Member State. Noting the current lack of uniform private international law rules on filiation, the paper considers some examples of conflict-of-laws rules in force in the Member States and highlights the main differences between them. It then analyses the case-law of the Court of Justice on the circulation of personal and family status between Member States in order to examine the scope and basis of the Court’s obligation for Member States to recognise such status. The aim of this work is to show that the solution adopted by the Court of Justice is only partially able to resolve the problematic aspects of the current private international law regulation of filiation, highlighting persistent uncertainties and critical issues.

Kevin Silvestri, Doctor in law, La legge regolatrice degli effetti dell’apertura di procedure di insolvenza sui processi su crediti pendenti all’estero (The Law Governing the Effects of the Opening of Insolvency Proceedings on Proceedings Concerning Claims Pending Abroad; in Italian)

This paper examines a specific facet of the broader challenge of cross-border insolvency proceedings: identifying the law that governs the effect of opening insolvency proceedings in one State on lawsuits concerning creditors’ claims that are already pending in another. The issue is particularly delicate for several reasons. On the one hand, the impact of insolvency proceedings on ongoing creditor litigation is a key element in determining the liabilities of the estate under the lex fori concursus. This includes, in particular, how the proof of claims process interacts with pending lawsuits involving the debtor. On the other hand, under the principle lex fori regit processum, the rules applicable to those lawsuits may differ from those governing the insolvency proceedings themselves, especially when the litigation is pending abroad. This work highlights the tension between these competing principles and explores the difficulties that arise when the legal systems involved adopt different methods of coordinating the proof of claims process with creditor litigation. It then turns to the divergent interpretations of Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2015/848, which seeks to determine the applicable law in such cases. Scholars have advanced a range of interpretations, reflecting the complexity created by the divergences among European leges concursus concerning the treatment of creditor lawsuits pending at the commencement of insolvency proceedings.

Finally, the issue features the following book review by Lenka Válková, Research fellow at the University of Milan: GEERT VAN CALSTER, European Private International Law: Commercial Litigation in the EU, Cambridge, Hart Publishing, 2024, 4th ed., p. 1-468.

On Tuesday, September 2, 2025, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. (CEST). Professor Eva Lein (Lausanne University) will speak, in English, about the topic

“PIL and dispute resolution in times of crisis”

In times of polycrisis, the law is put to the challenge. In international commercial transactions the question is how law can safeguard commercial activity, avoid a plethora of disputes, and encourage a pragmatic legal environment conducive to global economic recovery. This contribution discusses how dispute settlement mechanisms and private international law can be used to responsibly manage disputes in this context and to appropriately respond to future crises.

 

The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.

If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.

The latest issue of the Ritsumeikan Law Review (No. 43, 2025), a law review in English published by the Ritsumeikan University Law Association since 1986, features a study by Professor Mao UEMATSU (School of Law, Ritsumeikan University) entitled Cross-border Patent Litigation and Lis Alibi Pendens: A Korean–Japanese Case Study for Future Asian Principles of Private International Law.

The article examines a series of patent litigation cases in Korea and Japan, analyzing them to “illustrate the complexity of cross-border patent litigation.” It further argues that, even after reforms to procedural laws in both Korea and Japan, structurally similar cross-border conflicts remain unresolved. The paper concludes with preliminary reflections on possible improvements in legal coordination within Asia.

By introducing case law from both jurisdictions and sharing information on recent legal developments in the region, the study provides valuable material for comparative research and contributes to a better understanding of the dynamics of Asian private international law.

The paper is freely available at the Ritsumeikan Law Review online version here.

The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts“ (IPRax) features the following articles:

 

C. Krapfl/N. V. Krahn: Can Parties Gather Evidence for Arbitration by Utilizing Freedom of Information Laws? [Article published in English]

This article examines the use of freedom of information laws, specifically the German Freedom of Information Act (“IFG”) and the United States Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), to gather evidence for arbitration. Both acts grant public access to government-held information but include exemptions. Recent German court decisions in the German car toll system case confirm that freedom of information requests can provide evidence for arbitration, emphasizing that such claims cannot be overridden by private arbitration agreements. The courts also ruled that transparency regarding documents enhances due process and does not undermine arbitral tribunals. The article concludes that freedom of information laws, including the IFG and FOIA, offer significant opportunities to gather evidence for arbitration, particularly when one party is a state or government entity, ensuring a fairer and more transparent arbitration process.

 

B. Schmitz: Protection Principle instead of Preferential Law Approach: A Dutch Alternative for Interpreting Article 6 (2) Rome I Regulation

Article 6 (2) Rome I Regulation allows parties to a consumer contract to choose the applicable law, but “such a choice may not, however, have the result of depriving the consumer of the protection afforded” under the non-derogable rules of the consumer’s habitual place of residence. This article introduces the reader to two distinctly different ways of interpreting this restriction to party autonomy: the preferential law approach, which is followed by German scholars, and the protection principle approach, which is followed by the majority of Dutch scholars. The article argues that whilst the preferential law approach is likely to be the correct interpretation in the eyes of the CJEU, the “Dutch method” bears many advantages.

 

L. Hübner: Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred in lawsuits against manufacturers in the diesel emissions’ scandal

This article examines the question of how the place where the harmful event occurred is to be determined in the context of the tort jurisdiction of the Brussels Ibis Regulation in actions brought by purchasers against the manufacturers of emissions-manipulated motor vehicles. While the ECJ had defined the place of acquisition as the place of success in the VKI case, the ECJ had to define the place of acquisition more precisely in FCA Italy. In doing so, the Court continues its questionable line of case law from the VKI decision. The article takes the criticism of the ECJ’s case law as an opportunity to also assess the alternative solutions considered in the literature.

 

W. Wurmnest: The single economic entity concept does not apply to claimants when determining international jurisdiction under Art. 7(2) Brussel Ibis Regulation

In MOL, the CJEU rejected the application of the single economic entity doctrine to the claimant to localise “the place where the harmful event occurred” according to Art. 7(2) Brussels I bis Regulation. Consequentially, a parent company cannot bring an action for damages at its registered office to remedy the losses caused to its subsidiaries in various EU Member States through the acquisition of allegedly cartelised goods at supra-competitive prices. As the parent company is merely indirectly harmed, the damage caused to the subsidiaries is the relevant damage under Art. 7(2) Brussels I bis Regulation. The economic entity doctrine that was developed in EU competition law does not alter this finding. The CJEU’s interpretation is sound from the perspective of procedural law. Making the indirect losses of the parent company the cornerstone of jurisdictional analysis based on the single economic entity doctrine would contradict the Regulation’s objectives of proximity and predictability of the rules governing jurisdiction.

 

M. Lehmann: The United Kingdom as a Fourth State? Controversy About the Continued Application of the Brussels Ibis Regulation after Brexit

Can EU consumers sue a British business in their home Member State? The answer seems obvious, but it has recently been the subject of a heated discussion between several German courts of appeal. At the heart of the debate is the Withdrawal Agreement, which was concluded between the EU and the UK in 2019. The article sheds light on its role and its relation to the Brussels Ibis Regulation.

Furthermore, the merits of the disputes underlying the actions will be addressed. They concerned a specific type of instrument under German law, the “Genussrecht” or “participation right”, which confers on its holders benefits usually reserved for shareholders. Holders of an Austrian issuer of these instruments sued its successor, a British company, in Germany. The article analyses the law governing their claims from various perspectives (contract law, tort law, M&A).

 

G. Freise: Brussels Ibis and CMR: Primacy of Application and Breach of Jurisdiction Agreements as Grounds for Refusal of Recognition

The preliminary ruling procedure discussed in this article addresses two issues. Firstly, it deals with the relationship between the Brussels Ibis Regulation and the CMR, a topic that has previously been considered by the ECJ on several occasions. In this instance, the referring court raised the question of whether the priority given to the more specific CMR in Article 71 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation also applies in the case of a jurisdiction agreement. In contrast to the Brussels Ibis Regulation, the CMR does not recognise exclusive jurisdiction agreements, which is why the court considered a violation of the essential principles of the Brussels Ibis Regulation possible. Unfortunately, due to its lack of relevance to the decision, the ECJ did not comment on this intriguing question. According to the view presented here, however, the CMR should continue to take precedence even without the possibility of an exclusive jurisdiction agreement. Secondly, the referring court raised the question of whether decisions must be recognised if a jurisdiction agreement has been disregarded. On this point, the ECJ upheld its previous case law, reaffirming the principles of mutual trust and recognition. The Court clarified that disregarding a jurisdiction agreement does not constitute grounds for refusing recognition, particularly on the basis of a breach of public policy.

 

R. Wagner: Club de Fútbol Real Madrid vs. Le Monde before the ECJ: Does “the Spanish decision” violate French public policy

“The [European] Union offers an area of freedom, security and justice …” (Art. 67 TFEU). The area of justice makes it possible to enforce civil court decisions from one EU Member State in another EU Member State. This possibility is based on the principle of mutual trust. However, trust in the judiciary of the other EU member states does not have to be completely unlimited. For example, the ECJ ruled, among other things, that a Spanish decision won by the football club Real Madrid against Le Monde does not have to be enforced in France, “… to the extent that this would result in a manifest violation of the freedom of the press, as enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, …”. The following article explains and evaluates this decision.

 

M. Andrae: On the Delimitation of the Provisions on Jurisdiction of the Brussels IIb Regulation and the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention (CPC)

The decision of the ECJ in case C-572/21 provides an opportunity to define the territorial scope of application of the individual provisions of the Brussels IIb Regulation, the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention (CPC), and the German Act on Proceedings in Family Matters (FamFG) regarding the international jurisdiction of courts in matters of parental responsibility. With the entry into force of the Brussels IIb Regulation, this issue has not lost its practical significance. A considerable part of the discussion focuses on Article 10 of the Brussels IIb Regulation, which regulates the court’s jurisdiction based on a choice-of-court agreement. It is argued that such an agreement loses its effect if, after its conclusion but before the proceedings are concluded, the child lawfully relocates and establishes habitual residence in a Contracting State that is not bound by the Regulation. In this case, jurisdiction is determined by the CPC, and the principle of perpetuatio fori does not apply. The jurisdiction of the agreed court can only arise from ancillary jurisdiction under Article 10 of the CPC in such circumstances.

 

F. Berner: Settlement of estates in cases with a foreign element

Complex estate settlements can become even more difficult when potential heirs live abroad. The Higher Regional Court in Düsseldorf (Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf ) had to decide how a fraction of heirs could be registered in the German land register (Grundbuch) if another part of their community of heirs did not participate in the German proceedings and could not be reached by the land registry office.

 

C. v. Bary: The public law of names in cross-border situations taking into account the reform of the private law of names of 1 May 2025

The German law of names is divided between private and public law. In cross-border cases, this has been leading to questions of characterisation (in private international law) and scope of application (in public law) already in the past, with the decision of the Berlin Administrative Court concerning the latter. The answers to these questions are now reconsidered in light of the 2025 reform of the law of names because the scope of application of the private and public law of names now differ from each other. Therefore, a need for reform remains, which should ideally be resolved by abolishing the distinction between private and public law in the law of names altogether.

 

B. Hess: Shallows and abysses of the contractual jurisdiction, Art. 7 No. 1 b) and a) of the Regulation Brussels Ibis – the Higher Regional Court of Dresden in the interfaces between the German and the European laws of civil procedure

The contractual jurisdiction of Article 7 No. 1 of the Brussels I-bis Regulation still causes difficulties for the courts of the EU member states. This demonstrates a judgment rendered by the Dresden Higher Regional Court dated 29 November 2024, that, unfortunately, misunderstood the meaning and the function of European procedural law.

 

L. D. Loacker/G. A. Capaul: Enforceability of foreign arbitration settlements or: Unequal treatment due to gradual differences?

The enforceability of arbitral settlements under German procedural law is subject to considerable restrictions. Based on a recent decision of the Bavarian Higher Regional Court (BayObLG), the authors discuss the extent to which the widespread refusal to enforce foreign arbitral settlements appears justified. Overall, they advocate a more enforcement-friendly approach. Such an approach can be achieved by understanding the scope of application of the UN Arbitration Convention in a way that is more closely aligned with the party-autonomous nature of arbitral dispute resolution. In particular, the reference to the UN Arbitration Convention contained in section 1061 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) does not have to preclude the enforcement of arbitral settlements. In all cases, however, it is important not to fall short of sufficient requirements for the enforceability of arbitral settlements. This is due to the fact that not all forms of arbitral settlements are suitable for a cross-border extension of their effect with regard to enforcement.

 

A. S. Zimmermann: Accelerated Enforcement Proceedings for Cross-Border Child Abductions: European Parameters for Domestic Procedural Law

Child abduction cases are among the most sensitive matters in international family law. The 1980 Hague Convention on Child Abduction, which today connects more than 100 contracting parties, has led to great progress in this area. Its guiding principle is the child’s best interest, which generally requires an abducted child to be returned immediately. The Brussels II, II bis and II ter Regulations incorporated this guiding principle into EU law. Nevertheless, there is no agreement among the Member States as to how much procedural acceleration the child’s best interest requires. In the decision discussed here, the ECJ clarified how much (or rather: how little) the enforceability of return orders may be postponed by national law.

 

S. C. Symeonides: The Public Policy Exception in Choice of Law: The American Version [Article published in English]

To the surprise of many foreign readers, the American version of the public policy reservation (ordre public) is phrased exclusively in terms of jurisdiction and access to courts rather than as an exception to choice of law. At least in its “official” iteration in the First and Second Restatements, the exception allows courts to refuse to entertain a foreign cause of action that offends the forum’s public policy rather than to refuse to apply an offensive foreign law provision while adjudicating a (foreign or domestic) cause of action. This essay discusses the historical origins of this narrow and rather unique formulation, the problems it creates, its tacit rejection by most American courts, and the new flexible formulation of the exception in the proposed Third Conflicts Restatement.

 

A. Hermann: Applicability of the Hague Convention in British-European Legal Relations to Contracts Concluded before Brexit Confirmed

The Belgian Cour de Cassation has ruled that the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements became effective in the United Kingdom and, from the perspective of the EU Member States, in relation to the United Kingdom on 1 October 2015 and has been in force continuously since then. With this decision, the Cour de Cassation helps to eliminate uncertainty for future British-European legal relations.