Arbitration in Asia

Arbitration in China

Arbitration in China—Lexology Panoramic guide

This guide, published by Lexology Panoramic, provides an introduction to arbitration in the People’s Republic of China (PRC or China) covering topics such as arbitration agreements, constitution of arbitral tribunal, jurisdiction, arbitral proceedings, interim measures, awards, proceedings subsequent to issuance of award, ethics and update and trends. For more information, see Practice Note: Arbitration—China—Q&A guide.

Ad hoc arbitration in China

This Practice Note discusses the legality of ad hoc arbitration agreements in China and offers advice to those drafting arbitration agreements in this jurisdiction. For more information, see Practice Note: Ad hoc arbitration in China.

Challenging jurisdiction and anti-suit provisions in China

This Practice Note discusses challenges to the jurisdiction of a tribunal that may be made under the Arbitration Law of the PRC. It includes challenges on grounds of arbitrability and validity of the arbitration agreement. It also covers challenges to the tribunal and the court and the timescale within which such challenges must be brought. It sets out who has jurisdiction to determine which challenges and the time within which their decision must be

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

Who decides what? Clarifying the boundaries of Appellate Control over Exequatur in France(France – Federative Republic of Brazil (União) v [J])

Arbitration analysis: On 8 January 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal, sitting through the conseiller de la mise en état, held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the admissibility of a plea seeking annulment of an exequatur order on the basis of an alleged excess of power of the first-instance judge. According to the court, such a plea concerns the appeal itself and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal sitting as a full bench, rather than that of the conseiller de la mise en état acting alone. The order was made in proceedings concerning the exequatur in France of a partial award rendered in São Paulo under the auspices of the Câmara de Arbitragem do Mercado (CAM), in a shareholder dispute between minority shareholders of Petrobras and the Federative Republic of Brazil (the União). Although the ruling addresses a strictly procedural issue, it usefully clarifies the allocation of functions between the pre-trial judge (conseiller de la mise en état) and the appellate bench in proceedings brought against exequatur orders under article 1527 of the French Code of Civil Procedure. It confirms that a procedural argument seeking to invalidate the appeal (fin de non-recevoir), where that argument is in fact tied to the substance of the appeal itself, must be decided by the full bench and cannot be filtered out by a single judge at the pre-trial stage. The ruling therefore has practical implications for how parties should frame and time their procedural arguments in exequatur-related appeals. Written by Marie-Laure Cartier and Alexandre Meyniel, partners at Cartier Meyniel AARPI with Sami Kabbara, trainee lawyer at the Paris Bar Centre and intern at Cartier Meyniel AARPI.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents