This flowchart takes you through the stages of a CIETAC arbitration under the CIETAC Arbitration Rules 2024.

1 This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). 2 Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination, shall be submitted to China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) for arbitration which shall be conducted in accordance with the CIETAC arbitration rules in effect at the time of applying for arbitration. 3 [The place and location of arbitration shall be in [Hong Kong/Singapore/Beijing/Shanghai/Shenzhen]. In each arbitration,

The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) has issued new guidelines for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in arbitration proceedings, effective from 18 July 2025. These first-of-its-kind guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region establish three core principles: party autonomy, assisted adjudication, and good faith. They also introduce a recommended risk reduction framework and clarify that AI technology cannot replace tribunal adjudication functions. The guidelines aim to balance the benefits of technological integration with the need to maintain arbitration credibility and protect the rights of the parties involved.

The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) has published its 2024 ‘Work Report’, which includes information on the arbitral institution’s caseload statistics for 2024. This is accompanied by a 2025 ‘Work Plan’ which outlines the key objectives the CIETAC aims to fulfil during this year.

The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) has published its 2025 Work Report, outlining the institution’s caseload developments, sectoral trends, and institutional progress during 2025. This is accompanied by a 2026 Work Plan setting out the key objectives CIETAC aims to advance in the coming year.

The China International Economic And Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) has released the full programme for the 2024 China Arbitration Summit, taking place 26 September 2024. The theme of the summit is international arbitration transcending eras.

The best known of the Chinese arbitral institutions is the China International Economic Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) which was formed in 1954 to support China’s growing trade and economic relations with other countries and survived the cultural revolution. CIETAC is now one of the world’s leading commercial arbitration centres handling a very substantial caseload. Chinese parties favour arbitration as the means for resolving commercial disputes, particularly those arising from international commercial transactions. With China’s current extensive outbound investment, Chinese parties are involved in international arbitration in all of the world’s leading centres. Wherever possible, however, Chinese parties prefer arbitration in their own country so foreign parties need to know what to expect if faced with an arbitration before a tribunal in China. An introduction to arbitration in China Two important features of arbitration in China derive from its historical development. The first relates to the distinction between domestic and international cases. Following the enactment of the Economic Contract Law in 1981, a number of arbitration commissions were created for the resolution

A CIF (cost, insurance and freight) contract is a contract of sale of goods by shipment where the seller pays for the cost of transport and insurance of the goods to the destination and the legal delivery is when the goods cross the ship's rail in the port of shipment.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020.

The Centre for International Governance and Dispute Resolution (CIGAD) at King’s College London has announced its upcoming conference on Anglo-French Approach to Arbitration. The conference is scheduled to be held on 17 October 2024 at Strand Campus, London. The Conference will focus on how the English and French Courts approaches differ when addressing antisuit injunctions and corruption in arbitration. This will focus particularly on the recent UK Supreme Court decision in UniCredit v RusChemAlliance.

Introduction This Practice Note is a guide to arbitration proceedings administered by the International and Ibero-American Arbitration Center of Madrid (‘CIIAM’ or the ‘Center’) (formerly CIAM-CIAR) under its arbitration rules in force since 1 January 2024 (the Arbitration Rules). The focus lies on the expedited and emergency mechanisms available for international disputes involving Spain, their activation criteria, procedural deadlines, and practical handling to secure enforceability. Abbreviated procedure The abbreviated procedure is designed to resolve minor disputes through a streamlined process that preserves the right of defence. It is regulated by Article 53 of the Arbitration Rules. Scope of application and activation The abbreviated procedure is automatically activated for disputes whose total amount (claim and, if applicable, counterclaim) does not exceed €1 million. However, the parties may exclude it by express agreement, or the Center may decide not to apply it if a party raises a reasoned objection and it is considered inappropriate given the circumstances

Introduction This Practice Note is a guide to arbitration proceedings administered by the International and Ibero-American Arbitration Center of Madrid (‘CIIAM’ or the ‘Center’) (formerly CIAM-CIAR) under its arbitration rules in force since 1 January 2024 (the Arbitration Rules). In particular, it examines how awards are rendered, how costs are determined and allocated, and how proceedings may be terminated. Time limit for rendering awards The Arbitration Rules establish time limits that balance reasonable predictability with necessary flexibility. The Arbitration Rules distinguish between ordinary proceedings and fast-track alternatives (‘abbreviated procedure’ and ‘highly expedited procedure’). The Center monitors compliance with deadlines, and arbitrators’ performance in this regard may affect both extension requests and fee determinations (Arts 4.5, 49.1, and institutional guidance on award scrutiny). In ordinary proceedings, unless the parties agree otherwise, arbitrators must render awards on the claims within three months following the hearing or the last substantive submission. Cost submissions are not considered substantive for purposes of calculating