The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released the Annual Report on Judicial Review of Commercial Arbitration (2024) on Dec 28, 2025, summarizing judicial practices in arbitration-related cases and further unifying adjudication standards.

As an internationally recognized mechanism for resolving commercial disputes, arbitration plays an important role in efficiently resolving disputes, promoting international economic and trade cooperation, and fostering a market-oriented, law-based and international business environment. 

The sound development of arbitration relies on both judicial support and judicial supervision. In 2024, the SPC continued to prioritize non-litigation dispute resolution mechanisms, with a focus on fostering an arbitration-friendly judicial environment, actively supporting the law-based, professional and international development of commercial arbitration.

According to the report, courts nationwide concluded a total of 18,566 cases involving judicial review of commercial arbitration in 2024. These included 5,475 cases concerning applications to confirm the validity of arbitration agreements, 11,016 cases involving applications to set aside arbitral awards, 104 cases concerning applications to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards, and 1,971 cases involving applications to refuse enforcement of arbitral awards. In addition, courts nationwide concluded 27,069 cases involving applications for arbitration-related preservation measures.

The report highlights several notable features of arbitration-related judicial review in 2024.

First, courts continued to foster an arbitration-friendly judicial environment, maintaining a low rate of arbitral award set-aside and a high rate of preservation. Of the 11,016 cases involving applications to set aside arbitral awards, only 245 resulted in full or partial annulment, representing a rate of 2.22 percent. Meanwhile, courts supported 26,770 out of 27,069 arbitration-related preservation applications, with a support rate of 98.90 percent, effectively safeguarding parties’ procedural rights and ensuring smooth arbitration proceedings and enforcement of arbitral awards.

Second, courts continued to improve cross-regional judicial assistance to deepen economic and trade cooperation between the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. In 2024, courts on the Chinese mainland concluded 62 cases involving applications to recognize and enforce arbitral awards from Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, approving recognition and enforcement in 53 cases and allowing withdrawal of applications in six cases. This outcome demonstrates their judicial stance in supporting the resolution of cross-border commercial disputes through arbitration and in deepening economic and trade cooperation across the regions.

Third, courts actively upheld multilateralism and accurately applied the New York Convention. In 2024, courts concluded 42 cases involving applications to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards, with no judgments refusing recognition or enforcement. The awards involved were rendered by arbitral institutions from 15 countries or by ad hoc tribunals seated outside China. The practice demonstrates Chinese courts’ firm commitment to multilateralism and implementation of the New York Convention, showcasing their consistent support for international commercial arbitration, and their provision of robust judicial safeguards for the development of international arbitration centers.

The report also reviews typical cases and summarizes key principles applied in arbitration-related judicial review.

In determining the validity of arbitration agreements, courts adhere to an interpretation principle that favors upholding such agreements, encouraging parties to resolve disputes through arbitration. In reviewing the validity of arbitration agreements, courts adopt interpretations conducive to upholding agreements in situations such as optional arbitration-or-litigation clauses, pre-arbitration negotiation clauses, identification of arbitral institutions based on parties’ locations, arbitration agreements entered into by persons with limited capacity for civil conduct, and ad hoc arbitration agreements.

Courts strictly apply statutory grounds for setting aside or refusing enforcement of arbitral awards, respecting the finality of arbitration while exercising judicial supervision in accordance with the law to protect procedural rights, regulate arbitrator conduct, and promote fairness.

In recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards, courts follow the principle of good-faith treaty performance and adopt an enforcement-friendly approach. By strictly applying the New York Convention and supporting international commercial arbitration proceedings, they recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards in accordance with the law, fostering a judiciary-friendly environment for the cross-border enforcement of arbitral awards, and continuously meeting the needs of parties involved in international commercial arbitration for diverse dispute resolution.