William Blair (UK)
Chairman of the Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Center
(QICDRC) Regulatory Tribunal
Former Judge in Charge of the Commercial Court of the High Court of
England and Wales
Chief Justice ZHANG Jun, President of the SPC, distinguished judges, arbitrators, members of the International Commercial Expert Committee, and colleagues,
Good morning.
It is an honour to be asked to give these remarks as a representative of the Committee. I had this honour at the inaugural Seminar for the China International Commercial Court in August 2018, and on subsequent occasions.
Much has happened in the past eight years. International trade and commerce has had a number of interruptions. But the need for an ordered system of resolving disputes efficiently and fairly has remained the same.
The fundamental aspiration of the CICC at its foundation – that is, bridging litigation, arbitration and mediation – has stood the test of time. Indeed, the idea that international commercial dispute resolution should ideally be treated in this inclusive way has been an important contribution made by China.
It is exemplified by the participation of distinguished arbitration practitioners in the Expert Committee and those present here this morning.
Over the last eight years, the concept of “international commercial courts” seems to have become imbedded. These courts are seen as assisting economic development. More generally, as in China, they are a response to the distinguishing characteristics of international disputes that benefit from specialised resolution.
These characteristics include the fact that a number of different national laws may apply to the dispute, and ascertaining that law. There are also complications around, for example, the taking of evidence, party representation, and enforcement.
Equally important, to borrow an analogy from football, there must be no home team advantage over the visiting team. This impartiality is essential to the success of an international commercial court. It gives confidence to foreign investors and other commercial parties that they will have equal treatment. This point was recently and rightly emphasised by the President of the SPC.
We have seen in the last year alone the establishment of ICCs (outside China) in Vietnam and Uzbekistan, and (within China) the Hong Kong International Commercial Court.
Others are likely to follow, though the model differs from country to country. So for example, the Commercial Court Frankfurt established under 2025 legislation forms a specialised track within the German court system. The Court offers proceedings in the English language.
From the perspective of foreign parties, the most significant development in respect of the CICC in the last two years has been the development of regional courts. So for example, since we are in Shanghai, I mention the Shanghai International Commercial Court, alongside others in major centres.
These seem to have a number of advantages from the perspective of foreign parties. Functionally, they are well suited to the most important tasks of any adjudicative tribunal, that is, establishing the facts of the dispute. Only then can the law be properly applied.
They give the opportunity to build over time a specialised judiciary, and procedures that favour internationalisation. At the same time, they can be responsive to local conditions. This is analogous to the position in Germany I mentioned earlier.
Overall, however, the benefits will be maximised by maintaining common standards, so that foreign parties can be confident that procedures and outcomes are consistent whichever court happens to be dealing with their dispute. As in all first instance structures, confidence in the appellate process is equally important.
Looking to the future, it is clear that change is coming to the world of international commercial dispute resolution. There are challenges around cost and delay – here, I think the perception is that the courts in China compare favourably.
The use of AI by our institutions should assist, but there is a need for a common approach. New technology itself seems to be a fertile ground for disputes, with many relating to crypto assets. It is not always evident that any single court or arbitration institution has jurisdiction to deal with the whole dispute, giving rise to the question whether a cooperative approach is possible.
In the financial field, new instruments give rise to the risk of instability, and the approach of states globally is not always the same, the treatment of stablecoins being an example. A specialist Financial Court was established in Shanghai some years ago, and these issues are likely to come to commercial courts as well.
Finally, there are underlying questions at to the ethical principles which apply not just to our institutions, but to the legal professionals that conduct the cases before us. The work of the International Bar Association (IBA) should be supported in this regard.
We can only deal effectively with these issues at the international level through institutions such as the Standing International Forum of Commercial Courts, established under the leadership of Lord Thomas in 2017, and of which China is a founder member.
Let me end therefore by offering warm credit for the excellent work that has been done by the SPC and the CICC in tackling these issues. It has been a privilege to serve on the Expert Committee. We have a long road ahead, and we will all be stronger if we proceed together.
Thank you.
