MA Yi

Deputy Director of the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission

I. The momentum of the New York Convention and the new impetus from Chinese arbitration awards

Professor Pieter Sanders, the father of the New York Convention, famously said: “Vivat, floreat et crescat New York Convention 1958.” The Convention owes its status as the cornerstone of modern international commercial arbitration not only to its pioneering rules (e.g., eliminating double exequatur requirements and strictly limiting the grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement) but also to the record of tens of thousands of arbitration awards that have been recognized and enforced by the courts worldwide pursuant to the rules provided in the Convention over the past half-century. The momentum of the Convention, in essence, lies not in its text alone, but in the living practice of arbitration and judicial communities in recognizing and enforcing the arbitration awards.

The international arbitration in China traces back to 1956, took off in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and has made remarkable achievements over the past decade. The Chinese arbitration awards are now becoming the new driving force sustaining the Convention’s vigor:

First, the volume and coverage of the Chinese awards continue to expand, providing rich materials for the courts worldwide applying the Convention. Under the principle of supporting arbitration and conducting legal supervision that the Supreme People's Court has long upheld, and the effort of the China International Commercial Court (CICC) on a low rate of setting aside arbitration awards and a high rate of preservation measures, a "pro-arbitration" judicial environment has been well established. As a result, the recognition of Chinese arbitration has been continuously improving. The fact that the Chinese arbitration institutions now handle over 600,000 cases annually makes China the world’s largest producer of arbitration awards. At the same time, as China deepens its participation in the global economy and the Chinese enterprises accelerate their expansion abroad, China is also becoming a major exporter of international arbitration awards. In 2024, China’s 285 arbitration institutions accepted around 4,400 foreign-related cases, involving more than 160 countries and regions. The statistics show that, over the past decade, an average of over 100 Chinese awards have been filed for recognition and enforcement abroad each year—SHIAC alone contributed 25 pieces of them. A growing number of courts in the emerging economies have accumulated valuable experience applying the Convention while reviewing the Chinese awards. In 2023, for instance, the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam issued a final ruling overturning the appellate decision of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City and upholding the ruling of the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City that recognized and enforced the SHIAC arbitration award. This was the first Chinese arbitration award that has been recognized and enforced after review by the Vietnamese highest court, following the judicial scrutiny at the three levels.

Second, the innovative practices in the Chinese arbitration are driving the modernization of the Convention itself. Led by the Chinese Judiciary, the digital and intelligent technologies, such as online hearings, electronic signatures, and electronic service of documents, have become standard features in Chinese arbitration since 2023. In May 2023, SHIAC rolled out its fully digital and intelligent arbitration platform. As of 31 July 2026, 95% of the SHIAC cases were filed on this platform; over 80% of the submissions and the service of documents were conducted via the integrated electronic procedures; and over 90% of the procedural documents and awards were signed electronically by the arbitrators. These new practices raise fresh questions and inject fresh impetus into how the Convention should adapt in the digital age. Since 2024, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group II has placed the recognition and enforcement of electronic awards on its agenda, examining their legal validity under the Convention. As an observer to the UNCITRAL Working Group II, SHIAC attended four consecutive sessions, and its report on Chinese practices has been posted on the UNCITRAL website. The Chinese arbitration institutions’ pioneering exploration in digital and intelligent arbitration is supplying first-hand Chinese experience to the international conversation.

II. The Chinese arbitration institutions’ efforts to enhance global enforceability of awards

The global enforceability of awards is an indispensable metric for assessing an arbitration institution’s professionalism. For the Chinese institutions aspiring to become world-class, providing new momentum to the Convention must go hand in hand with ensuring that their awards withstand scrutiny by the courts across different jurisdictions applying the Convention.

Taking SHIAC as an example, it has administered foreign-related arbitration cases since 1988 and has since rendered over 60,000 pieces of arbitration awards. Based on publicly available information alone, the SHIAC arbitration awards have been recognized and enforced in 60 jurisdictions. Drawing on the experience accumulated from these cases, SHIAC has developed systematic good practices across the life-span of the arbitration procedures and extending to the post-award phase to enhance the enforceability of its arbitration awards.

During the conduct of the proceedings, SHIAC aligns its rules with the broadest common ground of due process adopted by the courts globally. Procedural due process is a key criterion under the Convention for assessing the enforceability of the arbitration awards. In designing the rules and administering the cases, SHIAC has always paid close attention to how the courts in different jurisdictions review and measure the procedural due process. The Danish courts, for example, treat whether a party "received notice" as the touchstone for "proper notice" under Article V(1)(b) of the Convention. In one SHIAC award that was enforced in Denmark, because the SHIAC rules required the claimant to provide all possible addresses of the respondent (including its address in China, its Danish correspondence address, and its email address), the Danish court determined that the service of documents by SHIAC to the respondent in the arbitration fully satisfied the Danish court’s standard of "proper notice.” This case shows that the procedural details, such as methods of service, proof of service, and choice of procedural language, can become the focal points at the enforcement stage. SHIAC has maintained its rules refined and up-to-date, ensuring clear procedural records and compliant service while respecting the party autonomy, so as to remove procedural hurdles to enforcement.

At the award-drafting stage, SHIAC scrutinizes draft awards and perfects the quality of drafting. The content and wording of an award directly bear on the enforcing court’s review. SHIAC, like the ICC International Court of Arbitration and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, maintains an award scrutiny mechanism. For cases where the respondent is a foreign party, SHIAC provides, where necessary, the arbitral tribunals with the comments on the issues that matter under the Convention—whether an arbitration agreement has been formed, whether the award exceeds the scope of submission, or whether any expression might hinder enforcement. In one case involving an Italian respondent, SHIAC specifically suggested that the arbitral tribunal analyze in detail whether a written arbitration agreement existed between the parties, as the Italian courts, when faced with enforcement applications, might place their attention on whether a written arbitration agreement under Article IV(1) of the Convention exists. Leveraging this scrutiny mechanism, SHIAC effectively assists the arbitral tribunals in fully and accurately addressing the potential focal points under the Convention.

At the post-award stage, SHIAC assists the parties in preparing the enforcement materials. The institution’s services do not cease upon the rendering of the award. Since different jurisdictions impose different requirements for enforcement application materials, SHIAC proactively helps the parties prepare relevant documents to ensure they meet the enforcing court’s requirements. In one case involving the attempt for enforcement in Indonesia, the Indonesian court required the claimant to produce a power of attorney from the arbitral tribunal authorizing the applicant to enforce the award. SHIAC contacted the arbitral tribunal, secured a power of attorney with electronic signatures, and arranged with the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade Shanghai Sub-Council to issue the commercial certificate and obtain the Apostille. All these were done within one week, ensuring the enforcement application proceeded smoothly.

Ⅲ. Prospects for the Chinese arbitration in advancing the development of the New York Convention

In the future, the Chinese arbitration institutions can make greater contributions to the Convention’s development in the following three areas:

First, bolstering collaboration with the CICC to offer Chinese experience for the Convention’s modernization. Facilitated by the CICC of the Supreme People’s Court, China is the first jurisdictions globally to establish a one-stop online platform for international commercial dispute resolution, creating a unique online coordination mechanism between the courts and the arbitral institutions. SHIAC is currently working with the Shanghai International Commercial Court of the Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court to pioneer the mechanisms for applying to enforce electronic awards in foreign-related cases, particularly with respect to the verification of the originality of an electronic arbitration award. Last year, SHIAC invited the Chief Judge of the Shanghai International Commercial Court to attend the UNCITRAL Working Group II session in Austria and achieved excellent results. Moving ahead, under the guidance of the CICC, Chinese arbitral institutions may jointly deepen cooperation on issues such as the enforcement of electronic awards and the service by electronic notification, conducting joint research, and presenting practical models and rule proposals to the international community, so as to help the Convention keep pace with the digital era.

Second, leveraging the resources of the CICC’s Expert Committee to strengthen cooperation with foreign arbitration institutions and jointly publish enforcement guides and case compilations. By leveraging the regular consultation mechanism of the CICC’s Expert Committee and the resources of its expert members, the Chinese arbitral institutions can expand and deepen the collaboration with the foreign counterparts, especially from Belt and Road countries, by inviting them to co-publish guidelines on the implementation of arbitration awards under the New York Convention by Chinese courts and courts in those jurisdictions, along with the case compilations of awards recognized and enforced in China and in those jurisdictions. These publications will not only provide practical references for businesses and legal practitioners but also enrich materials for applying the Convention across the globe.

Third, drawing on the role of the Hong Kong SAR, China as an international arbitration hub to enhance mutual learning on arbitration rules and research on public policy. Hong Kong serves as a vital bridge between the Chinese mainland and the international arbitration community. Many recent Hong Kong court decisions concerning enforcement of the awards on due process and public policy, in particular, rendered in the Chinese mainland can serve as useful references for cross-jurisdictional cooperation. It is recommended that the CICC establish a cooperation mechanism with the Hong Kong courts, and support the regular exchanges and mutual learning between arbitral institutions from the Chinese mainland and their peer institutions in the Hong Kong SAR on issues such as the internationalization of arbitration rules and the understanding and application of arbitration public policy, so as to jointly promote the smooth enforcement of Chinese arbitration awards in a wider range of jurisdictions.