Arbitration Awards Made by the Shanghai and Shenzhen Subcommissions May Not Be Enforceable

by Perkins Coie

On August 1, 2012, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission ("CIETAC") issued an announcement suspending its Shanghai and Shenzhen subcommissions. Subsequently, the Shanghai and Shenzhen subcommissions jointly declared their independence of CIETAC and further stated that the CIETAC announcement did not bind them. This situation represents an escalation of a dispute between CIETAC and its Shanghai and Shenzhen subcommissions that began earlier this year. As a result, arbitration awards made by the Shanghai and Shenzhen subcommissions after August 1, 2012, and potentially earlier, may not be enforceable.


CIETAC is a private association providing arbitration services mainly to companies engaged in cross-border business. It is the most commonly used arbitration commission in China. CIETAC was originally founded in 1956 with its headquarters in Beijing and later set up four subcommissions in Shenzhen (established in 1989), Shanghai (established in 1990), Tianjin (established in 2008) and Chongqing (established in 2009). CIETAC accepts foreign-related and international arbitration cases as well as purely domestic cases. CIETAC is gradually developing into one of the major arbitration commissions in the world. Based on CIETAC’s statistics, it (and its subcommissions) accepted 1,435 cases in 2011, 741 of which were filed in the Shanghai and Shenzhen subcommissions. (The Shenzhen subcommission is also known as CIETAC South China Commission.)

Foreign parties typically prefer to resolve disputes before CIETAC rather than before a Chinese court because CIETAC rulings may be of a higher quality and because disputes can be heard in English. Further, CIETAC procedures are typically faster and potentially have less risk of corruption and local favoritism. In addition, CIETAC rulings are more likely to be enforceable in other countries since China is a country member of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which has been adopted by 146 countries of the United Nations.  

Overview of Dispute

This dispute originates from the release of the CIETAC Arbitration Rules (2012) (“New Rules”) published by CIETAC on April 24, 2012. The New Rules became effective as of May 1, 2012. The Shanghai and Shenzhen subcommissions objected to the New Rules mainly because the New Rules, compared with the CIETAC Arbitration Rules (2005) (“Old Rules”), make significant changes to the status and jurisdiction of the Shanghai and Shenzhen subcommissions as well as to their right to issue arbitration awards in their own names.

The impetus for the New Rules is presumably because CIETAC has been losing control over its subcommissions, and therefore the associated revenue, and wishes to regain control of same.

Firstly, the New Rules expressly stipulate that a subcommission is a branch of CIETAC that accepts arbitration applications and handles arbitration cases with CIETAC’s authorization. However, the Old Rules defined a subcommission as a component of CIETAC without referencing CIETAC’s explicit control of the subcommissions.

Secondly, according to the New Rules, parties may agree to submit their disputes to CIETAC or a subcommission of CIETAC for arbitration. Where the subcommission agreed upon by the parties does not exist, or where the agreement is ambiguous, the secretariat of CIETAC in Beijing shall accept the arbitration application and handle the case. In the event of any dispute over where to hold arbitration, a decision shall be made by CIETAC.

This means all cases submitted to CIETAC should be handled by the headquarters unless the parties to a contract have expressly agreed to submit a dispute to a subcommission in their arbitration agreement. This is a departure from past practice. If an arbitration agreement simply refers to CIETAC and states that the hearing should be held in Shanghai, past practice allowed the Shanghai subcommission to handle the case. However, the New Rules now hold such a clause as “ambiguous” and require such a case to be handled by CIETAC with the hearing held in Shanghai, thus excluding the Shanghai subcommission and causing the Shanghai subcommission to lose revenue as a result.

Thirdly, the New Rules require all arbitration awards made by CIETAC and its subcommissions to be affixed with CIETAC’s seal, which substantially changes the past practice of affixing a subcommission’s own seal to its arbitration award. The subcommissions consequently lose the right to issue arbitration awards in their own names.

In response to the New Rules, on April 30, 2012, the Shanghai subcommission announced that it was an independent arbitration body and would follow its own Arbitration Rules with its own panel of arbitrators, effective May 1, 2012.

On May 1, 2012, CIETAC issued a Statement and Open Letter to all arbitrators denying the alleged independence of the Shanghai subcommission, declared the Arbitration Rules made by the Shanghai subcommission as void and ordered that the Shanghai subcommission would be liable for all consequences for its noncompliance with the New Rules.

On May 2, 2012, the Shanghai subcommission made a statement reiterating its independence of CIETAC and challenging the legality of the New Rules.

Further, on June 16, 2012, the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (“SCIA”) was established. SCIA shares offices, staffs and arbitrators with the Shenzhen subcommission. Subsequently, on June 17, SCIA published a notification that it would not apply the New Rules, and SCIA would make its own Arbitration Rules and assemble its own panel of arbitrators, in effect declaring independence from CIETAC.

On August 1, 2012, CIETAC released an announcement suspending authorization of the Shanghai and Shenzhen subcommissions and stated that “as from 1 August 2012, where parties have agreed to arbitrate their disputes by the CIETAC Shanghai Commission or the CIETAC South China Commission (the CIETAC Shenzhen Commission), the parties shall submit their applications for arbitration to CIETAC and the CIETAC Secretariat shall accept such arbitration applications and handle such cases. Without CIETAC’s authorization, no institutions shall have the right to accept and handle the aforementioned arbitration cases.”

In response, on August 4, 2012, the Shanghai and Shenzhen subcommissions jointly declared that CIETAC’s announcement had no binding effect on them. Parties could continue to apply for arbitration with the Shanghai and Shenzhen subcommissions according to their arbitration agreements.

So far, it seems the situation is at an impasse. None of the three parties has filed a lawsuit in a Chinese court for this dispute. The Chinese governmental authorities have remained silent on the situation.

Risks and Suggestions

Parties to a contract who have agreed to an arbitration clause before the Shanghai or Shenzhen subcommissions should be aware of the risk that arbitration awards issued by these subcommissions after August 1, 2012, and possibly after May 1, 2012, may be denied recognition and enforcement by Chinese courts due to the subcommissions’ potential lack of authorization.

Parties to an existing contract should modify any arbitration clause to select CIETAC. Foreign parties may also want to consider selecting a foreign arbitration commission instead of CIETAC. Similarly, new contracts with such arbitration clauses under negotiation should be revised accordingly. For disputes currently undergoing arbitration in the Shanghai or Shenzhen subcommissions, parties may wish to suspend them or transfer them to CIETAC until the situation is clarified.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Perkins Coie | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Perkins Coie

Perkins Coie on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.