Suzhou Arbitration Commission International Commercial Arbitration Court Officially Launched

On 27 January 2026, the International Commercial Arbitration Court of the Suzhou Arbitration Commission was officially launched, marking an important step in improving the international commercial dispute resolution framework, advancing Suzhou’ s foreign-related rule-of-law development, and supporting the city’s ambition to become a two-way open international gateway.

The International Commercial Arbitration Court is located at the Legal Services Centre of the Suzhou Free Trade Zone, within the Ideal Innovation Building. It houses an International Commercial Arbitration Service Centre and a remote hearing system for international arbitration cases, providing modern and efficient dispute resolution facilities.

The Court has appointed 54 foreign-related arbitrators, and will primarily handle disputes in areas including international trade, intellectual property, financial securities, and international investment, offering professional arbitration services for cross-border commercial matters.

At the launch ceremony, the Wang Jian Law School of Soochow University and the Suzhou Arbitration Commission signed a cooperation agreement to deepen collaboration in areas such as foreign-related arbitration research support and talent development. In addition, the International Commercial Arbitration Court entered into strategic cooperation agreements with the Suzhou Cross-Border E-Commerce Association and the Suzhou Industrial Park Development Promotion Association, aiming to support Suzhou enterprises in expanding into international markets, managing legal risks, and providing legal services for companies “going global”.

International Arbitration Centre Alliance Launches Global Passport Programme to Enhance Collaboration and Resource Sharing Among Arbitration Centres Worldwide

On 28 January 2026, during the International Bar Association (IBA) Arbitration Day conference, the International Arbitration Centre Alliance (IACA) officially launched the “IACA Global Passport” initiative, aimed at enhancing professional mobility and global collaboration among international arbitration practitioners.

The programme establishes a reciprocal access mechanism that allows arbitration lawyers, arbitrators and other dispute resolution professionals to use shared facilities across a network of leading arbitration hearing centres worldwide. Global Passport holders are able to access standardized hearing lounges, meeting rooms and related services at participating centres, reducing reliance on law firm offices, hotels or other temporary venues and improving the professionalism and convenience of arbitration practice.

Institutions currently participating in the Global Passport network include the ADGM Dispute Resolution Hearing Centre (DRHC) in Abu Dhabi, Arbitration Place in Canada, the International Arbitration Centre (Kazakhstan), the International Dispute Resolution Centre (IDRC) in London, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), Maxwell Chambers in Singapore, and the Paris Arbitration Centre by Delos, among other leading arbitration facilities.

In addition to reciprocal facility access, the Global Passport offers concierge support services, exclusive member discounts, and networking opportunities through events hosted by participating centres. The initiative is particularly beneficial for arbitration practitioners who frequently work across borders, especially small and medium-sized law firms and independent arbitrators, helping them reduce travel costs, expand international connections, and strengthen the cohesion of the global arbitration community.

IACA stated that the programme marks a new phase in which international arbitration centres move beyond competition toward deeper cooperation, contributing to the development of a borderless and interconnected global dispute resolution support network.

Rwanda Files Arbitration at The Hague’s Permanent Court of Arbitration Over UK’s Cancellation of Asylum Deal

On January 28, the Rwandan government said it has initiated arbitration proceedings against Britain at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague over Britain’s decision to cancel an asylum agreement in 2024. The agreement was originally signed before British Prime Minister Keir Starmer took office and provided that Britain would pay Rwanda to take in and resettle migrants who had entered Britain illegally.

However, due to a series of legal challenges, implementation of the scheme progressed slowly, and Britain ultimately managed to send only four migrants to Rwanda on a voluntary basis. In a statement posted on social media platform X on Tuesday, the Rwandan government said it had submitted a notice of arbitration to the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration, alleging that Britain had breached the financial arrangements under the “migration partnership”.

The statement said that in 2024 Britain had asked Rwanda to forgo two payments originally due in April 2025 and April 2026, each amounting to £50 million (approximately $69 million), on the basis that the treaty underlying the agreement would be formally terminated. Rwanda said it was willing to consider doing so, provided that the treaty was formally terminated and new financial terms were negotiated and agreed. However, the Rwandan government added that no formal discussions ultimately took place, and therefore the amounts remain due and payable under the agreement.

Britain responded by saying that the asylum scheme was a complete disaster, having cost around £700 million of taxpayers’ money while resulting in only four volunteers being sent to Rwanda. A British government spokesperson said the country would “robustly defend” its position, protect taxpayers’ interests, and focus on more effective measures to combat illegal migration rather than “costly gimmicks”.

In addition, relations between Britain and Rwanda deteriorated last year after Britain paused some aid over Rwanda’s role in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Rwanda has denied supporting the M23 rebel group in eastern Congo and has blamed Congolese and Burundian forces for renewed fighting that has killed thousands of people and displaced hundreds of thousands.

Xi'an Intermediate People’s Court:

Arbitration clauses constitute agreements on dispute resolution mechanisms and do not unreasonably exempt or mitigate one party’s liability, nor do they increase the other party's liability or restrict the other party’s fundamental rights

Legal Basis:

"Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China"

Article 16

An arbitration agreement shall include arbitral clauses stipulated in the contract and other written agreements which request arbitration to be made prior to or following the occurrence of a dispute.

An arbitration agreement shall include the following:

(1) the expression of an application for arbitration;

(2) items for arbitration;

(3) the chosen arbitration commission..

Case Description：

The applicant, a certain store located in Wujiang District (“Applicant”), filed an application with the Xi’an Intermediate People’s Court (“Court”) requesting confirmation that the arbitration clause contained in the Internet Media Data Promotion Service Agreement (“Agreement”) executed with a certain company (“Respondent”) on 30 October 2025 was invalid.

The Applicant argued that the agreement was a standard-form contract unilaterally drafted by the Respondent and repeatedly used for transactions with unspecified parties. In particular, Article 12(2) of the Agreement provided that, in the event of a dispute which could not be resolved through negotiation, either party could apply for arbitration before the Xi’an Arbitration Commission of Shaanxi Province, being the place where the contract was executed. The Applicant claimed that this clause constituted a material-interest clause under Article 496 of the Civil Code, and that the Respondent had failed to fulfill its duty to provide adequate notice and explanation of the arbitration clause. Accordingly, the Applicant contended that the arbitration clause should not be deemed valid pursuant to Articles 496 and 497 of the Civil Code and Article 31 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law.

The Respondent argued that the parties had entered into a written Agreement which had been duly performed. The arbitration clause was clear in content and reflected the true intention of both parties. The Agreement explicitly designated the Xi’an Arbitration Commission as the arbitration institution, satisfying the statutory requirements under the Arbitration Law. The Respondent further relied on prior judicial decisions upholding similar clauses and requested dismissal of the application.

The Court found that on 31 October 2025, the Respondent sent the Agreement to the Applicant’s business operator via WeChat. After reviewing the Agreement, the Applicant affixed its official seal and confirmed execution. The Agreement clearly stipulated that disputes should be submitted to arbitration before the Xi’an Arbitration Commission.

Court's View:

The Court held that, pursuant to Article 16 of the Arbitration Law, a valid arbitration agreement must contain a clear intention to arbitrate, defined arbitration matters, and a designated arbitration institution. The Agreement at issue expressly provided for arbitration as the dispute resolution method and specifically designated the Xi’an Arbitration Commission, thereby satisfying all statutory requirements.

With respect to the Applicant’s claim that the arbitration clause constituted an invalid standard-form clause, the Court emphasized that an arbitration clause is, by its nature, an agreement on the method of dispute resolution. It does not inherently exempt or reduce the liability of the drafting party, increase the liability of the counterparty, or exclude the counterparty’s fundamental rights.

The arbitration clause in question did not materially impair the Applicant’s substantive rights nor did it impose an unreasonable restriction on its right to seek legal remedies. Accordingly, it did not fall within the categories of invalid standard-form clauses prescribed under Article 497 of the Civil Code.

Furthermore, the Applicant affixed its official seal to the Agreement after reviewing its contents, which demonstrated a genuine expression of intent. Even if the arbitration clause constituted a standard-form clause, its validity would not be affected absent a violation of fairness principles or mandatory legal provisions.

Accordingly, the Court ruled to dismiss the application filed by the Applicant, seeking confirmation that the arbitration clause was not established.

First Judicial Review Case of “Hong Kong-Invested, Hong Kong Arbitration” Mechanism Implemented:

Hong Kong Arbitral Award Recognised and Enforced by the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court

Case Description：

This case represents the first judicial review case applying Article 2 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Reply on the Validity of Agreements by Hong Kong- and Macao-Invested Enterprises Registered in the Mainland Cities of the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area to Choose Hong Kong or Macao Law as the Governing Law or to Designate Hong Kong or Macao as the Seat of Arbitration (the “SPC Reply”). It is widely referred to as the first judicial review case of the “Hong Kong-Invested, Hong Kong Arbitration” mechanism.

The applicant for enforcement, a Shenzhen company, was a Hong Kong-invested enterprise registered in Qianhai, Shenzhen. Previously, the company had obtained a final and binding court judgment in a debt dispute. However, neither the principal debtor nor the guarantor fulfilled their payment obligations, leaving claims amounting to tens of millions of RMB unpaid.

To realize its claims, the applicant initiated arbitration proceedings on 27 June 2025 before the South China (Hong Kong) International Arbitration Court, pursuant to a Mediation and Arbitration Confirmation Letter executed with the guarantor, Mr. Chen. During the arbitration proceedings, the parties reached a settlement, and the arbitral institution rendered an arbitral award accordingly.

As the respondent failed to voluntarily perform the arbitral award, the applicant filed an application with the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court (“Court”) on 13 August 2025 seeking recognition and enforcement of the Hong Kong arbitral award. This case thus became the first instance in which a mainland Chinese court conducted judicial review of a Hong Kong arbitral award under the SPC Reply.

Court's View：

The Court clarified that the central issues were the validity of the arbitration agreement and whether the Hong Kong arbitral award satisfied the conditions for recognition and enforcement.

The Court noted that although one party was an individual of the People’s Republic of China and the dispute, the relevant subject matter, and the underlying facts were connected to the People’s Republic of China, the applicant was a Hong Kong-invested enterprise registered in one of the nine cities of the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area within the PRC. The parties had expressly agreed to designate Hong Kong as the seat of arbitration, which the Court considered under Article 2 of the SPC Reply. 

Pursuant to Article 2 of the SPC Reply, where one or both parties are Hong Kong- or Macao-invested enterprises registered in the mainland cities of the Greater Bay Area, and the parties have agreed to Hong Kong or Macao as the seat of arbitration, the People’s Court shall not support claims that the arbitration agreement is invalid on the ground that the dispute lacks Hong Kong or Macao elements.

On this basis, the Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid, that the South China (Hong Kong) International Arbitration Court had jurisdiction over the dispute, and that none of the circumstances under Article 7 of the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region applied.

Accordingly, the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court ruled to recognise and enforce the Hong Kong arbitral award, with the ruling taking legal effect on 11 October 2025.

Impact and Significance:

As the first judicial review case under the “Hong Kong-Invested, Hong Kong Arbitration” mechanism, this decision marks a critical transition of the Greater Bay Area’s cross-border commercial dispute resolution framework from institutional innovation to practical implementation.

The application of the SPC Reply significantly lowers the evidentiary burden for Hong Kong- and Macao-invested enterprises when selecting Hong Kong or Macao as the seat of arbitration, while providing clearer standards for judicial review. At the same time, the efficient recognition and enforcement process sends a strong judicial signal that mainland courts fully respect party autonomy and firmly support arbitration and the internationalisation of dispute resolution.