Global Headquarters of the International Commercial Dispute Prevention and Settlement Organization (ICDPASO) Officially Opens

On April 15, 2025, the High-Level Dialogue of the International Commercial Dispute Prevention and Settlement Organization (hereinafter referred to as "ICDPASO") was held in Beijing. During the event, ICDPASO announced the official opening of its new global headquarters. Attending guests engaged in in-depth discussions on topics including the development of international governance systems for commercial dispute prevention and resolution, and risk control and full-chain legal services in the internationalization of the cultural and entertainment industries.

Since its establishment, ICDPASO has been committed to providing full-chain commercial legal services covering both dispute prevention and resolution. The event marked a new stage of development for the organization, which will continue to promote coordinated progress in dispute prevention and resolution, foster win-win cooperation among businesses across nations, and help create a favorable rule-of-law environment.

Established on October 15, 2020, ICDPASO is a non-governmental international organization jointly initiated by the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT), the China Chamber of International Commerce, and various chambers of commerce, legal service institutions, and academic think tanks from different countries. The organization's mission is to offer international, professional, and accessible public legal services for the global business community, to promote the development of a law-based and international business environment, and to help build a fair and equitable international economic order.

CIETAC Officially Releases the "Initiative on International Cooperation of the SCO Arbitration Legal Forum"

On April 25, 2025, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Arbitration Legal Forum was held in Urumqi under the theme "Arbitration for Cooperation, Rule of Law for a New Journey." The forum was co-hosted by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) and the People’s Government of the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. More than 380 participants attended in person, including representatives from government departments, judicial bodies, chambers of commerce, arbitration institutions, and bar associations from the 20 official SCO member states, observer states, and dialogue partners, as well as 28 Belt and Road countries and regions such as the United Kingdom, Singapore, and Malaysia.

During the forum, CIETAC officially released the “Initiative on International Cooperation of the SCO Arbitration Legal Forum” (hereinafter referred to as the "Initiative"). The Initiative highlights that arbitration is a key mechanism for resolving international economic and trade disputes. To leverage the advantages of arbitration in supporting high-quality development and building a closer SCO community with a shared future, the Initiative calls on the regional arbitration community within the SCO to uphold independence, impartiality, and efficiency; promote diversified service delivery; foster a friendly judicial environment and strengthen cross-border enforcement of arbitral awards; embrace technological innovation to advance sustainable arbitration practices; deepen regional exchanges and cooperation to cultivate a harmonious arbitration ecosystem; and invest in nurturing young talent to reinforce the foundation for long-term development.

Shenzhen Named One of Asia-Pacific's Top Five Most Popular Arbitration Seats for the First Time

The 2025 International Arbitration Survey Report was recently released, revealing that Shenzhen has been named, for the first time, one of the top five most popular arbitration seats in the Asia-Pacific region. Additionally, the arbitration rules of the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) have been recognized among the world’s most popular arbitration rules.

The report was jointly published by White & Case LLP and the School of International Arbitration at Queen Mary University of London. According to the survey results in the Asia-Pacific region, Shenzhen joined Hong Kong, Singapore, Beijing, and London as one of the top five most preferred global arbitration venues.

Globally, the SCIA Arbitration Rules were ranked alongside those of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) as one of the ten most popular arbitration rules worldwide.

Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court:

House Demolition and Compensation Agreement Constitutes an Administrative Contract; The Arbitration Clause in the Disputed Agreement is Invalid

Legal Basis:

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

Article 3

The following disputes shall not be subject to arbitration:

(1) disputes concerning marriage, adoption, custody, fostering and succession;

(2) administrative disputes which shall, in accordance with the law, be dealt with by administrative bodies.

"Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Agreement Cases"

Article 26

Where an administrative agreement stipulates an arbitration clause, the People's Court shall affirm that such clause is invalid, unless otherwise stipulated by laws, administrative regulations or international treaties concluded or acceded to by the State.

Case Description：

On August 5, 2017, Mr. Cao Mouhai entered into the House Demolition Compensation and Resettlement Agreement for the Tuanjie Area of Changqing Subdistrict with the Changqing Subdistrict Office of the People’s Government of Dongxihu District, Wuhan (hereinafter referred to as the “Changqing Subdistrict Office”). The agreement was made pursuant to the Regulations on the Expropriation of Buildings on State-Owned Land and Compensation, the Expropriation Decision Dongzheng Zhengjue Zi (2014) No. 1 issued by the Dongxihu District Government, the Compensation and Resettlement Plan for the Urban Renewal Project in the Tuanjie Area of Changqing Subdistrict, and related policies. It confirmed that Mr. Cao’s house fell within the expropriation zone and set out mutually agreed compensation and resettlement terms.

Article 6, Clause 5 of the agreement stipulated: “In case of any dispute arising from the performance of this agreement, the parties may resolve it through consultation; if consultation fails, both parties agree to submit the dispute to the Dongxihu Sub-Center of the Wuhan Arbitration Commission for arbitration in accordance with the law.”

Mr. Cao argued that the agreement was a house demolition and compensation agreement with the nature of an administrative contract, and that any disputes arising from it should be resolved through administrative litigation. He requested the court to declare the arbitration clause invalid based on the Administrative Litigation Law and relevant judicial interpretations by the Supreme People’s Court.

In contrast, the Changqing Subdistrict Office contended that the agreement was civil in nature, that the arbitration institution was clearly designated, and that the arbitration clause should therefore be deemed valid.

Court's View:

The court found that the House Demolition Compensation and Resettlement Agreement for the Tuanjie Area of Changqing Subdistrict was based on the expropriation decision and related policies, and thus was a typical house demolition and compensation agreement with the nature of an administrative contract.

According to Article 12, Paragraph 1, Item 11 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China, disputes arising from the performance of such agreements by administrative organs fall under the scope of administrative litigation and should be handled by the people’s courts.

Furthermore, Article 3 of the Arbitration Law expressly states that administrative disputes which should be handled by administrative organs are not subject to arbitration. Article 26 of the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Agreement Cases by the Supreme People’s Court also clearly provides that an arbitration clause in an administrative agreement shall be deemed invalid by the people’s court.

In conclusion, Wuhan Intermediate Peoples Court' s ruled to confirm that the arbitration agreement between the applicant Mr. Cao and the respondent Changqing Subdistrict Office is invalid.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida:

Petition Granted for Recognition and Enforcement of a 2023 SIAC Arbitration Award in Favor of Chinese Company Against U.S.Respondent

Case Description：

Since 2017, Shanghai-based Company L and Florida-based Company B maintained a stable business relationship involving the supply and sale of LED signage materials. On January 20, 2021, both parties formally executed a Payment Agreement, which, under a USD 120,000 credit line, stipulated commercial terms regarding procurement, settlement, and payment periods. The agreement expressly provided that it “shall be governed by the laws of the People’s Republic of China and submitted to arbitration before the Shanghai International Arbitration Center (SIAC), seated in Shanghai, with proceedings conducted in Chinese.”

In March 2022, L’s affiliate, Hunan-based Company K, jointly established a JV named LB Company with B. Following September 2022, the supply chain changed: B would place orders with L, L would place back-to-back orders with K, and K would order from LB Company, which would manufacture and deliver goods directly to B. However, the Payment Agreement still stipulated that “all payments shall be settled directly by Company B with Company L; any other payment arrangement must be separately negotiated.”

Beginning in July 2022, B defaulted on multiple payments. L initiated arbitration proceedings. The SIAC Secretariat sent arbitration notices to B’s registered office in Jupiter, Florida via DHL, and also served electronic notices via the platform to the email addresses of B’s beneficial owner, Ms. B, and her husband, Mr. T. All delivery and email records indicated successful delivery. B failed to appear at the arbitration. In December 2023, the arbitral tribunal rendered a final award in favor of L, ordering B to pay the outstanding debt and contractual penalties.

Court's View：

Presiding Judge Robin Rosenberg emphasized that under the New York Convention, U.S. courts apply a highly deferential standard when reviewing foreign arbitral awards. Refusal to enforce an award is only permissible if the opposing party meets its burden to prove one of the limited grounds under Article V of the Convention.

On Service of Process:

Judge Rosenberg found that L had fulfilled its notice obligations in accordance with Article 61 of the SIAC Arbitration Rules by serving notices to B’s registered address and listed email. L was unaware of any relocation to Stuart, Florida and had no duty to investigate further. B submitted no evidence showing it failed to receive either the physical or electronic notices. After reviewing witness testimony and the service records provided by the arbitral institution and L’s counsel, the court found the notice was reasonably calculated to reach B, and B failed in its duty to check its communications.

On Alleged Excess of Authority:

Although the award mentioned the JV LB Company and Company K’s role in the transactional structure, Judge Rosenberg noted that the award ultimately reaffirmed only B’s payment obligations to L under the Payment Agreement, without expanding liability to other parties or agreements. Therefore, this did not constitute an “excess of authority” under Article V(1)(c) of the Convention.

In conclusion, as Company B failed to establish any grounds for refusal under the New York Convention, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted L’s petition for recognition and enforcement of the 2023 arbitral award issued by the Shanghai International Arbitration Center.