CIETAC Successfully Hosts the 3rd GBA Dispute Resolution Summit in Hong Kong

On October 18, 2026, the 2026 CIETAC Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Dispute Resolution Summit, organized by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (hereinafter referred as “CIETAC”), was successfully convened in Hong Kong. Themed "Resolving Disputes and Fostering Harmony for Coexistence," the summit gathered prominent judicial figures, arbitrators, legal scholars, and corporate counsels worldwide, with robust institutional backing from the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed), the Department of Justice of the HKSAR, and the Legal Affairs Bureau of the Macao SAR as well as leading legal professional bodies.

The Honorable Mr. Justice Jeremy Poon, Chief Judge of the High Court of Hong Kong, and Senior Judge Li Wei of the Supreme People's Court of China delivered keynote addresses, highlighting judicial support for arbitration, the calibration of judicial review over arbitral awards, the preservation of arbitral finality, and emerging ethical frameworks governing AI adoption in dispute resolution. During the event, CIETAC conducted a conferment ceremony for newly appointed arbitrators from Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macao, followed by insightful panel discussions addressing cross-border procedural coordination, mutual judicial assistance, and risk-mitigation strategies for Chinese enterprises expanding globally, which showcased the latest progress in aligning rules and coordinating mechanisms for resolving cross-border commercial disputes in the Greater Bay Area.

International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) Celebrates First Anniversary: Signatory and Acceding States Grow to 48

On October 20, 2026, the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed)—the world's first intergovernmental legal organization exclusively dedicated to resolving international disputes via mediation—held its first anniversary celebration in Hong Kong. Remarks delivered by China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and IOMed Secretary-General Teresa Cheng highlighted that, one year into its operationalization following the entry into force of the Convention on the Establishment of the International Organization for Mediation, the number of signatory and acceding States has expanded to 48, including 18 formal contracting parties.

Over the past year, operating from its headquarters in Hong Kong, IOMed has successfully administered and resolved multiple complex cross-border commercial disputes, earning extensive praise from disputing parties. Amid the ongoing evolution of multi-tiered dispute resolution mechanisms, the systematic synergy and coordination between international mediation, commercial arbitration, and court litigation represents an increasingly vital trend across international ADR, offering global market participants flexible, cost-effective, and enforceable recourse while reinforcing Hong Kong's position as a premier international legal and dispute resolution hub.

AIAC Hosts Asia ADR Week 2026: Spotlighting 2026 Arbitration Rules and Digital Procedural Innovations

From October 12 to 16, 2026, Asia ADR Week 2026, organized by the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC), was successfully held in Kuala Lumpur. Centering on the modernization and synergy of international dispute resolution mechanisms, the conference brought together international arbitrators, judicial authorities, dispute practitioners, and corporate counsels from across the Asia-Pacific region and beyond.

A focal point of the event was a detailed examination of the newly implemented AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026. Panelists engaged in comparative discussions on key procedural updates, including expedited timelines, early determination mechanisms, disclosure frameworks for third-party funding, institutionalized virtual/hybrid proceedings, and enhanced emergency arbitrator relief. Discussions emphasized that, amid shifts in global trade architecture and supply chain realignment, leading arbitral institutions across the Asia-Pacific are progressively aligning procedural efficiency and transparency with premier international benchmarks to meet the evolving needs of cross-border commerce.

Changsha Intermediate People's Court:

Where Arbitration Costs in a Prepaid Consumer Contract Far Exceed the Disputed Amount, Constituting an Unreasonable Increase in the Consumer's Enforcement Costs, the Standard Arbitration Clause Is Void

Legal Basis:

"Civil Code of the People's Republic of China"

Article 497

A standard clause shall be void under any of the following circumstances: ... (2) the party providing the standard clause unreasonably exempts itself from or mitigates its liabilities, aggravates the liabilities of the counterparty, or restricts the major rights of the counterparty;

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

Article 31

Where the parties have a dispute over the validity of the arbitration agreement, they may request the arbitration institution or arbitral tribunal to make a decision, or request the people's court to make a ruling. Where one party requests the arbitration institution or arbitral tribunal to make a decision and the other party requests the people's court to make a ruling, the people's court shall make the ruling.

A party raising a dispute over the validity of the arbitration agreement shall do so before the first hearing of the arbitral tribunal.

Case Description：

On January 27, 2026, Ou (the Applicant) executed the AceOffer Job Hunting VIP Launch Program – Central and State-Owned Enterprise Final-Offer Comprehensive Training Project Service Agreement with a career consulting company (the Respondent) via an online platform (signed on Ou's behalf by his mother). The agreement provided that the Respondent would deliver online job-seeking mentorship services for a fee of RMB 14,800. A dispute subsequently arose regarding fee refunds. On April 11, 2026, Ou lodged a complaint through the 12315 consumer platform. On June 12, 2026, the local market supervision authority terminated mediation due to the Respondent's express refusal to submit to administrative mediation, advising the parties to pursue judicial relief.  

On June 21, 2026, Ou filed a lawsuit before the Yuhua District People's Court of Changsha, which dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction citing the arbitration clause in the contract.

On June 28, Ou petitioned the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People's Court for a declaration of invalidity, but was directed to file in the proper forum. Ou then petitioned the Changsha Intermediate People's Court—the court of the place where the arbitration agreement was executed and where the Applicant resides.

Article 12(2) of the agreement stipulated: "Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be submitted to the Beijing Arbitration Commission / Beijing International Arbitration Center (BAC/BIAC) for arbitration in accordance with its arbitral rules. The arbitral award is final and binding on both parties." Ou asserted that: the clause was a standard clause pre-drafted by the Respondent without reasonable notice; while Ou claimed a refund of RMB 13,000, the Respondent had acknowledged willingness to refund RMB 7,380, leaving the substantive amount in dispute at only RMB 5,620; whereas under BAC's prevailing schedule of fees, the advance arbitration fee for claims under RMB 250,000 amounted to RMB 17,000—substantially exceeding the dispute amount and constituting an unreasonable increase in rights protection costs rendering the clause void under judicial interpretations. The Respondent contended that the arbitration clause met all statutory requirements of validity, reflected genuine party autonomy, and that advance fees were merely provisional and subject to reallocation in the final award, meaning the clause neither aggravated liabilities nor constituted an invalid standard clause.

Court's View:

Upon review, the court held that the subject Service Agreement was a prepaid consumer contract provided by the Respondent for repeated use and executed with a consumer, rather than a commercial contract between equal commercial entities. The Respondent failed to provide evidence demonstrating that it had engaged in meaningful negotiations with Ou regarding the dispute resolution clause at the time of contracting. Consequently, the arbitration clause constituted a standard clause as a matter of law.  

Pursuant to Article 497(2) of the Civil Code of the PRC and Article 9(6) of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes over Prepaid Consumption, where a standard clause provided by a business operator unreasonably restricts the counterparty's primary rights or where the agreed dispute resolution method unreasonably increases the consumer's costs of rights protection, such clause is void. While arbitration is fundamentally rooted in consensual dispute resolution, business operators incorporating institutional arbitration into standard-form consumer contracts must adhere to the principle of fairness and refrain from substantively impeding consumer redress.

In this case, the disputed refund amount was merely RMB 5,620. If required to initiate arbitration before the BAC in Beijing pursuant to the clause, the consumer would be required to advance RMB 17,000 in arbitration fees—more than three times the substantive claim—while incurring additional travel and time costs to litigate across provincial borders. This imposed an onerous financial and procedural hurdle on the consumer's right to seek remedies, presenting a textbook scenario of "unreasonably increasing the consumer's costs of rights protection." Therefore, the arbitration clause unreasonably restricted the consumer's fundamental right to relief and was legally invalid. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 31 of the Arbitration Law of the PRC and Article 9(6) of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes over Prepaid Consumption  the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Prepaid Consumer Civil Disputes, the court ruled to confirm the invalidity of the arbitration agreement set out in Article 12(2) of the subject agreement.

Xiamen Maritime Court:

Arbitration Clause Providing for Arbitration in "Singapore or Hong Kong" Under ICC Rules Is Valid Following Institutional Determination of the Seat

Case Description：

On August 28, 2025, Dejing entered into a Repair Contract with Subsea, whereby Subsea was engaged to provide underwater repair services for the vessel "Huaxia Kunpeng 01" managed by Dejing. Clause 15 of the contract contained an arbitration agreement stipulating: "All disputes arising between the Customer and the Supplier, failing amicable resolution, shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration by a sole arbitrator in Singapore or Hong Kong (or any other mutually agreed location) under the then applicable Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). The arbitration shall be conducted in English."

Disputes subsequently arose out of the contract. On March 30, 2026, Subsea initiated arbitration before the International Court of Arbitration of the ICC pursuant to Clause 15. Dejing subsequently applied to the Xiamen Maritime Court seeking a declaration that the arbitration clause was void. Dejing argued that: first, the alternative designation of "Singapore or Hong Kong" alongside an open-ended "other location" rendered the seat of arbitration indefinite; second, the clause merely referenced the ICC Arbitration Rules without expressly naming the arbitral institution; and third, the governing law applicable to the arbitration agreement was ambiguous.

The core issues were: the determination of the governing law (lex arbitri) applicable to the validity of the foreign-related arbitration agreement, and the substantive legal validity of the clause under that applicable law.

Court's View：

Upon review, the Xiamen Maritime Court held that the subject arbitration clause was legally valid and dismissed Dejing's application accordingly:

1. Determination of Governing Law Applicable to the Arbitration Agreement

The parties did not expressly select the governing law of the arbitration agreement. Pursuant to Article 18 of the Law of the PRC on Choice of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relations, absent such choice, the law of the seat of arbitration or the law of the arbitral institution applies. The arbitration was commenced on March 30, 2026, governed by the 2021 ICC Arbitration Rules. Under Article 18(1) of the ICC Rules, the place of arbitration shall be fixed by the ICC Court unless agreed upon by the parties. On June 4, 2026, the ICC Court formally fixed the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region as the seat of arbitration. Consequently, the seat of arbitration was determined to be Hong Kong, and Hong Kong law governs the validity of the arbitration agreement.

2. Validity Assessment under Hong Kong Law

The Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) is structured on the UNCITRAL Model Law, with Section 19 incorporating and giving effect to Option I of Article 7. Applying Hong Kong law: first, the clause was embodied within a written agreement signed by both parties, satisfying formal writing requirements; second, the phrase "finally resolved by arbitration" unequivocally manifested mutual intent to submit disputes to binding arbitration and exclude judicial jurisdiction; third, the scope of "all disputes arising between the Customer and the Supplier" was sufficiently identifiable; fourth, pursuant to Article 6(2) of the ICC Rules, the express choice of the ICC Rules operates as mutual agreement to ICC administration; and finally, while the alternative designation of "Singapore or Hong Kong" created initial variability, the procedural mechanism of the chosen ICC Rules conferred authority on the ICC Court to fix the seat, which had been duly exercised. Thus, it did not impair the formation or validity of the agreement. Furthermore, the governing law clause of the underlying contract does not displace the doctrine of separability.

3. Subsidiarity Review under Mainland Chinese Law

The court further noted that, even if tested under PRC law, the clause satisfied the tripartite statutory criteria set out in Article 16 of the PRC Arbitration Law—namely, an expression of intent to arbitrate, defined matters to be arbitrated, and a designated arbitral institution—and contained none of the statutory defects specified under Article 17.

Accordingly, Dejing's claim lacked factual and legal grounding, and the Xiamen Maritime Court dismissed the application and affirmed the legal validity of the arbitration clause.