Recent Development and Prospects of Ad Hoc Arbitration System in Mainland China

国际商事仲裁依照仲裁机构的参与程度一般可以分为两种形式，临时仲裁和机构仲裁。临时仲裁是19世纪中叶机构仲裁出现以前唯一的国际商事仲裁组织形式，具有更加久远的历史，也具有自由度更高等在内的各种特点和优势。在机构仲裁迅速发展的背景下，临时仲裁仍具有强大的生命力，特别是在国际海事纠纷处理方面，临时仲裁仍是主流。但是，长久以来，在中国大陆（仅为本文之目的，后文如提到中国，仅包括中国大陆，不包括中国香港特别行政区、中国澳门特别行政区和中国台湾省），临时仲裁并未获得法律层面的认可。然而，随着经济全球化的发展和中国对外开放的加快，临时仲裁制度在中国的确立和发展已成为必然趋势。

International commercial arbitration can generally be divided into two forms based on the extent of arbitration institution involvement: ad hoc arbitration and institutional arbitration. Ad hoc arbitration, which existed as the sole form of international commercial arbitration before the emergence of institutional arbitration in the mid-19th century, boasts a longer history and a range of characteristics and advantages, including greater flexibility. Despite the rapid development of institutional arbitration, ad hoc arbitration continues to thrive, particularly in handling international maritime disputes where it remains the mainstream. However, for a long time, ad hoc arbitration has not been legally recognized in Mainland China (hereinafter referred to as “China,” excluding Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Macau Special Administrative Region, and Taiwan Province of China, for the purpose of this document). Nevertheless, with economic globalization and China’s accelerated opening-up, the establishment and development of an ad hoc arbitration system in China has become an inevitable trend.

本文将从中国有从国家层面推出临时仲裁制度的倾向、中国部分区域存在临时仲裁的地方立法、中国已出现临时仲裁实例和对中国临时仲裁制度的展望等四方面展开论述。具体如下。

This paper will discuss the development and prospects of ad hoc arbitration in China from four perspectives: China’s tendency to establish an ad hoc arbitration system at the national level, local legislation allowing ad hoc arbitration in some regions of China, existing instances of ad hoc arbitration in China, and prospects for the Chinese ad hoc arbitration system. The details are as follows.

一、中国有从国家层面推出临时仲裁制度的倾向

1. China’s Tendency to Establish an Ad Hoc Arbitration System at the National Level

就现行中国法律体系而言，境内的临时仲裁制度并未被肯定，反而是被否定的。现行《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第十六条明确要求仲裁协议的构成应包括“选定的仲裁委员会”这一要件，第十八条也规定“仲裁协议对仲裁事项或者仲裁委员会没有约定或者约定不明确的，当事人可以补充协议；达不成补充协议的，仲裁协议无效”，第二十一条更进一步明确规定“当事人申请仲裁应当符合下列条件:（一）有仲裁协议；（二）有具体的仲裁请求和事实、理由；（三）属于仲裁委员会的受理范围。”综上可以看出，明确约定的仲裁委员会是有效仲裁协议的前提条件，没有明确的仲裁机构，当事人是无法申请仲裁的。

Currently, the Chinese legal system does not recognize ad hoc arbitration within its territory, but rather denies it. Article 16 of the current Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China explicitly requires that the formation of an arbitration agreement must include the “selection of an arbitration committee,” while Article 18 stipulates that “if an arbitration agreement is lacking or unclear in its provisions for arbitration matters or the arbitration committee, the parties may make a supplementary agreement; failing to reach a supplementary agreement, the arbitration agreement shall be invalid.” Article 21 further clarifies that “an application for arbitration by the parties shall comply with the following conditions: (1) there is an arbitration agreement; (2) there are specific arbitration claims and facts and reasons; and (3) the matter falls within the scope of the arbitration committee’s acceptance.” It is evident that a clearly defined arbitration committee is a prerequisite for a valid arbitration agreement, and without a specified arbitration institution, parties cannot apply for arbitration.

对于不设立临时仲裁，有过的理由包括：在仲裁制度的发展史上先有临时仲裁，后有机构仲裁，从今后发展趋势看，临时仲裁趋于衰落；中国设机构仲裁的历史较短，只有机构仲裁，没有临时仲裁；现今发达的市场经济国家较为成熟的临时仲裁制度是市场经济发展到较高程度的产物，只有在信用制度发展得较为完善，并产生了一些信望素孚的专业人士的法治环境下才可能确立；目前我国市场经济秩序较为混乱，国有资产缺乏明晰的产权界定，地方政府指定贷款和指令破产逃债大量存在，失信成本过低，人们难以择定像常设仲裁机构拥有的那些足具社会公信力的仲裁员，让国家此时承认和执行临时仲裁庭作出的裁决也不现实；机构仲裁在我国目前尚处于初级发展阶段，作为“较高层次”的临时仲裁制度还不具备生存的土壤，且会对机构仲裁造成冲击；临时仲裁类似于我国的民间调解制度和民间劝和方式，我国是世界上调解制度确立最早且是调解制度最为发达的国家，无论是民间调解还是诉讼中的调解都已十分成熟，调解在我国法院的民商事司法裁判中已被广泛运用，调解观念和方式也被誉为东方经验，为许多国家所借鉴或采纳；机构仲裁并不失灵活与快捷，临时仲裁的这项优点在机构仲裁中完全可以得以发挥，我国的仲裁机构从一开始就在尝试仲裁中的调解与和解，强调程序的简易与灵活，有许多仲裁案例都是围绕上述特点加以解决的，并取得了较好社会效益；临时仲裁的进行几乎完全取决于当事人的合意，如果当事人双方不能充分合作，如不能合意选择仲裁员，仲裁就无法进行；临时仲裁裁决如果涉及侵犯社会公共利益的情况或仲裁员拖延裁决致使当事人付出不必要的费用如何处理，要不要进行实体审查等问题需要研究。（张心泉、张圣翠，《论我国临时仲裁制度的构建》，《华东政法大学学报》，2010年第4期）

The reasons given for not establishing ad hoc arbitration include: historically, institutional arbitration emerged after ad hoc arbitration, and the latter is trending towards decline; China has a short history of institutional arbitration and lacks a tradition of ad hoc arbitration; mature ad hoc arbitration systems in developed market economies are products of highly developed market economies, characterized by well-established credit systems and reputable professionals operating in a legal environment; currently, China’s market economic order is relatively chaotic, with unclear property rights definitions for state-owned assets, widespread local government-mandated loans and instructed bankruptcy debt evasion, low costs of dishonesty, and difficulties in selecting arbitrators with the same level of social credibility as permanent arbitration institutions, making it unrealistic for the state to recognize and enforce rulings made by ad hoc arbitral tribunals; institutional arbitration in China is still in its primary stage of development, and the introduction of a “higher-level” ad hoc arbitration system would not have the necessary foundation and would impact institutional arbitration negatively; ad hoc arbitration is similar to China’s mediation system and methods of mediation, which are among the earliest and most developed in the world, with both civil and litigation mediation already highly mature and widely used in civil and commercial judicial judgments in China’s courts; mediation concepts and methods are also hailed as the “Oriental Experience” and adopted or referenced by many countries; institutional arbitration is not inflexible or slow, as its advantages can be fully realized, with Chinese arbitration institutions initially exploring mediation and conciliation in arbitration, emphasizing simplicity and flexibility in procedures, solving many arbitration cases with these characteristics, and achieving significant social benefits; the conduct of ad hoc arbitration almost entirely depends on the agreement of the parties, and if the parties cannot fully cooperate, such as selecting arbitrators, arbitration cannot proceed; and issues requiring study include how to handle cases where ad hoc arbitration rulings infringe upon public interests or where arbitrators delay rulings, causing unnecessary expenses for the parties, and whether substantive reviews are necessary. (Zhang Xinquan, Zhang Shengcui, “On the Construction of China’s Ad Hoc Arbitration System”, East China University of Political Science and Law Journal, Issue 4, 2010)

但是近年来多个文件明显体现出中国从国家层面不再赞同上述理由，中国从国家层面推出临时仲裁制度的倾向日益明显。相关文件情况具体如下表所示。

However, in recent years, several documents have clearly indicated that China is no longer supportive of these reasons at the national level, and the tendency to establish an ad hoc arbitration system is increasingly evident. The relevant documents are outlined in the table below:

二、中国部分区域存在临时仲裁的地方立法

1. Some Regions in China Have Local Legislation on Ad Hoc Arbitration

与前文所述的国家层面相对应的，中国大陆有部分区域开始试验临时仲裁制度，这为临时仲裁在中国的实践建立了坚实的地方立法基础。这些实验性立法归纳如下。

Corresponding to the national level mentioned above, some regions in Chinese mainland have begun to experiment with the ad hoc arbitration system, which has established a solid foundation of local legislation for the practice of ad hoc arbitration in China. These experimental legislations are summarized as follows.

该等地方立法实际上已经尝试在构造中国具体的能落地的临时仲裁制度了。以上海为例，《上海市推进国际商事仲裁中心建设条例》《上海市涉外商事海事临时仲裁推进办法（试行）》和《上海市高级人民法院关于涉“三特定”临时仲裁及“境外仲裁业务机构”仲裁司法案件集中管辖的规定》对于临时仲裁的仲裁庭组成、仲裁程序等具体问题做了明确规定。

In fact, these local legislations have attempted to construct a specific and feasible ad hoc arbitration system in China. Taking Shanghai as an example, the “Regulations of Shanghai Municipality on Promoting the Construction of International Commercial Arbitration Center”, the “Provisional Measures of Shanghai Municipality for Promoting Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Ad Hoc Arbitration (Trial)” and the “Provisions of the Shanghai Higher People’s Court on the Centralized Jurisdiction of Judicial Cases Involving ‘Three Specifics’ Ad Hoc Arbitration and Arbitration by ‘Overseas Arbitration Business Institutions'” have made clear provisions on specific issues such as the composition of the arbitration tribunal and arbitration procedures for ad hoc arbitration.

如对于临时仲裁案件仲裁员的选定，《上海市推进国际商事仲裁中心建设条例》第五条就明确规定“当事人可以通过下列方式选定临时仲裁案件的仲裁员：（一）从上海仲裁协会公开发布的临时仲裁推荐仲裁员名录中选定；（二）从本市依法登记的仲裁机构、境外知名仲裁及争议解决机构设立的业务机构的仲裁员名册中选定。当事人还可以约定由本市依法登记的仲裁机构、境外仲裁业务机构或者请求上海仲裁协会协助，指定符合《中华人民共和国仲裁法》规定条件的人员担任临时仲裁案件的仲裁员。”

For example, regarding the selection of arbitrators for ad hoc arbitration cases, Article 5 of the “Regulations of Shanghai Municipality on Promoting the Construction of International Commercial Arbitration Center” clearly stipulates that “Parties may select arbitrators for ad hoc arbitration cases in the following ways: (1) from the list of recommended arbitrators for ad hoc arbitration publicly issued by the Shanghai Arbitration Association; (2) from the list of arbitrators of arbitration institutions legally registered in this Municipality or business institutions established by well-known overseas arbitration and dispute resolution institutions. The parties may also agree to appoint persons who meet the conditions stipulated in the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China to serve as arbitrators for ad hoc arbitration cases through arbitration institutions legally registered in this Municipality, overseas arbitration business institutions, or by requesting the Shanghai Arbitration Association to assist in the appointment.”

又如对于仲裁程序，《上海市推进国际商事仲裁中心建设条例》第六条就明确规定“第六条支持上海仲裁协会和全国性、上海市政府民政部门登记的行业协会、商会根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》《仲裁法》有关仲裁程序的规定，参考国际通行规则，制定并公开发布临时仲裁规则，供当事人约定适用。当事人也可以约定适用国际通行仲裁规则或者约定具体仲裁程序，但其约定应当能够实施。”

As for arbitration procedures, Article 6 of the same regulations clearly stipulates that “Shanghai Arbitration Association and industry associations and chambers of commerce registered with the civil affairs departments of the national and Shanghai Municipal governments are supported in formulating and publicly issuing ad hoc arbitration rules in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Arbitration Law, with reference to internationally accepted rules, for the parties to agree upon. The parties may also agree to apply internationally accepted arbitration rules or specific arbitration procedures, provided that their agreement is enforceable.”

此外，还值得注意的上海仲裁协会已经于2024年8月1日发布了非常详细的临时仲裁指引，《上海仲裁协会临时仲裁规则》。并于2024年8月2日发布了征集临时仲裁境内推荐仲裁员的公告。

It is also worth noting that the Shanghai Arbitration Association (“SAA”) has issued on 1 August 2024 very detailed ad hoc arbitration guidelines, the SAA Ad Hoc Arbitration Rules. And on 2 August 2024, SAA issued a notice of call for recommended arbitrators in ad hoc arbitrations.

毫无疑问，这些具体的能落地对于临时仲裁制度的构建尝试都将在未来中国仲裁法全面修改正式从国家层面接纳临时仲裁制度打下了坚实的地方立法基础。

Undoubtedly, these specific and feasible attempts to construct an ad hoc arbitration system will lay a solid foundation of local legislation for the future comprehensive revision of China’s Arbitration Law to formally accept the ad hoc arbitration system at the national level.

三、中国已出现临时仲裁实例

III. Instances of Ad Hoc Arbitration Have Emerged in China

无独有偶，中国大陆目前也已经出现了四例临时仲裁实际案例，从实际案例的角度开始给未来中国仲裁法全面修改正式从国家层面接纳临时仲裁制度打下了坚实的案例基础。具体情况如下。

Coincidentally, China has also witnessed four actual cases of ad hoc arbitration, which have laid a solid foundation of cases for the future comprehensive revision of China’s Arbitration Law to formally accept the ad hoc arbitration system at the national level from a practical perspective. The specific situations are as follows:

（一）中国海事仲裁委作为指定机构提供必要管理服务的首起临时仲裁案件

(I) The First Ad Hoc Arbitration Case with Necessary Management Services Provided by China Maritime Arbitration Commission as the Appointing Authority

2023年8月15日，中国海事仲裁委员会在其官网发布《临时仲裁第一案审结 脱敏裁决已依约公开》一文。据该文介绍，6月30日，中国海仲作为指定机构提供必要管理服务的首起临时仲裁案件顺利审结，脱敏裁决已根据当事人约定公开。

On August 15, 2023, the China Maritime Arbitration Commission (CMAC) published an article titled “The First Ad Hoc Arbitration Case Concluded, and the Desensitized Award Has Been Publicly Disclosed as Agreed” on its official website. According to the article, on June 30, the first ad hoc arbitration case with necessary management services provided by CMAC as the appointing authority was successfully concluded, and the desensitized award was publicly disclosed in accordance with the agreement of the parties.

案件涉及一起跨境合作协议纠纷，申请人为中国内地居民，被申请人为中国香港公司。双方约定合作开展为内地大学生赴香港研究生留学提供资讯、培训服务。双方因合作协议的履行产生争议。本案合作协议“争议解决”条款明确约定：“因本协议引起或与本协议有关的一切争议，双方同意以仲裁方式解决，适用《中国海商法协会临时仲裁规则》。”“仲裁庭由一名仲裁员组成，仲裁语言为中文，仲裁协议准据法为香港仲裁法，开庭地点山东青岛。”“本协议适用《中华人民共和国民法典》为实体法，指定机构为中国海事仲裁委员会或中国海事仲裁委员会青岛仲裁中心。”“仲裁裁决为终局性裁决，双方同意仲裁裁决在进行脱密处理后，可以由指定机构以适当方式公开。”

The case involved a dispute over a cross-border cooperation agreement between an applicant who was a mainland Chinese resident and a respondent who was a Hong Kong company. The two parties agreed to cooperate in providing information and training services for mainland Chinese students studying for graduate degrees in Hong Kong. A dispute arose due to the implementation of the cooperation agreement. The “Dispute Resolution” clause of the cooperation agreement clearly stipulated that “all disputes arising from or relating to this agreement shall be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the CMAC Interim Arbitration Rules.” “The arbitration tribunal shall consist of one arbitrator, the arbitration language shall be Chinese, the governing law of the arbitration agreement shall be the Arbitration Ordinance of Hong Kong, and the hearing venue shall be Qingdao, Shandong Province.” “This agreement shall apply the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China as substantive law, and the appointing authority shall be the CMAC or the CMAC Qingdao Arbitration Center.” “The arbitration award shall be final, and both parties agree that after de-sensitization, the arbitration award may be made public by the appointing authority in an appropriate manner.”

根据上述约定，申请人按照《海协临时仲裁规则》规定，于2022年9月21日向被申请人发送“仲裁通知书”，被申请人签署确认，仲裁程序自此开始。在仲裁程序中，由于双方当事人未能就仲裁员的选定达成一致意见，双方共同申请由中国海仲为本案指定一名仲裁员，成立仲裁庭，进行审理。根据双方当事人约定及《海协临时仲裁规则》《中国海仲临时仲裁服务规则》规定，中国海仲为该案指定一名仲裁员，成立仲裁庭。此后案件程序全部由仲裁庭依据《海协临时仲裁规则》主持进行。仲裁庭于2023年4月13日在中国海仲青岛仲裁中心开庭审理本案，5月5日作出仲裁审理程序终止决定，6月30日作出仲裁裁决。

Based on the above agreement, the applicant sent a “Notice of Arbitration” to the respondent on September 21, 2022 in accordance with the CMAC Interim Arbitration Rules, and the respondent signed and confirmed it, thereby initiating the arbitration proceedings. During the arbitration proceedings, as the parties failed to reach an agreement on the selection of the arbitrator, they jointly applied to CMAC to appoint an arbitrator for this case and establish an arbitration tribunal to conduct the hearing. According to the agreement of the parties and the provisions of the CMAC Interim Arbitration Rules and the CMAC Provisional Arbitration Service Rules, CMAC appointed an arbitrator for this case and established an arbitration tribunal. After that, all procedures of the case were conducted by the arbitration tribunal in accordance with the CMAC Interim Arbitration Rules. The arbitration tribunal held a hearing in the CMAC Qingdao Arbitration Center on April 13, 2023, made a decision to terminate the arbitration proceedings on May 5, and rendered the arbitration award on June 30.

作为境内首起适用《海协临时仲裁规则》的案件，其临时仲裁条款的效力备受关注。仲裁庭专此在裁决书中予以论述。仲裁庭从案件涉港纠纷的性质出发，依据双方当事人未明确约定仲裁地的事实，根据《海协临时仲裁规则》有关“仲裁地”的规定，考虑到申请人住址、涉争议租赁房屋，以及双方当事人约定的开庭地均位于山东省青岛市，首先确定案件仲裁地为中国青岛，明确案件仲裁程序适用仲裁地法即中国内地仲裁法律规定；继而根据《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》以及《最高人民法院关于审理仲裁司法审查案件若干问题的规定》有关“当事人可以选择约定涉外仲裁协议的准据法”的规定，依据双方当事人明确约定仲裁协议的准据法为香港仲裁法的事实，认定本案临时仲裁条款合法有效。

As the first case in China to apply the CMAC Interim Arbitration Rules, the validity of its ad hoc arbitration clause attracted much attention. The arbitration tribunal specifically addressed this issue in the award. Starting from the nature of the dispute involving Hong Kong, the arbitration tribunal, based on the fact that the parties did not explicitly agree on the place of arbitration and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the CMAC Interim Arbitration Rules regarding the “place of arbitration,” considered that the applicant’s residence, the disputed leased premises, and the agreed venue of the hearing were all located in Qingdao, Shandong Province, and first determined that the place of arbitration for the case was Qingdao, China. It then clarified that the arbitration procedures for the case would apply the arbitration laws of the Mainland China as the law of the place of arbitration. Furthermore, in accordance with the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Application of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relations and the relevant provisions of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Judicial Review of Arbitration Cases, which allow parties to choose the applicable law for foreign-related arbitration agreements, the arbitration tribunal recognized the validity of the ad hoc arbitration clause in this case based on the fact that the parties had explicitly agreed that the governing law of the arbitration agreement was the Arbitration Ordinance of Hong Kong.

此外，作为指定机构提供必要管理服务的临时仲裁第一案，中国海仲在案件程序中的地位和作用亦受到业界关注。本案中，中国海仲作为当事人约定的指定机构，仅在双方当事人提出申请时，为本案指定仲裁员，成立仲裁庭，并未进行其他程序管理。在临时仲裁中，中国海仲作为指定机构不对仲裁进行全程管理，仅根据当事人的请求提供指定仲裁员、决定仲裁员回避以及进行案件财务管理、提供仲裁庭秘书服务等一项或多项特定的管理服务，以确保程序正义，保障临时仲裁顺利进行。

In addition, as the first case of ad hoc arbitration that provides necessary management services by a designated institution, the status and role of China Maritime Arbitration Commission (“CMAC”) in the case procedure have also attracted the attention of the industry. In this case, CMAC, as the designated institution agreed upon by the parties, only designated arbitrators for the case and established an arbitral tribunal upon the application of both parties, without conducting other procedural management. In ad hoc arbitration, CMAC, as the designated institution, does not manage the entire arbitration process, but only provides one or more specific management services such as appointing arbitrators, deciding the withdrawal of arbitrators, conducting case financial management, and providing secretarial services to the arbitral tribunal upon the request of the parties, to ensure procedural justice and the smooth progress of ad hoc arbitration.

（二）海南自由贸易港临时仲裁案件

(II) Ad Hoc Arbitration Case in Hainan Free Trade Port

2024年7月15日，《海南日报》发表题为《<海南自由贸易港国际商事仲裁发展若干规定>落地见效——我国首个临时仲裁案件在海南开庭》的新闻。据该新闻介绍，7月15日，在海南自由贸易港注册的两家企业之间合同纠纷一案，在海南省仲裁协会的协助下组成临时仲裁庭开庭审理。该案是依据《海南自由贸易港国际商事仲裁发展若干规定》，在海南审理的我国首例临时仲裁案件。

On July 15, 2024, Hainan Daily published a news titled “Several Provisions on the Development of International Commercial Arbitration in Hainan Free Trade Port Come into Effect – China’s First Ad Hoc Arbitration Case Heard in Hainan”. According to the news, on July 15, a contract dispute between two enterprises registered in Hainan Free Trade Port was heard by a temporary arbitral tribunal formed with the assistance of Hainan Arbitration Association. This case is the first ad hoc arbitration case heard in Hainan in accordance with the “Several Provisions on the Development of International Commercial Arbitration in Hainan Free Trade Port”.

本次开庭审理的临时仲裁案件，是当事人双方在合同履行过程中发生争议、僵持不下时，了解到《海南自由贸易港国际商事仲裁发展若干规定》有关临时仲裁的内容，从而自愿选择以临时仲裁方式解决有关纠纷。该起案件的审理，是海南仲裁新规落地的一次重要实践。海南省仲裁协会作为本案临时仲裁的指定机构，依据当事人的约定，提供庭审场地设施、仲裁庭秘书等必要的协助服务，保障了临时仲裁的顺利进行。

The temporary arbitration case heard this time was voluntarily chosen by both parties to resolve the dispute through ad hoc arbitration after they became aware of the relevant provisions on ad hoc arbitration in the “Several Provisions on the Development of International Commercial Arbitration in Hainan Free Trade Port” when they were at loggerheads during the performance of the contract. The hearing of this case represents an important practice of the implementation of the new arbitration regulations in Hainan. Hainan Arbitration Association, as the designated institution for this ad hoc arbitration, provided necessary assistance services such as courtroom facilities and arbitral tribunal secretarial services in accordance with the agreement of the parties, ensuring the smooth progress of the ad hoc arbitration.

（三）上海涉外海事临时仲裁案件

(III) A Foreign Related Maritime Ad Hoc Arbitration Case in Shanghai

2024年8月2日，上观新闻发表题为《全国首例涉外海事临时仲裁案件在上海作出裁决》的新闻。据该新闻介绍，近日，两家在上海市注册的企业为尽快解决国际航线船员管理服务合同履行过程中的争议，遵照国际海事争议解决习惯，按照上海市制定实施的有关临时仲裁规定，共同约定在上海进行仲裁。该案系全国首例涉外海事临时仲裁案件。

On 2 August 2024, Shanghai Observer published a news article entitled “The First Foreign-Related Maritime Ad Hoc Arbitration Case Awarded in Shanghai”. According to the news, recently, two enterprises registered in Shanghai for the purpose of resolving disputes in the course of the performance of the international route crew management service contract as soon as possible, in compliance with the international maritime dispute resolution practices, in accordance with the relevant interim arbitration provisions formulated and implemented by Shanghai, jointly agreed to arbitrate in Shanghai. The case is the country’s first foreign maritime ad hoc arbitration case.

经了解，两家企业在纠纷发生后达成仲裁协议，约定以上海为仲裁地、虹口北外滩为开庭地，自主约定了具体仲裁程序，共同选定了一名在国际航运领域具有较高知名度和影响力的专家担任仲裁员。之后，一方当事人提出仲裁申请，仲裁庭组成后，按照约定的仲裁程序，经开庭审理后作出了对双方当事人具有法律约束力的终局裁决。

It was understood that the two enterprises reached an arbitration agreement after the dispute arose, agreeing to take Shanghai as the place of arbitration and the Hongkou North Bund as the place of hearing, independently agreeing on the specific arbitration procedures, and jointly selecting an expert with high reputation and influence in the field of international shipping to act as an arbitrator. Subsequently, one of the parties filed an application for arbitration, and the arbitral tribunal was constituted and, in accordance with the agreed arbitration procedures, rendered a final and legally binding award to both parties after hearing the case.

（四）首例外方当事人申请在华进行临时仲裁案

(IV) First Case That A Foreign Party Applied for Ad Hoc Arbitration in China

2024年8月16日，上海市人民政府官网发表题为《全国首例外方当事人申请在华进行临时仲裁案浦东签约》的新闻。据该新闻介绍，8月15日下午，英国某知名行业协会与浦东某航运公司签署了临时仲裁协议，该案正式进入仲裁程序。从开始了解上海临时仲裁规则，到签署协议，双方仅用时15天。

On 16 August 2024, the official website of the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government published a news item entitled “Pudong Signing of the First Foreign Party Application for Ad Hoc Arbitration in China”. According to the news, A prominent UK industry association and a Shanghai-based shipping company in Pudong New Area have entered into a provisional arbitration agreement on Aug 15, marking the first instance of a foreign party seeking provisional arbitration in China. From the beginning of the understanding of the Shanghai ad hoc arbitration rules to the signing of the agreement, the two parties spent only 15 days.

双方最初计划根据伦敦国际仲裁院（LCIA）的规则解决争议，但后来迅速过渡到上海仲裁协会的临时仲裁规则、中国法律以及在上海进行仲裁。这一转变是出于成本效益和便利性的考虑，凸显了国际争端解决方法不断变化的偏好。

Initially planning to resolve disputes under the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) rules, the two parties swiftly transitioned to the Shanghai Arbitration Associations provisional arbitration rules, Chinese law, and arbitration in Shanghai. This shift, made in consideration of cost efficiency and expediency, highlights the evolving preferences in international dispute resolution methods.

四、对中国临时仲裁制度的展望

1. Prospects of Ad Hoc Arbitration System in China

中国临时仲裁制度从地方立法和实际案例的不断尝试体现了中国对争取国际商业争议解决中心的不懈努力和完善自身商事法律体系的坚定决心。也反映了中国更加开放、包容，以适应全球贸易的日益复杂需求的现实主义态度。相信在不久的将来，中国将基于地方立法和实际案例的实效，从国家层面正式立法接纳临时仲裁制度。

China’s ad hoc arbitration system, through continuous attempts in local legislation and actual cases, demonstrates China’s unremitting efforts to become an international center for commercial dispute resolution and its firm determination to improve its own commercial legal system. It also reflects China’s more open and inclusive attitude to adapt to the increasingly complex needs of global trade. It is believed that in the near future, China will formally legislate to accept the ad hoc arbitration system at the national level based on the effectiveness of local legislation and actual cases.

文章贡献者:

Article contributors:

上海市联合律师事务所 汪丰、汪雪、何隽铭

Feng Won, Brenda Wang and Junming HE, Shanghai United Law Firm

律所实习生陈诗瑶对本文亦有贡献。

Elly Chen, Intern of Shanghai United Law Firm, also contributed to this article.

如您对本文或与中国相关的仲裁有任何想法，欢迎向hejunming@unitedlawfirm.com发送邮件。

Should you have any thoughts on this article or China-related arbitration, please feel free to send emails to hejunming@unitedlawfirm.com.