April 20, 2014

China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) Secession: What It Means For International Arbitration in China

International arbitration in China before the country’s leading arbitration institution, the Beijing-based China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), may be entering a period of uncertainty and risk as a result of an internal dispute over arbitration rules, which has led the two principal sub-commissions of CIETAC to declare their independence from the parent institution.

On April 18, 2013, the CIETAC Shanghai Sub-Commission officially renamed itself the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission/Shanghai International Arbitration Center (SHIAC) ( The SHIAC has promulgated new versions of arbitration rules and a new panel of arbitrators, both of which went into effect on May 1, 2013. SHAIC has announced that, going forward, it will accept cases where there is an agreement between the parties to submit their dispute to SHIAC or the CIETAC Shanghai Commission/Shanghai Branch.

The SHIAC announcement follows the October 22, 2012 announcement by the CIETAC South China Sub-Commission, based in Shenzhen, that it was no longer affiliated with CIETAC and had changed its name to the South China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, also known as the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) ( The SCIA issued new rules which mirror the 2005 CIETAC rules as well as a new panel of arbitrators on December 1, 2012. The SCIA will accept cases where the parties have agreed to arbitrate through SCIA or CIETAC Shenzhen.

The secession of the Shanghai and Shenzhen Sub-Commissions from CIETAC is the culmination of a dispute which started in early 2012, when CIETAC introduced a new set of arbitration rules which went into effect on May 1, 2012 (the 2012 Rules). One of the changes in the 2012 Rules from the previous rules is to provide that all arbitrations would be administered by the CIETAC headquarters in Beijing in the absence of an arbitration agreement which specifically named one of the sub-commissions as the arbitration administrator. Previously, if the arbitration agreement simply stated that the dispute would be submitted to CIETAC or that the CIETAC rules would apply, the claimant was free to submit the case to one of the sub-commissions as well as CIETAC Beijing. The Shanghai and Shenzhen sub-commissions saw this new rule as demoting the sub-commissions to second class outposts and questioned its legitimacy. 

In response to their dissatisfaction with the 2012 Rules, the Shanghai and Shenzhen Sub-Commissions declared themselves to be independent arbitration commissions on April 30, 2012 and June 16, 2012, respectively. On August 1, 2012, in response to these declarations, CIETAC suspended its authorizations to the sub-commissions to accept and administer CIETAC arbitrations, directing all parties with agreements to arbitrate their disputes before CIETAC Shanghai or CIETAC Shenzhen to submit their cases to CIETAC headquarters for administration. In response, the sub-commissions issued a joint statement stating that they were now independent arbitration institutions that were established subject to the approvals of the Shanghai and Shenzhen Municipal Governments, and that their rights to accept requests for arbitration did not depend on CIETAC’s authorization.

After CIETAC Shenzhen rebranded itself as SCIA and issued new arbitration rules and a new panel of arbitrators, CIETAC announced on December 31, 2012 that this action was null and void and that CIETAC Shenzhen and Shanghai were forbidden to continue in any way or form to use the name, brand and logo of CIETAC. It also reiterated that, where parties have agreed to arbitrate their disputes before CIETAC Shanghai or CIETAC Shenzhen, the parties should submit their requests for arbitration to the CIETAC Secretariat and that only CIETAC had the authority to accept and administer such cases, although Shanghai and Shenzhen could still serve as the geographic seat and venue of the arbitration.

The conflict between CIETAC and its breakaway sub-commissions poses potential risks for parties with existing CIETAC arbitration clauses. Parties who have clauses which provide for arbitration to be administered by CIETAC Shanghai or CIETAC Shenzhen should consider amending such clauses to specify CIETAC Beijing as the arbitration administrator to remove any potential ambiguity which could render the clause invalid. Likewise, when negotiating a new arbitration clause, parties who wish to submit their disputes to CIETAC but want to conduct such arbitration in Shanghai or Shenzhen should explicitly state that CIETAC Beijing shall be the case administrator and that Shanghai or Shenzhen shall be the seat and venue of the arbitration.

©2014 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Kevin E. Stern, Commercial Litigation Attorney, Greenberg Traurig law Firm

Kevin Stern is an accomplished trial lawyer who focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation and international and commercial arbitration. His arbitration practice has a particular emphasis on investor-state arbitrations under bilateral investment treaties administered under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Kevin’s wide-ranging experience includes the prosecution and defense of claims involving contracts, intellectual property, business and personal injury torts, class actions, insurance, accounting fraud, government...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.