- The New York Convention has applied in mainland China since 22 April 1987, subject to China’s reciprocity reservation and commercial reservation.
《纽约公约》自1987年4月22日起在中国内地施行，并受中国作出的互惠保留与商事保留两项声明的约束。- The seat of arbitration—not the institution’s nationality, the hearing place, or the rules’ governing law—is the sole test of an award’s nationality.
仲裁地——而非仲裁机构国籍、开庭地或仲裁规则所适用法域——是判定裁决国籍的唯一标准。- Awards seated in mainland China are domestic; awards from the Hong Kong SAR or Macao SAR follow special mutual-enforcement arrangements, not the Convention.
仲裁地位于中国内地的裁决为内国裁决；中国香港特别行政区、中国澳门特别行政区作出的裁决依专项相互执行安排处理，而非《纽约公约》。- File with the intermediate people’s court at the debtor’s domicile or where its property is located; the limitation period is two years under the Civil Procedure Law.
应向被执行人住所地或财产所在地的中级人民法院提出申请；依《民事诉讼法》申请期间为两年。- Non-compliant documents are not accepted: submit the original award or certified copy, the arbitration agreement, and a certified Chinese translation.
材料不合规将不予受理：须提交裁决正本或经证明副本、仲裁协议，以及经认证的中文译本。- Article V of the Convention exhaustively lists the only grounds for refusal, and they are narrowly construed in favour of enforcement.
《纽约公约》第五条穷尽列举了拒绝承认与执行的唯一事由，且应作有利于执行的严格限缩解释。- Any proposed refusal must be escalated through the cascade reporting system to the Supreme People’s Court before a rejection can be issued.
凡拟不予承认执行的，均须通过逐级报核制度层报最高人民法院，方可作出驳回裁定。
Recognizing and Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards in Mainland China: A Practical Guide under the New York Convention | 外国仲裁裁决在中国内地的承认与执行实操：《纽约公约》项下实务指引
The New York Convention and China’s Two Reservations
The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”) entered into force for China on 22 April 1987, after China’s accession on 2 December 1986. It remains the cornerstone of cross-border award enforcement in mainland China, and China made two declarations every foreign investor should understand before drafting a dispute clause.
First, the reciprocity reservation: China applies the Convention only to awards made in the territory of another Contracting State, so an award from a non-Contracting State cannot be enforced through the Convention and would need a different, less certain basis.
Second, the commercial reservation: China applies the Convention only to disputes arising from legal relationships, contractual or not, considered commercial under Chinese law; non-commercial disputes fall outside it. In short, seat the arbitration in a Contracting State and ensure the dispute is commercial under Chinese law.
How the Nationality of an Award Is Determined: The Seat Rule
A recurring source of confusion is whether an award is “foreign” for New York Convention purposes. Chinese courts apply a single, exclusive test—the seat of arbitration (仲裁地); the institution’s nationality, the hearing place, and the governing law of the rules are all irrelevant.
If the seat is in mainland China, the award is a domestic award and the Convention does not apply; enforcement follows the ordinary route under the Arbitration Law and the Civil Procedure Law. If the seat is outside mainland China and in a Contracting State, the award is a “foreign award” enforceable under the Convention. Thus an award by a foreign institution (such as the ICC or SIAC) seated in mainland China is still domestic, while a Chinese institution’s award seated abroad is, for enforcement purposes, foreign. This seat-based test guards against forum-shopping and aligns with the “delocalised” nature of international arbitration, though a clause that fixes the seat ambiguously can still trigger a costly nationality dispute.
Awards Excluded from the New York Convention
Three categories fall outside the New York Convention in China:
- Awards seated in mainland China — enforced as domestic awards.
- Awards made in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China or the Macao Special Administrative Region of China — enforced under the special mutual-enforcement arrangements with the two Special Administrative Regions, not the Convention. The mainland-Hong Kong arrangement (2000, supplemented 2019) and the mainland-Macao arrangement (2007) apply.
- Awards made in the Taiwan region of China — handled through the cross-strait judicial mutual-assistance framework rather than the Convention.
The Convention and these arrangements are mutually exclusive; choosing the correct channel at the outset determines the court, procedure, and limitation period.
Where to File: Jurisdiction of the Intermediate People’s Court
Applications are heard by an intermediate people’s court (中级人民法院) at the domicile of the person subjected to enforcement (the debtor) or where its property is located; where property spans multiple jurisdictions, the applicant may choose among the courts with property jurisdiction.
Before filing, map the debtor’s registered address, place of business, and bank accounts, equity, and real estate in mainland China; a court lacking both domicile and assets in its territory has no jurisdiction, and the application will be transferred or rejected.
The Two-Year Time Limit
The application is subject to the two-year limitation under the Civil Procedure Law. The starting point follows the award: from the last day of a fixed performance period, from each installment’s last day if installments are specified, or from the award’s effective date if no period is fixed.
Crucially, the limitation is a defence the debtor may raise; the court does not examine it on its own motion. Parties should still file promptly: once the period lapses the right to apply is effectively lost, and early filing preserves the ability to seek property preservation in mainland China.
Documents You Must Prepare
Under the Supreme People’s Court’s 1987 notice and later practice, the applicant must submit:
- a written application;
- the original award or a duly certified copy;
- the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy; and
- a Chinese translation of the award and the arbitration agreement, certified by an entity qualified to provide translation.
The translation requirement is strict: foreign-language materials must carry a Chinese translation. If the documents are incomplete or non-compliant, the court will not accept the application; it will notify the applicant to cure the defects within a prescribed period, and if they are not cured the application is rejected. Getting the paperwork right the first time is decisive.
Grounds for Refusal under Article V
The New York Convention is pro-enforcement: Article V exhaustively lists the grounds on which a court may—but need not—refuse recognition and enforcement, and they are construed narrowly:
(a) incapacity of a party, or invalidity of the arbitration agreement under the law applicable to it; (b) the party was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present its case; (c) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by, or beyond the scope of, the submission to arbitration (if the separable part can be enforced, only that part is refused); (d) the composition of the arbitral authority or the procedure was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement or, failing such agreement, with the law of the seat; (e) the award has not yet become binding, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, it was made.
In addition, recognition and enforcement may be refused if the subject matter is not arbitrable under Chinese law, or if it would be contrary to China’s public policy. Chinese courts apply the public-policy exception restrictively, confining it to the most fundamental principles and basic social interests of Chinese law, and not as a general escape hatch for dissatisfied debtors.
The Cascade Reporting and Approval System
The most distinctive feature of award enforcement in China is the cascade reporting and approval system (逐级报核制度). Because local courts once showed protectionist tendencies toward local debtors, the Supreme People’s Court requires any intermediate court proposing to refuse recognition or enforcement of a foreign award to report first to the Higher People’s Court; if the High Court agrees, it must report further to the Supreme People’s Court, whose decision binds the lower courts. A refusal cannot be issued without that authorisation.
For domestic (non-foreign-related) arbitration judicial-review matters, the Supreme People’s Court later streamlined the reporting level: such cases are reported only to the Higher People’s Court, without Supreme People’s Court approval. The foreign-award track, by contrast, retains the full two-tier escalation to the Supreme People’s Court.
How the Supreme People’s Court Unifies Review Standards
To curb inconsistency across localities, the Supreme People’s Court has deployed several instruments:
- The Minutes of the National Courts’ Forum on Foreign-Related Commercial and Maritime Trial Work (《全国法院涉外商事海事审判工作座谈会会议纪要》), consolidating judicial views on recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards.
- Guiding Cases (指导性案例) on arbitration, binding lower courts and showing how Article V defences apply.
- The bilingual Annual Report on Judicial Review of International Commercial Arbitration in China, publishing representative cases with English and Chinese reasoning.
- The inclusion of 24 Chinese New York Convention cases in the UNCITRAL CLOUT (Case Law on UNCITRAL Texts) database.
Together these measures raise predictability and weaken the old local-protectionist route for a debtor’s Article V objection.
A Practical Checklist for Foreign-Invested Enterprises
For a foreign-invested enterprise that may enforce or resist a foreign award in mainland China, the following steps improve outcomes.
- Draft the arbitration clause for the enforcement stage. Fix the seat in a New York Convention Contracting State, name a neutral institution, and avoid ambiguous seat language. The seat—not the institution or the rules—decides whether the Convention applies.
- Pre-set a service address and keep records. Build a clear service address and a reliable notice channel into the contract and the proceeding, and preserve every dispatch. A clean record defeats the “no proper notice” defence before it is raised.
- Map assets and time your preservation. Before and during arbitration, identify the debtor’s bank accounts, equity, and real property in mainland China. Chinese courts have, in practice, granted interim property preservation in support of foreign-seated arbitration; applying early can freeze assets before the award is final.
- Use the settlement window. Between the award and enforcement—and even during recognition proceedings—a structured settlement is sometimes more valuable than contested enforcement against an asset-poor debtor.
Related Reading
See CIETAC international arbitration (No. 40), the Supreme People’s Court and CICC (No. 185), and the 2026 Arbitration Law revision (No. 166).
外国仲裁裁决在中国内地的承认与执行实操：《纽约公约》项下实务指引
《纽约公约》与中国两项保留
《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》（以下简称”《纽约公约》”）于1987年4月22日对中国正式施行（中国于1986年12月2日加入）。它至今仍是中国内地跨境仲裁裁决承认与执行的基石；中国加入时作出的两项声明，外资企业拟定争议条款前须充分理解。
第一项是互惠保留：中国仅对另一缔约国领土内作出的裁决适用《纽约公约》予以承认和执行，非缔约国境内作出的裁决无法经该公约在中国内地执行，而须依赖其他（且确定性更低的）基础。
第二项是商事保留：中国仅对按照中国法律认定为契约性或非契约性商事法律关系所引起的争议适用《纽约公约》，非商事事项被排除在外。简而言之，将仲裁地设于缔约国，并确保基础争议具有商事性质。
裁决国籍的判定标准：仲裁地规则
一个反复造成混淆的问题是：一项裁决在《纽约公约》意义上究竟是否”外国裁决”。中国法院采用唯一且排他性的判断标准——仲裁地（seat）；仲裁机构的国籍、开庭地所在国、仲裁规则所适用法域，均与裁决国籍的判定无关。
如果仲裁地位于中国内地，该裁决被视为内国裁决，《纽约公约》不予适用，其执行遵循《仲裁法》与《民事诉讼法》的普通内国路径。如果仲裁地位于中国内地境外且属于某一缔约国，则该裁决为可据《纽约公约》执行的”外国裁决”。由此推之：一家外国机构（例如国际商会 ICC 或新加坡国际仲裁中心 SIAC）作出但仲裁地设在中国内地的裁决，仍属内国裁决；而一家中国机构但在境外设仲裁地作出的裁决，在执行意义上反而是外国裁决。这一以仲裁地为核心的判断标准，既防范当事人挑选法院，也契合国际仲裁”非本地化”的普遍理解；但对仲裁地约定模糊的条款，仍可能在执行阶段引发成本高昂的国籍争议。
被排除在《纽约公约》之外的裁决
有三类裁决不属于《纽约公约》的适用范围：
- 仲裁地位于中国内地的裁决——作为内国裁决执行。
- 在中国香港特别行政区或中国澳门特别行政区作出的裁决——依据内地与两个特别行政区之间的专项相互执行安排执行，而非《纽约公约》。内地与香港特区的安排（2000年订立，2019年补充）以及内地与澳门特区的安排（2007年）适用。
- 在中国台湾地区作出的裁决——通过两岸司法互助框架处理，而非《纽约公约》。
《纽约公约》与这些专项安排相互排斥；在起点选对渠道，决定了由哪一家法院、适用何种程序以及何种时效。
管辖法院：中级人民法院
承认与执行外国仲裁裁决的申请，由被执行人住所地或者被执行财产所在地的中级人民法院管辖。当财产分布于多个管辖区域时，申请人可在有财产管辖权的法院中择一提出申请。
实践中，提起申请前应摸清债务人的登记地址、主要营业地，以及位于中国内地的银行账户、股权与不动产。一家辖区内既无财产又无住所的法院将欠缺管辖权，申请会被移送或驳回。
两年的申请期间
承认与执行外国裁决的申请，受《民事诉讼法》两年期间约束。起算点取决于裁决内容：确定履行期限的，自履行期限届满之日起算；分期履行的，自每次履行期限届满之日起算；未确定履行期限的，自裁决生效之日起算。
关键在于，该期间是债务人可提出的抗辩，法院并不会在立案阶段依职权主动审查。尽管如此，当事人仍应及时提出申请：一旦期间届满，申请权实际上即告丧失；及早申请也保留了就债务人位于中国内地的财产申请保全的可能。
必须准备好的文件
根据最高人民法院1987年实施意见及后续实践，申请人应当提交：
- 书面申请；
- 裁决正本或者经证明无误的副本；
- 仲裁协议正本或者经证明无误的副本；
- 裁决书与仲裁协议的中文译本，且译本须由具备资质的翻译机构认证。
翻译要求十分严格：以外文提交的材料必须附具中文译本。若材料不齐全或不符合要求，法院将不予受理，并通知申请人在指定期限内补正；逾期未补正的，申请将被驳回。因此，第一次就把文书备齐备对，具有决定性意义。
《纽约公约》第五条的抗辩事由
《纽约公约》以支持执行为基调：第五条穷尽列举了法院”可以”（而非”必须”）拒绝承认与执行的事由，且应作严格限缩解释：
(a) 当事人无行为能力，或仲裁协议依其应适用的法律无效； (b) 被申请人未获关于指派仲裁员或仲裁程序的适当通知，或因其他缘故未能申辩； (c) 裁决处理的争议非提交仲裁的标的，或超出提交仲裁的范围（可分离部分仍可执行的，仅该部分被拒绝）； (d) 仲裁庭的组成或仲裁程序与当事人约定不符，或在无约定时与仲裁地法不符； (e) 裁决尚未对当事人发生拘束力，或已被作出裁决的国家或依其法律作出裁决的国家的主管机关撤销或中止。
此外，若争议事项依中国法不可仲裁，或承认与执行将违背中国公共政策，亦可拒绝。中国法院对公共政策例外作限制解释，仅将其局限于中国法律最根本的原则与基本社会公益，绝非债务人可随意借用的逃逸通道。
逐级报核制度
中国裁决执行中最具特色的一项制度，或许是逐级报核制度。鉴于地方法院曾对本地债务人表现出保护主义倾向，最高人民法院要求：凡拟拒绝承认与执行外国裁决的中级法院，须先报所在高级人民法院；若高级人民法院同意，还须进一步层报最高人民法院，且其决定对下级法院具有约束力。未经最高人民法院核准，不得作出不予承认执行的裁定。
对于非涉外（即内国仲裁审查）的仲裁司法审查事项，最高人民法院后续精简了报核层级：此类案件通常仅层报高级人民法院，不再要求最高人民法院核准。相比之下，外国裁决的执行轨道保留了完整的”高院—最高院”两级上核。
最高人民法院统一审查标准的举措
为遏制各地尺度不一，最高人民法院采取了多项举措：
- 《全国法院涉外商事海事审判工作座谈会会议纪要》，系统梳理了承认与执行外国仲裁裁决的司法观点。
- 仲裁领域的指导性案例，对下级法院具有拘束力，并示范第五条抗辩应如何适用。
- 中英双语的《中国国际商事仲裁司法审查年度报告》，以中英文发布典型案例并阐释法院推理。
- 中国有24篇适用《纽约公约》的案例被联合国国际贸易法委员会 CLOUT（贸法会法规判例法）数据库收录。
上述举措共同提升了可预见性，并压缩了债务人借地方保护获取第五条异议支持的空间。
外资企业的实操清单
对于可能在中国内地执行或抗拒外国裁决的外商投资企业，以下步骤能改善结果：
- 为执行阶段拟定仲裁条款。 将仲裁地固定为《纽约公约》缔约国，指定中立机构，并避免模糊的仲裁地措辞。切记：决定《纽约公约》是否适用的，是仲裁地，而非机构或规则。
- 预设送达地址并留痕。 在合同与仲裁程序中嵌入清晰的送达地址与可靠通知渠道，并保留每一次送达记录。干净完整的记录，能在异议提出前就击破”未获适当通知”的抗辩。
- 摸清资产并把握保全时点。 在仲裁前与仲裁中，梳理债务人位于中国内地的银行账户、股权与不动产。中国法院在实践中已就境外仲裁地仲裁准予临时财产保全；及早申请，可在裁决终局前冻结资产。
- 善用和解窗口。 在裁决作出后至执行前，乃至承认与执行程序进行中，结构化和解有时价值高于对抗式执行一个资产匮乏的债务人。
相关阅读
可参阅本站 CIETAC 国际仲裁（编号40）、最高人民法院与国际商事法庭 CICC（编号185），以及2026年《仲裁法》修订（编号166）。
Sources