• China is a party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, and in 2024 Chinese courts concluded 42 applications to recognize/enforce foreign awards with zero refusals — a strongly “award-friendly” posture.
  中国系 1958 年《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》（《纽约公约》）缔约国；2024 年全国法院审结申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决案件 42 件，无裁定拒绝承认和执行——呈现鲜明的”裁决友好”立场。
• Under the Convention, a court may refuse enforcement only on the limited Article V grounds — and several (e.g., incapacity, invalidity, lack of notice, excess-of-authority) must be raised by the respondent, while only public-policy and non-arbitrability can be examined by the court on its own motion.
  依公约，法院仅在有限的第五条事由下可拒绝执行；其中多项（如无行为能力、协议无效、未获通知、超裁）须由被执行人提出抗辩，只有违反公共政策与争议不可仲裁两项可由法院主动审查。
• The Supreme People’s Court’s 2024 arbitration judicial-review report distils three principles: uphold arbitration agreements (“in favorem validitatis”), strictly apply setting-aside/refusal grounds to protect finality, and faithfully perform treaty duties with an “in favorem executionis” stance.
  最高人民法院《商事仲裁司法审查年度报告（2024）》提炼三原则：秉持”有利于仲裁协议有效”、严格适用撤销/不予执行事由以维护终局性、善意履行条约并持”有利于裁决执行”立场。
• Foreign civil and commercial judgments are enforced on the basis of reciprocity, and Chinese courts have moved from strict to “de jure reciprocity” — e.g., Shanghai Maritime Court in March 2022 first recognized and enforced a UK court judgment on that basis.
  外国商事判决基于互惠原则承认执行，中国法院已从严格互惠走向”法律互惠”；如上海海事法院 2022 年 3 月首次以此承认执行英国法院判决。
• Procedure: an application to recognize/enforce a foreign award or judgment is filed with the intermediate court at the respondent’s domicile or where property is located; the 2023-amended Civil Procedure Law dedicates a special foreign-related part to these channels.
  程序上，承认/执行外国裁决或判决向被执行人住所地或财产所在地的中级人民法院提出；2023 年修订的《民事诉讼法》以涉外编专章规范此类通道。
• China has built a supportive ecosystem: 12 intermediate courts (including Beijing and Suzhou) have established international commercial courts with “green channels” for preservation, filing, trial and enforcement.
  中国已构建配套生态：北京、苏州等 12 家中级人民法院设立国际商事法庭，对保全、立案、审理、执行开设”绿色通道”。
• Practical moves: put a New York Convention-seated, institutional arbitration clause in your China contracts; keep the original/award and proof of service; locate the respondent’s assets in China early; and consider a parallel preservation application to freeze assets.
  操作建议：在中国相关合同中置入受《纽约公约》覆盖的机构仲裁条款；留存裁决书正本与送达证明；尽早摸清被执行人在华财产；并考虑同步申请保全以冻结资产。

Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards and Judgments in China: the New York Convention path | 在中国承认与执行外国仲裁裁决和判决：《纽约公约》路径

Overview

A foreign-invested enterprise that wins an arbitration in Singapore, Paris, or London still has to collect — often from assets inside China. The good news is that China’s enforcement climate for foreign awards has become markedly friendlier, anchored by the 1958 New York Convention and reinforced by a 2023 civil-procedure overhaul and a Supreme People’s Court (SPC) arbitration-review regime.

This article maps the Convention path for awards, the reciprocity path for judgments, the 2024 SPC review report’s principles, procedure, and practical steps for foreign creditors. It is informational; confirm with qualified PRC litigation counsel.

The New York Convention: China’s anchor

China acceded to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958, “the New York Convention”) in 1987. As a contracting state, Chinese courts are obliged to recognize and enforce foreign awards made in the territory of another contracting state, subject only to the Convention’s narrow refusal grounds.

The Convention’s refusal regime (Art.V) splits into two groups:

• Respondent-borne defenses (raised by the party resisting enforcement): incapacity of a party or invalid arbitration agreement; lack of proper notice or inability to present one’s case; the award dealing with matters beyond the submission (ultra petita) or containing decisions on matters not submitted; composition of the tribunal or procedure contravening the agreement or the law of the seat; and the award not yet binding or set aside at the seat.
• Court-examinable on its own motion: the subject matter is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Chinese law, or recognition/enforcement would be contrary to China’s public policy.

The deliberate narrowness — and the fact that most grounds need the respondent to prove them — is why a clean, procedurally regular award is usually enforceable.

The 2024 SPC arbitration judicial-review report

On 28 December 2025, the SPC released its 2024 Commercial Arbitration Judicial Review Annual Report. Its headline figures show a pro-enforcement, pro-arbitration environment:

• 42 applications to recognize and enforce foreign awards concluded in 2024 — zero refusals.
• Awards came from arbitral institutions in 15 countries and ad-hoc tribunals seated outside China.
• More broadly: 18,566 arbitration judicial-review cases concluded; setting-aside rate just 2.22% (11,016 cases); preservation rate 98.90% (27,069 cases) — evidencing strong procedural support.
• 62 applications concerning Hong Kong/Macao/Taiwan awards: 53 recognized and enforced, 6 withdrawals permitted.

The report distils three principles:

1. Uphold arbitration agreements (“in favorem validitatis”). “Or/and” (or-arbitration-or-litigation) clauses, “negotiation-first” clauses, “claimant’s seat” clauses, and ad-hoc agreements are construed to favor validity and encourage arbitration.
2. Strictly apply setting-aside/refusal grounds; protect finality. Courts respect the “one award, final” principle while exercising supervisory power to safeguard due process.
3. Faithfully perform treaty duties; enforce in favorem executionis. Courts strictly apply the New York Convention and build a friendly environment for cross-border award enforcement.

Foreign judgments: the reciprocity path

For court judgments (rather than arbitral awards), China enforces foreign civil and commercial judgments on the basis of reciprocity and treaties. The trend is liberalizing: Chinese courts have moved from a strict, case-by-case reciprocity test toward a “de jure reciprocity” standard.

A landmark: in March 2022, the Shanghai Maritime Court recognized and enforced a UK court judgment for the first time on a de-jure-reciprocity basis, affirming reciprocity between China and the UK. Courts continue to enrich the content of reciprocity through bilateral arrangements and practice.

The practical upshot: a foreign judgment with a sound jurisdictional basis and no public-policy defect stands a materially better chance of enforcement in China today than a decade ago.

Procedure: where and how to file

The channels are codified in the Civil Procedure Law (amended 2023, effective 1 January 2024), whose special foreign-related part governs recognition and enforcement of foreign awards and judgments.

• Court: the intermediate people’s court at the respondent’s domicile or where the respondent’s property is located.
• Documentary basis: the original (or certified copy) of the award/judgment and the arbitration agreement (for awards); proof of service/notice where relevant; and, for judgments, materials supporting reciprocity.
• Bifurcated review: Chinese courts typically first examine whether recognition is warranted, then proceed to enforcement — meaning a successful recognition is the gateway to attaching and realizing Chinese assets.
• Preservation: given the 98.90% preservation rate, a parallel asset-preservation application (to freeze bank accounts, equity, or property) is often the decisive tactical step to prevent dissipation before enforcement.

The supportive ecosystem

Beyond the statutes, China has built institutions that ease cross-border dispute resolution:

• International commercial courts: 12 intermediate courts — including Beijing and Suzhou — have established international commercial courts with streamlined “green channels” for preservation, filing, trial, and enforcement in foreign-related cases.
• One-stop diversified resolution: platforms integrate early neutral evaluation and seamless online handling of litigation, arbitration, and mediation.
• Judicial transparency: annual arbitration-review reports and typical cases unify standards and signal the pro-arbitration stance to foreign parties.

What to do next

• Clause for enforcement from day one. In China-facing contracts, specify a New York Convention-covered seat and a reputable institution (e.g., SIAC, ICC, HKIAC, or a Chinese institution with a recognized foreign-related panel). Avoid “or/and” or “negotiation-first” wording that, while valid, invites battle over clause efficacy.
• Keep the record clean. Retain the signed arbitration agreement, the full award, and proof of notice/service to the respondent — these defeat most Art.V defenses before they start.
• Locate assets early. Before or at filing, map the respondent’s Chinese bank accounts, equity, IP, and real property; pair the recognition application with a preservation application to freeze them.
• Mind public policy and arbitrability. Keep the underlying dispute within arbitrable subject matter and avoid conduct that could trigger a public-policy objection.
• Use the ecosystem. Where appropriate, route through an international commercial court’s green channel and consider mediation-hybrid clauses for enforcement-stage settlement.

Practical example

“AquaTech,” a foreign-invested group, won an SIAC award in Singapore against a Chinese distributor that stopped paying. Rather than litigate the clause, AquaTech’s counsel filed a recognition-and-enforcement application with the intermediate court at the distributor’s domicile, simultaneously applying for preservation that froze the distributor’s local bank account. Because the award was procedurally regular and the arbitration agreement valid, the court recognized it under the New York Convention with no refusal — the frozen funds then became the source of recovery. The case illustrates the modern reality: a foreign award is not a paper trophy in China, provided the clause, the record, and the asset map are handled up front.

Sources

• Supreme People’s Court — 2024 Commercial Arbitration Judicial Review Annual Report (released 28 December 2025): https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/485071.html
• PRC Civil Procedure Law (amended 2023, effective 1 January 2024), foreign-related special provisions: https://www.gov.cn
• Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958, New York Convention): https://www.court.gov.cn
• International Commercial Court of China (SPC) practice notes: https://cicc.court.gov.cn
• Shanghai Maritime Court — first de-jure-reciprocity recognition of a UK judgment (March 2022): https://www.court.gov.cn

Related reading

• see also: Being Sued in China (68-cross-border-service-litigation)
• see also: CIETAC & international arbitration (40-cietac-international-arbitration)
• see also: Foreign-related dispute resolution: litigation vs arbitration (39-foreign-dispute-resolution)

---

在中国承认与执行外国仲裁裁决和判决：《纽约公约》路径

概述

一家在 新加坡、巴黎或伦敦胜诉仲裁的外商投资企业，仍须”去收钱”——而钱往往在中国境内。好消息是，中国对外国裁决的执法环境已明显友好化：以 1958 年《纽约公约》为锚，辅以 2023 年民事诉讼法大修与最高人民法院的仲裁司法审查机制。

本文梳理裁决的公约路径、判决的互惠路径、2024 年最高法审查报告的原则、程序，以及外国债权人的实务步骤。本文仅为信息参考，请以合格中国诉讼律师确认。

《纽约公约》：中国的锚

中国于 1987 年加入《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》（1958 年，”《纽约公约》”）。作为缔约国，中国法院有义务承认并执行另一缔约国境内作出的外国裁决，仅受公约狭窄的拒绝事由约束。

公约的拒绝机制（第五条）分为两组：

• 须由被执行人提出的抗辩： 当事人无行为能力或仲裁协议无效；未获适当通知或未能陈述案情；裁决处理了提交范围之外的事项（超裁）或对未提交事项作出决定；仲裁庭组成或程序违反约定或仲裁地法；裁决尚未约束当事人或被仲裁地撤销。
• 法院可主动审查者： 标的依中国法不可通过仲裁解决，或承认/执行违背中国公共政策。

这种刻意的狭窄——且多数事由需由被执行人举证——正是一份程序规范、干净的裁决通常可得执行的原因。

2024 年最高法仲裁司法审查报告

2025 年 12 月 28 日，最高人民法院发布《商事仲裁司法审查年度报告（2024）》。其关键数据呈现”支持仲裁、支持执行”的环境：

• 2024 年审结申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决案件 42 件——零拒绝。
• 裁决来自 15 个国家的仲裁机构及中国境外的临时仲裁庭。
• 更宏观：审结商事仲裁司法审查案件 18,566 件；撤裁率仅 2.22%（11,016 件）；保全率 98.90%（27,069 件）——体现有力的程序支持。
• 涉港澳台仲裁裁决申请 62 件：认可执行 53 件、准许撤回 6 件。

报告提炼三原则：

1. 秉持”有利于仲裁协议有效”。 “或裁或诉”、协商前置、原告方所在地、临时仲裁协议等，均作有利于有效、鼓励仲裁的解释。
2. 严格适用撤销/不予执行事由，维护终局性。 法院尊重”一裁终局”，同时依法行使监督保障正当程序。
3. 善意履行条约，持”有利于裁决执行”立场。 法院严格适用《纽约公约》，营造跨境执行友好环境。

外国判决：互惠路径

对法院判决（而非仲裁裁决），中国基于互惠与条约承认执行外国商事判决。趋势在放宽：中国法院已从严格、逐案审查的互惠，走向“法律互惠”标准。

标志性案例：2022 年 3 月，上海海事法院首次以法律互惠为基础，承认并执行一份英国法院判决，确认中英之间的互惠关系。法院通过双边安排与实践不断丰富互惠的内涵。

实务启示：一项管辖权基础扎实、无公共政策瑕疵的外国判决，在当今中国获得执行的机会，远胜十年之前。

程序：向何处、如何申请

相关通道规定于《民事诉讼法》（2023 年修订、2024 年 1 月 1 日施行）的涉外编专章，规范外国裁决与判决的承认、执行。

• 管辖法院： 被执行人住所地或财产所在地的中级人民法院。
• 文书基础： 裁决/判决正本（或经证明副本）及仲裁协议（裁决情形）；相关的送达/通知证明；判决情形还需支撑互惠的材料。
• 分步审查： 中国法院通常先审查是否应予承认，再进入执行——故成功的承认是查封、变现中国资产的闸门。
• 保全： 鉴于 98.90% 的保全率，同步的财产保全申请（冻结账户、股权或不动产）常是决定性的战术步骤，可在执行前防止资产转移。

配套生态

除成文法外，中国已搭建便利跨境争议解决的机构：

• 国际商事法庭： 北京、苏州等 12 家中级人民法院设立国际商事法庭，对涉外案件的保全、立案、审理、执行开设”绿色通道”。
• 一站式多元解纷： 平台整合早期中立评估与诉讼、仲裁、调解的无缝在线处理。
• 司法透明： 年度仲裁审查报告与典型案例统一尺度，向外国当事人释放支持仲裁的信号。

下一步建议

• 从签约第一天就为执行布局。 在中国相关合同中，指定受《纽约公约》覆盖的仲裁地与声誉良好的机构（如 SIAC、ICC、HKIAC，或具涉外panel 的中国机构）。避免”或裁或诉””协商前置”等虽有效却易生条款效力之争的措辞。
• 保持记录干净。 留存签署的仲裁协议、完整裁决书，以及向被执行人的通知/送达证明——这些在多数第五条抗辩萌芽前即将其击退。
• 尽早摸清资产。 在申请前或申请时，绘制被执行人在华银行账户、股权、知识产权与不动产地图；将承认申请与保全申请配对以冻结之。
• 留意公共政策与可仲裁性。 使底层争议落在可仲裁标的之内，避免可能触发公共政策异议的行为。
• 善用生态。 适当时经国际商事法庭绿色通道推进，并考虑在执行阶段嵌入调解混合型条款以促成和解。

实操示例

外商投资企业集团”AquaTech”在新加坡 SIAC 仲裁中胜诉一家停止付款的中国经销商。AquaTech 的法律顾问未纠缠条款效力，而是向经销商住所地中院提交承认与执行申请，并同时申请保全、冻结其本地银行账户。因裁决程序规范、仲裁协议有效，法院依《纽约公约》予以承认、无一拒绝——被冻结的资金遂成为受偿来源。该案昭示当今现实：只要条款、记录与资产地图从前端处理好，外国裁决在中国并非一纸奖状。

来源

• 最高人民法院——《商事仲裁司法审查年度报告（2024）》（2025 年 12 月 28 日发布）：https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/485071.html
• 《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》（2023 年修订、2024 年 1 月 1 日施行）涉外编特别规定：https://www.gov.cn
• 《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》（1958 年，纽约公约）：https://www.court.gov.cn
• 中国国际商事法庭（最高法）实务说明：https://cicc.court.gov.cn
• 上海海事法院——首次以法律互惠承认执行英国法院判决（2022 年 3 月）：https://www.court.gov.cn

相关阅读

• 参见：在中国被起诉（68-cross-border-service-litigation）
• 参见：贸仲与涉外仲裁（40-cietac-international-arbitration）
• 参见：涉外争议解决：诉讼与仲裁（39-foreign-dispute-resolution）

• The Civil Procedure Law’s foreign-related chapter was substantially amended (in force from 1 January 2024), reshaping jurisdiction, cross-border service, evidence-taking and recognition/enforcement of foreign judgments.
  《民事诉讼法》涉外编经重大修订（2024年1月1日起施行），重塑了管辖、跨境送达、调查取证及外国判决承认与执行。
• Foreign companies can be sued in China even without a domicile here — jurisdiction can attach through a representative office, a branch, an agent, or an “appropriate connection” to China.
  外国公司即便在华无住所也可能在中国被诉——管辖可通过代表机构、分支机构、业务代办人或与中国的”适当联系”确立。
• Not every “foreign-related” case needs “cross-border service” — if the defendant or an authorised agent is inside China, domestic-style service applies; only a defendant with no China domicile and no in-China recipient triggers true overseas service.
  并非所有”涉外案件”都需”涉外送达”——若被告或有权代收人在境内，适用境内送达方式；只有在境内既无住所、其本人或代收人也不在境内时，才启动真正的域外送达。
• Overseas service follows treaty channels: bilateral judicial-assistance treaties or the Hague Service Convention; mail service, service on an in-China agent/representative office, and other confirmable methods (fax, email) are also permitted where allowed.
  域外送达走条约渠道：双边司法协助条约或《海牙送达公约》；在允许情形下也可邮寄送达、向境内代理人/代表机构送达，及传真、电子邮件等可确认收悉的其他方式。
• Service on a foreign party’s in-China legal representative, chief officer, litigation agent, representative office or authorised branch is expressly allowed — a foreign firm cannot avoid a suit merely by ignoring foreign mail.
  可向外国当事人在境内的法定代表人、主要负责人、诉讼代理人、代表机构或有权分支机构送达——外国企业不能仅靠不理会境外邮件而躲避诉讼。
• The SPC is completing amendments to the CPL foreign-related-chapter judicial interpretation, refining jurisdiction (including parallel-proceedings/conflict rules), law-ascertainment and cross-border evidence.
  最高人民法院正完成民诉法涉外编司法解释修改，细化管辖（含平行诉讼/冲突规则）、外国法查明与跨境取证。
• The Foreign State Immunity Law (with SPC Notice 法〔2025〕39号) sets special procedures for suits against foreign states, concentrating jurisdiction in designated intermediate/specialised courts.
  《外国国家豁免法》（配套最高法法〔2025〕39号通知）为起诉外国国家设特别程序，管辖集中于指定的中级/专门法院。
• Practical defence: appoint a China-based service agent, monitor deadlines (foreign states get three months to answer), and consider arbitration clauses to avoid litigation uncertainty.
  实务防御：指定在华送达代理人、盯紧期限（外国国家有三个月答辩期）、并考虑用仲裁条款规避诉讼不确定性。

Being Sued in China: Jurisdiction, Cross-Border Service and the Amended Civil Procedure Law | 在中国被起诉：管辖、跨境送达与修订后的民事诉讼法

Overview

Many foreign companies assume that because they have no office or assets in China, a Chinese court cannot reach them — or that ignoring a lawsuit filed abroad makes it disappear. Both assumptions are dangerous. Since 1 January 2024, an amended foreign-related chapter of the Civil Procedure Law (CPL) has broadened jurisdiction and modernised how documents are served and evidence taken across borders, and the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) is finishing implementing interpretations that fill in the detail. This article explains when a foreign firm can be sued in China, how cross-border service actually works (and when it is not even needed), the special track for suing foreign states, and how to build a sensible defensive posture.

When can a foreign company be sued in China?

The amended CPL widened the jurisdictional net for foreign-related civil and commercial cases. Beyond the classic bases (contract performed in China, subject matter located in China, tort committed in China), jurisdiction can attach where the dispute has an “appropriate connection” (适当联系) with China, and through a defendant’s representative office, branch, business agent or property in China. Chinese courts also respect party autonomy: a valid choice-of-court agreement selecting a Chinese court will generally be honoured, and the SPC is developing model choice-of-court clauses. The upshot: a foreign firm doing business connected to China can find itself properly within a Chinese court’s reach.

“Foreign-related” does not always mean “overseas service”

A common misconception is that every foreign party must be served abroad. Chinese law actually sorts service into three types: domestic service, foreign-related in-territory service, and foreign-related overseas service. The sequence a court follows:

1. Does the recipient have a domicile in China? If yes, ordinary domestic service applies — no overseas service needed.
2. Is the recipient (or an authorised agent) physically in China? If yes, foreign-related in-territory service applies.
3. Only if the recipient has no China domicile and neither the party nor an agent is in China does the court resort to true overseas service.

This matters enormously: a foreign company with a China representative office, subsidiary officer, or litigation agent may be validly served inside China, quickly.

How overseas service works

When true overseas service is required, the CPL and SPC rules provide a menu:

• Treaty channels: if the recipient’s state has a bilateral judicial-assistance treaty with China, serve under it; if the state is a party to the Hague Service Convention (关于向国外送达民事或商事司法文书和司法外文书公约), serve via the Convention.
• Mail service: permitted if the recipient’s state allows it; a return receipt is attached, and signing the mail receipt can count as service.
• Service on an in-China nexus: on the foreign party’s PRC legal representative, chief officer, litigation agent, representative office, or an authorised branch/business agent — expressly allowed.
• Other confirmable methods: fax, email and other means that can confirm receipt.
• Public announcement: as a last resort, by publication in newspapers circulated at home and abroad.

Time rules apply — for treaty/diplomatic channels, if no proof of service arrives within six months (three months for mail) and receipt cannot otherwise be inferred, that method is deemed to have failed, and the court moves on.

Deemed service — you cannot simply ignore documents

Even without a signed receipt, service can be deemed effective if, for example, the recipient has referred in writing to the served document’s contents, or has already performed according to it. In short, a foreign defendant cannot defeat a Chinese proceeding by refusing to acknowledge documents it has clearly received.

The SPC’s modernisation of foreign-related procedure

The SPC has described a multi-front upgrade: optimising jurisdiction rules and handling of parallel proceedings and jurisdictional conflicts; completing judicial interpretations of the CPL foreign-related chapter, the Arbitration Law and the Maritime Law; improving ascertainment of foreign law; simplifying cross-border evidence circulation and authorisation formalities; and building a fair, professional, efficient, low-cost international commercial dispute-resolution system, supported by the International Commercial Court (CICC), case databases and the online “law-answer” network.

Special track: suing a foreign state

China’s Foreign State Immunity Law adopts restrictive immunity with defined exceptions. The SPC’s Notice on Procedural Matters in Civil Cases Involving Foreign State Immunity (法〔2025〕39号) sets special rules: such first-instance cases are concentrated in designated intermediate courts (and maritime, financial and IP courts) at provincial capitals; service on a foreign state follows treaty methods or, failing that, diplomatic note through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (no public-announcement service); the foreign state gets three months to file a defence; and a foreign state that appears only to contest jurisdiction is not deemed to have accepted the court’s jurisdiction.

Building a defensive posture

• Appoint a China service agent / keep entity records current so you learn of any suit promptly rather than through delayed foreign mail.
• Do not ignore documents — deemed service and default judgment are real risks; engage counsel immediately.
• Assess jurisdiction early — challenge improper jurisdiction within the answer period; note parallel-proceedings rules if you are also litigating elsewhere.
• Prefer well-drafted dispute clauses — a clear choice-of-court or, often better for cross-border deals, an arbitration clause (e.g. CIETAC) can reduce litigation uncertainty and ease enforcement.
• Preserve cross-border evidence properly — follow the streamlined but formal channels for overseas evidence and notarisation/legalisation or apostille.

What to do next

• Confirm whether your China nexus (rep office, subsidiary, agent) exposes you to in-territory service.
• Put a monitoring process in place so served documents are never missed or ignored.
• Review contracts for jurisdiction and dispute-resolution clauses; consider arbitration for cross-border deals.
• If sued, retain PRC counsel at once and calendar all deadlines (including the special three-month window for foreign states).
• For enforcement or recognition questions, check the latest SPC interpretations and applicable treaties/Convention status.

Sources

• 《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》（2023 修正，涉外编，2024-01-01 施行）— http://www.npc.gov.cn (official portal)
• 最高人民法院关于修改十九件民事诉讼类司法解释的决定（含涉外送达、涉外管辖）— https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/282651.html
• 最高人民法院关于适用涉外民事案件和商事案件司法文书送达问题若干规定 — https://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/218/62/84/12830.html
• 最高人民法院关于涉外国国家豁免民事案件相关程序事项的通知（法〔2025〕39号）— http://gongbao.court.gov.cn (official portal)
• 最高人民法院：完善涉外审判机制、打造国际商事纠纷解决优选地 — https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/491531.html

Related reading

• see also: 法务争议-涉外诉讼 (foreign-related dispute resolution: litigation vs arbitration)
• see also: 法务争议-国际仲裁 (CIETAC & international arbitration)
• see also: 知识产权-专利 (administrative IP protection & adjudication)

---

在中国被起诉：管辖、跨境送达与修订后的民事诉讼法

概述

许多外国公司以为，既然在华无办公室、无资产，中国法院就够不着自己——或以为对境外提起的诉讼置之不理便可让其消失。两种假设都很危险。自 2024 年 1 月 1 日起，修订后的《民事诉讼法》涉外编拓宽了管辖、并使跨境送达与取证现代化，最高人民法院也正在完成补足细节的司法解释。本文说明外资企业何时可能在华被诉、跨境送达究竟如何运作（以及何时根本不需要）、起诉外国国家的特别通道，以及如何构建合理的防御姿态。

外国公司何时可能在中国被诉？

修订后的民诉法拓宽了涉外民商事案件的管辖网。除经典依据（合同在华履行、标的物在华、侵权行为地在华）外，当纠纷与中国有“适当联系”、或通过被告在华的代表机构、分支机构、业务代办人或财产，即可确立管辖。中国法院亦尊重当事人意思自治：选择中国法院的有效协议管辖通常获认可，最高法还在制定协议管辖示范条款。结论是：与中国有业务关联的外国企业，可能名正言顺地落入中国法院管辖。

“涉外”未必等于”域外送达”

一个常见误解是每个外国当事人都须在境外送达。中国法律实际把送达分为三类：境内送达、涉外域内送达、涉外域外送达。法院遵循的顺序：

1. 受送达人在境内是否有住所？有，则适用一般境内送达——无需域外送达。
2. 受送达人（或有权代收人）是否在境内？在，则适用涉外域内送达。
3. 仅当受送达人在境内既无住所、本人或代收人也不在境内时，法院才诉诸真正的域外送达。

这至关重要：在华设有代表机构、子公司高管或诉讼代理人的外国公司，可在境内被有效、快速送达。

域外送达如何运作

当确需域外送达时，民诉法与最高法规定提供了”菜单”：

• 条约渠道：受送达人所在国与中国订有双边司法协助条约的，依条约送达；所在国是《海牙送达公约》成员国的，依公约送达。
• 邮寄送达：受送达人所在国允许的，可邮寄，附送达回证；在邮件回执上签收可视为送达。
• 向境内联结点送达：向外国当事人在华的法定代表人、主要负责人、诉讼代理人、代表机构或有权分支机构/业务代办人送达——明确允许。
• 其他可确认方式：传真、电子邮件等能确认收悉的方式。
• 公告送达：作为最后手段，在国内外公开发行的报刊上刊登。

存在期限规则——经条约/外交途径，自转递起满六个月（邮寄满三个月）未收到送达证明、且不足以认定已送达的，视为该方式不能送达，法院另择他法。

视为送达——你不能对文书置之不理

即便无签收回证，若受送达人书面提及所送文书内容、或已按其内容履行等，仍可视为送达。简言之，外国被告不能靠拒绝确认其明显已收到的文书来击败中国程序。

最高法对涉外程序的现代化

最高法描述了多线升级：优化管辖规则与平行诉讼、管辖冲突的处理；完成民诉法涉外编、仲裁法、海商法的司法解释；完善外国法查明；简化跨境证据流转与授权委托手续；并依托国际商事法庭（CICC）、案例库与”法答网”，建设公正、专业、高效、低成本的国际商事纠纷解决体系。

特别通道：起诉外国国家

中国《外国国家豁免法》采限制豁免并设明确例外。最高法《关于涉外国国家豁免民事案件相关程序事项的通知》（法〔2025〕39号）设特别规则：此类一审案件集中于省会城市指定的中级人民法院（及海事、金融、知识产权法院）；对外国国家送达依条约方式，无法送达的经外交部以外交照会送达（不适用公告送达）；外国国家有三个月答辩期；仅为参与管辖异议审查而陈述意见的，不视为接受管辖。

构建防御姿态

• 指定在华送达代理人/保持主体信息更新，以便及时获知诉讼，而非经延迟的境外邮件。
• 勿对文书置之不理——视为送达与缺席判决是真实风险；立即聘请律师。
• 尽早评估管辖——在答辩期内对不当管辖提出异议；若你在他地亦有诉讼，注意平行诉讼规则。
• 善拟争议条款——清晰的协议管辖，或对跨境交易往往更优的仲裁条款（如贸仲），可降低诉讼不确定性并便利执行。
• 妥善固定跨境证据——遵循虽已简化但仍正式的境外证据与公证认证/附加证明书渠道。

下一步建议

• 确认你的在华联结点（代表机构、子公司、代办人）是否使你可被境内送达。
• 建立监控流程，确保被送达文书绝不遗漏或被忽视。
• 审查合同的管辖与争议解决条款；跨境交易可考虑仲裁。
• 一旦被诉，立即聘请中国律师并排定所有期限（含对外国国家的特别三个月期）。
• 涉及执行或承认问题，核对最高法最新司法解释及适用条约/公约状态。

来源

• 《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》（2023 修正，涉外编，2024-01-01 施行）— http://www.npc.gov.cn
• 最高人民法院关于修改十九件民事诉讼类司法解释的决定（含涉外送达、涉外管辖）— https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/282651.html
• 最高人民法院关于适用涉外民事案件和商事案件司法文书送达问题若干规定 — https://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/218/62/84/12830.html
• 最高人民法院关于涉外国国家豁免民事案件相关程序事项的通知（法〔2025〕39号）— http://gongbao.court.gov.cn
• 最高人民法院：完善涉外审判机制、打造国际商事纠纷解决优选地 — https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/491531.html

相关阅读

• 参见：法务争议-涉外诉讼（涉外争议解决：诉讼与仲裁）
• 参见：法务争议-国际仲裁（贸仲与涉外仲裁）
• 参见：知识产权-专利（知识产权行政保护与行政裁决）

• From 1 July 2026, Jiangxi’s “Implementation Rules for Trade-Policy Compliance” (23 articles) took effect.
  自2026年7月1日起，《江西省贸易政策合规工作实施细则》（共23条）正式施行。
• The rules are the first to bring FDI-related policies into the compliance-assessment scope (goods, services, IP and FDI fully covered).
  该细则首次将涉外商投资政策纳入合规评估范围（货物、服务、知识产权、外资政策全覆盖）。
• County- and city-level governments are made responsible (“who makes, who assesses”) for compliance self-review.
  首次压实市县两级合规主体责任，确立”谁制定、谁评估”原则。
• Compliance assessment becomes a mandatory pre-procedure; non-compliant policies must be revised before issuance.
  首次将合规评估设为政策出台刚性前置程序，不合规政策须修改后方可出台。
• A new overseas trade-barrier reporting and rights-protection channel is established (report → provincial commerce dept → MOFCOM).
  新增境外贸易壁垒上报维权通道（企业上报 → 省商务厅 → 商务部开展磋商）。
• FIEs gain institutionalised national treatment and non-discrimination in Jiangxi’s policy-making.
  外资企业在江西政策制定中获得制度化的国民待遇与非歧视保障。

Jiangxi trade-policy compliance rules & overseas rights channel | 江西贸易政策合规细则与海外维权通道

Overview

From 1 July 2026, Jiangxi Province’s Implementation Rules for Trade-Policy Compliance (贸易政策合规工作实施细则) entered into force (23 articles, revised from a 2015 trial version and adopted at the 129th provincial executive meeting). The rules align Jiangxi’s trade policies — including those touching foreign investment — with WTO rules and China’s accession commitments, and add an overseas trade-barrier reporting and rights-protection channel for enterprises.

This article highlights what the rules mean for foreign-invested enterprises (FIEs) operating or investing in Jiangxi.

Informational guidance only; the exact procedures are set by the Jiangxi commerce authorities, so verify with the competent department before acting.

Key innovations

Three “firsts”

1. Broader compliance scope. For the first time, FDI-related policies are formally included in compliance assessment, achieving full coverage of goods, services, IP and FDI policies.
2. Local-government responsibility. For the first time, city- and county-level governments are made responsible for compliance self-review under the principle of “who makes the policy, who assesses it” (谁制定、谁评估).
3. Mandatory pre-procedure. For the first time, compliance assessment is a mandatory pre-step for policy issuance; policies found inconsistent with national-treatment or non-discrimination rules must be revised, with the adjustment explained in the approval materials.

Three new mechanisms

1. Overseas trade-barrier channel. A reporting route for overseas unfair trade/investment measures: enterprises report → provincial commerce department → escalated to MOFCOM for consultation.
2. Support system. Regular professional training and third-party/ university technical support for compliance work.
3. Accountability. Supervision and accountability for units that skip compliance assessment and cause negative impact.

Implications for FIEs

• National treatment institutionalised. FDI policies undergo full compliance review, embedding national-treatment and non-discrimination principles; FIEs may participate equally in government procurement and equipment-upgrade programmes.
• Predictable environment. By screening out non-compliant clauses at the source, the rules aim to stabilise long-term foreign-investment expectations in Jiangxi.
• Overseas protection. Jiangxi-based FIEs (and their groups) gain an official channel to surface overseas trade/investment barriers for provincial and central follow-up.

What to do next

• If operating in Jiangxi, review whether local support or procurement policies treat FIEs equally; raise concerns through the compliance framework if not.
• For Jiangxi groups facing overseas trade/investment barriers, use the new reporting channel via the provincial commerce department.
• Track Jiangxi’s published compliance notices and training; engage early when local policies affect your sector.
• Coordinate with your provincial commerce department contact for escalation to MOFCOM where needed.
• Keep internal records of any discriminatory clauses encountered, as evidence for compliance review or overseas-rights cases.

Sources

• 江西省商务厅（官方门户）— https://swt.jiangxi.gov.cn
• 中国新闻网 — 《江西省贸易政策合规工作实施细则》正式实施 保障外商投资（2026-07-02 报道）
• 江西省人民政府 — 第129次省政府常务会议审议通过《实施细则》（2026年）

Related reading

• see also: Foreign-related dispute resolution: litigation vs arbitration / 涉外争议解决：诉讼与仲裁
• see also: Stabilizing Foreign Investment Action Plan: 15 measures at a glance / 利用外资固稳促优行动方案：15条举措总览

---

江西贸易政策合规细则与海外维权通道

概述

自 2026年7月1日起，江西省《贸易政策合规工作实施细则》（共23条，在2015年试行版基础上修订，经第129次省政府常务会议审议通过）正式施行。细则将江西贸易政策（含涉及外资者）全面对接 WTO 规则与入世承诺，并为企业在海外设立贸易壁垒上报维权通道。

本文说明该细则对在赣经营或投资的外资企业（FIE）的意义。

本文仅为信息性指引；具体程序由江西省商务主管部门规定，行动前请向主管机关核实。

关键创新

三个首次

1. 合规范围拓宽。 首次将涉外商投资政策正式纳入合规评估，实现货物、服务、知识产权、外资政策全覆盖。
2. 属地责任压实。 首次压实市县级政府合规主体责任，确立”谁制定、谁评估”原则。
3. 前置程序刚性化。 首次将合规评估设为政策出台刚性前置程序；与国民待遇、非歧视规则不一致的政策须修改，并在报批材料中说明调整情况。

三项新机制

1. 海外贸易壁垒通道。 对境外不公平贸易/投资措施建立上报路径：企业上报 → 省商务厅 → 报送商务部开展磋商。
2. 保障体系。 常态化专业培训，引入高校、第三方机构技术支撑。
3. 监督问责。 对未开展合规评估、造成负面影响的单位依规问责。

对外资企业的意义

• 国民待遇制度化。 涉外资政策全流程合规审查，将国民待遇、非歧视原则制度化；外资企业可平等参与政府采购、设备更新等。
• 可预期环境。 从源头剔除不合规条款，稳定在赣外资长期投资预期。
• 海外维权。 在赣外资企业（及其集团）获得官方渠道，反映海外贸易/投资壁垒，由省里及中央跟进。

下一步建议

• 在赣经营者：审视地方支持或采购政策是否平等对待外资企业；若否，经合规框架提出异议。
• 在赣集团遇海外贸易/投资壁垒：经省商务厅新上报通道反映。
• 关注江西发布的合规通知与培训，地方政策影响本行业时尽早参与。
• 必要时通过省商务厅对口联系，升级至商务部。
• 留存遇到的歧视性条款作为合规审查或海外维权证据。

来源

• 江西省商务厅（官方门户）— https://swt.jiangxi.gov.cn
• 中国新闻网 — 《江西省贸易政策合规工作实施细则》正式实施 保障外商投资（2026-07-02 报道）
• 江西省人民政府 — 第129次省政府常务会议审议通过《实施细则》（2026年）

相关阅读

• see also: 涉外争议解决：诉讼与仲裁 / Foreign-related dispute resolution: litigation vs arbitration
• see also: 利用外资固稳促优行动方案：15条举措总览 / Stabilizing Foreign Investment Action Plan: 15 measures at a glance

• China offers two main routes for foreign-related disputes—litigation in Chinese courts and arbitration—and the choice shapes where, in what language, and how a result is enforced across borders.
  涉外争议有两条主路径——中国法院诉讼与仲裁——这一选择决定审理地点、语言及裁决如何跨境承认与执行。
• Foreign-related civil and commercial cases are generally heard at intermediate court level or above; the SPC’s International Commercial Court (CICC, est. 2018) hears first-instance international disputes with “one-instance finality” for selected cases.
  涉外民商事案件一般由中级及以上法院审理；最高人民法院国际商事法庭（CICC，2018年设立）对相关一审国际商事纠纷实行”一审终审”。
• Enforcing a foreign court judgment in China is harder than an award—there is no NY Convention equivalent, and only 35 of 39 judicial-assistance treaty partners cover judgment recognition and enforcement.
  在中国执行外国法院判决难于执行仲裁裁决——无类似《纽约公约》机制，39个司法协助条约伙伴中仅35个含判决承认与执行条款。
• For treaty-less judgments China has moved toward a flexible “presumed reciprocity” standard (Nanning Statement, Kolmar, UK cases), systematized by the SPC’s 2021 Minutes.
  对无条约判决，中国已转向更灵活的”推定互惠”标准（南宁声明、高尔集团案、英国判决案），并由最高法2021年会议纪要系统化为审查框架。
• Arbitration is usually the foreign-friendly default: a valid clause ousts the courts, allows an English/neutral seat, and awards are enforceable under the NY Convention (China a member since 1987).
  仲裁通常是涉外友好默认——有效条款排除法院管辖、可用英文与中性仲裁地，裁决依《纽约公约》（中国1987年加入）跨境执行。
• For enforcement in China, apply to the intermediate court at the debtor’s domicile or asset location; rely on the NY Convention for foreign-seated awards.
  在中国境内执行须向债务人住所地或财产所在地中级人民法院申请；外国裁决依托《纽约公约》。

Foreign-related Dispute Resolution: Litigation vs. Arbitration | 涉外争议解决：诉讼与仲裁

Overview

A foreign business operating or investing in China will, at some point, need to enforce a contract, recover a debt, or defend a claim. China offers two principal routes for foreign-related civil and commercial disputes: litigation in the Chinese courts and arbitration (domestic or international). The choice shapes everything that follows — where the hearing is held, what language is used, whether the outcome is confidential, and, crucially, how the result is recognized and enforced across borders. This article outlines China’s court system for foreign-related cases, the rise of specialized foreign-related tribunals and the International Commercial Court, and the rules for recognizing and enforcing foreign court judgments and arbitral awards in China.

China’s court system for foreign-related cases

China has a four-tier court structure: basic people’s courts, intermediate people’s courts, high people’s courts (provincial), and the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) at the apex. Foreign-related civil and commercial cases are generally heard at the intermediate court level or above; the SPC has issued guidance concentrating such cases in designated courts to build expertise. The SPC’s 2022 report to the NPC noted that first-instance foreign-related civil and commercial cases grew from 14,800 in 2013 to 27,300 in 2021, underscoring how central these disputes have become.

Procedure is governed by the Civil Procedure Law (CPL). Foreign parties enjoy equal procedural standing; they may appoint local or foreign lawyers (though only Chinese-licensed lawyers may appear as agents in Chinese courts), and courts in major hubs provide English and other multilingual services. The SPC has also launched an online filing platform for cross-border litigants and a unified foreign-law ascertainment platform, addressing two historic pain points — service abroad and proving foreign law.

Specialized foreign-related tribunals and the International Commercial Court

To raise the quality and international credibility of foreign-related adjudication, China has built a tier of specialized foreign-related tribunals (涉外法庭) within selected intermediate and primary courts — for example, in Shenzhen (Qianhai), Beijing, Shanghai, and other pilot zones. These courts concentrate complex cross-border commercial disputes, apply international treaties and trade-usage reasoning, and publish guiding cases.

At the national apex, the SPC established the International Commercial Court (CICC) in 2018. The CICC hears first-instance international commercial disputes directly, applies a “one-instance finality” model for selected cases, maintains a panel of international commercial expert mediators, and aims to align with internationally accepted commercial-judgment standards. For a foreign investor choosing litigation, designating a seat in a city with a strong foreign-related tribunal — and, where eligible, the CICC — materially improves predictability.

Recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments

Enforcing a foreign court judgment in China is harder than enforcing an arbitral award, because there is no multilateral treaty equivalent to the New York Convention for judgments. The pathway is the CPL plus international bilateral judicial-assistance treaties. As of the SPC’s 2022 briefing, China had concluded judicial-assistance treaties with 39 countries, of which 35 contain provisions on recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments. Within those treaty partners, a foreign judgment is recognized and enforced through the treaty mechanism.

For countries without a treaty, enforcement rests on reciprocity. China has moved from strict, case-by-case reciprocity toward a more flexible “presumed reciprocity” (推定互惠) standard — reflected in the 2017 Nanning Statement from the China-ASEAN Chief Justices’ Roundtable and the 2018 SPC–Singapore memorandum. Landmark cases include the Nanjing Intermediate Court’s recognition of a Singapore commercial judgment (the *Kolmar* case, the first PRC recognition under reciprocity) and, in 2022, a Shanghai maritime court’s recognition of an English commercial judgment on a legal-reciprocity basis. The SPC’s 2021 Minutes of the National Forum on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trials systematized the review standard — scope of foreign judgments, reciprocity analysis, grounds for refusal, and punitive-damages handling — giving lower courts a uniform framework.

Arbitration as the foreign-friendly default

Because of the treaty gap for judgments, arbitration is usually the preferred dispute-resolution clause for foreign parties. A valid arbitration agreement ousts the courts (subject to the separability of the arbitration clause), proceedings can be conducted in English with a neutral seat, and — above all — the award is enforceable across borders under the New York Convention (China has been a member since 1987). For enforcement inside China, the CPL (Article 290, formerly 283) lets a foreign party apply to an intermediate court at the place of the awarded party’s domicile or property; Chinese courts recognize and enforce New York Convention awards except on narrow public-policy or due-process grounds. The SPC has also clarified that an award rendered in China with a foreign arbitral institution as the seat is treated as a Chinese foreign-related award and enforced accordingly. (See the CIETAC article for institutional detail.)

What to do next

• Choose the forum deliberately — arbitration for cross-border enforceability; litigation where you need injunctive relief, evidence preservation, or a treaty-based judgment route.
• Pick a strong seat — a city with a specialized foreign-related tribunal, or the SPC International Commercial Court where eligible.
• Check treaty coverage before relying on a foreign court judgment; absent a treaty, plan for a reciprocity analysis and budget for a harder fight.
• Put a clear arbitration clause (institution, seat, language, rules) in every cross-border contract — it is the single most important enforceability decision.
• For enforcement in China, apply to the intermediate court at the debtor’s domicile or asset location; for awards, rely on the New York Convention.

Sources

• Supreme People’s Court (SPC) — 最高人民法院 — Foreign-related commercial and maritime adjudication; International Commercial Court (official portal).
• SPC press briefing (recognition of foreign judgments) — 最高法答记者问 — Bilateral treaties with 39 countries, reciprocity (Nanning Statement, Kolmar and UK cases).
• SPC report on foreign-related adjudication — 涉外审判工作报告 — Caseload growth 2013–2021 and scope of foreign-related trials.
• National People’s Congress (NPC) — 全国人民代表大会 — Civil Procedure Law: recognition/enforcement of foreign judgments and New York Convention awards (Art. 290).

Related reading

• see also: CIETAC & international arbitration — the leading China-seated institution and NY Convention enforcement.
• see also: Anti-monopoly & merger control filing — challenging or enforcing SAMR decisions.
• see also: PIPL compliance for foreign companies — cross-border enforcement of data orders.

---

涉外争议解决：诉讼与仲裁

概述

在中国经营或投资的外国企业，终有一天需要履行合同、追收债务或应对索赔。中国为涉外民商事争议提供两条主要路径：在中国法院诉讼与仲裁（国内或国际）。这一选择决定了后续一切——审理地点、使用语言、结果是否保密，以及最关键的：裁决能否跨境承认与执行。本文概述中国涉外案件的法院体系、专门涉外审判庭与国际商事法庭的兴起，以及外国法院判决与仲裁裁决在中国的承认和执行规则。

中国涉外案件的法院体系

中国法院为四级结构：基层人民法院、中级人民法院、高级人民法院（省级），以及顶端的最高人民法院（SPC）。涉外民商事案件一般由中级人民法院及以上审理；最高人民法院通过指导意见将此类案件集中由指定法院管辖，以积累专业经验。最高人民法院 2022 年向全国人大常委会的报告指出，一审涉外民商事案件从 2013 年的 1.48 万件增至 2021 年的 2.73 万件，凸显此类争议的重要性。

程序受《民事诉讼法》规范。外国当事人享有平等诉讼地位；可委托本地或外国律师（但仅中国执业律师可在法庭代理），主要枢纽城市法院提供英文等多语言服务。最高人民法院还上线了跨境诉讼当事人网上立案平台与统一的域外法查明平台，直击两大历史痛点——境外送达与外国法证明。

专门涉外审判庭与国际商事法庭

为提升涉外审判质量与国际公信力，中国在部分中院、基层法院设立专门涉外审判庭（涉外法庭），例如深圳（前海）、北京、上海等地。这些法庭集中审理复杂跨境商事争议，适用国际条约与贸易惯例推理，并发布指导性案例。

在国家顶端，最高人民法院于 2018 年设立国际商事法庭（CICC）。CICC 直接审理一审国际商事纠纷，对相关案件实行”一审终审”，设有国际商事专家委员会调解机制，并力求与国际商事裁判标准接轨。对外国投资者而言，在选择诉讼时，将管辖地指定于拥有强涉外审判庭的城市——符合条件时指定 CICC——可显著提升可预见性。

外国法院判决的承认与执行

在中国执行外国法院判决，难于执行仲裁裁决，因为判决领域没有类似《纽约公约》的多边条约。路径是《民事诉讼法》加国际双边司法协助条约。据最高人民法院 2022 年通报，中国已与 39 个国家缔结司法协助条约，其中 35 个含有民商事判决承认与执行内容。在与这些条约伙伴之间，外国判决经条约机制获得承认与执行。

对无条约国家，执行依赖互惠原则。中国已从严格、逐案互惠转向更灵活的“推定互惠”标准——体现于 2017 年中国—东盟大法官论坛《南宁声明》与 2018 年最高人民法院—新加坡最高法院备忘录。标志性案件包括南京中院承认新加坡商事判决（高尔集团案，中国首例依互惠承认外国判决）以及 2022 年上海海事法院依法律互惠标准承认英国商事判决。最高人民法院 2021 年《全国法院涉外商事海事审判工作座谈会会议纪要》系统化了审查标准——外国判决范围、互惠认定、不予承认事由、惩罚性赔偿处理——为下级法院提供统一框架。

作为涉外友好默认的仲裁

鉴于判决的条约缺口，仲裁通常是外国当事人的优选争议条款。有效的仲裁协议排除法院管辖（仲裁条款独立性除外），程序可用英文、中性仲裁地，且最重要的是——裁决可依 《纽约公约》跨境执行（中国自 1987 年起为成员国）。在中国境内执行时，《民事诉讼法》第二百九十条（原第二百八十三条）允许外国当事人向被申请人住所地或财产所在地中院申请；中国法院仅在狭窄的公共政策或正当程序事由下拒绝承认执行纽约公约裁决。最高人民法院还明确：以外国仲裁机构为仲裁地、在中国境内作出的裁决，视为中国涉外裁决并依此执行。（机构细节见贸仲文章。）

下一步建议

• 审慎选择 forum——注重跨境可执行性选仲裁；需要禁令、证据保全或依条约执行判决时选诉讼。
• 选定强管辖地——拥有专门涉外审判庭的城市，或符合条件时的最高法院国际商事法庭。
• 签约前核查条约覆盖：依赖外国法院判决前，先确认是否有条约；无条约则须准备互惠分析并预留更艰难的对抗预算。
• 在每份跨境合同中写入清晰仲裁条款（机构、仲裁地、语言、规则）——这是影响可执行性的最关键单项决定。
• 在中国境内执行时，向债务人住所地或财产所在地中院申请；裁决则依托《纽约公约》。

来源

• 最高人民法院（SPC） — 涉外商事海事审判、国际商事法庭（官方门户）。
• 最高法答记者问（外国判决承认执行） — 与 39 国司法协助条约、互惠（南宁声明、高尔集团案与英国判决案）。
• 最高人民法院涉外审判工作报告 — 2013–2021 受案量增长及涉外审判范围。
• 全国人民代表大会（NPC） — 《民事诉讼法》：外国判决承认执行与纽约公约裁决执行（第二百九十条）。

相关阅读

• 参见：贸仲与涉外仲裁 — 中国主要仲裁地机构与纽约公约执行。
• 参见：反垄断与经营者集中申报 — 对 SAMR 决定的异议与执行。
• 参见：外资企业的个人信息保护法合规 — 数据命令的跨境执行。