All posts by adm0n

Foreign Litigation / 涉外诉讼, International Arbitration / 国际仲裁

Where Will Your China Dispute Be Heard? Jurisdiction over Foreign-Related Civil Cases under the Amended Civil Procedure Law in Force from 1 January 2024

  • From 1 January 2024 the amended Civil Procedure Law widens Chinese courts’ reach over foreign-related civil and commercial disputes, adding an “other appropriate connection” catch-all.
    自2024年1月1日起施行的修改后民事诉讼法扩张了人民法院对涉外民商事案件的管辖范围，并新增”其他适当联系”兜底规则。
  • Article 277 lets parties choose Chinese courts by written agreement with no requirement that the chosen forum have an actual connection with the dispute.
    第二百七十七条允许当事人书面协议选择人民法院管辖，不再要求所选法院与争议存在实际联系。
  • Under Article 278, a foreign defendant who answers on the merits or counterclaims without first objecting to jurisdiction is deemed to have accepted the Chinese court.
    根据第二百七十八条，外国被告未先提出管辖异议即应诉答辩或提出反诉的，视为人民法院有管辖权。
  • Three categories are exclusive to Chinese courts: formation, dissolution, liquidation and resolution validity of Chinese entities; validity of IP examined and granted in China; and joint venture, cooperative venture and cooperative resource-exploration contracts performed in China.
    三类案件专属人民法院管辖：中国境内法人的设立、解散、清算与决议效力；在中国境内审查授予的知识产权有效性；在中国境内履行的中外合资、中外合作经营企业合同与中外合作勘探开发自然资源合同纠纷。
  • Article 280 lets a Chinese court accept a dispute already filed abroad, but an exclusive foreign choice-of-court clause can produce non-acceptance or dismissal.
    第二百八十条允许人民法院受理已在外国法院起诉的同一纠纷，但排他性外国法院管辖协议可导致不予受理或裁定驳回起诉。
  • Forum non conveniens under Article 282 works only if the defendant objects to jurisdiction and all five statutory conditions hold at once, with a return clause if the foreign court declines.
    第二百八十二条的不方便法院原则，须被告提出管辖异议且五个法定要件同时具备方可适用，并设有外国法院拒绝管辖时的回流条款。
  • At the enforcement stage Article 301 requires a finding that a foreign court lacked jurisdiction where there was no appropriate connection, where Chinese exclusive jurisdiction was breached, or where an exclusive choice-of-court agreement was ignored.
    在承认与执行环节，第三百零一条要求人民法院在外国法院与纠纷无适当联系、违反中国专属管辖规定或违反排他性管辖协议时，认定其无管辖权。

Where Will Your China Dispute Be Heard? Jurisdiction over Foreign-Related Civil Cases under the Amended Civil Procedure Law in Force from 1 January 2024 | 你的中国争议将在哪里审理？2024年1月1日施行的修改后民事诉讼法下涉外民商事案件的管辖权

Overview

Adopted in 1991 by the Fourth Session of the Seventh National People’s Congress and amended in 2007, 2012, 2017 and 2021 without substantive change to foreign-related procedure, the Civil Procedure Law was amended on 1 September 2023 by the Fifth Session of the Standing Committee of the 14th National People’s Congress, effective 1 January 2024, rewriting Part Four, the “Special Provisions on Foreign-Related Civil Procedure”.

Chinese courts now hear cases from more than one hundred countries and regions. The amendment spans jurisdiction, parallel proceedings and forum non conveniens, service, judicial assistance and evidence-taking, and recognition of foreign judgments. Only jurisdiction is covered here; service is at No. 68, enforcement at No. 77.

Connecting Factors and the Appropriate-Connection Catch-All

Article 276 (former Article 272): in an action other than one on personal status against a defendant with no domicile in China, a Chinese court may take the case if any of these lies in Chinese territory — the place of contract signature, of performance, of the subject matter of the action, of attachable property, of the tortious act, or a representative office’s domicile.

Paragraph 2 is new and the widest provision in Part Four: where the dispute has other appropriate connections with China, a Chinese court may take jurisdiction. A closed list becomes an open standard — having no entity in China no longer means beyond reach.

Choice-of-Court Agreements

Article 277 is new: parties choosing a Chinese court by written agreement confer jurisdiction on it. The deletion matters more — the old requirement that the chosen place have an actual connection with the dispute is gone, so two foreign parties under a contract signed and performed abroad may now validly litigate in China. Limits: writing, and exclusive jurisdiction.

Submission by Appearance

Article 278 is new and is where unadvised foreign defendants lose: a party that raises no jurisdictional objection and answers on the merits or counterclaims is deemed to have accepted jurisdiction. The objection comes first, within the period for filing a defence.

Exclusive Jurisdiction

Article 279 (former Article 273) reserves three categories: (1) formation, dissolution and liquidation of a legal person or other organisation established in Chinese territory, and the validity of its resolutions; (2) validity of intellectual property examined and granted in Chinese territory; (3) disputes from performance in Chinese territory of Chinese-foreign equity joint venture, cooperative joint venture, and cooperative natural-resource exploration and development contracts.

A resolution-validity suit therefore goes to a Chinese court whatever the shareholders’ agreement says, and a joint venture contract performed in China cannot be routed offshore by drafting.

Parallel Proceedings

Article 280: where one party sues abroad and the other in China on the same dispute, or one sues in both, a Chinese court with jurisdiction may accept the case. Exception: an exclusive foreign choice-of-court agreement violating neither Chinese exclusive jurisdiction nor China’s sovereignty, security or public interest — the court may rule not to accept, and dismisses if already accepted.

Under Article 281, on written application based on the foreign court having accepted first, the court may stay — unless the parties chose a Chinese court, the dispute is exclusively Chinese, or a Chinese hearing is clearly more convenient. If the foreign court takes no necessary measures to hear the case, or fails to conclude it within a reasonable period, it shall resume. Where a foreign judgment has been recognised in whole or part, a fresh action on that part is not accepted, or is dismissed.

Forum Non Conveniens

Article 282 applies only where the defendant objects to jurisdiction and all five conditions hold at once: (1) the basic facts did not occur in Chinese territory and hearing and participating are clearly inconvenient; (2) there is no agreement choosing a Chinese court; (3) the case is not within exclusive jurisdiction; (4) it does not involve China’s sovereignty, security or public interest; (5) a foreign court is more convenient. The court may then dismiss and tell the plaintiff to sue abroad. Return clause: if that court declines jurisdiction, takes no necessary measures, or fails to conclude within a reasonable period, and the party sues again in China, the court shall accept.

How Chinese Courts Test a Foreign Court’s Jurisdiction

Article 301 directs a court to find a foreign court had no jurisdiction where: (1) it had none under its own law, or had it but with no appropriate connection to the dispute; (2) it breached Chinese exclusive jurisdiction; or (3) it breached an exclusive choice-of-court agreement.

That is item (1) of Article 300, whose five refusal grounds are: no jurisdiction under Article 301; the respondent not lawfully summoned, denied a reasonable chance to state its case and defend, or lacking capacity without proper representation; judgment obtained by fraud; a Chinese judgment already given on the same dispute, or a third-country judgment already recognised; and violation of the basic principles of Chinese law or harm to sovereignty, security or the public interest. Article 303 allows reconsideration by the next higher court within ten days of service; Article 305 refers proceedings involving a foreign state to China’s foreign state immunity law. Enforcement is at No. 77.

Litigation or Arbitration

A valid arbitration clause displaces court jurisdiction on the merits and the award travels under the New York Convention — but the Article 279 categories and the sovereignty and public-interest boundaries remain. See No. 77 and this site’s arbitration articles.

Practical Steps for FIEs

  1. Re-examine pre-2024 dispute clauses. Exclusivity now decides acceptance.
  2. Use Article 277 deliberately. No actual connection is needed; exclusive jurisdiction still binds.
  3. Screen contracts against Article 279. Its three categories cannot be contracted out of.
  4. Object before answering. No answer, no counterclaim, until that call is made.
  5. Plan the filing sequence. Filing first abroad may support a stay — not against a Chinese forum clause, exclusive jurisdiction or clear Chinese convenience.
  6. Plead forum non conveniens; never assume it. All five conditions together, and the case can return.
  7. Draft jurisdiction with enforcement in mind. Article 301 waits at the Chinese end.

Disputes touching Hong Kong, China, Macao, China or Taiwan, China follow separate judicial-assistance arrangements.

Related Reading

See dispute-resolution pathways (No. 39), cross-border service (No. 68) and enforcement (No. 77).

你的中国争议将在哪里审理？2024年1月1日施行的修改后民事诉讼法下涉外民商事案件的管辖权

概述

《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》于1991年由七届全国人大四次会议通过，此后历经2007、2012、2017、2021年四次修正，但历次修正均未对涉外民事诉讼程序作实质性调整。2023年9月1日，十四届全国人大常委会第五次会议通过《全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于修改〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉的决定》，自2024年1月1日起施行，修改重点正是第四编”涉外民事诉讼程序的特别规定”。这是该编自1991年以来第一次系统性重写。

近年来人民法院审理的涉外民商事案件已覆盖一百多个国家和地区，境外当事人主动选择中国法院管辖的案件日益增多，管辖规则因此需要与跨境交易的现实相匹配。立法机关将修改内容概括为五方面：扩大涉外案件管辖权，增加平行诉讼一般规定与不方便法院原则，改革涉外送达，完善司法协助与域外调查取证，完善外国判决承认与执行的基本规则。本文只处理其中后果最直接的管辖权问题——送达见本站编号68，执行见本站编号77，本文仅在与管辖权相关处一笔带过。对外资企业而言，管辖规则的变化不只是诉讼技术问题：它决定了合同争议解决条款是否仍然有效、争议将在何处审理，以及一份境外判决日后能否在中国落地。

连结点与”适当联系”兜底规则

第二百七十六条（原第二百七十二条）是基础规则。因涉外民事纠纷，对在中国领域内没有住所的被告提起除身份关系以外的诉讼，如果下列地点位于中国领域内，可以由该地人民法院管辖：合同签订地、合同履行地、诉讼标的物所在地、可供扣押财产所在地、侵权行为地、代表机构住所地。

第二款为新增，也是修改后第四编扩张力度最大的条款：除前款规定外，涉外民事纠纷与中华人民共和国存在其他适当联系的，可以由人民法院管辖。封闭式列举由此转为开放式标准，此前因不符合任何列举项而无法受理的纠纷得以进入中国法院，例如商业重心、受影响市场或实质履行部分在中国，但没有任何单一列举连结点被完整满足的情形。”适当联系”如何认定，将在个案中由受诉法院结合纠纷与中国的实际牵连程度判断，境外企业不宜再以”未在中国设立主体”作为免受管辖的当然理由。对外国企业而言结论很直白：在中国没有子公司、分支机构或登记代表机构，已不再意味着处于中国法院管辖范围之外。同时，”可供扣押财产所在地”这一连结点既关乎管辖，也直接影响保全与后续执行的可行性。

协议管辖

第二百七十七条为新增：涉外民事纠纷的当事人书面协议选择人民法院管辖的，可以由人民法院管辖。更重要的是被删去的内容——旧法要求协议选择的法院所在地与争议有实际联系，该限制已取消。合同在境外签订、境外履行、适用外国法的两个外国当事人，如今仍可有效约定由中国法院审理，其立法目的是使中国法院成为国际商事主体可选的中立审判地。两项限制仍在：须采书面形式，且不得突破专属管辖。实践中还应把管辖条款写到可执行的程度，明确具体法院或明确的确定方法，避免因约定不明在受理阶段另生争议。同时须注意区分排他性与非排他性表述：选择中国法院时若写成非排他，对方仍可能在境外另行起诉，从而落入下文的平行诉讼情形。

应诉管辖

第二百七十八条同为新增，也是缺乏准备的外国被告最容易失手之处：当事人未提出管辖异议，并应诉答辩或者提出反诉的，视为人民法院有管辖权。顺序决定一切——管辖异议须在提交答辩状期间内、在就实体问题作出回应之前先行提出，逾期或先行实体答辩即丧失抗辩机会。收到起诉材料后的第一项工作因此不是准备实体抗辩，而是判断是否提出管辖异议；在管辖问题尚未决定时就指示律师”先把答辩交上去”，等于把选择权提前用掉。这一点对总部远在境外、内部审批链条较长的外资企业尤为关键，应在收到材料的第一时间启动应对，而不是等待总部逐级决策。

专属管辖的三类案件

第二百七十九条（原第二百七十三条）将三类纠纷保留给人民法院专属管辖：

  1. 因在中国领域内设立的法人或者其他组织的设立、解散、清算，以及其作出的决议的效力等发生的纠纷；
  2. 因与在中国领域内审查授予的知识产权的有效性有关的纠纷；
  3. 因在中国领域内履行中外合资经营企业合同、中外合作经营企业合同、中外合作勘探开发自然资源合同发生的纠纷。

这三类专属管辖不因当事人另有约定而改变，也是协议管辖自由的边界所在。

后果非常具体。就中国公司股东会或董事会决议效力提起的诉讼，无论股东协议如何约定都归人民法院审理；对中国专利、商标有效性的争议留在中国，无效宣告本身仍走行政程序并经行政诉讼救济；在中国境内履行的合资合同不能安排到境外审理——写入境外法院，或在某些情形下约定境外仲裁地，都需逐案评估而非沿用模板。对以合资方式进入中国的投资者，这意味着争议解决条款必须与主合同的履行地事实一并审阅，不能只看条款文本本身，还须核对合同实际在何地履行、标的物与知识产权登记在何处。

平行诉讼

第二百八十条是平行诉讼的第一条一般性规定。当事人之间的同一纠纷，一方向外国法院起诉、另一方向人民法院起诉，或者一方既向外国法院起诉又向人民法院起诉的，人民法院依法有管辖权的可以受理；仅在境外先行起诉并不阻断中国诉讼。例外是排他性管辖协议：当事人订立排他性管辖协议选择外国法院管辖，且不违反本法专属管辖规定、不涉及中国主权、安全或社会公共利益的，人民法院可以裁定不予受理；已经受理的，裁定驳回起诉。”排他性”三个字承载了全部分量。

第二百八十一条规定受理之后的处理。当事人以外国法院已经先于人民法院受理为由书面申请中止诉讼的，人民法院可以裁定中止诉讼，但有下列情形之一的除外：（一）当事人协议选择人民法院管辖，或者纠纷属于人民法院专属管辖；（二）由人民法院审理明显更为方便。外国法院未采取必要措施审理案件，或者未在合理期限内审结的，依当事人书面申请，人民法院应当恢复诉讼。外国法院的生效判决、裁定已被全部或部分承认的，当事人就已获承认部分又起诉的，裁定不予受理；已受理的裁定驳回起诉。合并来看，这是一场受到管理的”赛跑”：抢先在境外起诉换来的是可能的中止，而非永久阻断；一旦境外程序停滞，中止会被解除、诉讼恢复。对外国当事人而言，起诉地与起诉时点的选择因此不再是单纯的策略问题，而须结合管辖协议文本、专属管辖清单与两地程序推进速度一并评估。

不方便法院原则

第二百八十二条将不方便法院原则成文化，适用以被告提出管辖异议为前提，且五个要件须同时具备：（一）案件争议的基本事实不是发生在中国领域内，人民法院审理案件和当事人参加诉讼均明显不方便；（二）当事人之间不存在选择人民法院管辖的协议；（三）案件不属于人民法院专属管辖；（四）案件不涉及中国主权、安全或者社会公共利益；（五）外国法院审理案件更为方便。五项同时满足的，可以裁定驳回起诉，并告知原告向更方便的外国法院起诉。条文另设回流条款：驳回后外国法院拒绝行使管辖权、未采取必要措施审理或未在合理期限内审结，当事人又向人民法院起诉的，人民法院应当受理。被告因此无法借助该原则使原告陷入无处起诉的境地。需要强调的是，不方便法院原则不会由法院主动适用：被告若未在法定期间内提出管辖异议，即使五个要件客观上成立，也无从主张。

人民法院如何反向审查外国法院的管辖权

到了承认环节，管辖权会从相反方向再次出现。新增第三百零一条要求人民法院在下列情形之一时认定该外国法院对案件无管辖权：（一）外国法院依照其法律对案件没有管辖权，或者虽有管辖权但与案件所涉纠纷无适当联系；（二）违反本法对专属管辖的规定；（三）违反当事人排他性选择法院管辖的协议。

该条服务于第三百条第（一）项。第三百条列举不予承认和执行的五种情形：依第三百零一条认定外国法院无管辖权；被申请人未得到合法传唤，或虽经合法传唤但未获得合理的陈述、辩论机会，或无诉讼行为能力的当事人未得到适当代理；判决、裁定系通过欺诈取得；人民法院已就同一纠纷作出判决、裁定，或已承认第三国法院就同一纠纷作出的判决、裁定；违反中国法律的基本原则或损害国家主权、安全、社会公共利益。

另有两条须一并留意。第三百零三条规定，当事人对承认和执行或不予承认和执行的裁定不服的，可以自裁定送达之日起十日内向上一级人民法院申请复议。新增第三百零五条规定，涉及外国国家的民事诉讼，适用中华人民共和国有关外国国家豁免的法律规定；有关法律没有规定的，适用本法。对外国当事人而言，第三百零一条的意义在于把”管辖”从起诉阶段的程序问题，变成了判决能否在中国落地的实体门槛：一份由与纠纷无适当联系的法院作出的判决，即便在原审地完全有效，在中国仍可能被拒绝承认。执行实务见本站编号77，本文不展开。

诉讼还是仲裁

有效的仲裁条款可排除法院对实体争议的管辖，裁决依《纽约公约》跨境流通，从而规避上述大部分管辖权博弈。但它不是万能出口：第二百七十九条的专属管辖事项以及公共利益与主权边界依然存在，在中国境内履行的合资合同、中国授权专利的有效性，都无法仅凭条款起草搬到境外。诉讼与仲裁的取舍应针对具体标的逐项判断，而不是作为默认选项照抄模板；对同一份合同中的不同争议类型，甚至可能需要作出不同安排。可参见本站编号77及本站国际仲裁类文章。

外资企业的实操步骤

  1. 重新体检2024年之前签署的争议解决条款。 排他性与非排他性如今直接决定人民法院是否受理，务必明确写清。
  2. 有意识地运用第二百七十七条。 选择中国法院不再需要实际联系，但永远不能突破专属管辖。
  3. 逐份合同对照第二百七十九条筛查。 在中国境内履行的中外合资、合作经营与合作勘探开发合同，法人设立、解散、清算与决议效力纠纷，以及中国授权知识产权的有效性，均属人民法院管辖。
  4. 建立管辖异议内部流程。 在是否提异议的决定作出前，不得提交实体答辩状、不得提出反诉。
  5. 规划起诉顺序。 抢先在境外起诉可能支持中止，但在已协议选择人民法院、属于专属管辖或由中国审理明显更方便时不适用。
  6. 不方便法院须主动主张，不可默认。 五个要件必须同时成立，且案件可能回流至中国。
  7. 起草管辖条款时即考虑执行。 第三百零一条在中国这一端等着，境外判决能否在中国落地，往往在签约时就已决定。

涉及中国香港、中国澳门、中国台湾地区的争议，适用各自的区际司法协助安排，而非上述外国判决规则。

相关阅读

可参阅本站涉外争议解决总体路径（编号39）、跨境送达与诉讼程序（编号68），以及外国裁决与判决的执行（编号77），了解本文未覆盖的前后环节。三者与本文的管辖权规则共同构成涉外争议从立案到执行的完整链条。

Sources

International Arbitration / 国际仲裁

CIETAC & International Arbitration

  • CIETAC (est. 1956, Beijing) is China’s flagship international commercial arbitration institution, and its awards are enforceable across borders under the New York Convention.
    中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（贸仲，1956年成立于北京）是中国国际商事仲裁的旗舰机构，其裁决可依《纽约公约》跨境执行。
  • CIETAC’s 2024 Arbitration Rules took effect on 1 January 2024 and apply uniformly across its sub-commissions and arbitration centers.
    贸仲2024版仲裁规则于2024年1月1日施行，在分会与仲裁中心统一适用。
  • The seat follows the parties’ agreement; absent agreement, it is the location of the CIETAC body administering the case (e.g., Shanghai or Shenzhen sub-commission).
    仲裁地（第七条）依当事人约定；无约定时以管理案件的贸仲机构所在地为仲裁地（如上海或深圳分会）。
  • The language defaults to Chinese if not agreed—a well-drafted clause should state English expressly to avoid default-Chinese administration.
    语言（第八十四条）未约定时默认为中文——条款应明示英文以免默认中文管理。
  • A Hong Kong-seated CIETAC clause yields a Hong Kong award, enforceable in mainland China via the Mainland–Hong Kong arrangement and internationally via the NY Convention.
    香港仲裁地的贸仲条款产生香港裁决，在内地依”内地—香港安排”、国际上依《纽约公约》执行，增加弹性。
  • China acceded to the NY Convention on 22 January 1987; mainland CIETAC awards are enforced directly under the CPL, with lower courts reporting to the SPC before refusing.
    中国于1987年1月22日加入《纽约公约》；内地贸仲裁决依《民事诉讼法》直接执行，下级法院拒绝执行前须报最高人民法院确认。
  • The arbitration agreement must be in writing and is separable from the main contract—challenges to the contract do not defeat the clause.
    仲裁协议须书面且独立于主合同——对主合同的异议不否定仲裁条款。

CIETAC & International Arbitration | 贸仲与涉外仲裁

Overview

The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC, 中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会), also known as the Arbitration Court of China Chamber of International Commerce, is China’s flagship international commercial arbitration institution. Established in 1956 and headquartered in Beijing, it administers disputes that are international/foreign-related, involve Hong Kong/Macau/Taiwan, or are domestic. For foreign investors, CIETAC is often the default “China-seated” arbitration clause: it is institutionally stable, internationally recognized, and — critically — its awards are enforceable across borders under the New York Convention.

This article covers CIETAC’s 2024 Arbitration Rules, how the seat and language are determined, the Beijing/Hong Kong distinction, and the enforcement of CIETAC and foreign awards in China.

CIETAC’s 2024 Arbitration Rules

CIETAC’s arbitration rules were revised by the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT)/China Chamber of International Commerce and took effect on 1 January 2024. The rules apply uniformly across CIETAC and its sub-commissions/arbitration centers, and a clause submitting disputes to CIETAC is deemed an agreement to arbitrate under these rules. Key features relevant to foreign users:

  • Scope: CIETAC accepts contractual and non-contractual economic/trade disputes, including international/foreign-related disputes, Hong Kong/Macau/Taiwan disputes, and domestic disputes.
  • Arbitration agreement & separability (Articles 5): the agreement must be in writing; an arbitration clause is separable from the main contract, so a challenge to the contract does not defeat the clause.
  • Seat: if the parties agree on a seat, that governs; absent agreement, the seat is the location of the CIETAC body managing the case.
  • Summary procedure for smaller claims and expedited procedures for early dismissal, keeping costs and time predictable.
  • Emergency arbitrator mechanism (Annex) available before the tribunal is constituted — useful for urgent interim relief.
  • Ad hoc arbitration support: CIETAC may, at party request, provide administrative and supportive services for ad hoc arbitration.

The rules also embed mediation-arbitration combination, multi-contract and consolidated proceedings, and third-party funding disclosure — modern features that align CIETAC with leading international institutions.

Seat and language

Seat (仲裁地): CIETAC is headquartered in Beijing, with sub-commissions/arbitration centers in Shenzhen (South China), Shanghai, Tianjin, Southwest (Chongqing), Zhejiang, and Hong Kong. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the seat is the location of the CIETAC body that administers the case (e.g., a clause specifying the Shanghai Sub-Commission makes Shanghai the seat). The seat determines the procedural law and, importantly, the legal character of the award — which matters for enforcement.

Language: if the parties agree on a language, that governs. If they do not, Chinese is the arbitration language. CIETAC may nonetheless decide to use one or more languages after considering all circumstances, including the language of the contract. In practice, bilingual proceedings (English submissions with Chinese translation) are common, and parties frequently agree to English where neither is a Chinese party. A well-drafted clause should specify the language expressly to avoid default-Chinese administration.

Hong Kong distinction: CIETAC’s Hong Kong Arbitration Center applies Hong Kong-seat rules — unless the parties agree otherwise, the seat is Hong Kong, the procedure is governed by the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance, and the award is a Hong Kong award. This is significant: a Hong Kong-seated CIETAC award is enforced in mainland China under the Arrangement on Reciprocal Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and Hong Kong, and internationally under the New York Convention as a Hong Kong award — giving parties added enforcement flexibility.

Enforcement of awards in China (New York Convention)

China acceded to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) on 22 January 1987. Under the Civil Procedure Law (Article 290, formerly 283), a party seeking to enforce a foreign arbitral award in China applies to the intermediate people’s court at the place where the party against whom enforcement is sought is domiciled or has property. Chinese courts recognize and enforce New York Convention awards unless a narrow exception applies — incapacity/invalid arbitration agreement, no proper notice or representation, the award exceeds the agreed scope, the tribunal composition or procedure was not in accordance with the agreement, the award is not yet binding, or enforcement would violate China’s public policy.

For a CIETAC award rendered on the mainland, it is a Chinese foreign-related award and is enforced directly through the Chinese courts under the CPL (a reporting system requires lower courts to seek SPC confirmation before refusing enforcement). This dual track — New York Convention for foreign-seated awards, CPL for mainland awards — means a CIETAC clause gives the winning foreign party a reliable enforcement route against assets in China, and a Hong Kong-seated CIETAC clause adds the Mainland–Hong Kong arrangement as a backstop.

What to do next

  • Use a CIETAC clause in China contracts: specify the institution, and — to control cost and certainty — consider the sub-commission (e.g., Shanghai/Shenzhen) and summary procedure.
  • State the seat and language expressly (e.g., “arbitration seat in Beijing/Shanghai; language English”) to avoid default-Chinese administration.
  • Consider a Hong Kong-seated CIETAC clause if you want both the Mainland–Hong Kong arrangement and New York Convention coverage.
  • Keep the arbitration agreement in writing and separable; challenges to the contract will not defeat the clause.
  • For enforcement in China, apply to the intermediate court at the debtor’s domicile or asset location; rely on the New York Convention for foreign-seated awards.

Sources

Related reading

  • see also: Foreign-related dispute resolution — litigation vs. arbitration — why arbitration is the cross-border default.
  • see also: PIPL compliance for foreign companies — arbitration can sit alongside data-compliance disputes.
  • see also: VIE structures & regulatory trends — arbitration clauses in offshore-listing structures.

贸仲与涉外仲裁

概述

中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（CIETAC，贸仲），同时使用”中国国际商会仲裁院”名称，是中国国际商事仲裁的旗舰机构。贸仲成立于 1956 年，总部设在北京，受理国际/涉外、港澳台及国内纠纷。对外国投资者而言，贸仲常是”中国仲裁地”的默认条款：机构稳定、国际认可，且最关键的是——其裁决可依《纽约公约》跨境执行。

本文介绍贸仲 2024 版仲裁规则、仲裁地与语言如何确定、北京与香港的区别，以及贸仲与外国裁决在中国的执行。

贸仲 2024 版仲裁规则

贸仲仲裁规则经中国国际贸易促进委员会/中国国际商会修订，于 2024 年 1 月 1 日施行。规则在贸仲及其分会/仲裁中心统一适用，提交贸仲的条款视为同意依本规则仲裁。对外国用户重要的要点：

  • 受理范围（第三条）：受理合同性与非合同性经贸争议，含国际/涉外、港澳台及国内争议。
  • 仲裁协议与独立性（第五条）：协议须书面；仲裁条款与主合同分离，对主合同的异议不否定仲裁条款。
  • 仲裁地（第七条）：当事人约定的仲裁地优先；无约定时，以管理案件的贸仲机构所在地为仲裁地。
  • 简易程序适用于小额，另有早期驳回的速裁程序，控制成本与周期。
  • 紧急仲裁员机制（附件）在组成仲裁庭前可用——适于紧急临时救济。
  • 临时仲裁辅助：贸仲可应请求为临时仲裁提供管理与辅助服务。

规则还嵌入”仲裁与调解相结合”、多合同与合并审理、第三方资助披露等现代机制，使贸仲与国际主流机构接轨。

仲裁地与语言

仲裁地：贸仲总部在北京，设有华南（深圳）、上海、天津、西南（重庆）、浙江及香港等分会对仲裁中心。除非另有约定，仲裁地为管理案件的贸仲机构所在地（如约定上海分会，则上海为仲裁地）。仲裁地决定程序法，并至关重要地决定裁决的法律属性——这关乎执行。

语言（第八十四条）：当事人约定的语言优先；无约定时，中文为仲裁语言。贸仲仍可综合考虑合同语言等情形决定使用一种或多种语言。实务中双语程序（英文材料附中文翻译）常见，非中国当事方时常约定英文。条款应明示语言，以免默认中文管理。

香港区别：贸仲香港仲裁中心适用香港仲裁地规则——除非另有约定，仲裁地为香港，程序受《香港仲裁条例》规管，裁决为香港裁决。意义重大：香港仲裁地的贸仲裁决，在内地依《关于内地与香港特别行政区相互执行仲裁裁决的安排》执行，国际上作为香港裁决依《纽约公约》执行——赋予当事人额外执行弹性。

裁决在中国的执行（纽约公约）

中国于 1987 年 1 月 22 日加入《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》（《纽约公约》）。依《民事诉讼法》第二百九十条（原第二百八十三条），当事人申请在中国执行外国仲裁裁决，向被申请人住所地或财产所在地中级人民法院提出。中国法院仅在狭窄例外下拒绝执行纽约公约裁决——仲裁协议无效或当事人无行为能力、未妥为通知或未能代理、裁决超出约定范围、仲裁庭组成或程序不符约定、裁决尚未拘束，或执行将违反中国公共政策。

对于在内地作出的贸仲裁决，其为中国涉外裁决，依《民事诉讼法》经中国法院直接执行（报告制度要求下级法院在拒绝执行前报请最高人民法院确认）。这一双轨——外国裁决依纽约公约、内地裁决依民诉法——意味着贸仲条款为胜诉外国当事人提供针对中国境内资产的可靠执行路径；香港仲裁地的贸仲条款更以”内地—香港安排”为后盾。

下一步建议

  • 在中国合同中采用贸仲条款：指定机构，并（为控制成本与确定性）考虑分会（如上海/深圳）与简易程序。
  • 明示仲裁地与语言（如”仲裁地北京/上海；语言英文”），避免默认中文管理。
  • 考虑香港仲裁地贸仲条款：若希望同时享有内地—香港安排与纽约公约覆盖。
  • 保持仲裁协议书面且独立；对主合同的异议不否定仲裁条款。
  • 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；外国裁决依托纽约公约。

来源

相关阅读

  • 参见：涉外争议解决：诉讼与仲裁 — 为何仲裁是跨境默认选择。
  • 参见：外资企业的个人信息保护法合规 — 仲裁可与数据合规争议并行。
  • 参见：VIE 架构与监管趋势 — 离岸上市结构中的仲裁条款。
International Arbitration / 国际仲裁

China’s 2026 Arbitration Law: Foreign-Related Innovations — Seat, Ad Hoc Arbitration and Foreign Institutions

  • The revised PRC Arbitration Law, effective 1 March 2026, for the first time codifies the “seat of arbitration” (Article 81), determining the applicable procedural law and supervisory court.
    2026年3月1日施行的修订版《仲裁法》首次在法律上确立”仲裁地”概念（第八十一条），据以确定仲裁程序适用法及监督法院。
  • Article 82 introduces limited ad hoc (special) arbitration for foreign-related maritime disputes and for foreign-related disputes between enterprises registered in FTZs and the Hainan FTP.
    第八十二条引入有限度的临时（特别）仲裁，适用于涉外海事纠纷及在自贸区、海南自贸港登记企业之间的涉外纠纷。
  • Article 86 permits qualified foreign arbitral institutions to set up offices and administer foreign-related arbitration in pilot FTZs and the Hainan FTP.
    第八十六条允许符合条件的境外仲裁机构在自贸区、海南自贸港等试点区域设立机构并开展涉外仲裁。
  • Article 87 expressly encourages parties to choose China (including Hong Kong and Macau) as the seat and Chinese institutions as the forum — a signal of the “arbitration-friendly” policy.
    第八十七条明确鼓励当事人选择中国（含港澳台）为仲裁地、选择中国仲裁机构，彰显”仲裁友好型”政策取向。
  • The Supreme People’s Court will issue supporting judicial interpretations and refine arbitration judicial-review and preservation mechanisms to support the new system.
    最高人民法院将制定配套司法解释，完善仲裁司法审查与保全机制以支撑新制度。
  • FIEs can now design clauses that seat arbitration in China/FTZ/Hainan, use ad hoc tribunals in pilot zones, and even appoint foreign institutions — broadening dispute-resolution optionality.
    外资企业如今可起草以中国/自贸区/海南为仲裁地、在试点区域采用临时仲裁、甚至指定境外机构的条款，拓展争议解决选择空间。

China’s 2026 Arbitration Law: Foreign-Related Innovations — Seat, Ad Hoc Arbitration and Foreign Institutions | 中国2026年新仲裁法：涉外仲裁制度创新——仲裁地、临时仲裁与境外机构

Why this matters now

On 12 September 2025, the Standing Committee of the 14th National People’s Congress adopted the first comprehensive revision of the PRC Arbitration Law since its 1995 enactment. The revised law — eight chapters and 96 articles, 16 more than before — takes effect on 1 March 2026. For foreign-invested enterprises (FIEs), the most consequential changes sit in Chapter VII (“Special Provisions on Foreign-Related Arbitration”), which imports three international-standard institutions into Chinese law: the seat of arbitration, ad hoc (special) arbitration, and the admission of foreign arbitral institutions. Together these remove long-standing reasons why parties avoided choosing China as a seat or a Chinese institution, and they directly affect how an FIE should draft its dispute-resolution clause.

This article explains each reform, the official sources behind it, and what FIEs should specify in their contracts.

The seat of arbitration (Article 81): the new anchor

The pre-revision law did not formally recognise the “seat.” Courts therefore linked an award’s nationality to the institution’s domicile — which is why, in the German Züblin matter, an ICC award rendered in Shanghai was treated as a foreign award needing New York Convention recognition. Article 81 now codifies the seat:

  • Parties may agree the seat in writing. Unless they agree otherwise on the procedural law, the seat determines the lex arbitri (the law governing the arbitration procedure) and the competent supervisory court, and the award is deemed rendered at the seat.
  • If the parties do not agree or are unclear, the seat is determined by the agreed arbitration rules; if the rules are silent, the tribunal fixes the seat under the principle of facilitating dispute resolution.

This aligns China with the UNCITRAL Model Law and resolves the long-standing uncertainty about an award’s “nationality.” For an FIE, the seat is now a deliberate, contractible choice — pick China, Hong Kong, Singapore or elsewhere — and it dictates which courts supervise and where the award is enforced.

Ad hoc

For the first time, China legislatively recognises ad hoc arbitration, but only in a limited, “special arbitration” (特别仲裁) form. Article 82 permits parties, by written agreement, to choose either an institution or — for two categories of disputes — to take the PRC as the seat and constitute a tribunal of qualified persons under the agreed rules:

  1. Foreign-related maritime disputes — ad hoc arbitration is widely used in shipping and fits the sector’s needs.
  2. Foreign-related disputes between enterprises registered in a State-Council-approved free-trade zone, the Hainan Free Trade Port, or other designated areas.

The ad hoc tribunal must file, within three working days of its constitution, the parties’ names, the seat, the tribunal’s composition and the rules with the arbitration association. Critically, the tribunal may refer a party’s application for property, evidence or conduct preservation to the people’s court, which must handle it promptly. This gives ad hoc proceedings a domestic enforcement backbone that pure party-to-party agreements previously lacked.

For an FIE incorporated in a pilot FTZ or the Hainan FTP, Article 82 means a future dispute with another locally-registered foreign-invested entity can be resolved by a bespoke tribunal seated in China, without mandating an institution — a flexibility previously unavailable on the mainland.

Foreign institutions entering China (Article 86) and the pro-China-seat policy (Article 87)

Article 86 opens the market in both directions. It supports Chinese institutions establishing offices abroad, and — subject to need and state regulations — permits qualified foreign arbitral institutions to set up offices and conduct foreign-related arbitration in pilot FTZs, the Hainan FTP and similar designated areas. Combined with the codified seat concept, this gives a clear statutory basis for an arbitration administered by, say, a foreign institution but seated in China, removing the previous ambiguity about such clauses’ validity and enforceability.

Article 87 then signals policy direction: it encourages foreign-related parties to choose a PRC institution (including those in the Special Administrative Regions) and to agree on the PRC as the seat. This is the legislative expression of the “international arbitration preferred venue” (国际仲裁优选地) ambition repeatedly stated by the Supreme People’s Court and the Ministry of Justice, and it backs the international commercial arbitration centre initiatives already underway in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong, Shenzhen and Hainan.

Judicial support: SPC interpretations and the “arbitration-friendly” environment

The Supreme People’s Court has committed to making the reforms work in practice. At the Ministry of Justice press conference on 29 September 2025, the SPC’s Fourth Civil Division (the chamber handling foreign-related commercial and maritime matters) set out three priorities:

  1. Accelerate supporting judicial interpretations. The SPC will draft provisions implementing the revised law, building on existing arbitration judicial-review rules and working with the Legislative Affairs Commission of the NPC Standing Committee and the Ministry of Justice, so the amendments land in practice.
  2. Refine judicial-review and preservation mechanisms. The SPC will detail the review workflow, optimise arbitration preservation, and improve the衔接 between set-aside review and award enforcement, raising consistency and professionalism.
  3. Build an arbitration-friendly environment. The SPC will clarify, for the new institutions (the seat system and ad hoc arbitration), the competent court for ad hoc proceedings in FTZs/Hainan and for awards rendered in China by foreign institutions, and will honour the New York Convention in recognising and enforcing foreign awards.

Two concrete statutory improvements also help FIEs: the period to apply to set aside an award is shortened from six months to three (urging parties to act promptly), and parties may, in urgent cases, apply to a court for preservation before even filing for arbitration, dovetailing with the civil procedure law.

What FIEs should put in their contracts

  1. Specify the seat deliberately. Choose China, Hong Kong, Singapore or another seat aligned with where assets and enforcement lie — do not leave it to default rules.
  2. Consider ad hoc for pilot-zone disputes. If both you and the counterparty are registered in an FTZ or the Hainan FTP, an Article 82 ad hoc clause seated in China is now a viable, enforceable option.
  3. Weigh a foreign institution in a pilot zone. Where sophisticated cross-border expertise is needed, an institution seated in China but administered by a foreign body is now statutorily permissible in designated areas.
  4. Pair with preservation. Where urgency exists, provide for pre-arbitration court preservation and for the tribunal to refer interim measures to court.
  5. Revisit old templates. Clauses drafted before March 2026 that assumed China did not recognise the seat or ad hoc arbitration should be updated to capture the new options.

A takeaway for the foreign parent

The 2026 revision does not merely tinker at the edges; it repositions China as a credible seat and a more open arbitration market. For an FIE, the dividend is optionality: a dispute clause can now seat arbitration in China with a clear supervisory court, use a bespoke tribunal in a pilot zone, or appoint a foreign institution — each with a defined enforcement path. The remaining task is contractual discipline: capture these choices in writing before a dispute arises, because the law now rewards parties who do.

中国2026年新仲裁法：涉外仲裁制度创新——仲裁地、临时仲裁与境外机构

为何此刻重要

2025年9月12日，第十四届全国人大常委会第十七次会议表决通过《仲裁法》自1995年颁布以来的首次全面修订。修订后的法律共八章96条，较修订前增加16条，自2026年3月1日起施行。对外商投资企业（FIE）而言，最具影响的修改集中于第七章”涉外仲裁的特别规定”，该章将三项国际通行制度写入中国法：仲裁地、临时（特别）仲裁，以及境外仲裁机构的准入。三者共同消除了当事人长期回避选择中国为仲裁地或中国机构的缘由，并直接影响外资企业应如何起草争议解决条款。

本文逐一解释每项改革、其官方依据，以及外资企业应写入合同的要点。

仲裁地（第八十一条）：新的锚点

修订前的法律未正式承认”仲裁地”，法院因而以仲裁机构所在地链接裁决国籍——这正是在德国Züblin案中，ICC在上海作出的裁决被视为外国裁决、须依《纽约公约》承认的原因。第八十一条现确立仲裁地：

  • 当事人可以书面约定仲裁地。除对仲裁程序适用法另有约定外，以仲裁地作为仲裁程序适用法及司法管辖法院的确定依据，裁决视为在仲裁地作出。
  • 当事人未约定或约定不明确的，根据约定的仲裁规则确定；仲裁规则没有规定的，由仲裁庭依便利争议解决原则确定。

这使中国法与联合国国际贸易法委员会《示范法》接轨，并解决了裁决”国籍”的长期不确定性。对外资企业而言，仲裁地如今是一项可经合同自由选定的安排——选中国、香港、新加坡或其他——它决定由哪国法院监督、在何处执行。

自贸区与海南的临时（特别）仲裁（第八十二条）

中国首次以立法承认临时仲裁，但仅限于有限度的”特别仲裁”形式。第八十二条允许当事人书面约定，既可选定机构，也可对两类纠纷选择以中国为仲裁地、由符合条件的人员依约定规则组成仲裁庭：

  1. 涉外海事纠纷——临时仲裁在海运领域应用广泛，契合行业需求。
  2. 在国务院批准设立的自贸试验区、海南自由贸易港等区域内登记的企业之间的涉外纠纷。

临时仲裁庭须在组庭后三个工作日内，将当事人名称、仲裁地、仲裁庭组成及仲裁规则向仲裁协会备案。关键的是，仲裁庭可将当事人关于财产、证据保全及行为保全的申请提交人民法院，人民法院应依法及时处理。这为临时程序提供了此前所缺的境内执行支撑。

对注册于试点自贸区或海南自贸港的外资企业，第八十二条意味着其与另一本地注册外资企业未来的纠纷，可由设在中国、由专门人员组成的仲裁庭解决，而无需强制指定机构——这是此前内地所不具备的灵活性。

境外机构来华（第八十六条）与鼓励选择中国为仲裁地（第八十七条）

第八十六条实行双向开放。它支持中国仲裁机构到境外设立业务机构，并可根据经济社会发展和改革开放需要，允许符合条件的境外仲裁机构在国务院批准设立的自贸试验区、海南自贸港等区域内依规定设立机构、开展涉外仲裁。结合已确立的仲裁地概念，这为”由境外机构管理、但仲裁地在中国”的仲裁提供了清晰的制定法依据，消除了此前此类条款效力与可执行性的模糊。

第八十七条进而宣示政策取向：鼓励涉外仲裁当事人选择中华人民共和国（包括特别行政区）的仲裁机构、约定中华人民共和国（包括特别行政区）作为仲裁地进行仲裁。这是最高人民法院与司法部反复强调的”国际仲裁优选地”目标的立法表达，亦支撑已在北京、上海、广东、深圳、海南推进的国际商事仲裁中心建设。

司法支持：最高法院司法解释与”仲裁友好型”环境

最高人民法院已承诺使改革落地。在2025年9月29日司法部新闻发布会上，最高法院民四庭（审理涉外民商事及海事案件的审判庭）提出三项重点：

  1. 加快制定配套司法解释。最高人民法院将在梳理既有仲裁司法审查规则基础上，会同全国人大常委会法工委、司法部起草修订法配套司法解释，使修法内容在司法实践中落地。
  2. 完善司法审查与保全机制。细化审查规范与工作流程，优化仲裁保全，强化撤裁审查与裁决执行的衔接，提升一致性与专业化。
  3. 营造仲裁友好型环境。围绕仲裁地、特别仲裁等新设制度，尽快明确自贸区、海南适用特别仲裁及境外机构在华裁决的管辖法院，并依《纽约公约》承认和执行外国仲裁裁决。

两项具体的制定法改进亦惠及外资企业：申请撤销裁决的期限由六个月缩短为三个月（督促当事人及时行使权利）；紧急情况下，当事人可在申请仲裁前直接向人民法院申请保全，与民事诉讼法相衔接。

外资企业应在合同中写入的要点

  1. 慎重指定仲裁地。选择中国、香港、新加坡或与资产及执行所在地相符的仲裁地——不要留由默认规则决定。
  2. 为试点区纠纷考虑临时仲裁。若你与对方均在自贸区或海南自贸港登记，第八十二条项下以中国为仲裁地的临时条款如今成为可行且可执行的选项。
  3. 权衡试点区内的境外机构。若需高水平的跨境专业力量，由境外机构管理、仲裁地设在中国，如今在指定区域已为法律所允许。
  4. 与保全相衔接。存在紧急性时，约定仲裁前法院保全及仲裁庭将临时措施提交法院。
  5. 重审旧模板。2026年3月前起草、假定中国不承认仲裁地或临时仲裁的条款，应更新以纳入新选项。

给外国母公司的要点

2026年修订并非修修补补，而是将中国重新定位为可信的仲裁地与更开放的仲裁市场。对外资企业而言，红利在于选择空间：争议条款如今可把仲裁地设于中国并明确监督法院、在试点区采用专门仲裁庭，或指定境外机构——每一项都有明确的执行路径。余下的任务是合同纪律：在争议发生前以书面形式锁定这些选择，因为新法如今奖励如此行事的当事人。

Sources

  • 司法部：新修订的仲裁法对涉外仲裁的创新及重大意义（刘敬东）：https://www.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbgw/fzgz/fzgzggflfwx/fzgzggflfw/202601/t20260109_530387.html
  • 司法部：把握机遇谱写中国海事仲裁新篇章：https://www.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbgw/fzgz/fzgzggflfwx/fzgzggflfw/202602/t20260227_532017.html
  • 中国法院网（最高人民法院）：强化仲裁司法保障 促进仲裁高地建设：http://www.chinacourt.cn/article/detail/2026/01/id/9155691.shtml
International Arbitration / 国际仲裁

Seat of Arbitration and Interim Measures (Emergency Arbitrator): A 2026 Practical Guide for Foreign-Related Disputes in China

  • The “seat” (legal place) of arbitration, not the hearing venue, determines which courts supervise the proceedings and where awards are enforced — choosing it is one of the most consequential clauses in a foreign-related contract.
    仲裁的”仲裁地”（法律所在地）而非开庭地点，决定由哪国法院监督程序及在何处执行裁决——选择仲裁地是涉外合同中最具后果的条款之一。
  • China’s leading institutions — CIETAC and others — introduced emergency-arbitrator procedures in their 2024 rules, letting a party obtain a binding interim measure before the tribunal is even constituted.
    中国主要机构（贸仲等）在 2024 年版规则中引入紧急仲裁员程序，使当事人在仲裁庭组成前即可获得有约束力的临时措施。
  • CIETAC’s emergency arbitrator is designated within one day of a complete application and must decide within 15 days; the decision binds both parties and may later be modified by the tribunal.
    贸仲紧急仲裁员在申请完备后 1 日内指定，须于 15 日内作出决定；决定对双方具有约束力，并可由仲裁庭后续修改。
  • In mainland China, emergency-arbitrator decisions are contractually binding but are not directly enforceable by courts; parties typically pair them with court preservation or rely on the tribunal’s later measures.
    在中国内地，紧急仲裁员决定具合同约束力，但不能由法院直接强制执行；当事人通常将其与法院保全结合，或依赖仲裁庭后续措施。
  • Interim measures can also be ordered by the arbitral tribunal once constituted, and Chinese courts will, in appropriate cross-border cases, recognise and support such measures.
    仲裁庭组成后可自行决定临时措施；中国法院在适当的跨境案件中会承认并支持此类措施。
  • Foreign-related disputes benefit from a “seat–assets–enforcement” assessment at the contracting stage, so the chosen seat aligns with where assets and enforcement actually sit.
    涉外争议应在缔约阶段做”仲裁地—资产—执行”三维评估，使选定仲裁地与资产和执行的真实所在地相匹配。

Seat of Arbitration and Interim Measures (Emergency Arbitrator): A 2026 Practical Guide for Foreign-Related Disputes in China | 仲裁地与临时措施（紧急仲裁员）：中国涉外争议 2026 实务指南

Why this matters now

When a foreign-invested enterprise (FIE) drafts a dispute-resolution clause, the two details that most affect outcomes are often the ones given least thought: the seat of arbitration and the availability of interim measures. Get them wrong and a winning award may be unenforceable, or a critical asset may vanish before the tribunal is even formed.

This article explains how the seat functions in Chinese-connected arbitration, how emergency-arbitrator and tribunal interim measures work under 2024 institutional rules, and what FIEs should specify in their contracts. It pairs with our international-arbitration and foreign-related-litigation coverage.

The seat, not the venue

The seat (legal place) of arbitration is a legal concept, distinct from where hearings are held. The seat determines:

  • which country’s courts have supervisory jurisdiction (e.g., to set aside or assist the proceedings);
  • the procedural law that fills gaps in the arbitral rules; and
  • the legal character of the award (a “seat” award is enforced under the New York Convention as an award made in that place).

For an FIE, a well-chosen seat — mainland China, Hong Kong, Singapore, or elsewhere — should match where the counterparty’s assets and enforcement realistically lie. China’s institutions now expressly address the seat in their rules, and CIETAC’s 2024 rules confirm that the emergency-arbitrator proceeding is located at the seat.

Emergency arbitration before the tribunal exists

A core problem: by the time a three-member tribunal is constituted, the asset may already be gone. China’s leading arbitral institutions responded by embedding emergency-arbitrator (EA) procedures in their 2024 rules. Under CIETAC’s rules:

  • A party may apply for urgent interim relief before the tribunal is formed.
  • The arbitration court designates an emergency arbitrator within one day of receiving the application and fee.
  • The EA must render a decision within 15 days; the decision is binding on both parties.
  • The EA’s powers cease when the tribunal is constituted, which may modify, suspend, or terminate the decision.

Other major Chinese institutions (Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou) follow a similar model, with designation in one to two days and decisions in ten to fifteen days.

Enforcement reality in mainland China

The honest caveat: under current PRC law, an emergency-arbitrator decision is contractually binding but is not directly enforceable by a Chinese court as a preservation order — the power to order property or conduct preservation rests with the people’s courts. In practice, parties use the EA decision to (a) obtain the counterparty’s voluntary compliance, (b) support a parallel court preservation application, or (c) secure recognition in a foreign enforcement jurisdiction (e.g., Hong Kong, which has legislated enforceability).

Once the tribunal is constituted, it may order interim measures, and Chinese courts have, in appropriate cross-border cases, shown a pragmatic willingness to recognise and support arbitral relief.

What FIEs should specify

  1. Seat: choose deliberately, aligning the seat with asset location and enforcement strategy.
  2. Rules: adopt 2024 institutional rules that include an EA procedure (CIETAC, BAC/BIAC, SHIAC, etc.).
  3. Interim-measure clause: expressly contemplate EA relief and, where relevant, court-preservation coordination.
  4. Security: be prepared to post appropriate security — EA tribunals routinely require it.
  5. Cross-border plan: if assets are offshore, pair the EA decision with recognition strategy in the asset jurisdiction.

Practical steps

  • At contracting, run a “seat–assets–enforcement” assessment rather than defaulting to a familiar institution.
  • Preserve evidence of urgency and a prima-facie case; EA relief turns on both.
  • Coordinate EA and court-preservation timelines so relief is not lost in the gap.
  • Brief counsel early — EA windows are measured in days.

Cost and timing in practice

EA relief is cheap relative to a full arbitration: institutions set modest EA fees, and the decision arrives in days. By contrast, a constituted tribunal’s interim measure and the underlying arbitration can run for months and cost substantially more. The practical calculus for an FIE is therefore: use EA for urgent, time-critical preservation; use the tribunal’s measures (or court preservation) for the main proceeding; and reserve litigation for points that turn on precedent or high damages. Documenting the urgency and a prima-facie case from day one is what makes any of these routes work.

Related reading

  • Enforcing foreign arbitral awards in China.
  • The Supreme People’s Court International Commercial Court (CICC) and foreign-related jurisdiction.
  • Foreign-related civil jurisdiction and service rules.

仲裁地与临时措施（紧急仲裁员）：中国涉外争议 2026 实务指南

为何重要

当 ded 外商投资企业起草争议解决条款时，最影响结果的往往是最少被思考的两处细节：仲裁地与临时措施的可得性。若选错，胜诉裁决可能无从执行，或关键资产在仲裁庭组成前就已流失。

本文说明仲裁地在中国相关仲裁中的功能、2024 年机构规则下紧急仲裁员与仲裁庭临时措施的运作，以及外资企业应在合同中明确的要点，与本站国际仲裁与涉外诉讼专题相互呼应。

仲裁地，而非开庭地

仲裁地（法律所在地）是法律概念，不同于开庭地点。仲裁地决定：

  • 哪国法院拥有监督管辖权（如撤销或协助程序）；
  • 填补仲裁规则漏洞的程序法；以及
  • 裁决的法律属性（”仲裁地”裁决依《纽约公约》作为该地作出的裁决执行）。

对外资企业而言，妥善选定的仲裁地——中国内地、香港、新加坡或其他——应与对方资产与执行的真实所在地相匹配。中国机构如今在规则中明确处理仲裁地，贸仲 2024 年规则确认紧急仲裁员程序位于仲裁地。

仲裁庭组成前的紧急仲裁

核心难题：三人仲裁庭组成时，资产或许早已转移。中国主要仲裁机构以在 2024 年规则中嵌入紧急仲裁员（EA）程序应对。依贸仲规则：

  • 当事人可在仲裁庭组成前申请紧急性临时救济。
  • 仲裁院在收到申请及费用后 1 日内指定紧急仲裁员。
  • 紧急仲裁员须于 15 日内作出决定；决定对双方具有约束力。
  • 紧急仲裁员的权力于仲裁庭组成时终止，仲裁庭可修改、中止或终止该决定。

北京、上海、广州等主要中国机构遵循类似模型，指定在 1 至 2 日内、决定在 10 至 15 日内作出。

中国内地的执行现实

坦诚的提醒：依现行中国法，紧急仲裁员决定具合同约束力，但不能由法院作为保全裁定直接强制执行——财产或行为保全的权力属于人民法院。实践中，当事人以 EA 决定（a）促使对方自愿遵守，（b）支持平行的法院保全申请，或（c）在外国执行地（如已立法确认可执行性的香港）寻求承认。

仲裁庭组成后可自行决定临时措施；中国法院在适当的跨境案件中，已展现务实承认并支持仲裁救济的意愿。

外资企业应明确的要点

  1. 仲裁地：慎重选择，使其与资产所在地及执行策略一致。
  2. 规则：采用含 EA 程序的 2024 年机构规则（贸仲、北仲/北国仲、上国仲等）。
  3. 临时措施条款：明确预见 EA 救济，并在相关时约定法院保全衔接。
  4. 担保：准备提供适当担保——EA 庭通常要求。
  5. 跨境方案：若资产在境外，将 EA 决定与资产地承认策略结合。

实务步骤

  • 缔约时做”仲裁地—资产—执行”评估，而非默认熟悉机构。
  • 留存紧急性与表面胜诉可能性的证据；EA 救济正取决于二者。
  • 协调 EA 与法院保全的时间线，避免救济在空窗期流失。
  • 尽早向律师简报——EA 窗口以天计。

实务中的成本与时点

相较完整仲裁，EA 救济成本低：机构仅收取适度的 EA 费用，决定数日内作出。反之，仲裁庭临时措施与 underlying 仲裁可能耗时数月、成本显著更高。因此外资企业的实务取舍是：对紧急、时间关键的保全用 EA；对主程序用仲裁庭措施（或法院保全）；将诉讼留给依赖先例或高额赔偿的争点。从第一天起留存紧急性与表面胜诉可能性的证据，是令任一路径奏效的关键。

延伸阅读

  • 外国仲裁裁决在中国的执行。
  • 最高人民法院国际商事法庭（CICC）与涉外管辖权。
  • 涉外民事管辖权与送达规则。

Sources

  • 中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（CIETAC）：《仲裁规则》（2024版），2024-01-01 施行 — https://www.cietac.org/index.php?m=Article&a=show&id=19377
  • 中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会：紧急仲裁员程序（附件三）— http://bj.cietac.org/categories/34/articles
  • 最高人民法院 国际商事法庭（CICC）— https://cicc.court.gov.cn
International Arbitration / 国际仲裁

Recognizing and Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards in Mainland China: A Practical Guide under the New York Convention

  • 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:

  1. Awards seated in mainland China — enforced as domestic awards.
  2. 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.
  3. 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：

  1. 仲裁地位于中国内地的裁决——作为内国裁决执行。
  2. 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。
  3. 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

International Arbitration / 国际仲裁

China’s Supreme People’s Court International Commercial Court (CICC) and the 2026 Arbitration Law: a foreign-party guide

  • The Supreme People’s Court’s International Commercial Court (CICC, 国际商事法庭) provides first- and second-instance adjudication of foreign-related commercial disputes and centralized recognition of foreign judgments and awards.
    最高人民法院国际商事法庭（CICC）集中审理涉外民商事一审、二审案件，并集中受理外国判决与裁决的承认案件。
  • The revised Arbitration Law (effective 1 March 2026) adds the “seat of arbitration,” ad-hoc “special arbitration” for defined foreign-related disputes, and online arbitration — aligning with the UNCITRAL Model Law.
    修订后的《仲裁法》（2026年3月1日施行）新增”仲裁地”、特定涉外纠纷的临时”特别仲裁”与在线仲裁，对接《联合国国际贸易法委员会国际商事仲裁示范法》。
  • Chinese courts apply a “validate-the-agreement” stance: a misnamed institution is valid if identifiable, and silence-plus-no-denial at first hearing can constitute an agreement.
    中国法院秉持”有利于仲裁协议有效”立场：机构名称不准确但可确定的即认定有效；首次开庭前不予否认的沉默可视为存在协议。
  • Courts strengthened support: pre-arbitration preservation, timely handling of all preservation applications, and authority for tribunals to request evidentiary assistance.
    法院支持强化：仲裁前保全、各类保全申请依法及时处理、仲裁庭有权请求有关方面协助收集证据。
  • CICC’s “one-stop” platform connects international commercial mediation and arbitration, letting parties seek recognition/enforcement and judicial review in one window.
    CICC”一站式”国际商事纠纷多元化解决平台联通国际商事调解与仲裁，当事人可于一窗申请承认执行与司法审查。
  • Foreign awards are recognized under the New York Convention; the revised law also details recognition of awards made inside and outside China.
    外国裁决依《纽约公约》承认；修订法并就中国域内、域外作出的生效裁决的承认与执行作了具体规定。
  • Foreign parties should draft clear arbitration clauses (institution, seat, rules) and use CICC’s one-stop route for recognition and review.
    外国当事人应拟定清晰仲裁条款（机构、仲裁地、规则），并借CICC一站式路径办理承认与审查。

China’s Supreme People’s Court International Commercial Court (CICC) and the 2026 Arbitration Law: a foreign-party guide | 最高人民法院国际商事法庭（CICC）与2026年《仲裁法》：外国当事人指南

Overview: a specialized forum for foreign-related disputes

Foreign investors in China increasingly resolve high-value cross-border disputes through arbitration and specialized adjudication. Two pillars matter in 2026: the Supreme People’s Court International Commercial Court (CICC, 国际商事法庭), established to hear foreign-related commercial cases and centralize recognition of foreign judgments and awards; and the revised Arbitration Law of the PRC, effective 1 March 2026, the statute’s first full revision since 1995.

The CICC: mandate and “one-stop” platform

The CICC hears, as a matter of centralized jurisdiction, first- and second-instance foreign-related civil and commercial cases and accepts applications for the recognition of foreign court judgments and arbitral awards. It operates a “one-stop” international commercial dispute resolution platform linking international commercial mediation and arbitration institutions, so parties can pursue mediation, arbitration, recognition/enforcement and judicial review through a single window. For foreign parties, this means a predictable, specialized channel rather than disparate local courts.

The revised Arbitration Law (effective 1 March 2026)

Adopted by the Standing Committee of the NPC on 12 September 2025 and effective 1 March 2026, the revised law has 8 chapters / 96 articles. Its headline foreign-related reforms: (1) a new “seat of arbitration” (仲裁地) system aligning with the UNCITRAL Model Law — the seat determines the applicable procedural law and the court of judicial supervision unless parties agree otherwise; (2) special (ad-hoc) arbitration for defined foreign-related disputes — foreign-related maritime disputes, or foreign-related disputes between enterprises established and registered within pilot free-trade zones, the Hainan Free Trade Port or other state-designated areas — requiring a written agreement, a China-seated arbitration, qualified arbitrators, and filing with the arbitration association within three working days of constitution; (3) online arbitration by information network, absent objection; and (4) explicit support for Chinese institutions to “go global” and foreign institutions to operate in designated FTZs/Hainan.

The court’s pro-arbitration stance

Chinese courts apply a “favor validity” approach to arbitration agreements. Under the revised law, a clause naming an institution inaccurately is valid if a specific institution is identifiable; and where one party asserts an arbitration agreement at filing and the other does not deny it before the first hearing, after the tribunal prompts and records, an agreement is deemed to exist. The law also confirms arbitration-agreement independence: a contract’s non-formation, invalidity, termination, revocation or nullity does not affect an already-reached arbitration agreement. The SPC’s guiding cases (e.g., a Hong Kong-invested dispute where negotiation did not defeat a subsequently un-signed contract’s arbitration clause) illustrate this pro-enforcement philosophy.

Stronger court support and supervision

The revision reinforces judicial support: parties may seek pre-arbitration preservation (property, conduct, evidence) under the Civil Procedure Law; courts must timely handle both institution-submitted and directly-filed preservation applications; and tribunals may request relevant parties to assist in evidence collection. On supervision, the time to apply to set aside an award is shortened from six months to three months, promoting finality. The SPC has long held that it will, consistent with the New York Convention, recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards where fundamental principles, sovereignty, security, public interest and domestic creditors’ rights are not breached.

Recognition of foreign awards and judgments

For foreign arbitral awards, the New York Convention path remains central; our separate article details enforcement of foreign awards and judgments in China. The revised law additionally specifies recognition and enforcement of effective awards made within China’s territory and applications to Chinese courts for awards made outside China, and aligns with the Civil Procedure Law on judicial assistance. CICC’s centralized recognition function makes it the natural venue for foreign parties enforcing offshore awards or judgments against China-seated assets.

Drafting tips for foreign parties

  1. Name the institution precisely (e.g., CIETAC, CICC, HKIAC where permitted) to avoid validity fights.
  2. Specify the seat to fix procedural law and supervisory court.
  3. Choose rules and language expressly; for FTZ/Hainan foreign-related disputes, consider special arbitration with a written China-seat clause.
  4. Use CICC’s one-stop platform for recognition, enforcement and review.
  5. Preserve evidence and timeliness — the three-month set-aside clock and preservation windows are strict.
  6. Coordinate with institutional arbitration (CIETAC’s new 2026 arbitrator list and the 2026 China Arbitration Week) for appointments.

Related reading

The revised Arbitration Law’s foreign-party essentials, CIETAC and international arbitration, and enforcement of foreign awards and judgments are covered in separate articles; this piece is the CICC-and-2026-Law briefing plus the action list.

最高人民法院国际商事法庭（CICC）与2026年《仲裁法》：外国当事人指南

概览：涉外纠纷的专门法庭

在华外国投资者日益通过仲裁与专门审判解决高价值跨境争议。2026年有两大支柱：为审理涉外民商事案件、集中受理外国判决与裁决承认而设的最高人民法院国际商事法庭（CICC）；以及自2026年3月1日施行的修订后《中华人民共和国仲裁法》——该法自1995年以来首次全面修订。

CICC：职能与”一站式”平台

CICC以集中管辖方式审理涉外民商事一审、二审案件，并受理外国法院判决与仲裁裁决的承认申请。其运营”一站式”国际商事纠纷多元化解决平台，联通国际商事调解与仲裁机构，使当事人得以一窗办理调解、仲裁、承认执行与司法审查。对外国当事人而言，这意味着可预期、专门的渠道，而非分散的地方法院。

修订后《仲裁法》（2026年3月1日施行）

该法于2025年9月12日由全国人大常委会通过，2026年3月1日施行，共8章96条。其涉外改革要点：（1）新增对接《联合国国际贸易法委员会国际商事仲裁示范法》的”仲裁地”制度——除当事人另有约定外，仲裁地决定程序适用法与司法监督法院；（2）针对特定涉外纠纷的”特别仲裁”（临时仲裁）——涉外海事纠纷，或经国务院批准的自贸试验区、海南自贸港及国家规定的其他区域内设立登记企业之间的涉外纠纷——须书面约定、以中国为仲裁地、仲裁员符合资格，且组庭后三个工作日内向仲裁协会备案；（3）经信息网络在线仲裁（当事人无反对）；并（4）明确支持中国机构”走出去”与外国机构在指定自贸区/海南设立业务机构。

法院支持仲裁的立场

中国法院对仲裁协议秉持”有利于有效”立场。依修订法，机构名称不准确但可确定的即认定有效；一方申请时主张有仲裁协议、另一方首次开庭前不予否认的，经仲裁庭提示并记录，视为存在协议。法律并确认仲裁协议独立性：合同不成立、无效、终止、被撤销或无效，不影响已达成的仲裁协议。最高法指导性案例（如一香港投资争议中磋商未阻却未签署合同的仲裁条款）体现这一支持执行理念。

更强有力的法院支持与监督

修订强化司法支持：当事人可依《民事诉讼法》申请仲裁前保全（财产、行为、证据）；法院对机构提交与当事人直接申请的保全均须及时处理；仲裁庭有权请求有关方面协助收集证据。监督方面，申请撤销裁决期限由六个月缩短为三个月，促进一裁终局。最高法一贯立场是依《纽约公约》在恪守基本原则、国家主权安全、公共利益与境内债权人权益前提下承认执行外国仲裁裁决。

外国裁决与判决的承认

对外国仲裁裁决，《纽约公约》路径仍是核心；承认与执行外国裁决和判决本站另有专文。修订法另就中国域内作出的生效裁决的承认执行、向中国法院申请承认执行域外裁决作了规定，并与《民事诉讼法》司法协助相衔接。CICC的集中承认职能，使其成为外国当事人针对中国境内资产执行境外裁决或判决的自然管辖地。

外国当事人的起草要点

  1. 精确写明机构（如贸仲、CICC、获准的HKIAC），避免效力之争。
  2. 指定仲裁地，以固定程序法与监督法院。
  3. 明示规则与语言；自贸区/海南涉外纠纷可考虑附书面中国仲裁地条款的特别仲裁。
  4. 使用CICC一站式平台办理承认、执行与审查。
  5. 保全证据与时效——三个月撤销期与保全窗口严格。
  6. 与机构仲裁协同（贸仲2026年新仲裁员名册与2026中国仲裁周）安排组庭。

延伸阅读

修订《仲裁法》的外方要点、贸仲与涉外仲裁、外国裁决与判决的承认执行本站另有专文；本文为CICC与2026年《仲裁法》简报加行动清单。

Sources

International Arbitration / 国际仲裁

China’s Revised Arbitration Law (2026): what foreign parties and FIEs need to know

  • China’s Arbitration Law has been comprehensively revised for the first time since 1994: the new law was passed on 12 September 2025, promulgated by Presidential Order No. 54, and takes effect on 1 March 2026 with eight chapters and 96 articles.
    中国《仲裁法》迎来 1994 年以来首次全面修订：新法于 2025 年 9 月 12 日通过，以第 54 号主席令公布，自 2026 年 3 月 1 日起施行，共八章 96 条。
  • The revision introduces the “seat of arbitration” (仲裁地) concept aligned with international practice — the seat determines the law governing the arbitral procedure and the courts with supervisory jurisdiction, so foreign parties should now state it expressly in their clauses.
    修订引入与国际接轨的”仲裁地”制度——仲裁地决定仲裁程序适用法及行使司法监督权的法院，外方当事人今后应在仲裁条款中明确约定。
  • A new “special (ad hoc) arbitration” regime lets parties in foreign-related maritime disputes, or between enterprises registered in a Free Trade Zone or the Hainan Free Trade Port, choose a tribunal outside any institution — a first for the mainland.
    新增”特别仲裁”（临时仲裁）制度：涉外海事纠纷，或自贸试验区、海南自贸港内登记企业之间的涉外纠纷，当事人可在仲裁机构之外自组仲裁庭——系内地首创。
  • Foreign arbitration institutions may now set up business offices in FTZs and Hainan to conduct foreign-related arbitration, and Chinese institutions may handle international investment (treaty) arbitration.
    境外仲裁机构今后可在自贸区、海南自贸港等区域设立业务机构办理涉外仲裁，中国仲裁机构亦可办理国际投资（条约）仲裁案件。
  • Online arbitration is expressly recognised — proceedings may be conducted over the internet unless a party objects — reflecting practice where 93 institutions handled online cases worth ¥300 billion in 2024.
    在线仲裁获明文确认——除当事人明确不同意外，仲裁可通过信息网络在线进行——呼应 2024 年 93 家机构在线办案、标的额 3000 亿元的实践。
  • Court support is strengthened: parties can seek pre-arbitration property, conduct and evidence preservation, courts must handle preservation promptly, and the period to apply to set aside an award is cut from six months to three.
    法院支持力度加大：当事人可申请仲裁前的财产、行为与证据保全，法院应及时处理保全，申请撤销裁决的期限由六个月缩短为三个月。
  • The law adds a good-faith principle and anti-sham-arbitration rules, an arbitrator disclosure system, and defines arbitration institutions as public-interest non-profit legal persons.
    新法增设诚信原则与防范虚假仲裁规定、仲裁员信息披露制度，并明确仲裁机构为公益性非营利法人。

China’s Revised Arbitration Law (2026): what foreign parties and FIEs need to know | 中国修订《仲裁法》（2026 年施行）：外方当事人与外资企业须知

Overview

Arbitration is the default forum for cross-border commercial disputes: it is confidential, final in a single instance, and — thanks to the 1958 New York Convention — enforceable in over 170 jurisdictions. For a foreign-invested enterprise (FIE) or an overseas counterparty contracting with a Chinese business, the arbitration clause is often the single most important dispute-resolution decision in the contract.

On 12 September 2025 the Standing Committee of the 14th National People’s Congress passed a comprehensively revised Arbitration Law. It was promulgated by Presidential Order No. 54 and takes effect on 1 March 2026. This is the first full overhaul since the original 1994 statute (in force from 1995). The new law runs to eight chapters and 96 articles — 16 more than before — and is squarely aimed at raising the credibility and international competitiveness of Chinese arbitration. This article explains the changes that matter most to foreign parties. It is general information, not legal advice.

Why the revision, and how big it is

By August 2025 China had 285 arbitration commissions handling disputes involving parties from more than 100 countries and regions, across finance, e-commerce, construction, maritime and intellectual property. The 1994 law, however, predated modern practice: it did not recognise a “seat” of arbitration, permitted only institutional arbitration (no ad hoc tribunals), and said little about online hearings or interim relief. The revision closes those gaps and consciously converges with the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

Change 1 — the “seat of arbitration”

The headline reform for international users is the introduction of the seat (仲裁地). Except where the parties have agreed otherwise on the law applicable to the procedure, the seat now determines both the procedural law and the court that exercises supervisory jurisdiction (for interim measures, set-aside and the like). Where parties do not agree the seat, it is fixed by the agreed arbitration rules; if the rules are silent, the tribunal designates it by reference to the principle of convenient dispute resolution. Practical effect: foreign parties should state the seat expressly — e.g. “the seat of arbitration shall be Shanghai” — separately from the hearing venue, because the two are now distinct legal concepts.

Change 2 — special (ad hoc) arbitration

The mainland has, until now, recognised only institutional arbitration. The new law adds a “special arbitration” regime with four defining features:

  • Eligible cases only. It is limited to foreign-related disputes — either foreign-related maritime disputes, or foreign-related disputes between enterprises registered in a State Council-approved Free Trade Zone, the Hainan Free Trade Port, or other areas designated by the State.
  • Written agreement, seat in China. The parties must agree in writing and designate a place in China as the seat, so Chinese arbitration law applies, the award is a Chinese award, and Chinese courts conduct judicial review.
  • Qualified arbitrators. The tribunal members must meet the statutory qualification requirements for arbitrators.
  • Filing. Within three working days of forming the tribunal, the parties must file details (names, seat, tribunal composition, rules) with the arbitration association.

For FTZ and Hainan-registered FIEs, this opens a genuinely new option for disputes with foreign counterparties — closer to the flexibility of ad hoc arbitration abroad, but with defined guardrails.

Change 3 — opening to foreign institutions and investment arbitration

The law codifies two opening measures already piloted: it supports Chinese institutions “going out” to establish offices abroad, and permits overseas arbitration institutions to establish business offices in FTZs and the Hainan FTP to conduct foreign-related arbitration. It also confirms that Chinese institutions and tribunals may administer international investment arbitration under the relevant investment treaties and the rules agreed by the disputing parties — a foundation for China to position itself as a seat for investor-state cases.

Change 4 — online arbitration and stronger court support

Two further reforms speak directly to efficiency:

  • Online arbitration. Article 11 provides that arbitration may be conducted online through information networks unless a party expressly disagrees. This reflects reality: in 2024, 93 institutions handled online cases worth ¥300 billion.
  • Interim measures and evidence. The law aligns with the Civil Procedure Law so that, in urgent cases, a party may apply to a court for property preservation, conduct preservation (an order requiring or prohibiting an act) and evidence preservation before commencing arbitration. Courts must handle such applications promptly, whether relayed by the institution or filed directly. The tribunal may also request relevant parties to assist in collecting evidence.

Change 5 — credibility, disclosure and a shorter set-aside window

Several provisions raise trust in the process and speed up finality:

  • Arbitration must follow the good-faith principle, with new rules against sham arbitration.
  • Arbitrators must disclose any circumstances that could give rise to reasonable doubts about their independence or impartiality; the institution informs the parties.
  • The methods for recognising an arbitration agreement are broadened (e.g. where one party asserts an agreement and the other does not deny it before the first hearing).
  • The period to apply to set aside an award is shortened from six months to three months.
  • Arbitration institutions are defined as public-interest, non-profit legal persons, with the State Council authorised to issue registration rules.

What this means for foreign investors and FIEs

  • Review your arbitration clauses. State the institution (or, if eligible, ad hoc arbitration), the seat, the rules and the language. Distinguish seat from hearing venue.
  • Consider ad hoc arbitration only if eligible — maritime, or FTZ/Hainan-registered enterprises in foreign-related disputes.
  • Plan for interim relief. Pre-arbitration preservation is now clearer; identify assets and evidence early.
  • Diarise the three-month set-aside window — challenges must move faster than before.
  • Enforcement. Awards seated in China are Chinese awards; foreign awards continue to be recognised and enforced through the New York Convention and the Civil Procedure Law’s judicial-assistance provisions.

What to do next

  1. Audit existing China-related contracts and update dispute-resolution clauses ahead of the 1 March 2026 effective date.
  2. Decide seat and institution deliberately; do not leave the seat undefined.
  3. If you operate in an FTZ or Hainan, evaluate whether special arbitration suits your commercial relationships.
  4. Brief your legal and finance teams on the shorter set-aside period and the strengthened interim-measures toolkit.
  5. Confirm specifics with qualified PRC counsel before signing or amending clauses.

Sources

  • Ministry of Justice press conference on the revised Arbitration Law (official): https://www.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbgw/sfbxwfbhzb/2025nsfbfbh/acf20250925/?CTPIC=ecc680
  • MOJ briefing transcript — key changes and special arbitration explained: https://www.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbgw/sfbxwfbhzb/2025nsfbfbh/acf20250925/mtgz20250925/202509/t20250930_525844.html
  • Supreme People’s Court International Commercial Court — Q&A on the revision (People’s Court Daily): https://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/218/149/156/12620.html
  • China Court Net — commentary on the revised Arbitration Law: https://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2025/09/id/8991625.shtml
  • MOJ feature — “Advancing high-quality development of arbitration” (on the law’s entry into force): http://legalinfo.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbzhfx/zt/2025nzt0120/xcgvxxddzcf/202603/t20260302_532106.html

Related reading

  • CIETAC & international arbitration — 贸仲与涉外仲裁
  • Enforcing foreign arbitral awards and judgments in China — 在中国承认与执行外国仲裁裁决和判决
  • Foreign-related dispute resolution: litigation vs arbitration — 涉外争议解决：诉讼与仲裁

中国修订《仲裁法》（2026 年施行）：外方当事人与外资企业须知

概述

仲裁是跨境商事纠纷的首选解决方式：保密、一裁终局，并且凭借 1958 年《纽约公约》可在 170 多个法域获得承认与执行。对与中国企业签约的外资企业或境外交易对手而言，仲裁条款往往是合同中最重要的一项争议解决安排。

2025 年 9 月 12 日，十四届全国人大常委会表决通过全面修订的《仲裁法》，以第 54 号主席令公布，自 2026 年 3 月 1 日起施行。这是 1994 年原法（1995 年施行）以来的首次全面修订。新法共八章 96 条，比修订前增加 16 条，核心目标是提升中国仲裁的公信力与国际竞争力。本文说明对外方当事人最重要的变化，仅为一般性信息，非法律意见。

为什么修、改动有多大

截至 2025 年 8 月，全国依法设立 285 家仲裁委员会，当事人涉及 100 多个国家和地区，纠纷涵盖金融、电子商务、建筑工程、海事海商、知识产权等领域。但 1994 年的仲裁法落后于现代实践：不承认”仲裁地”，只允许机构仲裁（无临时仲裁庭），对在线开庭与临时措施着墨极少。此次修订弥补了这些空白，并有意与《联合国国际商事仲裁示范法》相融通。

变化一——”仲裁地”制度

对国际用户而言，最重磅的改革是引入”仲裁地”。除当事人对仲裁程序适用法另有约定外，仲裁地现同时决定程序适用法与行使司法监督权的法院（保全、撤销等）。当事人未约定仲裁地的，按约定的仲裁规则确定；规则没有规定的，由仲裁庭按便利争议解决原则确定。实务影响： 外方应在条款中明确约定仲裁地——例如”仲裁地为上海”——并与开庭地相区分，因为二者现已是不同的法律概念。

变化二——特别仲裁（临时仲裁）

内地此前只承认机构仲裁。新法增设”特别仲裁”制度，有四个特征：

  • 仅限特定案件。 限于涉外纠纷——涉外海事纠纷，或在国务院批准设立的自贸试验区、海南自贸港及国家规定的其他区域内登记的企业之间发生的涉外纠纷。
  • 书面约定、仲裁地在中国。 当事人须书面约定并选择中国境内地点为仲裁地，从而适用中国仲裁法、裁决为中国裁决、由中国法院进行司法审查。
  • 仲裁员合格。 仲裁庭成员须符合仲裁法关于仲裁员资格的统一要求。
  • 备案。 组庭后三个工作日内，须将当事人名称、仲裁地、仲裁庭组成、仲裁规则向仲裁协会备案。

对自贸区和海南登记的外资企业，这为与外方对手的纠纷开辟了全新选项——更接近境外临时仲裁的灵活度，又设有明确边界。

变化三——向境外机构与投资仲裁开放

新法将两项试点措施法制化：支持中国仲裁机构”走出去”到境外设立业务机构，允许境外仲裁机构在自贸区、海南自贸港等区域设立业务机构办理涉外仲裁。同时明确，中国仲裁机构、仲裁庭可依据有关投资条约、协定并按争议双方约定的仲裁规则办理国际投资仲裁案件——为中国打造投资者—国家案件仲裁地奠定基础。

变化四——在线仲裁与更强的法院支持

另有两项改革直指效率：

  • 在线仲裁。 第十一条规定，除当事人明确表示不同意外，仲裁活动可通过信息网络在线进行。这呼应现实：2024 年 93 家机构办理在线案件，标的额 3000 亿元。
  • 临时措施与证据。 新法与《民事诉讼法》衔接：情况紧急时，当事人可在申请仲裁前向法院申请财产保全、行为保全（责令作出或禁止某行为）与证据保全。无论由机构转交还是当事人直接提交，法院都应及时处理。仲裁庭亦可请求有关方面协助收集证据。

变化五——公信力、披露与更短的撤销期限

多项条款提升过程可信度并加快终局：

  • 仲裁应遵循诚信原则，增设防范虚假仲裁规定。
  • 仲裁员须披露可能导致对其独立性、公正性产生合理怀疑的情形，由机构告知当事人。
  • 扩大仲裁协议的认定方式（如一方主张有协议、另一方在首次开庭前不予否认的）。
  • 申请撤销裁决的期限由六个月缩短为三个月。
  • 明确仲裁机构为公益性非营利法人，授权国务院制定登记管理办法。

对外资投资者与外资企业的意义

  • 审查你的仲裁条款。 明确机构（或在符合条件时选择临时仲裁）、仲裁地、规则和语言，并区分仲裁地与开庭地。
  • 仅在符合条件时考虑临时仲裁——涉外海事，或自贸区/海南登记企业的涉外纠纷。
  • 提前谋划临时救济。 仲裁前保全更清晰，尽早锁定资产与证据。
  • 牢记三个月撤销窗口——异议须比以往更快启动。
  • 执行。 仲裁地在中国的裁决为中国裁决；外国裁决继续通过《纽约公约》与《民事诉讼法》司法协助条款获得承认与执行。

下一步建议

  1. 在 2026 年 3 月 1 日生效前，梳理现有涉华合同并更新争议解决条款；
  2. 审慎确定仲裁地与机构，切勿让仲裁地处于未约定状态；
  3. 若在自贸区或海南经营，评估特别仲裁是否契合你的商业关系；
  4. 就更短的撤销期限与增强的保全工具，向法务与财务团队做说明；
  5. 签署或修订条款前，与执业中国律师确认具体事项。

Sources

  • 司法部关于新修订仲裁法的新闻发布会（官方）：https://www.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbgw/sfbxwfbhzb/2025nsfbfbh/acf20250925/?CTPIC=ecc680
  • 司法部发布会实录——主要修改与特别仲裁制度解读：https://www.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbgw/sfbxwfbhzb/2025nsfbfbh/acf20250925/mtgz20250925/202509/t20250930_525844.html
  • 最高人民法院国际商事法庭——仲裁法修订答记者问（人民法院报）：https://cicc.court.gov.cn/html/1/218/149/156/12620.html
  • 中国法院网——新修订仲裁法评论：https://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2025/09/id/8991625.shtml
  • 司法部专题——《推进新时代仲裁事业高质量发展》（写在实施之际）：http://legalinfo.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbzhfx/zt/2025nzt0120/xcgvxxddzcf/202603/t20260302_532106.html

相关阅读

  • 贸仲与涉外仲裁 / CIETAC & international arbitration
  • 在中国承认与执行外国仲裁裁决和判决 / Enforcing foreign arbitral awards and judgments
  • 涉外争议解决：诉讼与仲裁 / Foreign-related dispute resolution
Living Guide / 来华生活指南

China Daily-Life Apps Guide: Payments, Maps, Transport & Stays for Foreign Visitors

  • Alipay and WeChat Pay now accept foreign cards (UnionPay, Visa, Mastercard, JCB).
    支付宝与微信支付已支持绑定境外银行卡（银联、Visa、Mastercard、JCB），覆盖绝大多数线下扫码付款场景。
  • Baidu Maps and AMap (Gaode) are the two essential navigation apps in China.
    百度地图与高德地图是来华必备的导航工具，提供公交、地铁、步行与驾车实时路线。
  • Both maps also handle hotel booking and ride-hailing in one place.
    高德与百度地图均可直接预订酒店、呼叫网约车，不必额外安装多个 App。
  • Dianping and Meituan are the go-to platforms for restaurants and reviews.
    大众点评与美团是查找餐厅、查看评价、点外卖的主要平台；高德、百度也能直接搜美食。
  • A single smartphone covers payments, transport, food and stays.
    一部手机即可完成支付、出行、就餐与住宿预订，来华日常高度数字化、现金需求很低。
  • Shanghai Metro (and Beijing, Chengdu, Guangzhou) accepts foreign cards tapped directly at the gate.
    上海地铁（以及北京、成都、广州）支持直接刷境外银行卡过闸，无需购票或下载 App；卡片需开通小额免密闪付。
  • Set up before arrival to hit the ground running.
    出发前可先在应用商店下载 App 并完成绑卡，落地即可使用，减少现场摸索。
  • Instant-retail apps deliver food and daily goods from nearby stores in about 30 minutes.
    淘宝闪购、京东秒送等即时零售平台可从附近门店送吃食、日用、商超与药店商品，约 30 分钟送达。

China Daily-Life Apps Guide: Payments, Maps, Transport & Stays for Foreign Visitors | 来华生活便利工具指南：支付、地图、交通与住宿

Payments: Alipay & WeChat Pay

Mobile payment is the default in China. Cash is rarely needed, and many small shops, taxis and street vendors accept only QR-code scans. The two dominant wallets are Alipay (支付宝) and WeChat Pay (微信支付), both of which now support binding international bank cards.

移动支付是中国最主流的付款方式。现金几乎用不上，许多小店、出租车和路边摊只收扫码。两大钱包是支付宝（Alipay）与微信支付（WeChat Pay），二者现在都支持绑定境外银行卡。

Key points for foreign visitors:

  • Bind a foreign card inside the app; a simplified “Tour Pass / 外卡内绑” flow is available.
  • Show the QR code to the merchant scanner, or scan the merchant’s code yourself.
  • Use it for meals, supermarkets, metros, taxis, and most online orders.

外国访客要点：

  • 在 App 内绑定外卡，系统提供简化的”外卡内绑”流程。
  • 向商家扫码枪出示付款码，或自己扫商家的收款码。
  • 吃饭、超市、地铁、打车以及多数线上订单均可使用。

官方英文页面 / Official English pages:

App / 应用Chinese / 中文Foreign-card binding / 外卡绑定Typical use / 典型用途
Alipay支付宝Yes / 支持Everyday pay, transport, some bookings / 日常付款、交通、部分预订
WeChat Pay微信支付Yes / 支持Chat-integrated pay, shops, taxis / 社交内支付、商店、打车

现金兜底 / Cash backup: a few spots still take only cash — withdraw with a foreign card at any UnionPay (银联) ATM; UnionPay settlement rates beat airport exchange. 现金兜底：少数场景只收现金，可凭境外银行卡在任意银联（UnionPay） ATM 取现；按银联结算汇率，通常优于机场兑换。

Communication: WeChat Beyond Pay

WeChat (微信) is China’s all-in-one communication hub, not just a wallet. Foreign visitors will rely on it daily for messaging, group chats (work, school, building groups), and scan-to-interact features.

微信（WeChat） 是中国的”万能通讯入口”，远不止支付。来华日常几乎离不开：发消息、群聊（工作群、班级群、小区群）、以及”扫码即办”的各种功能。

What you can do in WeChat / 微信里能做的事:

  • Chat & groups / 聊天与群聊: text, voice, video, and group conversations with anyone in China.
    文字、语音、视频，以及与国内任何人的群聊。
  • Official Accounts / 公众号: follow brands, banks, hospitals and government bodies for news and services.
    关注品牌、银行、医院与政府机构的公众号，获取资讯与办事入口。
  • Mini Programs / 小程序: lightweight apps inside WeChat — scan a restaurant’s code to order, book a hospital visit, pay bills, hail a ride, all without installing anything.
    微信内的轻量应用——扫码点餐、预约挂号、缴费、叫车，全都不用额外装 App。
  • Scan everything / 扫码即办: the “Scan” button opens menus, payments, shared bikes and official forms via QR.
    “扫一扫”可点餐、付款、解锁共享单车、填写政务表单。

> 提示：建议抵华前先注册微信并完成实名/绑卡，落地即可用。 > Tip: register WeChat and finish card binding before arrival so it works the moment you land.

Two map apps dominate: Baidu Maps (百度地图) and AMap (高德地图, also called Gaode). Both provide accurate public-transport routing, real-time traffic, and walking directions, and both work well for foreigners with English UI options. A third, lighter option is Tencent Maps (腾讯地图).

国内主流地图有两款：百度地图（Baidu Maps）与高德地图（AMap / Gaode）。二者都提供精准的公交地铁路线、实时路况与步行导航，并带有可切换的英文界面，对外国用户友好。另一款较轻量的备选是腾讯地图（Tencent Maps）。

英文界面 / English support:

  • 高德地图 AMap 支持包括英文在内的 14 种语言，海外用户可在 Google Play 下载 AMap Go；官方站 https://www.amap.com。
  • 百度地图 Baidu Maps 设置内可切换英文模式，并提供境内英文地图能力（详见百度地图开放平台英文地图方案 https://lbs.baidu.com）；官方站 https://map.baidu.com。

Beyond navigation, both apps bundle several daily-life functions:

  • Ride-hailing / 网约车: hail a taxi or private car directly inside the map app.
  • Hotel booking / 酒店预订: search, compare and book hotels on the map.
  • Place search / 找地点: restaurants, hospitals, banks, parks, EV chargers.
  • Transit cards / 公交卡: some cities let you add a virtual transit card.

除导航外，两款 App 还整合了多种生活功能：

  • 网约车： 直接在地图内呼叫出租车或网约车。
  • 酒店预订： 在地图上搜索、比价并下单酒店。
  • 找地点： 餐厅、医院、银行、公园、充电桩一搜即得。
  • 公交卡： 部分城市可开通虚拟交通卡。
Feature / 功能Baidu Maps / 百度地图AMap / 高德地图
Navigation & transit / 导航与公交Yes / 支持Yes / 支持
Ride-hailing / 网约车Yes / 支持Yes / 支持
Hotel booking / 酒店预订Yes / 支持Yes / 支持
Food search / 搜美食Yes / 支持Yes / 支持
English UI / 英文界面Partial / 部分Partial / 部分

Metro Tap-to-Ride: Foreign Cards Accepted

A growing number of Chinese metros let you tap a contactless foreign card straight at the gate — no ticket, no app. Shanghai Metro rolled this out across its entire network on 2025-06-28 (piloted on the Maglev line from 2025-06-14) and accepts UnionPay, Visa, Mastercard, American Express and JCB chip cards, mobile wallets (Apple/Google Pay linked to a foreign card), and e-CNY hard wallets. Beijing, Chengdu and Guangzhou have since enabled the same at their gates.

越来越多中国地铁支持直接刷境外银行卡过闸——无需购票、无需 App。上海地铁于 2025-06-28 在全线网开通（磁浮线自 2025-06-14 试点），支持银联、Visa、Mastercard、美国运通、JCB 芯片闪付卡、手机 Pay（绑定外卡）以及数字人民币硬钱包。北京、成都、广州也已开通闸机拍卡。

How to use / 使用要点:

  • Enable contactless + small-value no-PIN on your card before travel.
    出发前在银行卡开通”闪付 + 小额免密”功能。
  • Tap the same card in and out; the gate charges the distance-based fare.
    进出站使用同一张卡拍卡，按里程计费。
  • In Shanghai, the entry tap is a pre-authorisation — a card at its limit may be refused on exit; the station service centre settles it by card, cash or QR.
    上海进站为预授权，余额不足的卡出站可能遭拒，可到车站服务中心用卡/现金/扫码结清。
  • Backup / 备选: an Alipay or WeChat ride code works in every major city, so set one up before you fly.
    支付宝或微信”乘车码”在各大城市通用，建议出发前设好作为兜底。
City / 城市Foreign-card tap at gate / 闸机外卡拍卡Since / 开通
Shanghai / 上海Yes / 支持 (UnionPay, Visa, MC, AmEx, JCB)2025-06-28 全线网
Beijing / 北京Yes / 支持全网闸机
Chengdu / 成都Yes / 支持2026-06 新增 Diners/Discover
Guangzhou / 广州Yes / 支持带卡组织标识闸机

Unified Travel Codes Inside Super-Apps

Beyond dedicated transit cards, Alipay, WeChat and DiDi each have a built-in “Travel / 出行” entry that issues one QR code covering several transport modes at once — metro/subway, bus, ride-hailing, shared bikes, and in some cases flights — and lets you switch between cities in the same screen. You scan the same code across participating cities, so there’s no need for a separate card per place.

除专用交通卡外，支付宝、微信、滴滴各自都有内置的”出行”入口，发放一张聚合多种出行方式的二维码——轨道地铁、公交、网约车、共享单车，部分还含机票——并且可在同一界面切换城市。在支持城市里刷同一张码即可，无需每到一个城市另办卡。

  • Alipay / 支付宝: open 出行 (Travel) → choose the city → show the unified transit QR for metro/bus; bike-sharing and ride-hailing tiles sit on the same screen.
    打开”出行”→选择城市→出示地铁/公交通用乘车码；共享单车与打车入口同屏。
  • WeChat / 微信: 我 (Me) → 服务 (Services) → 出行服务 (Travel) (or the mini-program); one QR for buses/metro, with ride-hailing and bike options, city-switchable.
    “我→服务→出行服务”（或小程序）；一张码通公交/地铁，含打车与骑行，可切城市。
  • DiDi / 滴滴: beyond hailing, its 出行 QR covers metro/bus/cycling and links to flights; switch cities in the same view.
    除叫车外，其”出行”二维码覆盖地铁/公交/骑行并接机票，同界面切城市。

> Tip / 提示: set up the Travel code in your main city before you fly — it doubles as the backup to foreign-card metro tapping (see above). > 出发前在主要城市设好出行码，可作为境外银行卡拍卡乘地铁的兜底（见上）。

Shanghai MaaS: Suishenxing (SH MaaS)

If you’re in Shanghai, add Suishenxing (随申行) — the city’s official Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) app. Its English version is branded “SH MaaS”, and it is the most complete way to ride Shanghai’s public transport with one app.

若在上海，再装一个随申行（Suishenxing）——上海市官方出行即服务（MaaS）平台。其英文版名为”SH MaaS”，是用一个 App 坐遍上海公共交通最完整的方案。

How to find it / 如何找到:

  • In Chinese app stores search “随申行” or “Suishenxing”; in the overseas App Store search “SH MaaS”, then download “随申行”.
    国内应用商店搜”随申行 / Suishenxing”；海外 App Store 搜”SH MaaS”，下载”随申行”。
  • The app supports switching between Chinese and English; new users can register with a domestic or foreign phone number, or via third-party authorization.
    App 支持中英文切换；新用户可用国内/境外手机号注册，或第三方授权登录。

What it covers / 覆盖范围:

  • One app for bus, metro, suburban rail, the Maglev, ferries, shared bikes, taxis and smart parking across Shanghai.
    一个 App 通办上海公交、地铁、市域铁路、磁悬浮、轮渡、共享单车、出租车与智慧停车。
  • Suishen Code / 随申码 gives one-code access to metro, bus and ferry; you can add up to 2 companions on one phone and scan them through in turn.
    “随申码”一码通地铁、公交、轮渡；一部手机最多添加 2 名同行人，依次刷码乘车。
  • Buy a transit day pass (联程日票: 1 / 3 / 7-day) for unlimited metro/bus/ferry within the validity window — handy for short visits.
    可购”联程日票”（一日/三日/七日票），在有效期内不限次畅坐地铁、公交、轮渡，适合短期访客。
  • Real-time transit info (routes, stops, first/last trains, next-bus countdowns); at airports and stations use “枢纽通 — 上海交通信息服务专区”.
    实时公交/轨交/轮渡信息（线路、站点、首末班、到站倒计时）；机场与火车站可进”枢纽通—上海交通信息服务专区”。

> Note / 说明: the Suishen Code / 随申码 here is the same Shanghai QR issued by Suishenban (随申办) for some venue and transport checks — one code, many uses. > 此处”随申码”与随申办发放、用于部分场所与交通核验的上海二维码为同一码，一码多用。

Source / 来源: “随申行”APP 英文版再升级（上海交通, 2025-01-27）— https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/2owZgko61K56LzXUqPpL2Q

Translation

Google Translate works poorly or not at all inside mainland China, so install a local translation tool before you fly. Two kinds work well — and the AI assistant route is often the most convenient for day-to-day talking and reading.

谷歌翻译在中国内地基本不可用或很不稳定，出发前请装好本地翻译工具。有两类很好用——其中AI 助手路线在面对面沟通、读图这类日常场景往往最省事。

1) AI assistants (best for live conversation & photo reading) / AI 助手（实时对话 + 拍图最顺手） Domestic AI chat apps double as translators: you can talk to them in real time (ask “how do I say X”, or hold a back-and-forth with a shopkeeper via the mic) and send a photo of a menu, sign or document for instant explanation. They understand context far better than phrasebook apps. 国产 AI 对话 App 本身就是翻译器：可实时语音对话（问”这句话怎么说”，或对着麦克风跟店员来回聊），也能发照片给它看菜单、路牌、单据，立刻给出解释。它们比短语本 App 更懂上下文。

  • Doubao / 豆包 (ByteDance) — free, fast, strong Chinese↔English chat and camera understanding; a top pick for visitors.
    豆包（字节跳动）——免费、快，中英文对话与拍图识别都很强，强烈推荐。
  • Other domestic assistants (Kimi, Wenxin Yiyan / 文心一言, Tongyi Qianwen / 通义千问, etc.) work similarly and run fine inside China.
    其他国产助手（Kimi、文心一言、通义千问等）用法相近，在内地都能稳定使用。

2) Dedicated translation apps (best for quick dictionary & phrases) / 专用翻译 App（查词、短语更快） Handy when you want a clean dictionary, document translation, or a lightweight phrase tool. 想要干净词典、文档翻译或轻量短语工具时仍很方便。

  • Baidu Translate / 百度翻译 — https://fanyi.baidu.com; camera, voice and conversation modes.
    百度翻译——拍照、语音与对话翻译。
  • Tencent Translate / 腾讯翻译君 — https://fanyi.qq.com; fast conversation translation.
    腾讯翻译君——对话翻译快捷。
  • Youdao / 有道 — https://www.youdao.com; strong on dictionaries and documents (now also AI-enhanced, but the dedicated apps above and AI assistants cover most live needs).
    有道——词典与文档翻译见长（如今也加了 AI 能力，但实时沟通多被上面的 AI 助手取代）。
  • Papago — handy for Korean/Japanese travellers.
    Papago——对日韩语使用者方便。

Most tools above also read Chinese menus and street signs via the camera. WeChat’s in-chat translate helps with messages; an AI assistant is the easiest fallback when you’re stuck reading something unfamiliar. 上述多数工具也支持摄像头识别中文菜单与路牌；微信对话内的”翻译”能处理消息；遇到看不懂的东西，AI 助手是最顺手的兜底。

Short Trips: Bike-Sharing

For distances too short to hail a car, shared bikes are everywhere — scan a QR code to unlock and ride.

短途不愿叫车，共享单车随处可见——扫码即解锁骑行。

  • Hello / 哈啰 — the largest operator; bikes and e-bikes.
    哈啰——规模最大的运营商，单车与电单车。
  • Meituan Bike / 美团单车 — integrated with the Meituan app.
    美团单车——与美团 App 打通。
  • Qingju / 青桔 — Didi’s bike brand.
    青桔——滴滴旗下单车。

You pay per ride inside the operator’s app or via Alipay/WeChat; mind parking zones (no riding on sidewalks, park in designated spots). 按次计费，在各自 App 或支付宝/微信内支付；注意停车区（不骑上人行道、停在指定点位）。

Finding Food: Dianping, Meituan & Maps

For restaurants, reviews and delivery, the main platforms are Dianping (大众点评) and Meituan (美团) — two apps under the same group (Meituan Dianping / 美团点评) whose features largely overlap. Dianping leans toward reviews and discovery (menus, photos, ratings); Meituan leans toward food delivery, local deals and even ride-hailing (美团打车 / Meituan ride) — but each can do both. Beyond the two, instant-retail apps Taobao Instant / 淘宝闪购 and JD Now / 京东秒送 deliver from nearby stores and supermarkets — food, daily goods, groceries or pharmacy items in roughly 30 minutes. The maps above also surface nearby restaurants with ratings.

找餐厅、看评价、点外卖，主要平台是大众点评（Dianping）与美团（Meituan）——同属美团点评集团、功能高度互通的两款 App。大众点评更偏评价与发现（菜单、照片、评分），美团更偏外卖与本地优惠、还带网约车（美团打车）；但两者基本都能做彼此的事。此外，淘宝闪购与京东秒送这类即时零售平台，可从附近门店与超市送外卖——吃食、日用、商超、药店商品约 30 分钟送达。上面的两款地图也能直接搜出周边带评分的餐厅。

App / 应用Strength / 强项Good for / 适合
Dianping / 大众点评Reviews & discovery (delivery too) / 评价与发现（亦可外卖）Picking where to eat / 选餐厅
Meituan / 美团Delivery, deals, ride-hailing (reviews too) / 外卖·优惠·打车（亦可评价）Order in, local offers, rides / 点外卖·本地折扣·出行
Taobao Instant / 淘宝闪购Instant retail / 即时零售Food, daily goods, supermarket / 吃食·日用·商超
JD Now / 京东秒送Instant retail / 即时零售Groceries, pharmacy, stores / 商超·药店·门店
AMap / Baidu / 高德·百度Map + food search / 地图+美食Quick “what’s near me” / 随手搜附近

Stays & Ride-hailing

  • Hotels / 酒店: book via AMap, Baidu Maps, Meituan, or dedicated travel apps; map apps are handy for location-based choice.
    酒店可通过高德、百度地图、美团或专门的旅行 App 预订；地图 App 便于按位置挑选。
  • Ride-hailing / 网约车: tap “打车 / Ride” inside AMap, Baidu Maps or Meituan; you can also use DiDi (滴滴) directly.
    网约车可在高德、百度地图或美团内点”打车”；也可直接使用滴滴（DiDi）。
  • Trains & flights / 火车机票: dedicated booking apps complement the map tools for inter-city travel.
    城际出行可用专门的购票 App 配合地图工具。

Trains, Flights & Travel Booking

For inter-city travel, combine the map apps with dedicated booking platforms:

城际出行，可把地图 App 与专门的购票平台配合起来：

  • 12306 / 铁路12306 — China’s official railway app/site (https://www.12306.cn); book high-speed and regular trains. Foreign-passport booking is supported, though some find Trip.com (携程, Ctrip) or Fliggy (飞猪) easier with international cards.
    12306——中国铁路官方购票 App/网站，订高铁与普速列车；支持护照购票，但部分用户觉得携程 Trip.com或飞猪 Fliggy用国际银行卡更顺手。
  • Trip.com / 携程 — https://www.trip.com; English UI, trains, flights, hotels, international cards accepted.
    携程 Trip.com——英文界面，火车/机票/酒店，支持国际银行卡。
  • Fliggy / 飞猪 — https://www.fliggy.com; Alibaba’s travel platform, flights and packages.
    飞猪 Fliggy——阿里旅行平台，机票与套餐。

Connectivity & SIM

Mobile data is essential for almost everything above. Options:

上网流量几乎是用好上面所有 App 的前提。选择有：

  • Local SIM at the airport / 机场本地卡: China Mobile (中国移动), China Unicom (中国联通) and China Telecom (中国电信) sell tourist SIMs at airport counters — cheap and instant.
    机场柜台可买中国移动/联通/电信的旅游卡，便宜即办即通。
  • eSIM before you fly / 出发前买 eSIM: providers like Airalo and RedteaGO issue China eSIMs you activate on arrival.
    Airalo、RedteaGO 等可在出发前购中国 eSIM，落地激活。
  • A note on apps / 关于 App 的提醒: many global apps and services (Google, WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, etc.) are restricted or unstable in mainland China. WeChat is the local standard for messaging, and the apps in this guide are the practical daily toolkit.
    许多海外 App 与服务（Google、WhatsApp、Facebook、Instagram 等）在内地受限或不稳定；微信是本地通讯标准，本指南中的 App 才是实用的日常工具箱。

Government Services: Shanghai Suishenban

If you stay in Shanghai, install Suishenban (随申办) — the city’s official one-stop government-services app. It consolidates municipal services (social-security queries, residence and visa-related matters, certificates, and the Suishen Code / 随申码 used for some transport and venue checks). The app offers an English interface (international / English mode), so foreign residents can read and apply in English.

若在上海停留，装好随申办（Suishenban）——上海市官方的一站式政务服务 App。它整合了各类市级服务（社保查询、居留与签证相关事项、证明开具，以及用于部分交通与场所核验的随申码）。该 App 提供英文界面（国际版 / English 模式），外国居民可用英文阅读与办理。

  • Official portal / 官方门户: https://english.shanghai.gov.cn
    上海市政府英文门户：https://english.shanghai.gov.cn
  • Bilingual foreigner service package (Pudong) / 中英双语外籍人士服务包（浦东）: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/_60TW73bKXb7ip_ycFen_A
    浦东新区《外籍人士便利化服务包·生活安居篇》，含随申办等生活办事指引。
  • Other cities have their own equivalents (e.g. 粤省事 in Guangdong, 浙里办 in Zhejiang); check the local government site.
    其他城市也有类似 App（如广东”粤省事”、浙江”浙里办”），可查当地政务网站。
Need / 需求Recommended app / 推荐应用Notes / 说明
Pay in shops / 店内付款Alipay, WeChat PayBind foreign card / 绑外卡
Navigate / 导航Baidu Maps, AMapTransit + traffic / 公交+路况
Hail a ride / 打车AMap, Baidu Maps, DiDiIn-map or standalone / 地图内或独立
Book hotel / 订酒店AMap, Baidu Maps, MeituanLocation-based / 按位置
Find restaurant / 找餐厅Dianping, Meituan, MapsReviews + delivery / 评价+外卖
Order food / 点外卖Meituan, MapsTo your door / 送上门
Instant retail / 即时零售Taobao Instant, JD NowFood, daily goods, supermarket / 吃食·日用·商超
Ride metro / 坐地铁Tap foreign card, or Alipay/WeChat ride codeNo ticket needed / 免购票
Unified travel QR / 聚合出行码Alipay, WeChat, DiDi “出行”Metro, bus, taxi, bike, flights; switch cities / 地铁·公交·打车·骑行·机票，可切城市
Shanghai transit / 上海公交出行Suishenxing (随申行 / SH MaaS)One app: metro, bus, ferry & more / 一 App 通地铁·公交·轮渡等
Translate / 翻译Doubao & other AI assistants, Baidu/Tencent TranslateLive chat, photo, menus & signs / 实时对话·拍图·菜单路牌
Bike-share / 共享单车Hello, Meituan Bike, QingjuScan to ride / 扫码骑行
Trains & flights / 火车机票12306, Trip.com, FliggyInter-city travel / 城际出行
SIM & data / 上网 SIMChina Mobile/Unicom/Telecom, eSIMAirport or pre-bought / 机场或预购
Shanghai services / 上海政务Suishenban (随申办)One-stop gov app / 一站式政务

> 提示：本表仅列出各 App 的核心功能，并非全部；更多能力（账单管理、会员积分、城市服务、出行联程等）可下载 App 亲自体验。 > Note: this table lists only the core functions of each app — far from exhaustive. Download the apps to explore more (bill management, loyalty points, city services, multi-modal trip planning, and beyond).

Sources

Negative List / 负面清单

The Foreign Investment Negative List in 2026: “Timely Reduction” Commitments and the Shift to Post-Access Regulation

  • In 2026 the national foreign investment negative list stays at 29 items, but regulators have committed to “timely reduction”, with services as the priority and telecom, internet, education, culture and healthcare named as the next opening fronts.
    2026 年全国版外商投资准入负面清单保持 29 条，但主管部门明确承诺”适时缩减”，以服务业为重点，增值电信、互联网、教育、文化、医疗被列为下一步开放前沿。
  • The National Health Commission confirmed in August 2026 that it is building a dynamic adjustment mechanism for a foreign investment negative list specific to medical projects, alongside a second batch of wholly foreign-owned hospital pilot cities.
    国家卫生健康委 2026 年 8 月确认，正在建立外商投资医疗项目负面清单动态调整机制，并同步遴选第二批外商独资医院试点城市。
  • Wholly foreign-owned hospitals have now landed in four cities — Tianjin, Shanghai, Boao and Fuzhou — under the 2024 pilot scheme, and pilot-zone policy now allows foreign-invested firms to develop human stem-cell and gene-diagnosis technologies for product registration.
    2024 年试点方案落地后，外商独资医院已先后在天津、上海、博鳌、福州 4 地落地；自贸试验区与海南自由贸易港已允许外商投资企业从事人体干细胞、基因诊断与治疗技术开发应用，以用于产品注册上市和生产。
  • The June 2026 Action Plan for Stabilizing and Optimizing Foreign Investment adds education and finance opening and pilots the removal of equity caps for app stores and internet-access services in the telecom sector.
    2026 年 6 月《利用外资固稳促优行动方案》新增教育与金融领域开放，并在电信领域试点取消应用商店、互联网接入等服务业务的外资股比限制。
  • The practical implication is that the binding constraint for foreign investors is shifting from “access” (准入) to “operation permission” (准营): the negative list is no longer the only gate, and sector-specific licensing, registration and standards now do most of the screening work.
    对境外投资者的实际含义是约束重心正从”准入”转向”准营”：负面清单不再是唯一门槛，行业许可、产品注册与标准合规承担了大部分筛选工作。
  • Investors should track four watchpoints: a possible 2026/2027 national list revision, the second batch of hospital pilots, the first items migrated from the medical negative-list adjustment mechanism, and the actual telecom equity-cap pilots in designated zones.
    投资者应跟踪四个看点：2026/2027 年全国清单可能的修订、第二批外商独资医院试点、医疗负面清单动态调整机制产出的首批条目，以及指定区域电信股比试点实际落地情况。

The Foreign Investment Negative List in 2026: “Timely Reduction” Commitments and the Shift to Post-Access Regulation | 2026 年外商投资准入负面清单：适时缩减承诺与”准入后监管”转向

The state of the list in 2026

The operative national foreign investment negative list remains the 2024 edition — NDRC and MOFCOM Order No. 23 — with 29 items, the shortest version in the instrument’s history. Manufacturing restrictions have been fully “zeroed out”, and the list now concentrates on services and a narrow set of security-sensitive sectors: news and publishing, culture, education, telecom, mining, agriculture breeding and a few others. Through 2026 no new national edition has been issued, and in August 2026 no formal revision has been gazetted. What has changed is the policy conversation around the list. At the June 2026 State Council Information Office press conference on foreign investment, the NDRC’s foreign investment department explicitly promised a “timely reduction” of the negative list and named telecom, internet, education, culture and healthcare as the sectors where orderly opening will be pursued. The 2026 Government Work Report and the 15th Five-Year Plan repeat the same commitment.

The medical negative list: a new mechanism in the making

The most concrete new development in August 2026 comes from the health sector. In a reply to a CPPCC proposal published in August 2026, the National Health Commission confirmed several steps: (1) steadily expanding the hospital pilot from “point trials” to regional rollout and accelerating the selection of a second batch of wholly foreign-owned hospital pilot cities; (2) including high-end specialist medical, rehabilitation and nursing in the national encouraged-catalogue scope; (3) building a dynamic adjustment mechanism for the foreign investment negative list specific to medical projects, and revising departmental rules that are inconsistent with the opening policy; and (4) in the Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong FTZs and the Hainan FTP, permitting foreign-invested enterprises to conduct R&D and application of human stem-cell and gene-diagnosis and therapy technologies for the purpose of product registration and marketing, with approved products usable nationwide. The first four wholly foreign-owned hospitals — in Tianjin, Shanghai, Boao and Fuzhou — are already operating under the 2024 scheme. The phrase “dynamic adjustment mechanism” for a medical negative list signals that healthcare opening will be managed by a sector-specific, frequently updated instrument rather than by waiting for the next full national revision.

Beyond the list: the “access to operation permission” shift

The strategic shift that frames all of 2026’s policy documents is the move from “access” (准入) to “operation permission” (准营). MOFCOM officials have repeatedly described the current phase as solving the “big door open, small door closed” problem: the negative list no longer blocks most foreign entry, but operating licences, product registration, data compliance and standards certification now do the screening that the list used to do. For a foreign investor, this means the compliance map is broader than the list: an auto manufacturer must handle catalogue and emission rules; a pharma firm must navigate drug registration and clinical trials; a telecom operator must secure the sectoral licence; a hospital must pass setting approval, medical institution licensing and insurance network access. The negative list is the first checkbox, not the last.

Education and finance: the new opening fronts

The June 2026 Action Plan for Stabilizing and Optimizing Foreign Investment (MOFCOM, NDRC and MOF published as Shangzi Fa [2026] No. 97, approved by the State Council) goes beyond the medical sector. It commits to expanding opening in education and finance, supports qualified foreign-invested equity investment institutions to participate as strategic investors in securities issuance of listed companies in non-affiliated industries, and in the telecom field pilots the removal of foreign equity caps for app stores, internet access and similar service businesses. For the negative-list conversation, the significance is that the next revision is likely to delete or soften precisely these service items: value-added telecom caps, education cooperative restrictions and finance-related conditions are the most probable candidates for the next trimming round.

What has not changed: security carve-outs

It would be a mistake to read the 2026 signals as unconditional liberalisation. The negative list’s security carve-outs remain firmly in place: news and internet information services, online publishing and broadcast-television production stay prohibited; education institutions remain limited to Chinese-foreign cooperative forms with Chinese dominance; basic telecom remains Chinese-controlled; and the countermeasures framework in the revised Foreign Trade Law provides statutory authority to restrict trade with foreign persons or organisations that harm China’s sovereignty, security or development interests. Foreign investors in sensitive sectors should continue to plan on the basis of joint-venture or cooperative structures and should monitor the security review regime for mergers and acquisitions in critical areas.

Practical steps for investors in the 2026/2027 window

First, screen your business scope against the current 29-item national list and, if entering a pilot zone, the FTZ list. Second, for medical investments, watch the second batch of wholly foreign-owned hospital pilot cities and the medical negative-list dynamic adjustment mechanism; the first four pilots show that the practical route runs through setting approval and hospital licensing, not just the list. Third, for education and telecom, treat the June Action Plan as a strong directional signal and prepare structures that can convert to higher ownership if the caps are lifted. Fourth, keep the encouraged catalogue in view: high-end specialist medical, rehabilitation and nursing are now encouraged nationwide, with associated import-duty, land and tax benefits. Fifth, maintain documentation that demonstrates trade policy compliance — the “timely reduction” commitment cuts both ways, and regulators will scrutinise scope wording, sector licences and data flows more, not less.

Outlook

The negative list in 2026 is best understood as a stable floor with a sliding ceiling: no new national edition has been published, but every major policy document of the year commits to further service-sector trimming, and the health, education, telecom and finance fronts are each being prepared through pilots and mechanism-building. For foreign investors the strategy is to build around the current list, structure for upside optionality, and treat the post-access operating permit journey as the real competitive battlefield.

Sources

2026 年外商投资准入负面清单：适时缩减承诺与”准入后监管”转向

2026 年清单现状

现行有效的全国版外商投资准入负面清单仍是 2024 年版（国家发展改革委、商务部第 23 号令），共 29 条，为制度设立以来最短版本。制造业限制已全面”清零”，清单现集中于服务业与少数安全敏感领域：新闻出版、文化、教育、电信、采矿、农业育种等。2026 年全年尚未发布新版全国清单，截至 2026 年 8 月亦无正式修订公告。变化发生在围绕清单的政策语境。2026 年 6 月国新办利用外资发布会，国家发展改革委外资司负责人明确承诺”适时缩减外资准入负面清单”，并点名电信、互联网、教育、文化、医疗为有序扩大开放的方向。2026 年《政府工作报告》与十五五规划《纲要》重申同一承诺。

医疗负面清单：一项新机制的形成

2026 年 8 月最具体的新进展来自医疗领域。国家卫生健康委 2026 年 8 月公开的政协提案答复函确认多项部署：（1）稳步推动医院试点从”点状试点”向”区域推广”拓展，加快遴选第二批外商独资医院试点城市；（2）将高端专业医疗、康复、护理纳入全国鼓励范围（落实《鼓励外商投资产业目录（2025年版）》）；（3）建立外商投资医疗项目负面清单动态调整机制，并修订与开放政策不相适应的部门规章；（4）在北京、上海、广东自贸试验区和海南自由贸易港，允许外商投资企业从事人体干细胞、基因诊断与治疗技术开发应用，以用于产品注册上市和生产，经注册上市与批准生产的产品可在全国使用。2024 年试点方案下的首批 4 家外商独资医院——天津、上海、博鳌、福州——已先后落地。医疗领域负面清单”动态调整机制”的提法意味着医疗开放将交由一张行业专属、高频更新的清单管理，而不必等待下一轮全国清单全面修订。

清单之外：”准入”到”准营”的转向

贯穿 2026 年全部政策文件的战略转向，是从”准入”到”准营”。商务部官员多次将当前阶段描述为解决”大门开、小门不开”问题：负面清单不再阻挡多数外资进入，但经营许可、产品注册、数据合规与标准认证现在承担了清单原先的筛选职能。对外国投资者，合规地图比清单更宽：整车厂要应对目录与排放规则，药企要面对药品注册与临床试验，电信运营商要取得行业牌照，医院要通过设置审批、医疗机构执业登记与保险网络准入。负面清单是第一个勾选项，而不是最后一个。

教育与金融：新的开放前沿

2026 年 6 月《利用外资固稳促优行动方案》（商务部、国家发展改革委、财政部印发，商资发〔2026〕97 号，经国务院同意）超出医疗领域。它承诺扩大教育与金融开放，支持符合条件的外资股权投资机构以战略投资者身份参与非相关行业上市公司证券发行，并在电信领域试点取消应用商店、互联网接入等服务业务的外资股比限制。对负面清单讨论的意义在于：下一轮修订最可能删除或放松的正是这些服务条目——增值电信股比上限、教育中外合作限制与金融相关条件，是下一轮压缩的最大候选。

未变之处：安全保留

把 2026 年信号读作无条件开放将是误读。负面清单的安全保留依旧坚固：新闻与互联网信息服务、网络出版、广播电视节目制作保持禁止；教育机构仍限于中方主导的中外合作办学；基础电信仍须中方控股；修订后《对外贸易法》的反制框架为限制危害中国主权、安全与发展利益的境外个人、组织的贸易活动提供了法定依据。敏感行业的外国投资者应继续按合资或合作结构规划，并关注关键领域并购安全审查制度。

2026/2027 窗口期的投资者实操

其一，将经营范围对照现行 29 条全国清单，进入试点区域再对照自贸试验区版。其二，医疗投资关注第二批外商独资医院试点城市与医疗负面清单动态调整机制；首批 4 家试点表明实际路径走的是设置审批与医院执业登记，而非单纯清单。其三，教育与电信领域把 6 月《行动方案》作为强方向信号，若股比上限放开，准备可转换为更高持股的结构。其四，别忘鼓励目录：高端专业医疗、康复、护理现为全国鼓励类，附带进口设备关税、用地与税收优惠。其五，留存证明贸易政策合规的文件——”适时缩减”承诺是一把双刃剑，监管机构对经营范围表述、行业牌照与数据流的审查只多不少。

展望

2026 年的负面清单最适合理解为”稳定的地板 + 滑动天花板”：全年未发布新版全国清单，但年度每份重大政策文件都承诺进一步压减服务业条目，医疗、教育、电信与金融前沿各自以试点和机制建设推进。对外国投资者的策略是围绕现行清单搭建结构、为上行期权预留弹性，并把”准入后准营”许可旅程当作真正的竞争战场。

Sources

Negative List / 负面清单

China’s Cross-Border Services Trade Negative List: The New Legal Foundation and What It Means for Foreign Suppliers

  • The revised Foreign Trade Law, which took effect on 1 March 2026, is the first law to codify a cross-border services trade negative list at the national level, placing cross-border delivery, consumption abroad and movement of natural persons under a “everything not listed is permitted” regime.
    2026 年 3 月 1 日起施行的新修订《对外贸易法》，首次在法律层面确立跨境服务贸易负面清单管理制度，将跨境交付、境外消费、自然人移动等模式下开展的跨境服务贸易置于”非禁即入”的清单管理之下。
  • The negative list for cross-border services trade is a different instrument from the foreign investment negative list: it governs services supplied across borders without a commercial presence, while the investment list governs services supplied through locally established entities.
    跨境服务贸易负面清单与外商投资准入负面清单是两项不同工具：前者管理不设商业存在而跨境提供的服务，后者管理以在华设立实体方式提供的服务。
  • A supplier delivering services into China from abroad must screen its activities against both lists: the cross-border services list for its offshore supply model, and the foreign investment list if it sets up a local presence.
    从境外向中国提供服务的外国服务提供者须对两张清单同时筛查：离岸供应模式对照跨境服务贸易清单，若在华设立商业存在则再对照外商投资准入清单。
  • The revised law empowers the State Council’s commerce department to formulate, adjust and publish the cross-border services negative list together with other departments, leaving room for pilot zones and the Hainan FTP to test broader opening first.
    修订后的法律授权商务部会同有关部门制定、调整并发布跨境服务贸易负面清单，为自贸试验区与海南自由贸易港先行先试更大开放留出空间。
  • Restrictions on cross-border services remain grounded in national security, public health and safety, domestic industry development and balance-of-payments grounds, mirroring GATS-style flexibilities.
    对跨境服务贸易的限制仍以国家安全、公共健康安全、国内特定服务产业培育和外汇收支平衡等事由为依据，与 GATS 式灵活性安排相衔接。
  • For foreign service firms, the 2026 legal upgrade converts policy pledges into statutory certainty: digital trade, green trade and new business models are explicitly encouraged, and a service-supplier’s compliance burden becomes a checklist exercise rather than an open-ended approval process.
    对境外服务企业而言，2026 年的法律升级把政策承诺转化为法律确定性：数字贸易、绿色贸易与新业态获明确鼓励，服务提供者的合规负担从开放式审批变为清单式核对。

China’s Cross-Border Services Trade Negative List: The New Legal Foundation and What It Means for Foreign Suppliers | 中国跨境服务贸易负面清单：新的法律基础与对外国服务提供者的意义

Why the new legal foundation matters

For decades, foreign suppliers of services to China faced an asymmetry: the goods trade was governed by tariffs and quota schedules, and investment was governed by the foreign investment negative list, but cross-border services — consulting, software, cloud services, engineering design, market research, payments and a wide range of business services supplied from abroad without a local entity — sat in a grey zone of sectoral licences and discretionary approvals. The revised Foreign Trade Law, adopted by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on 27 December 2025 and in force since 1 March 2026, changes the architecture. Article 31 of the revised law establishes a “cross-border services trade negative list management system”: the State Council’s commerce department, together with other departments, formulates, adjusts and publishes the list, and any activity not on the list may be supplied cross-border without an item-by-item approval. The law itself does not enumerate the items — the list is a separate regulatory instrument — but it fixes the governing principle in legislation, giving foreign suppliers statutory predictability for the first time.

The list as distinct from the foreign investment negative list

It is important to keep the two negative lists separate. The foreign investment negative list (currently 29 national items, as the 2024 edition) applies to services supplied through a “commercial presence” in China — that is, a wholly foreign-owned enterprise, joint venture or branch. The cross-border services trade negative list applies to the other three modes of service supply recognised in trade-policy terms: cross-border delivery (mode 1, services transmitted from abroad), consumption abroad (mode 2, a Chinese consumer travelling or staying abroad and consuming a service there) and movement of natural persons (mode 4, an individual entering China to deliver a service without establishing an entity). Article 31 makes this division explicit: services supplied through commercial presence are governed by the Foreign Investment Law, while services supplied under the other three modes are governed by the cross-border services negative list. A foreign software company that sells licences remotely from its home office, for example, is regulated under the cross-border list; if it sets up a Chinese subsidiary to sell the same licences, the subsidiary is regulated under the investment list.

What the revised Foreign Trade Law adds beyond the list

The 2025 revision, the law’s most substantial since 2004, contains several provisions that matter for foreign service suppliers. First, the law explicitly encourages digital trade and green trade, and commits China to promoting mutual recognition of digital certificates and electronic signatures, which eases cross-border contracting. Second, it strengthens the trade policy compliance mechanism: government measures affecting trade must undergo a compliance assessment aligned with international rules, which disciplines local regulators from imposing ad hoc barriers. Third, it codifies countermeasures: where a foreign country or region takes discriminatory measures against Chinese persons or organisations in trade, or harms China’s sovereignty, security or development interests, China may restrict trade with the responsible foreign individuals or organisations — including by prohibiting Chinese persons and organisations from providing them agency, freight, customs, warehousing or platform services. Fourth, it reaffirms the services-trade relief framework, allowing safeguard measures where a surge in imported services causes serious injury to domestic service industries.

The relationship between the national list and pilot-zone liberalisation

China already operates a cross-border services negative list for the Hainan Free Trade Port, issued in 2021 with 70 items, later compressed, and the FTZ cross-border services negative list, which has been progressively trimmed in successive editions. The 2026 legal codification does not itself shorten these lists, but it provides the statutory anchor that allows the national list to be built by extending pilot-zone experiments nationwide. In practice, the reform path mirrors the investment-list experience: pilot zones test a compressed list, the Hainan port tests a freer regime, and successful items migrate to the national list. Foreign suppliers should therefore watch three layers: the national list (once issued in its post-2026 form), the FTZ list for pilot-zone entry, and the Hainan list for port-based services.

What restricted categories look like

Although the operative national list is still being updated, the structure of the existing FTZ and Hainan lists gives a clear picture of where restrictions concentrate: (1) financial services — cross-border insurance, securities brokerage, fund distribution and certain payment services are either prohibited or subject to establishment requirements; (2) professional services — legal practice, certain accounting and certification activities, and some consulting services require local qualification or establishment; (3) telecommunications and internet — cross-border provision of basic and some value-added telecom services is restricted; (4) medical and health services — remote diagnosis and certain medical activities face qualification conditions; (5) cultural and information services — internet content, news and publishing activities remain restricted; and (6) transport and logistics — certain cabotage and cross-border logistics activities are conditioned on licensed local operators. The general test for a foreign supplier is straightforward: if the activity is not listed, it may be supplied cross-border; if it is listed, the supplier must look for a licensed route, typically by establishing a commercial presence.

Practical steps for foreign service suppliers

First, map your service model to the four modes and confirm whether your activity is cross-border (list applies) or commercial-presence based (investment list applies). Second, review the current FTZ and Hainan cross-border services lists as the best available proxy for the direction of the national list. Third, screen for sectoral regulators’ rules even where the list permits supply: data localisation, personal information cross-border transfer rules, payment licences and professional qualification requirements sit outside the list and continue to apply. Fourth, where the activity is restricted, consider structuring via a licensed joint venture or a pilot-zone entity. Fifth, document the trade policy compliance of your entry plan — the new statutory regime rewards clean, checklist-based compliance and penalises grey-zone operations.

Outlook for 2026 and beyond

The Government Work Report for 2026 and the 15th Five-Year Plan both direct that the cross-border services negative list be further compressed, with services as the priority for market-access opening. The Commerce Ministry has continued to expand the comprehensive pilot programme for services trade opening, and the “Services China” data for the first half of 2026 show knowledge-intensive services trade growing strongly. For foreign suppliers, the direction of travel is unambiguous: China is converting its services-opening policy into codified, list-based regulation, and the winners will be the firms that screen against the list, structure their mode of supply deliberately, and keep their offshore and onshore compliance aligned.

Sources

中国跨境服务贸易负面清单：新的法律基础与对外国服务提供者的意义

新的法律基础为何重要

数十年来，向中国提供服务的境外供应商面对一种不对称格局：货物贸易受关税与配额表约束，投资受外商投资负面清单约束，而跨境服务——咨询、软件、云服务、工程设计、市场调研、支付及各类不需在华设立实体的商业服务——长期处于部门许可与自由裁量审批的灰色地带。2025 年 12 月 27 日全国人大常委会表决通过、2026 年 3 月 1 日起施行的新修订《对外贸易法》改变了这一架构。修订后法律第三十一条确立”跨境服务贸易负面清单管理制度”：国务院对外贸易主管部门会同有关部门制定、调整并发布跨境服务贸易负面清单，凡未列入清单的活动即可跨境提供，无需逐项审批。法律本身不列举条目——清单是独立的监管文件——但它在立法层面固定了管理原则，首次给予境外供应商以法律层面的可预期性。

与外商投资准入负面清单的区别

必须把两张清单区分开来。外商投资准入负面清单（当前为 2024 年版，全国版 29 条）适用于以”商业存在”方式在华提供的服务——即外商独资企业、合资企业或分支机构。跨境服务贸易负面清单适用于贸易政策意义上另外三种服务供应模式：跨境交付（模式一，从境外传输服务）、境外消费（模式二，中国消费者出境在境外消费服务）与自然人移动（模式四，个人进入中国提供服务而不设立实体）。第三十一条明确划界：以商业存在提供的服务适用《外商投资法》，以其他三种模式提供的服务适用跨境服务贸易负面清单。例如，一家外国软件公司从境外总部远程销售许可，按跨境清单监管；若它设立中国子公司销售同样的许可，子公司按投资清单监管。

修订后的《对外贸易法》在清单之外增加了什么

2025 年修订是 2004 年以来最实质的一次修法，对外国服务提供者有多项相关条款。其一，法律明确鼓励数字贸易与绿色贸易，并承诺推动数字证书、电子签名国际互认，便利跨境缔约。其二，强化贸易政策合规机制：影响贸易的政府措施须按与国际规则衔接的标准开展合规评估，约束地方监管者不得随意设置障碍。其三，成文规定反制措施：外国国家或地区对中国个人、组织实施歧视性措施，或危害中国主权、安全与发展利益的，中国可对该境外个人、组织限制相关贸易——包括禁止中国境内组织、个人为其提供代理、货运、报关、仓储、平台等服务。其四，重申服务贸易救济框架：进口服务激增对国内服务产业造成严重损害的，可采取保障措施。

国家清单与试点开放的关系

中国已有一张海南自由贸易港跨境服务贸易负面清单（2021 年发布时 70 条，后经压缩）与自贸试验区跨境服务贸易负面清单（历经多版压缩）。2026 年的法律成文本身并不缩短这些清单，但它提供了让国家清单得以”先试点、后推广”的立法锚点。实践中，改革路径与投资清单经验一致：试验区试验压缩版清单，海南试验更开放制度，成功条目向全国迁移。境外供应商应关注三层：国家清单（2026 年后新版一旦发布）、自贸试验区版（试点区域进入）、海南版（港口型服务）。

受限类别的样貌

尽管现行国家清单仍在更新中，既有自贸试验区与海南清单的结构已清楚显示限制集中的领域：（1）金融服务——跨境保险、证券经纪、基金销售及部分支付服务或被禁止或要求设立机构；（2）专业服务——法律执业、部分会计与认证活动、部分咨询服务要求本地资质或设立；（3）电信与互联网——基础电信及部分增值电信服务的跨境提供受限；（4）医疗卫生——远程诊疗及部分医疗活动有资质条件；（5）文化与信息服务——互联网内容、新闻与出版活动仍受限；（6）运输物流——部分国内运输与跨境物流活动须由持证本地经营者承接。对外国供应商的通用测试很简单：未列入清单即可跨境提供；列入清单则须寻找持牌路径，通常以设立商业存在实现。

外国服务提供者的实操步骤

其一，把服务模式映射到四种模式，确认属跨境（适用清单）还是商业存在（适用投资清单）。其二，研读现行自贸试验区与海南跨境服务贸易清单，作为国家清单方向的最近代理。其三，即便清单允许供应，仍须筛查行业主管部门规则：数据本地化、个人信息跨境传输规则、支付牌照与职业资质要求均在清单之外继续适用。其四，活动受限时，考虑以持牌合资或试验区主体结构进入。其五，让准入方案经得起贸易政策合规检验——新的成文制度奖励清晰、清单式的合规，惩戒灰色经营。

2026 年及之后展望

2026 年《政府工作报告》与十五五规划《纲要》均要求进一步压缩跨境服务贸易负面清单，并以服务业为扩大开放重点。商务部持续推进服务业扩大开放综合试点，2026 年上半年服务贸易数据显示知识密集型服务进出口强劲增长。对境外供应商，方向毋庸置疑：中国正把服务业开放政策转化为成文、清单式监管，胜者将是那些对照清单筛查、刻意设计供应模式、使离岸与在岸合规保持一致的机构。

Sources