China expands its “one-stop” international commercial dispute-resolution network: SPC adds mediation institutions and renews expert committee
- On 9 September 2026 the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) convened the fifth seminar of its International Commercial Expert Committee in Shanghai, announcing the addition of new international commercial mediation institutions to the “one-stop” diversified resolution mechanism for international commercial disputes and the reappointment of committee members.
2026年9月9日，最高人民法院国际商事专家委员会第五届研讨会暨专家委员续聘活动在上海举行，会议宣布”一站式”国际商事纠纷多元化解决机制新增部分国际商事调解机构，并续聘部分专家委员。
- Chief Justice Zhang Jun said Chinese courts will keep handling foreign-related commercial cases fairly and efficiently, unify adjudication standards to stabilise market expectations, honour international treaties, upgrade the one-stop platform, and deepen the interplay between courts and arbitration — 211 of China’s cases have been included by UNCITRAL and others in their case repositories.
最高人民法院院长张军表示，中国法院将坚持平等保护、公正高效化解国际商事纠纷，统一裁判尺度、稳定市场预期，恪守国际条约，升级”一站式”平台服务效能，推进司法与仲裁良性互动——目前已有211件案例被联合国国际贸易法委员会等收录。
- The SPC read out two documents at the meeting: a notice on adding international commercial mediation institutions to the one-stop mechanism and a decision on reappointing part of the expert committee; public commentary reads the expansion as bringing institutions such as the International Organization for Mediation and mediators based in Hong Kong and Singapore into the coordinated network.
会议宣读了《关于”一站式”国际商事纠纷多元化解决机制新增部分国际商事调解机构的通知》与《关于续聘国际商事专家委员会部分委员的决定》；公开解读认为，扩容将国际调解院以及香港、新加坡等地的调解机构等纳入协同网络。
- Institutional data point to a pro-arbitration track record: Shanghai’s courts supported arbitration in 95.69% of the 325 arbitration-judicial-review cases concluded in the first half of 2026, completed a Mongolia-seated award recognition case in 39 days, and processed Hong Kong-related arbitration preservation referrals within 48 hours.
机构数据呈现支持仲裁的实践记录：2026年上半年上海法院审结仲裁司法审查案件325件、支持仲裁率达95.69%；在一起承认和执行蒙古国仲裁裁决案中将审理周期压缩至39天；涉港仲裁保全协作符合条件的案件48小时内完成审查、裁定与移交。
- For foreign companies, the practical takeaway is that the mediation–arbitration–litigation interface in China is becoming a single, networked service: parties to cross-border contracts can now design tiered dispute clauses that sit on a platform connecting Chinese courts, Chinese and foreign arbitral institutions and an expanding roster of commercial mediators.
对外国企业而言，实务要点在于：中国的调解—仲裁—诉讼衔接正在成为一个网络化的单一服务体系——跨境合同的当事方可设计分层争议解决条款，使其运行于连接中国法院、中外仲裁机构与不断扩容的商业调解机构的平台之上。
China expands its “one-stop” international commercial dispute-resolution network: SPC adds mediation institutions and renews expert committee | 中国扩容”一站式”国际商事多元解纷网络：最高法新增国际商事调解机构并续聘专家委员
Overview
On 9 September 2026, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) held the fifth seminar of its International Commercial Expert Committee in Shanghai, together with a ceremony renewing the appointment of expert committee members. At the meeting the SPC read out the Notice on Adding International Commercial Mediation Institutions to the “One-Stop” Diversified Resolution Mechanism for International Commercial Disputes and the Decision on the Reappointment of Part of the International Commercial Expert Committee.
The meeting is the latest step in a decade-long project: building a Chinese “one-stop” platform on which international commercial disputes can move between mediation, arbitration and litigation without the parties having to leave one coherent system. For foreign investors and trading partners, the practical question is what this expansion changes when they draft dispute clauses for contracts with Chinese counterparties or when a cross-border dispute lands in China.
What happened at the Shanghai seminar
Chief Justice Zhang Jun addressed the seminar, describing how Chinese courts handle international commercial disputes: equal protection of the lawful rights of Chinese and foreign parties; careful adjudication of foreign-related civil and commercial cases; refinement of judicial interpretations and regulatory documents to unify adjudication standards and stabilise market expectations; faithful application of international treaties and efficient handling of judicial-assistance cases; promotion of diversified dispute resolution and positive interplay between courts and arbitration; and digital-court development with smarter legal services for foreign-related matters.
Two institutional signals were announced at the meeting. First, the roster of institutions inside the “one-stop” diversified resolution mechanism for international commercial disputes is being expanded with additional international commercial mediation institutions. Second, part of the International Commercial Expert Committee — an advisory body of judges, scholars and practitioners from more than twenty countries and regions — is renewed. Public commentary on the expansion points to the International Organization for Mediation and mediation institutions based in Hong Kong and Singapore joining the coordinated network, deepening the institutional interface between Chinese courts and internationally oriented mediation practice. As the commentary is not an official enumeration, the safest reading is that the mediation layer of the one-stop mechanism is growing and internationalising.
Why the “one-stop” mechanism matters
China’s “one-stop” international commercial dispute-resolution mechanism, developed since the 2018 establishment of the China International Commercial Court (CICC) under the SPC, links three layers:
- Litigation before the CICC and the network of international commercial courts at high people’s courts;
- arbitration administered by Chinese and, in defined pilot zones, foreign arbitral institutions; and
- commercial mediation, including the roster of mediation institutions coordinated under the mechanism.
The mechanism’s value proposition for foreign parties is continuity: a dispute that starts in mediation can move to arbitration or litigation without restarting procedural discovery, and enforcement of awards and mediated settlement agreements is supported by the courts’ recognition-and-enforcement practice.
Supporting data reinforce the picture of a functioning system. Courts in Shanghai, one of the main venues, concluded 325 arbitration-judicial-review cases in the first half of 2026 with a 95.69% rate of supporting arbitration; in one recognition-and-enforcement case of a Mongolian-seated award the court compressed the procedure to 39 days; and qualified Hong Kong-related arbitration-preservation collaboration cases are processed within 48 hours from review to ruling and transfer for execution. The SPC notes that 211 Chinese cases have been collected by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and other repositories, which it cites as evidence of the credibility of Chinese commercial justice.
What the expansion changes in practice
- More mediation options with a court link. Where a contract names mediation as a first step, parties now have a broader roster of institutions whose mediation outcomes can be channelled into the same mechanism — including, per public commentary, mediation bodies based outside the mainland.
- Tiered clauses become more realistic. The clearer the mediation–arbitration–litigation interface, the more workable a clause providing for negotiation, then mediation, then arbitration or litigation, with each step connected to the same institutional platform.
- Recognition and enforcement stays the anchor. Foreign awards and foreign judgments remain enforceable through China’s courts under the New York Convention and judicial-assistance treaties; the mechanism does not replace those routes but adds upstream options to resolve disputes before enforcement is needed.
- Service quality signals. Upgraded digital courts and AI-assisted foreign-related legal services were flagged at the seminar, which should gradually shorten procedural timelines for foreign parties.
Practical steps
- Review existing China-facing contracts: where a dispute clause names only litigation, consider whether adding a coordinated mediation step fits your risk profile; where it names a foreign seat, confirm how the one-stop mechanism could still assist (e.g. preservation, recognition of the eventual award).
- When drafting new contracts with Chinese counterparties, specify the dispute-resolution ladder (negotiation – mediation – arbitration/litigation) and, if mediation is included, identify the institution from the coordinated roster.
- For disputes already arising, assess whether court-connected mediation through the one-stop mechanism can resolve the matter faster than full arbitration or litigation.
- Keep enforcement strategy in mind from day one: choose arbitral seats and institutions whose awards are reliably enforceable in China, and document service-of-process and preservation arrangements carefully.
- Monitor the SPC’s published list of mediation institutions in the mechanism as the expansion is formalised.
Sources
- 最高人民法院官网 — 携手化解跨境商事纠纷 推动中外法治文明互鉴（国际商事专家委员会第五届研讨会暨专家委员续聘活动）: https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/511311.html
- 最高人民法院官网 — 上海市第一中级人民法院院长吴金水谈涉外商事纠纷解决”上海范式”（仲裁司法审查与司法协助数据）: https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/510721.html
- 法治网 — 南宁国际商事法庭与广西大学联合举办2026年商事仲裁案例研讨会: http://m.legaldaily.com.cn/index_article/content/2026-09/02/content_9450690.htm
Related reading
- see also: the SPC’s International Commercial Court and its first- and second-instance jurisdiction (supreme-peoples-court-cicc-2026)
- see also: how foreign judgments and awards are recognised and enforced in China (enforcing-foreign-awards-judgments)
中国扩容”一站式”国际商事多元解纷网络：最高法新增国际商事调解机构并续聘专家委员
概述
2026年9月9日，最高人民法院在上海举行国际商事专家委员会第五届研讨会暨专家委员续聘活动。会议宣读了《关于”一站式”国际商事纠纷多元化解决机制新增部分国际商事调解机构的通知》和《关于续聘国际商事专家委员会部分委员的决定》。
这是”一站式”项目建设十年来的最新一步：让国际商事争议在同一套连贯体系内于调解、仲裁、诉讼之间流转，当事各方无需脱离一个自洽的系统。对外国投资者与贸易伙伴而言，实际问题在于：与中方对手起草争议条款、或跨境争议进入中国时，这次扩容改变了什么。
上海研讨会要点
最高人民法院院长张军出席并讲话，阐述中国法院处理国际商事争议的做法：平等保护中外当事人合法权益；妥善审理涉外民商事案件；完善司法解释和规范性文件、统一裁判尺度、稳定市场预期；恪守国际条约、公正高效办理司法协助案件；促推多元解纷、推进司法与仲裁良性互动、升级”一站式”平台服务效能；统筹推进数字法院建设、提升智能化涉外法律服务水平。
会议释放两项制度信号。其一，”一站式”国际商事纠纷多元化解决机制的机构名册新增部分国际商事调解机构。其二，部分国际商事专家委员续聘——该委员会是由二十余个国家和地区法官、学者与实务人士组成的咨询机构。公开解读认为，扩容意味着国际调解院以及香港、新加坡等地的调解机构进入协同网络，深化中国法院与国际取向调解实践的机构性衔接。由于该解读并非官方名单，最稳妥的理解是：”一站式”机制的调解层正在扩容并走向国际化。
为何”一站式”机制重要
自2018年最高人民法院设立国际商事法庭（CICC）以来发展的”一站式”国际商事纠纷多元化解决机制，将三层衔接起来：
- 诉讼：国际商事法庭以及各高级法院体系的国际商事法庭网络；
- 仲裁：由中国仲裁机构、在特定试点区域还包括境外仲裁机构管理的仲裁；
- 商事调解：包括机制协调下的调解机构名册。
机制对外国当事方的价值主张在于连续性：从调解开始的争议可转入仲裁或诉讼而无需重启程序性步骤；裁决与经调解的和解协议的履行，得到法院承认与执行实践的支撑。
支撑数据也呈现出一套在运转的系统。上海作为主要受理地之一，2026年上半年审结仲裁司法审查案件325件、支持仲裁率达95.69%；在一起承认和执行蒙古国仲裁裁决案中把审理周期压缩至39天；符合条件的涉港仲裁保全协作案件48小时内完成审查、裁定并移交执行。最高法指出，211件中国案例已被联合国国际贸易法委员会等收录，并将其作为中国商事司法公信力的例证。
扩容在实践中改变什么
- 与法院衔接的调解选项更多。 若合同把调解作为第一步，当事方现在拥有更广的机构名册，其调解成果可接入同一机制——按公开解读，还包括总部设在境外的调解机构。
- 分层条款更切实可行。 调解—仲裁—诉讼的衔接越清晰，约定”先协商、再调解、后仲裁或诉讼”、且每一步接入同一机构平台的条款就越可操作。
- 承认与执行仍是锚点。 外国裁决与外国判决仍可依据《纽约公约》与司法协助条约经中国法院承认与执行；机制不替代这些路径，而是在需要执行前增加上游化解选项。
- 服务提质信号。 研讨会上提出升级数字法院与智能化涉外法律服务，有望逐步缩短外国当事方的程序周期。
实务建议
- 复查面向中国的既有合同：只约定诉讼的争议条款，可评估加入衔接式调解步骤是否符合自身风险偏好；约定境外仲裁地的，确认”一站式”机制仍可协助的环节（如保全、最终裁决的承认）。
- 起草与中方对手的新合同时，写明争议解决阶梯（协商—调解—仲裁/诉讼）；若纳入调解，从机制协调名册中选择机构。
- 对已发生的争议，评估经”一站式”机制衔接法院的调解能否比完整仲裁或诉讼更快化解。
- 自始考虑执行策略：选择裁决在中国可靠执行的仲裁地与机构，并审慎安排送达与保全。
- 关注最高法在机制项下公布的调解机构名单的正式化进程。
来源
- 最高人民法院官网 — 携手化解跨境商事纠纷 推动中外法治文明互鉴（国际商事专家委员会第五届研讨会暨专家委员续聘活动）: https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/511311.html
- 最高人民法院官网 — 上海市第一中级人民法院院长吴金水谈涉外商事纠纷解决”上海范式”（仲裁司法审查与司法协助数据）: https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/510721.html
- 法治网 — 南宁国际商事法庭与广西大学联合举办2026年商事仲裁案例研讨会: http://m.legaldaily.com.cn/index_article/content/2026-09/02/content_9450690.htm
相关阅读
- 见：最高法国际商事法庭及其一审二审管辖（supreme-peoples-court-cicc-2026）
- 见：外国判决与裁决在中国的承认与执行（enforcing-foreign-awards-judgments）