- China is a party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, and in 2024 Chinese courts concluded 42 applications to recognize/enforce foreign awards with zero refusals — a strongly “award-friendly” posture.
中国系 1958 年《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》（《纽约公约》）缔约国；2024 年全国法院审结申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决案件 42 件，无裁定拒绝承认和执行——呈现鲜明的”裁决友好”立场。- Under the Convention, a court may refuse enforcement only on the limited Article V grounds — and several (e.g., incapacity, invalidity, lack of notice, excess-of-authority) must be raised by the respondent, while only public-policy and non-arbitrability can be examined by the court on its own motion.
依公约，法院仅在有限的第五条事由下可拒绝执行；其中多项（如无行为能力、协议无效、未获通知、超裁）须由被执行人提出抗辩，只有违反公共政策与争议不可仲裁两项可由法院主动审查。- The Supreme People’s Court’s 2024 arbitration judicial-review report distils three principles: uphold arbitration agreements (“in favorem validitatis”), strictly apply setting-aside/refusal grounds to protect finality, and faithfully perform treaty duties with an “in favorem executionis” stance.
最高人民法院《商事仲裁司法审查年度报告（2024）》提炼三原则：秉持”有利于仲裁协议有效”、严格适用撤销/不予执行事由以维护终局性、善意履行条约并持”有利于裁决执行”立场。- Foreign civil and commercial judgments are enforced on the basis of reciprocity, and Chinese courts have moved from strict to “de jure reciprocity” — e.g., Shanghai Maritime Court in March 2022 first recognized and enforced a UK court judgment on that basis.
外国商事判决基于互惠原则承认执行，中国法院已从严格互惠走向”法律互惠”；如上海海事法院 2022 年 3 月首次以此承认执行英国法院判决。- Procedure: an application to recognize/enforce a foreign award or judgment is filed with the intermediate court at the respondent’s domicile or where property is located; the 2023-amended Civil Procedure Law dedicates a special foreign-related part to these channels.
程序上，承认/执行外国裁决或判决向被执行人住所地或财产所在地的中级人民法院提出；2023 年修订的《民事诉讼法》以涉外编专章规范此类通道。- China has built a supportive ecosystem: 12 intermediate courts (including Beijing and Suzhou) have established international commercial courts with “green channels” for preservation, filing, trial and enforcement.
中国已构建配套生态：北京、苏州等 12 家中级人民法院设立国际商事法庭，对保全、立案、审理、执行开设”绿色通道”。- Practical moves: put a New York Convention-seated, institutional arbitration clause in your China contracts; keep the original/award and proof of service; locate the respondent’s assets in China early; and consider a parallel preservation application to freeze assets.
操作建议：在中国相关合同中置入受《纽约公约》覆盖的机构仲裁条款；留存裁决书正本与送达证明；尽早摸清被执行人在华财产；并考虑同步申请保全以冻结资产。
Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards and Judgments in China: the New York Convention path | 在中国承认与执行外国仲裁裁决和判决：《纽约公约》路径
Overview
A foreign-invested enterprise that wins an arbitration in Singapore, Paris, or London still has to collect — often from assets inside China. The good news is that China’s enforcement climate for foreign awards has become markedly friendlier, anchored by the 1958 New York Convention and reinforced by a 2023 civil-procedure overhaul and a Supreme People’s Court (SPC) arbitration-review regime.
This article maps the Convention path for awards, the reciprocity path for judgments, the 2024 SPC review report’s principles, procedure, and practical steps for foreign creditors. It is informational; confirm with qualified PRC litigation counsel.
The New York Convention: China’s anchor
China acceded to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958, “the New York Convention”) in 1987. As a contracting state, Chinese courts are obliged to recognize and enforce foreign awards made in the territory of another contracting state, subject only to the Convention’s narrow refusal grounds.
The Convention’s refusal regime (Art.V) splits into two groups:
- Respondent-borne defenses (raised by the party resisting enforcement): incapacity of a party or invalid arbitration agreement; lack of proper notice or inability to present one’s case; the award dealing with matters beyond the submission (ultra petita) or containing decisions on matters not submitted; composition of the tribunal or procedure contravening the agreement or the law of the seat; and the award not yet binding or set aside at the seat.
- Court-examinable on its own motion: the subject matter is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Chinese law, or recognition/enforcement would be contrary to China’s public policy.
The deliberate narrowness — and the fact that most grounds need the respondent to prove them — is why a clean, procedurally regular award is usually enforceable.
The 2024 SPC arbitration judicial-review report
On 28 December 2025, the SPC released its 2024 Commercial Arbitration Judicial Review Annual Report. Its headline figures show a pro-enforcement, pro-arbitration environment:
- 42 applications to recognize and enforce foreign awards concluded in 2024 — zero refusals.
- Awards came from arbitral institutions in 15 countries and ad-hoc tribunals seated outside China.
- More broadly: 18,566 arbitration judicial-review cases concluded; setting-aside rate just 2.22% (11,016 cases); preservation rate 98.90% (27,069 cases) — evidencing strong procedural support.
- 62 applications concerning Hong Kong/Macao/Taiwan awards: 53 recognized and enforced, 6 withdrawals permitted.
The report distils three principles:
- Uphold arbitration agreements (“in favorem validitatis”). “Or/and” (or-arbitration-or-litigation) clauses, “negotiation-first” clauses, “claimant’s seat” clauses, and ad-hoc agreements are construed to favor validity and encourage arbitration.
- Strictly apply setting-aside/refusal grounds; protect finality. Courts respect the “one award, final” principle while exercising supervisory power to safeguard due process.
- Faithfully perform treaty duties; enforce in favorem executionis. Courts strictly apply the New York Convention and build a friendly environment for cross-border award enforcement.
Foreign judgments: the reciprocity path
For court judgments (rather than arbitral awards), China enforces foreign civil and commercial judgments on the basis of reciprocity and treaties. The trend is liberalizing: Chinese courts have moved from a strict, case-by-case reciprocity test toward a “de jure reciprocity” standard.
A landmark: in March 2022, the Shanghai Maritime Court recognized and enforced a UK court judgment for the first time on a de-jure-reciprocity basis, affirming reciprocity between China and the UK. Courts continue to enrich the content of reciprocity through bilateral arrangements and practice.
The practical upshot: a foreign judgment with a sound jurisdictional basis and no public-policy defect stands a materially better chance of enforcement in China today than a decade ago.
Procedure: where and how to file
The channels are codified in the Civil Procedure Law (amended 2023, effective 1 January 2024), whose special foreign-related part governs recognition and enforcement of foreign awards and judgments.
- Court: the intermediate people’s court at the respondent’s domicile or where the respondent’s property is located.
- Documentary basis: the original (or certified copy) of the award/judgment and the arbitration agreement (for awards); proof of service/notice where relevant; and, for judgments, materials supporting reciprocity.
- Bifurcated review: Chinese courts typically first examine whether recognition is warranted, then proceed to enforcement — meaning a successful recognition is the gateway to attaching and realizing Chinese assets.
- Preservation: given the 98.90% preservation rate, a parallel asset-preservation application (to freeze bank accounts, equity, or property) is often the decisive tactical step to prevent dissipation before enforcement.
The supportive ecosystem
Beyond the statutes, China has built institutions that ease cross-border dispute resolution:
- International commercial courts: 12 intermediate courts — including Beijing and Suzhou — have established international commercial courts with streamlined “green channels” for preservation, filing, trial, and enforcement in foreign-related cases.
- One-stop diversified resolution: platforms integrate early neutral evaluation and seamless online handling of litigation, arbitration, and mediation.
- Judicial transparency: annual arbitration-review reports and typical cases unify standards and signal the pro-arbitration stance to foreign parties.
What to do next
- Clause for enforcement from day one. In China-facing contracts, specify a New York Convention-covered seat and a reputable institution (e.g., SIAC, ICC, HKIAC, or a Chinese institution with a recognized foreign-related panel). Avoid “or/and” or “negotiation-first” wording that, while valid, invites battle over clause efficacy.
- Keep the record clean. Retain the signed arbitration agreement, the full award, and proof of notice/service to the respondent — these defeat most Art.V defenses before they start.
- Locate assets early. Before or at filing, map the respondent’s Chinese bank accounts, equity, IP, and real property; pair the recognition application with a preservation application to freeze them.
- Mind public policy and arbitrability. Keep the underlying dispute within arbitrable subject matter and avoid conduct that could trigger a public-policy objection.
- Use the ecosystem. Where appropriate, route through an international commercial court’s green channel and consider mediation-hybrid clauses for enforcement-stage settlement.
Practical example
“AquaTech,” a foreign-invested group, won an SIAC award in Singapore against a Chinese distributor that stopped paying. Rather than litigate the clause, AquaTech’s counsel filed a recognition-and-enforcement application with the intermediate court at the distributor’s domicile, simultaneously applying for preservation that froze the distributor’s local bank account. Because the award was procedurally regular and the arbitration agreement valid, the court recognized it under the New York Convention with no refusal — the frozen funds then became the source of recovery. The case illustrates the modern reality: a foreign award is not a paper trophy in China, provided the clause, the record, and the asset map are handled up front.
Sources
- Supreme People’s Court — 2024 Commercial Arbitration Judicial Review Annual Report (released 28 December 2025): https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/485071.html
- PRC Civil Procedure Law (amended 2023, effective 1 January 2024), foreign-related special provisions: https://www.gov.cn
- Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958, New York Convention): https://www.court.gov.cn
- International Commercial Court of China (SPC) practice notes: https://cicc.court.gov.cn
- Shanghai Maritime Court — first de-jure-reciprocity recognition of a UK judgment (March 2022): https://www.court.gov.cn
Related reading
- see also: Being Sued in China (68-cross-border-service-litigation)
- see also: CIETAC & international arbitration (40-cietac-international-arbitration)
- see also: Foreign-related dispute resolution: litigation vs arbitration (39-foreign-dispute-resolution)
在中国承认与执行外国仲裁裁决和判决：《纽约公约》路径
概述
一家在 新加坡、巴黎或伦敦胜诉仲裁的外商投资企业，仍须”去收钱”——而钱往往在中国境内。好消息是，中国对外国裁决的执法环境已明显友好化：以 1958 年《纽约公约》为锚，辅以 2023 年民事诉讼法大修与最高人民法院的仲裁司法审查机制。
本文梳理裁决的公约路径、判决的互惠路径、2024 年最高法审查报告的原则、程序，以及外国债权人的实务步骤。本文仅为信息参考，请以合格中国诉讼律师确认。
《纽约公约》：中国的锚
中国于 1987 年加入《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》（1958 年，”《纽约公约》”）。作为缔约国，中国法院有义务承认并执行另一缔约国境内作出的外国裁决，仅受公约狭窄的拒绝事由约束。
公约的拒绝机制（第五条）分为两组：
- 须由被执行人提出的抗辩： 当事人无行为能力或仲裁协议无效；未获适当通知或未能陈述案情；裁决处理了提交范围之外的事项（超裁）或对未提交事项作出决定；仲裁庭组成或程序违反约定或仲裁地法；裁决尚未约束当事人或被仲裁地撤销。
- 法院可主动审查者： 标的依中国法不可通过仲裁解决，或承认/执行违背中国公共政策。
这种刻意的狭窄——且多数事由需由被执行人举证——正是一份程序规范、干净的裁决通常可得执行的原因。
2024 年最高法仲裁司法审查报告
2025 年 12 月 28 日，最高人民法院发布《商事仲裁司法审查年度报告（2024）》。其关键数据呈现”支持仲裁、支持执行”的环境：
- 2024 年审结申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决案件 42 件——零拒绝。
- 裁决来自 15 个国家的仲裁机构及中国境外的临时仲裁庭。
- 更宏观：审结商事仲裁司法审查案件 18,566 件；撤裁率仅 2.22%（11,016 件）；保全率 98.90%（27,069 件）——体现有力的程序支持。
- 涉港澳台仲裁裁决申请 62 件：认可执行 53 件、准许撤回 6 件。
报告提炼三原则：
- 秉持”有利于仲裁协议有效”。 “或裁或诉”、协商前置、原告方所在地、临时仲裁协议等，均作有利于有效、鼓励仲裁的解释。
- 严格适用撤销/不予执行事由，维护终局性。 法院尊重”一裁终局”，同时依法行使监督保障正当程序。
- 善意履行条约，持”有利于裁决执行”立场。 法院严格适用《纽约公约》，营造跨境执行友好环境。
外国判决：互惠路径
对法院判决（而非仲裁裁决），中国基于互惠与条约承认执行外国商事判决。趋势在放宽：中国法院已从严格、逐案审查的互惠，走向“法律互惠”标准。
标志性案例：2022 年 3 月，上海海事法院首次以法律互惠为基础，承认并执行一份英国法院判决，确认中英之间的互惠关系。法院通过双边安排与实践不断丰富互惠的内涵。
实务启示：一项管辖权基础扎实、无公共政策瑕疵的外国判决，在当今中国获得执行的机会，远胜十年之前。
程序：向何处、如何申请
相关通道规定于《民事诉讼法》（2023 年修订、2024 年 1 月 1 日施行）的涉外编专章，规范外国裁决与判决的承认、执行。
- 管辖法院： 被执行人住所地或财产所在地的中级人民法院。
- 文书基础： 裁决/判决正本（或经证明副本）及仲裁协议（裁决情形）；相关的送达/通知证明；判决情形还需支撑互惠的材料。
- 分步审查： 中国法院通常先审查是否应予承认，再进入执行——故成功的承认是查封、变现中国资产的闸门。
- 保全： 鉴于 98.90% 的保全率，同步的财产保全申请（冻结账户、股权或不动产）常是决定性的战术步骤，可在执行前防止资产转移。
配套生态
除成文法外，中国已搭建便利跨境争议解决的机构：
- 国际商事法庭： 北京、苏州等 12 家中级人民法院设立国际商事法庭，对涉外案件的保全、立案、审理、执行开设”绿色通道”。
- 一站式多元解纷： 平台整合早期中立评估与诉讼、仲裁、调解的无缝在线处理。
- 司法透明： 年度仲裁审查报告与典型案例统一尺度，向外国当事人释放支持仲裁的信号。
下一步建议
- 从签约第一天就为执行布局。 在中国相关合同中，指定受《纽约公约》覆盖的仲裁地与声誉良好的机构（如 SIAC、ICC、HKIAC，或具涉外panel 的中国机构）。避免”或裁或诉””协商前置”等虽有效却易生条款效力之争的措辞。
- 保持记录干净。 留存签署的仲裁协议、完整裁决书，以及向被执行人的通知/送达证明——这些在多数第五条抗辩萌芽前即将其击退。
- 尽早摸清资产。 在申请前或申请时，绘制被执行人在华银行账户、股权、知识产权与不动产地图；将承认申请与保全申请配对以冻结之。
- 留意公共政策与可仲裁性。 使底层争议落在可仲裁标的之内，避免可能触发公共政策异议的行为。
- 善用生态。 适当时经国际商事法庭绿色通道推进，并考虑在执行阶段嵌入调解混合型条款以促成和解。
实操示例
外商投资企业集团”AquaTech”在新加坡 SIAC 仲裁中胜诉一家停止付款的中国经销商。AquaTech 的法律顾问未纠缠条款效力，而是向经销商住所地中院提交承认与执行申请，并同时申请保全、冻结其本地银行账户。因裁决程序规范、仲裁协议有效，法院依《纽约公约》予以承认、无一拒绝——被冻结的资金遂成为受偿来源。该案昭示当今现实：只要条款、记录与资产地图从前端处理好，外国裁决在中国并非一纸奖状。
来源
- 最高人民法院——《商事仲裁司法审查年度报告（2024）》（2025 年 12 月 28 日发布）：https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/485071.html
- 《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》（2023 年修订、2024 年 1 月 1 日施行）涉外编特别规定：https://www.gov.cn
- 《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》（1958 年，纽约公约）：https://www.court.gov.cn
- 中国国际商事法庭（最高法）实务说明：https://cicc.court.gov.cn
- 上海海事法院——首次以法律互惠承认执行英国法院判决（2022 年 3 月）：https://www.court.gov.cn
相关阅读
- 参见：在中国被起诉（68-cross-border-service-litigation）
- 参见：贸仲与涉外仲裁（40-cietac-international-arbitration）
- 参见：涉外争议解决：诉讼与仲裁（39-foreign-dispute-resolution）