Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in China: Procedures, Challenges, and the Role of Chinese Lawyers

Introduction

As a signatory to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the "New York Convention"), China has established a legal framework to facilitate the cross-border enforcement of arbitral awards. This article examines China’s adherence to the Convention, the procedural requirements for enforcement, statistics on non-recognition cases, and the critical role of Chinese lawyers in navigating this complex landscape.

1. China as a Contracting State to the New York Convention

China acceded to the New York Convention in 1986, and it came into force domestically on April 22, 1987. However, China made two reservations under the Convention:

Reciprocity Reservation: China only recognizes and enforces awards made in the territory of other contracting states.

Commercial Reservation: The Convention applies solely to disputes arising from "commercial relationships" under Chinese law, excluding investor-state disputes.

These reservations reflect China’s cautious approach to balancing international obligations with domestic legal principles. Over the years, Chinese courts have generally adhered to the Convention, contributing to China’s reputation as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.

2. Procedures for Recognition and Enforcement

(1) Jurisdiction and Application

Competent Courts: Applications must be submitted to the Intermediate People’s Court at the domicile of the respondent or the location of their assets in China.

Required Documents: The applicant must provide the original arbitral award (or a certified copy), the arbitration agreement, and Chinese translations certified by diplomatic or consular authorities.

(2) Judicial Review Process

Chinese courts conduct a two-stage review:

Formal Examination: The court verifies compliance with procedural requirements, such as jurisdiction and documentation.

Substantive Grounds for Refusal: Courts assess whether the award violates the grounds listed in Article V of the New York Convention, such as invalid arbitration agreements, procedural unfairness, or public policy concerns.

Notably, Chinese courts do not review the merits of the dispute, aligning with the Convention’s principle of limited judicial intervention.

(3) Time Limits

The application must be filed within two years from the date the award becomes enforceable. If the award lacks a specific performance period, the deadline starts from the day after the award is served.

3. Grounds for Non-Recognition and Statistics

(1) Legal Grounds for Refusal

Chinese courts may refuse enforcement based on:

Procedural Defects: E.g., lack of proper notice to the respondent or arbitrator appointment irregularities.

Public Policy: Broadly interpreted to include violations of China’s social, economic, or legal principles. For example, awards conflicting with mandatory laws (e.g., foreign exchange regulations) may be rejected.

Non-Arbitrability: Disputes over matters deemed non-arbitrable under Chinese law, such as family law or antitrust issues.

(2) Trends in Non-Recognition Cases

While comprehensive statistics are scarce, available data suggests that Chinese courts generally uphold foreign awards. For instance, the Xiamen Intermediate People’s Court recently recognized a London-seated ICA award, emphasizing China’s commitment to the Convention. However, refusal rates are higher in cases involving public policy or procedural irregularities. A 2023 study noted that less than 10% of applications are denied, primarily due to documentation flaws or jurisdictional issues.

4. The Role of Chinese Lawyers

Chinese lawyers play a pivotal role in ensuring successful enforcement:

(1) Pre-Application Strategy

Risk Assessment: Lawyers evaluate the enforceability of awards by analyzing potential public policy conflicts or procedural defects.

Asset Tracing: Identifying the respondent’s assets in China to determine jurisdictional competence.

(2) Navigating Judicial Procedures

Document Preparation: Ensuring translations and certifications meet court standards to avoid dismissal on technical grounds.

Liaison with Courts: Facilitating communication between foreign parties and Chinese courts, particularly in complex cases involving cross-border evidence.

(3) Post-Recognition Execution

Enforcement Tactics: Coordinating with local enforcement bureaus to seize assets, freeze accounts, or negotiate settlements.

Mediation Advocacy: Leveraging China’s "arbitration-friendly" judiciary to promote post-recognition settlements, as seen in the Xiamen case.

5. Case Study: The Xiamen Precedent

In a landmark 2025 case, the Xiamen Intermediate Court recognized a London-seated ICA award involving a cotton trade dispute. The court not only expedited the review process but also facilitated a settlement through mediation, reducing litigation costs and fostering mutual compliance. This case exemplifies China’s evolving judicial approach, prioritizing efficiency and international cooperation.

Conclusion

China’s adherence to the New York Convention has bolstered its standing as a reliable jurisdiction for enforcing foreign arbitral awards. While challenges persist—particularly regarding public policy interpretations—the procedural framework and proactive judicial practices signal a commitment to international arbitration norms. Chinese lawyers remain indispensable in bridging legal and cultural gaps, ensuring that foreign parties navigate this system effectively. As cross-border trade grows, China’s arbitration landscape is poised to become even more integral to global dispute resolution.

If you need our service, please contact us. Tel(Whatsapp):008613416498997, email: swatowese@126.com