International Disputes Update - February 2026
Sign Up for PublicationsAmendments to the English Arbitration Act and China Arbitration Law in 2025
Last year saw notable amendments to arbitration legislations in the U.K. and China. The English Arbitration Act was amended for the first time since its inception in 1996. China also implemented sweeping revisions to its Arbitration Law enacted in 1994.
On August 1, 2025, the new English Arbitration Act 2025 (“AA 2025”) came into force, amending the existing Arbitration Act of 1996 (“AA 1996”). The 2025 amendments to the AA 1996 do not replace the existing legislation but provide legal clarity and guidance on the applicable law of arbitration agreements, arbitrator powers, jurisdictional challenges, and the arbitrator’s duty of disclosure. Some key revisions are highlighted below.
AA 2025 introduces Section 6A, which provides how the law governing the arbitration agreement should be determined. Section 6A(1) provides that the law applicable to an arbitration agreement is “(a) the law that the parties expressly agree applies to the arbitration agreement, or (b) where no such agreement is made, the law of the seat of the arbitration in question.” In other words, the governing law of the arbitration agreement will be the law of the seat of the arbitration, unless the parties expressly agree otherwise. The amendment explicitly provides that “agreement between the parties that a particular law applies to an agreement of which the arbitration agreement forms a part does not constitute express agreement that that law also applies to the arbitration agreement.” This replaces the widely debated common law principles and offers a straightforward default position. When drafting an arbitration clause, parties should consider an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction for the seat of the arbitration, if they do not expressly choose the law applicable to arbitration agreement.
AA 2025 further strengthens arbitrators’ powers in allowing summary disposal and recognizing emergency arbitrators. AA 2025 adds Section 39A, which expressly confers the arbitral tribunal the power to make an award on a summary basis. Section 39A provides that “[u]nless the parties otherwise agree, the arbitral tribunal may, on an application made by a party to the proceedings (upon notice to the other parties), make an award on a summary basis in relation to a claim, or a particular issue arising in a claim, if the tribunal considers that (a) a party has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or issue, or (b) a party has no real prospect of succeeding in the defence of the claim or issue.” The arbitral tribunal must allow the parties “a reasonable opportunity to make representations to the tribunal.” This is an extraordinary power that arbitrators in other jurisdictions do not have. Allowing the arbitral tribunal to dismiss a case summarily will save time and costs. In addition, AA 2025 inserts Section 41A, which explicitly provides that emergency arbitrators may issue peremptory orders.
AA 2025 codifies the arbitrator’s duty of disclosure in Section 23A. Previously, under English common law, arbitrators had a continuing to disclose “any relevant circumstances.” AA 2025 now requires that “[a]n individual who has been approached by a person in connection with the individual’s possible appointment as an arbitrator must, as soon as reasonably practical, disclose to the person any relevant circumstances of which the individual is, or becomes, aware” and “[a]n arbitrator must, as soon as reasonably practical, disclose to the parties to the arbitral proceedings any relevant circumstances of which the arbitrator is, or becomes, aware.” Pursuant to the amendment, arbitrators must disclose any circumstances that might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality based on facts of which the arbitrator ought reasonably to be aware, and such disclosure must be made “as soon as reasonably practical” when the arbitrator is approached for possible appointment. This new statutory provision is mandatory. This amendment will encourage arbitrators to err on the side of caution and to make comprehensive, early disclosures and avoid arbitrator challenges.
AA 2025 amends Section 67 of AA 1996 to provide a revised, narrower framework for jurisdictional challenges to the arbitration award. AA 2025 restricts parties from raising jurisdictional objections or evidence before the court that were not raised in the arbitration. In addition, AA 2025 prohibits the court from re-hearing evidence that was heard by the arbitral tribunal. However, a court may determine that such jurisdictional objections or evidence should be heard by the court in the “interests of justice.” The rules are designed to prevent jurisdictional challenges from being full re-hearings.
China too passed amendments to the Chinese Arbitration Law in September 2025, which is to take effect on March 1, 2026. The newly revised Chinese Arbitration Law significantly updates China’s 1994 Arbitration Law, the first national legislation governing arbitration. The amendments seek to re-align the Chinese arbitration regime more closely to common international arbitration standards to position China as a preferred and accessible seat of arbitration.
Amendments to the Chinese Arbitration Law endeavor to adopt international standards, especially in relation to foreign-related arbitrations. One significant change can be found in Article 81, which explicitly recognizes the concept of the “seat of arbitration.” Previously, Chinese law did not distinguish the seat of arbitration and the location of the arbitration institution, which created confusion in foreign-related disputes. With the amendment, parties in foreign-related disputes can now specify the seat of the arbitration. In addition, Chinese Arbitration Law now formally recognizes ad hoc arbitration in specific foreign-related disputes. Previously, Chinese law recognized only institutional arbitration. Article 82 provides that foreign-related maritime disputes and foreign-related disputes between entities registered within Free Trade Pilot Zones, Hainan Free Trade Port and other designated areas are eligible for ad hoc arbitration. Further, Article 86 allows foreign arbitral institutions to set up offices and administer foreign-related arbitrations in Free Trade Pilot Zones, Hainan Free Trade Port, and other areas as designated by the Chinese government, thus opening the door for foreign arbitral institutions to operate in China.
Another notable alignment to international arbitration standards is arbitrators’ disclosure obligations. For the first time, the Chinese Arbitration Law sets out the arbitrators’ disclosure obligations in line with other international arbitration regimes. Pursuant to Article 45, arbitrators are required to disclose promptly in writing to the arbitral institution any circumstance that may give rise to reasonable doubts as to their independence or impartiality.
Although these amendments reflect greater openness and flexibility to foreign-related disputes and international arbitration regimes, parties will be looking to see how the updated procedural statutory guidelines will be implemented in practice.