Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 20 APRIL 2015

Rulings Confirm Jurisdiction Of Sub-Commissions Following CIETAC Split

De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
Contributor
De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek

De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek

Our clients are increasingly operating in South-East Asia and require legal assistance in the...

View firm profile
Explore more from De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek

After the Shanghai and South China sub-commissions split from the China’s arbitration institute CIETAC, there was uncertainty about the interpretation and validity of existing arbitration clauses...

ChinaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

After the Shanghai and South China sub-commissions split from the China's arbitration institute CIETAC, there was uncertainty about the interpretation and validity of existing arbitration clauses referring to these sub-commissions. Two recent judgments now clarify that if an arbitration clause refers to the Shanghai or South China sub-commission, SHIAC or SCIA has jurisdiction instead of CIETAC. Where parties have a preference for CIETAC as the competent arbitration institute, we recommend exploring whether the existing arbitration clause that refers to the Shanghai or the South China sub-commission of CIETAC can be amended.

In 2013, the internal struggle within China's arbitration institute CIETAC resulted in a split off by the Shanghai sub-commission and the South China sub-commission in Shenzhen. The Shanghai sub-commission changed its name to Shanghai International Arbitration Centre (SHIAC), and the South China sub-commission to Shenzhen Centre of International

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from