SPECIAL REPORT 19
CHINA
DESPITE THE RECENT STOCK MARKET CRISIS, CHINA’S SUSTAINED RATE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH IS THE ENVY OF MANY COUNTRIES. WITH ECONOMIC ACTIVITY COMES INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND, INEVITABLY, INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES. IT IS NOT SURPRISING, THEN, THAT CHINA HAS DEVELOPED A SIGNIFICANT ARBITRATION INDUSTRY, REPORTEDLY COMPRISING AROUND 200 ARBITRAL BODIES, BIG AND SMALL. However, two of the main ones, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) and the Beijing Arbitration Commission (BAC), have seen a very significant falling off of new international cases in recent years. From ten year highs of 560 and 72 new international cases for CIETAC and BAC respectively in 2009, new matters have fallen to 331 and 26 respectively in 2012 (the last year for which data are available). 1 At first sight the increase in disputes arising from global economic downturn may have been partly responsible for the 2009 peak. However, analysis of the figures gives the true picture: in CIETAC’s case the 2012 figure is the lowest recorded in 13 years of data. For BAC it is the lowest in ten years. In Hong Kong, there is a similar story at the HKIAC. Back in Singapore, however, SIAC has broadly maintained the momentum of growth throughout. This is also true of Western stalwarts such as the ICC, LCIA and SCC.
Putting aside the effect of the much-publicised falling out between CIETAC and its Shanghai branch in 2012 – not least because the BAC numbers show a similar pattern of decline – one reason for the apparent decline in popularity of arbitration in China may well be the success of some of its neighbours. Woven into that, of course, are the practical and procedural benefits afforded by those neighbours when compared with arbitration in China. For many the spectre of state control looms large in Chinese arbitration, perhaps as much in impression as reality. Nevertheless, it is fair to note that the courts system has wide supervisory powers and a chequered history of judgments in support of arbitration, particularly the enforcement of awards rendered within the country. China’s national arbitration legislation – the Arbitration Law of People’s Republic of China – is not based upon the UNCITRAL Model Law.
FOR MANY THE SPECTRE OF STATE CONTROL LOOMS LARGE IN CHINESE ARBITRATION, PERHAPS AS MUCH IN IMPRESSION AS REALITY.
1 “Trends in International Arbitration: A New World Order” (FTI Consulting, February 2015), p.3
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter