SPECIAL REPORT 19
CHIN A
DESPITE THE RECENT STOCK MARKET CRISIS, CHINA’S SUSTAINED RATE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH IS THE ENV Y OF MANY COUNTRIES. WITH ECONOMIC ACTIVIT Y COMES INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND, INE VITABLY, INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES. IT IS NOT SURPRISING, THEN, THAT CHINA HA S DE VELOPED A SIGNIFIC ANT ARBITRATION INDUSTRY, REPORTEDLY COMPRISING AROUND 200 ARBITRAL BODIES, BIG AND SMALL. However, two of themain 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 fromglobal economic downturnmay 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 broadlymaintained themomentumof growth throughout. This is also true of Western stalwarts such as the ICC, LCIA and SCC.
Putting aside the effect of themuch-publicised falling out between CIETAC and its Shanghai branch in 2012– not least because the BAC numbers showa similar pattern of decline – one reason for the apparent decline in popularity of arbitration in Chinamaywell be the success of some of its neighbours. Woven into that, of course, are the practical and procedural benefits afforded by those neighbours when comparedwith arbitration in China. For many the spectre of state control looms large in Chinese arbitration, perhaps asmuch in impression as reality. Nevertheless, it is fair to note that the courts systemhas wide supervisory powers and a chequered history of judgments in support of arbitration, particularly the enforcement of awards renderedwithin the country. China’s national arbitration legislation – the Arbitration Law of People’s Republic of China – is not based upon the UNCITRALModel Law.
FOR MANY THE SPECTRE OF S TAT E CONTROL LOOMS L ARGE IN CHINESE ARBI TRAT ION, PERHAPS A S MUCH IN IMPRESS ION A S RE AL I T Y.
1 “Trends in International Arbitration: A NewWorld Order” (FTI Consulting, February 2015), p.3
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter