International Law Review

International Law Review

Scope of the Jurisdiction of China’s International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC)

Document Type : academic

Authors
Sima Alavi Hejazi 1
Mahmoud Jalali 2
Maryam Ghorbanifar 3
1 Ph.D. Student in Private Law, Faculty of Law, Islamic Azad University Isfahan (Khorasgan), Isfahan, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Law Department, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Law, Islamic Azad University Isfahan (Khorasgan), Isfahan, Iran
10.22066/cilamag.2023.703947
Abstract
The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission-CIETAC is an important arbitration organization that many businessmen and investors from all over the world refer to annually to resolve international commercial disputes. This article tries to answer these questions: how and under what conditions does CIETAC have the jurisdiction to settle disputes, what is its scope of jurisdiction, and how does it increase the scope of its jurisdiction. The results show that by concluding a valid arbitration agreement within the personal and material scope determined by Chinese laws and the regulations of CIETAC, this organization acquires the jurisdiction to settle international commercial disputes. By recognising the possibility of a supplementary agreement between the parties, clarifying the ambiguity of the arbitration agreement and increasing its competencies by repeatedly amending its regulations, CIETAC has expanded its jurisdiction.
Keywords
Arbitration Agreement
CIETAC Jurisdiction
Personal Jurisdiction
Territorial Jurisdiction
Material Jurisdiction

Subjects

  1. - Books

    1. Chia, Jui Cheng, Basic Document on International Trade, 2nd, Springer, 1992.
    2. Pisacane, Giovanni & Murphy, Lea & Zhang, Calvin, Arbitration in China (Rules & Perspectives), 1st Ed, Springer, 2016.
    3. Yu Jianlong, Cao Lijun, A Guide to the CIETAC Arbitration Rules, Oxford University, 2020.

     

    - Articles

    1. Eu Jin, Chua, “Arbitration in China”, Asian International Arbitration Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2005, pp. 83-94.
    2. Choi, Stefen, “The problem with Arbitration Agreement”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 36, 2003, pp. 1233-1241.
    3. Lehman, M, “A Plea for a Transnational Approach to Arbitrability in
      Arbitral Practice”, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 42,
      2003-2004, pp. 753-775.
    4. Lin, Mark, “Beijing Court upholds CIETAC Award in favour of Foreign Party”, Asian Dispute Review, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2007, 137–138.
    5. Miller, Jeff, “International Commercial Arbitration in China: Locating the Development of CIETAC in the Context of International and Domestic Factors”, Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies, 22, 2013, pp. 76-100.
    6. Kostrzewa, Benjamin, “China International Economic Trade Arbitration Commission in 2006: New Rules, Same Results”, Washington International Law Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2006, pp. 518-541.
    7. Zhang, Li, “The enforcement of CIETAC arbitration awards”, Asion Disput Review (Hong Kong International Arbitration centre HKIAC), Vol. 4, No. 3, 2002, pp. 157-159.
    8. Zhang, Xiaoyang, “Arbitration in China: A Legal Over view”, Murdoch university Electronic Journal of law, vol. 6, No. 3, 1999, pp. 1-59.

     

    - Docuoments

    1. Annual Report on International Commercial Arbitration in China, 2017.
    2. Arbitration Law Reports and Review, Tongyuan (USA) International Trading Group v Uni-Clan Ltd, Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 727-732.
    3. UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforecment of Foreign Arbitration Awards. (New York Convention, 1958).
    4. Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, 1965.

     

    - Websits

    1. Aceris Law LLC, https://www.acerislaw.com/the-cietac-arbitration- rules-organization-and-key-developments, (Accessed on 31/12/2021).
    2. King, Huang Tao & Wood, Mallesons’ Dispute Resolution Group, “The Validity of Arbitration Agreements under Chinese Law”, 2012. Availble at: https://www.com/2012/06/articles/corporate-ma/the-validity- of-arbitration-agreements-under-chinese-law/(Accessed on 31/12/2021).
    3. Li Hu, China Insights, (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/ 2020/04/12/interviews-with-our-editors-china-insights-from-dr-li-hu-of-cietac/) (Accessed on 31/12/2021).
    4. cietac.org (Accessed on 31/12/2021).

     

     

    - Cases

    1. Civil Judgment (J04 MT [2017] No. 38) Issued by Beijing Municipal No. 4 IntermediatePeople’s Court on 22 November, 2017.
    2. Civil Judgment (YMSCZ [2015] No. 39) Issued by Yantai Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province on 24 July, 2017).
    3. Civil Judgment (SZFZYZ [2013] No. 50) issued by Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong Province on 4 July, 2017).
    4. Civil Judgment (Y03 MC [2017] No. 877) issued by Shenzhen IntermediatePeople'sCourton27 September, 2017).
    5. Reply of the Supreme People's Court to the Request Raised by Hebei High People's Court for Instructions on Application for Confirming the Validity of an Arbitration Agreement in the Case of Hebei Poshing Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. v. CSD Epitaxy Asia Ltd. (ZGFMT [2017] No. 70) issued on 13 September, 2017).

     

  • Receive Date 08 July 2022
  • Revise Date 19 February 2023
  • Accept Date 02 April 2023