PRC Arbitration Law Amendments (Effective 1 March 2026): Four Changes Multinational Parties Should Act On

Subject	PRC Arbitration Law Amendments (Effective 1 March 2026)
Effective Date	1 March 2026
Key Changes	Set-aside deadlines shortened, interim measures expanded, ad hoc arbitration introduced, award nationality rules clarified
Impact	All multinational parties with China arbitration clauses
Applicable Law	PRC Arbitration Law (as amended December 2025)

This note highlights four changes introduced by the amended PRC Arbitration Law. The sections below are ordered by practical impact (from immediate deadline risk to structural drafting points).

---

1. Deadline discipline in set-aside proceedings (Articles 41 and 72)

Articles 41 and 72 should be read together: Article 41 governs how arbitral documents (including the award) are served, and Article 72 measures the set-aside window from the date the award is received. Once electronic service is used, internal escalation speed becomes a legal risk issue—not merely an operational one.

What has changed

The statutory time limit to apply to set aside an award is now three months from the date of receipt of the award, shortened from the former six-month period.

Why service mechanics matter

Article 41 allows parties to agree a reasonable method of service for arbitral documents. If the parties do not agree, or the agreement is unclear, service is effected in the manner prescribed by the applicable institutional rules. Many institutions’ rules provide for—and routinely apply—electronic service (email and/or case platform notifications).

Practical risk to manage

Because the limitation period runs from receipt, the start date often turns on how service is effected in the arbitration. Where service is electronic, PRC practice commonly treats the relevant date as the date on which the service information reaches the addressee’s designated system (for example, the relevant email system or platform account). For multinational groups (local entity + HQ legal + external counsel), this can mean the clock starts running before HQ legal becomes aware.

Action points

• Designate service addresses/accounts early in the arbitration (and keep them current).
• Use dual-delivery where feasible (e.g., local entity and HQ legal) and confirm the institution will use those addresses.
• Treat “arrival in the designated system” as T0 for internal escalation, not “when someone reads the email”.
• Build a three-month challenge calendar with translation/approval steps backwards from T0.

---

2. Getting the anchor right: the seat and its consequences (Article 81)

Article 81 makes the seat (place of arbitration) a central organising concept. Unless the parties separately agree otherwise, the seat is the basis for the law of the arbitral procedure (lex arbitri), the court with supervisory jurisdiction, and the legal place where the award is deemed to be made.

What the seat determines by default

Absent a separate agreement on the procedural law, the seat serves as the basis for:

• the law governing the arbitration procedure (lex arbitri / law of the seat);
• the court with judicial jurisdiction over arbitration-related matters; and
• the place where the award is deemed to be made.

How the seat is fixed if not agreed

Where the seat is not agreed or is unclear, Article 81 applies a clear hierarchy:

• first, determine the seat in accordance with the agreed arbitration rules;
• if the rules do not provide a seat, the tribunal determines it based on case circumstances;
• the guiding standard is convenience and efficiency in resolving the dispute.

Drafting point

State the seat expressly. If the parties intend to agree any procedural arrangement beyond what the law of the seat and the chosen rules provide, state it expressly and separately to avoid downstream disputes.

---

3. Remote participation as a default, with an express right to object (Article 11)

Article 11 confirms that arbitral activities may be conducted online through information networks, and that online proceedings have the same legal effect as offline proceedings, unless a party expressly objects. This is best understood as legislative confirmation of a modern mode of hearing and case management already adopted by many institutions.

Efficiency for cross-border parties

For multinational parties, the immediate benefit is practical: key personnel and counsel can participate without travelling to China, allowing hearings and procedural conferences to be scheduled faster and run with the relevant decision-makers in the room (virtually).

Interaction with institutional rules

Many institutional rules historically placed the choice of in-person versus remote hearings largely within the tribunal’s discretion after consulting the parties. Article 11 shifts the baseline: online conduct is permitted unless a party expressly objects.

Contested scenarios

The statute does not specify whether an express objection must be unanimous in multi-party cases. Where one party seeks an online hearing and another objects, the tribunal will still need to manage the process—including recording the objection, deciding timing and format, and considering whether a fully offline or hybrid arrangement is appropriate.

Related Resources

• Contract Review Services — Get a Fixed-Fee Quote
• All Case Insights & Legal Articles
• Instant Price Calculator

---

4. Early court protection before arbitration: conduct and evidence preservation (Articles 39 and 58)

Pre-arbitration routes for evidence and property preservation exist under the PRC Civil Procedure Law (CPL), including evidence preservation in urgent cases (Article 84(2) CPL) and pre-arbitration preservation measures (Article 104(1) CPL). The amended Arbitration Law operationalises these mechanisms within the arbitration framework and, importantly, expressly recognises “do / refrain” measures (conduct preservation) as interim relief in support of arbitration.

Article 39 — Conduct preservation

Article 39 confirms that interim measures in support of arbitration include not only property preservation, but also court measures requiring a party to take certain actions or refrain from taking certain actions. In urgent circumstances, a party to an arbitration agreement may apply to the competent PRC court before commencing arbitration by reference to the CPL.

Article 58 — Evidence preservation

Article 58 maintains the evidence preservation route during arbitration (the institution transmits the application to the primary-level people’s court at the location of the evidence) and expressly confirms an urgent pre-arbitration direct-to-court route by reference to the CPL.

What’s the key point

These provisions strengthen the statutory footing for urgent preservation relief in support of PRC-seated arbitrations and reduce room for procedural debate about how pre-arbitration preservation should be deployed in the arbitration context. This matters in cross-border deals that choose a PRC seat while selecting a foreign substantive law to govern the underlying contract: the substantive law choice can be maintained while a clearer path remains available to seek urgent preservation from PRC courts at the outset of a dispute.