Open WeChat and scan the QR code
Subscribe to our WeChat public account

HOME Overview Professional Fields Industry Fields Professionals Global Network News Publications Join Us Contact Us Subscribe CN EN JP
HOME > Publications > Professional Articles > Transnational Arbitration Series:Arbitration Agreements (Part I)

Transnational Arbitration Series:Arbitration Agreements (Part I)

Author: By Shanshan HAN, Jordan YANG 2023-10-12

Introduction to the Series of Articles

In an era of deepening globalization, addressing transnational commercial disputes has become increasingly complex and critical. As cross-border trade and investment continue to surge, disputes involving diverse legal systems and cultures are on the rise. In this context, transnational arbitration stands out as a preferred dispute resolution mechanism, valued for its flexibility, neutrality, confidentiality, and enforceability across various jurisdictions. In fact, transnational arbitration has consistently remained the favored method for resolving international disputes, as evident in the 2021 International Arbitration Survey by Queen Mary University of London and White & Case LLP, where it is the preferred cross-border dispute resolution for 90% of respondents[1]. Nevertheless, it’s imperative to acknowledge that the objective differences in legal systems and cultural variances across countries present undeniable complexities for transnational arbitration. The coexistence of diverse arbitration regimes impacts the predictability and consistency of international arbitration.

Compared to the century-long history of international arbitration originating in Europe and the United States, China's modern and substantial development in arbitration began with the enactment of the Arbitration Law in 1994. Its progress since then has been truly impressive. According to data announced by the Ministry of Justice[2], by the end of 2021, 274 arbitration institutions had been established nationwide. Collectively, these institutions handled over 4 million cases with a combined dispute value exceeding ¥5.8 trillion. In 2021 alone, they accepted over 415,000 cases, amounting to a cumulative value exceeding ¥850 billion. Notably, in 2022, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) alone handled disputes totaling over ¥100 billion, an impressive leap to ¥126.9 billion[3].

It's noteworthy that China's arbitration system significantly deviates from the prevalent and globally accepted framework of arbitration due to its unique structure. Specifically, the substantial involvement of courts in China's arbitration system contradicts the commonly practiced international arbitration norms, where courts typically exercise a higher degree of restraint and respect for the authority of arbitral tribunals. Beyond the role of courts, China's contemporary arbitration system is fundamentally structured around arbitration committees. Consequently, this has engendered uncertainty regarding the attribution of nationality to foreign-related awards rendered by foreign arbitral institutions within mainland of China. Such awards undergo an extended and repetitive determination process before eventually being recognized as foreign-related Chinese awards[4]. Concurrently, the authority of Chinese arbitration tribunals is influenced by both courts and arbitration commissions, resulting in a dual constraint and dispersion of power. In practice, it is the tribunal that holds the most significant influence on international arbitration. However, this setup lacks the kompetenz-kompetenz doctrine, a crucial principle recognized internationally and enshrined in Article 16 of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law[5]. Moreover, ad hoc arbitration and third-party funding, essential elements of international arbitration, are constrained by Chinese arbitration law and pose challenges for practical acknowledgment. These disparities present obstacles for parties considering Chinese arbitration in foreign-related disputes, objectively hindering China's potential as an attractive international arbitration center. Hence, addressing this predicament constitutes the crux of the ongoing reforms in Chinese arbitration law.

During the author’s time in Europe, our team experienced over 400 international arbitration cases, many of which were challenging and served as benchmarks in the field. We were fortunate to engage in profound exchanges and discussions with seasoned practitioners. Keenly observing a strong mutual interest between international practitioners, investors, and China's arbitration community, as well as the existence of certain barriers, the author intends to launch a series of articles focused on transnational arbitration to bridge this gap. To cater to a diverse readership, all articles will be presented in both Chinese and English, with the arbitration agreement acting as the inaugural piece in this series.

This series delves into international arbitration, also known as transnational arbitration. As a significant participant and contributor in this realm, China’s distinct arbitration system unquestionably enriches the diversity of the global arbitration community. The entire series aims to cover key arbitration aspects such as agreement drafting, fundamental principles, parallel proceedings, challenges and enforcement of awards, common pain points, and practical difficulties. Our objective is to furnish pragmatic recommendations for effectively safeguarding parties’ interests in arbitration cases. International arbitration is primarily classified into commercial arbitration and investment arbitration, the latter involving countries and differing significantly from commercial arbitration that hinges on equal entities. Therefore, we will offer separate elucidations for both. Acknowledging the author's limitations in experience, occasional oversights in specific issues are inevitable. If this series proves beneficial to participants in international arbitration and investors in global disputes, we would be greatly encouraged.


Compared to litigation, arbitration is often dubbed “Private Justice”[6], emerging outside government and authority, embodying a natural essence of private proceedings. Therefore, party autonomy is at the heart of the arbitration system. The arbitration agreement, born from the parties’ mutual consent, is the vessel of their autonomy, marking the inception and persisting throughout the entire arbitration case. Its significance is self-evident. The arbitration agreement delineates the manner in which commercial entities address disputes, serving as the source of arbitration authority, ensuring a certain level of certainty and coherence in commercial activities even after disputes arise. This paper aims to summarize common issues in arbitration agreements, starting with the definition and prerequisites of an arbitration agreement, subsequently exploring key aspects of drafting such agreements, and addressing crucial considerations linked to their creation. Given the widespread relevance of arbitration agreements, the insights presented in this article extend to both the realm of commercial arbitration and investment arbitration.

The arbitration agreement provides an efficient, independent, and relatively impartial choice for dispute resolution. Compared to traditional litigation, arbitration procedures can be tailored to the needs of the parties, often being faster, more professional, and better suited to specific business requirements. Regarding the source of the effectiveness of the arbitration agreement, there is currently no consensus, but the mainstream view is that it still depends on the laws related to arbitration in various jurisdictions. Although arbitration originated from its private nature, the continuity of the arbitration system still requires the endorsement of public authority. After domestic laws confer effectiveness on the arbitration agreement, the arbitration regulations of each jurisdiction stipulate the conditions and procedures for recognizing and enforcing the arbitration agreement, ensuring that the arbitration award has binding force domestically. Therefore, the first factor to consider when drafting an arbitration agreement is whether the agreement meets the legal requirements of arbitration.

1. Introduction to Arbitration Agreements

1.1 Classification and Characteristics of Arbitration Agreements

Arbitration agreements, in essence, do not have distinct classifications; however, in the realm of international arbitration, there are categorizations that lead to differences in agreements. Based on the nature of disputes, international arbitration can be categorized into commercial arbitration and investment arbitration, constituting the most significant classification in this field. Another categorization is institutional arbitration and ad hoc arbitration, based on whether there are specific permanent institutions organizing or assisting in the arbitration proceedings. Commercial arbitration, as the name suggests, primarily resolves commercial disputes arising from investments, mergers and acquisitions, transactions, contracts, and other trade-related interactions between equal commercial entities. On the other hand, investment arbitration addresses disputes between the host country and foreign investors. Typically, the host state is the respondent, and issues related to expropriation or equivalent actions are the most common dispute issues in investment arbitration.

1.2.1 UNCITRAL Model Law

  • Option I - “Arbitration agreement” is an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement.

  • Option II - “Arbitration agreement” is an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not.

1.2.2 Provisions of Some Domestic Laws

(1) English Law

(1) In this Part an “arbitration agreement” means an agreement to submit to arbitration present or future disputes (whether they are contractual or not).

(2)The reference in an agreement to a written form of arbitration clause or to a document containing an arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement if the reference is such as to make that clause part of the agreement.

(2) Chinese Law

China’s Arbitration Law, revised in 2017, articulates the arbitration agreement in Article 16:

An arbitration agreement includes an arbitration clause in a contract and any other written agreement to request arbitration reached before or after a dispute.

The arbitration agreement shall have the following contents: (1) an express intention for arbitration; (2) delineation of arbitrable matters; (3) designation of a specific arbitration commission.

As per the first provision, it’s evident that a written form is required for the arbitration agreement. Judicial interpretations provide guidance on how to ascertain this written form. Article 1 of the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Certain Issues Regarding the Application of the Arbitration Law” (2006) defines “other written forms” of arbitration agreements, including contracts, letters, and electronic communications (such as telegrams, telexes, faxes, electronic data interchange, and emails), but excluding oral agreements or agreements reached through conduct. However, compared to the Model Law, this interpretation has a narrower scope for written form. In the second paragraph, the article specifies three essential elements: the parties’ intention to arbitrate, the subject matter of arbitration, and the arbitration commission. The interpretation of specific requirements is scattered across other clauses and legal documents. Among these, the arbitrability of the subject matter is a perennial topic in international arbitration, still evolving, and we will delve into this in the second part of this article. The provision for selecting the arbitration commission effectively underscores China’s non-support for ad hoc arbitration, becoming a significant characteristic of Chinese arbitration law.

1.3 Model Arbitration Clause

As stipulated in the Model Law’s options concerning arbitration agreements, an arbitration agreement “may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement.” Hence, an arbitration agreement can be drafted either as a standalone, independent contract or incorporated within the main contract. In practice, the vast majority of arbitration agreements are incorporated within the main contract as dispute resolution provisions, thus constituting an integral part of the contract and rarely existing independently. Currently, major arbitration institutions worldwide provide model clauses in their rules for parties’ reference.

Any dispute arising from or in connection with this Contract shall be submitted to China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) for arbitration which shall be conducted in accordance with the CIETAC’s arbitration rules in effect at the time of applying for arbitration. The arbitral award is final and binding upon both parties.

The seat of arbitration shall be […]

The hearing shall be held in […]

The language to be used in the arbitration shall be […]

It should be noted that the provided model arbitration clause is not comprehensive; for example, it does not cover the number of arbitrators and governing law. Given the autonomy and separability of the arbitration agreement, the governing law for it in international arbitration often differs from that of the main contract. The basis for determining rules in case of unclear provisions also differs. Consequently, disputes arising from the unclear governing law of the arbitration agreement are numerous. Without further ado, we will elaborate on this in the second part of this article.

"Any dispute, controversy, difference or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, including the existence, validity, interpretation, performance, breach or termination thereof or any dispute regarding non-contractual obligations arising out of or relating to it shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration administered by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) under the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules in force when the Notice of Arbitration is submitted.

The law of this arbitration clause shall be ... (Hong Kong law). *

The seat of arbitration shall be ... (Hong Kong).

The number of arbitrators shall be ... (one or three). The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in ... (insert language)." **

Note: * Optional. This provision should be included particularly where the law of the substantive contract and the law of the seat are different. The law of the arbitration clause potentially governs matters including the formation, existence, scope, validity, legality, interpretation, termination, effects and enforceability of the arbitration clause and identities of the parties to the arbitration clause. It does not replace the law governing the substantive contract.

**  Optional

2. Considerations for Drafting Arbitration Agreements

Model clauses can serve as an initial reference. However, in practice, to optimally safeguard the rights of parties involved in cross-jurisdictional disputes, arbitration agreements often need to be tailored. As HKIAC and other institutions emphasize on their website "Legal advice should nevertheless always be sought on the choice of a suitable clause and the applicable law." Such recommendations stem from the extensive nature of drafting an arbitration agreement, involving various aspects. It requires consideration of the contract and transaction specifics, inclusion of involved parties’ backgrounds and demands, and foresight into practical execution aspects, particularly concerning the jurisdiction where potential assets are located, to facilitate dispute resolution and enforcement. This significantly elevates the requirement for expertise and practical experience from arbitration lawyers.

Drafting a high-quality arbitration agreement is no easy task. Influenced by variables like industry and transaction type, arbitration agreements can differ substantially. Arbitration clauses with ambiguous wording and inadequate consideration of nuances beforehand often result in disputing parties, already in an adversarial position during the dispute phase, accepting interpretations favoring their interests. Even minor dissatisfaction can trigger objections based on the agreement itself to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, attempting to invalidate potentially unfavorable agreements, and leaving the in-dispute rights uncertain. Stepping back, even if a jurisdictional objection succeeds, in the specific arbitration process, the relinquishment or oversight of specific rights can disadvantage parties, potentially leading to the loss of crucial paths for protecting significant rights. Overall, numerous cases underscore that due to the critical role of arbitration agreements, negligence during the drafting stage can yield catastrophic consequences. In practice, fully enumerating the key aspects of drafting arbitration agreements is challenging. This section summarizes the common elements in this phase and provides clarification.

2.1 Seat of Arbitration

“Seat of Arbitration” is a legalese. While both “place” and “seat” can signify the arbitration location, “seat” is the preferred term for its unambiguity, whereas “place” can refer to the actual hearing location, causing occasional confusion. The “Seat of Arbitration”, as a legal concept, primarily determines the legal attribution of the arbitration award and stands as a fundamental and pivotal concept in international arbitration. Despite numerous articles distinguishing the concepts of “Seat of Arbitration”, “Venue or Place of Arbitration”, and the location of the arbitration institution, this remains an age-old topic. In practice, due to the often-considerable gap between the arbitration agreement drafting date and the initiation of arbitration, coupled with various conditions during the drafting process, issues stemming from the “Seat of Arbitration” in cross-border cases remain quite common.

In 2012, the Zhejiang Yisheng Petrochemical Co., Ltd. (Yisheng) v. Luxembourg INVISTA Technologies Co., Ltd. (Invista) case[19] at CIETAC was centered around whether “take place at” in the arbitration clause refers to the seat of arbitration or the arbitration institution. The original clause stated, “the arbitration shall take place at China International Economic Trade Arbitration Centre (CIETAC), Beijing, P.R. China and shall be settled according to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules as at present in force.” Yisheng argued that the phrase “take place at” is generally followed by a location implied a choice of the seat of arbitration, rendering the clause ineffective for not specifying the arbitral institution, as per Article 16(2) of the Chinese Arbitration Law[20]. However, Invista contended that the clause clearly designated CIETAC as the arbitral institution and not just a location, thus asserting the validity of the agreement. Ultimately, the case saw a reversal of the lower court’s decision based on the Supreme People’s Court’s interpretation favoring the objective of achieving the parties' intent for arbitration, as per the reply from the Supreme People’s Court. Similarly, in the Singapore BNA v BNB and Anor [2019] SGCA 84 case that commenced in 2016 and underwent multiple proceedings, the parties could not agree on the interpretation of Article 14.2 of the Arbitration Agreement, which stipulated “such disputes shall be finally submitted to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) for arbitration in Shanghai”[21]. The bone of contention was whether the designated seat of arbitration was Singapore due to SIAC’s selection or Shanghai, and how this affected the validity of the arbitration agreement. This demonstrates that determining the seat of arbitration may appear straightforward at first glance, but in reality, it is quite intricate. The frequency of such disputes is surprisingly high. Consequently, major arbitration institutions like ICC and LCIA (London Court of International Arbitration) strongly advocate for directly specifying the arbitration seat in the contract[22].

In the current legal context, the prevailing view regarding the legal significance of the “seat of arbitration” is to define it as the juridical seat in international arbitration. In the absence of a specific agreement by the parties, the arbitration proceedings are subject to the law of that location, under the jurisdiction and judicial support of the courts there[23]. Simply put, the law of the seat governs the validity of the arbitration agreement and the legitimacy of the arbitration process. It also pertains to judicial intervention in arbitration, judicial review of arbitral awards, and the annulment and enforceability of awards.

However, within the arbitration community, diverse perspectives emerge. The French community, led by the renowned scholar and arbitrator Emmanuel Gaillard[24], asserts that international arbitration has evolved into a distinct arbitral order through practice. Arbitration, devoid of specific nationality[25], should be determined based on multiple factors. Simply linking an award’s nationality to the seat of arbitration risks fragmenting it, excessively subjugating international arbitration to domestic laws, and contradicting its “international” character. Moreover, the selection of arbitration seats by the parties often prioritizes commercial and convenience factors over meticulous legal considerations. Thus, overstressing the seat's significance may counter the parties' true intent, resulting in unforeseen liabilities. Conversely, Chinese arbitration takes a different path. China’s Arbitration Law structures the arbitration institution, without explicit recognition of the seat of arbitration in legislation. Article 58 of the Arbitration Law[26] and Article 12 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Arbitration Law of the PRC (2006) confer the power to set aside arbitral awards and confirm the validity of arbitration agreements to the intermediate courts where the arbitration institution is situated, diverging from the mainstream view linking it to the seat of arbitration. While Chinese arbitration aligns more with international practices, defining the “seat of arbitration” awaits clarity through specific regulations—an essential aspect of ongoing reform within China’s Arbitration Law[27].

2.2 Governing law

In arbitration, nearly all applicable laws can be pre-agreed by the parties. If laws and regulations that apply to cases, including the main contract, arbitration agreement, arbitration procedure, arbitration rules (such as UN rules or institutional rules), international conventions, domestic laws, etc., can be thoroughly set in advance, many disputes can be avoided. Unfortunately, this is seldom the case in practice. It’s crucial to note that the governing law of the arbitration agreement differs from the one governing the main contract. This distinction extends from the separability of the arbitration agreement, a fundamental concept that represents a critical issue in international arbitration. However, since arbitration clauses are often embedded within the main contract, they can easily be confused by those unfamiliar with arbitration.

In arbitration, when there is an absence of explicit or implied choice, most global arbitral institutions[28] empower the arbitral tribunal autonomously to determine the governing law they consider appropriate. This authority is termed “Choice of Law” or “Determining Applicable Law”. However, defining the criteria for “appropriateness” poses a challenge. Many domestic articles broadly categorize the law of the seat of arbitration as pivotal in this determination, an outdated and impractical approach. In practice, the international arbitration community holds diverse perspectives on this matter, failing to reach a unified consensus. For instance, the UK arbitration community adopts the approach established in the Enka v Chubb case, where they first apply the governing law of the main contract. If it is not designated, they employ the “Closest Connection Principle”, selecting the law most closely connected to the arbitration agreement. France, on the other hand, applies “Substantive Rules”, prioritizing the foreseeable common intent of the parties at the time of contract formation over the “Closest Connection Principle” indicated by the conflict of law rules. Australia, akin to the UK, applies the governing law of the main contract initially. If absent, the law of the seat is applied vigorously. Singapore has devised a three-step approach elucidated by its Court of Appeal in the BNA v BNB and Anor [2019] SGCA 84 case: explicit choice, implicit choice (where the governing law of the main contract is seen as a significant signal of implicit choice), and the Closest Connection Principle. Clearly, the absence of the parties’ selection in determining the law applicable to the arbitration agreement may yield vastly different outcomes based on the specific legal context of the case. This necessitates lawyers to have a clear thorough understanding in advance of the prevailing arbitration jurisprudence and relevant cases in mainstream countries.

注 释:

[1] 2021 International Arbitration Survey: Adapting Arbitration to a Changing World, see https://arbitration.qmul.ac.uk/research/2021-international-arbitration-survey/, visited on 10, August, 2023.

[2] See http://www.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbgwapp/fzgzapp/ggfzfwapp/ggfzfwapp2/202209/t20220909_463344.htmland http://www.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbgw/fzgz/fzgzggflfwx/fzgzggflfw/202203/t20220323_451264.html.

[3] CIETAC 2022 Annual Report, see https://www.ccpit.org/a/20230118/20230118qb6r.html.

[4] As of January 2022, Article 100 of the Meeting Note of the National Symposium on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trials, released by the Supreme People's Court, stipulates: “Arbitration awards made by foreign arbitration institutions with mainland of China as the place of arbitration shall be regarded as foreign-related Chinese awards.”

[5] UNCITRAL Model Law (2006), full text available at: https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/19-09955_e_ebook.pdf

[6] Nigel Blackaby; Constantine Partasides; Alan Redfern; Martin Hunter: Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (6th Edition), p67.

[7] https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/countries/42/china, visited on 12, August, 2023.

[8] Among them, the Chinese government was the defendant in 9 cases, and Chinese investors were the plaintiffs in 17 cases.

[9] However, after consulting with the appropriate CIETAC representative, it has been revealed that CIETAC has not received any investment arbitration cases to date.

[10] The author engaged in discussions with Xinhao LI, a lawyer at Covington & Burling LLP, regarding specific aspects of this section.

[11] Model Law was promulgated in 1985 and revised in 2006.

[12] https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/modellaw/commercial_arbitration/status, visited on 11, August, 2023.

[13] Full context please refer to https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/19-09955_e_ebook.pdf.

[14] For instance, in the case of Midgulf International Ltd v Groupe Chimique Tunisien [2010] EWCA Civ 66, the judge affirmed the validity of an arbitration clause established through telephone communication followed by fax correspondence.

[15] At the end of 2022, the Law Commission for England and Wales published a consultation paper reviewing the “Arbitration Act 1996” and providing preliminary recommendations on certain potential reforms, including confidentiality, the powers of arbitrators for summary procedures, arbitrator independence, and disclosure obligations.

[16] As the case we mentioned in the footnote 16.

[17] See https://www.cietac-eu.org/model-clause/.

[18] See https://www.hkiac.org/arbitration/model-clauses, accessed October 12, 2023. In addition, the model clauses for Arbitration under the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules listed in this text are only part of the model clauses.

[19] This case is cited in the "Annual Report on China International Commercial Arbitration" (2014), page 57.

[20] As referenced in Part I, Article 16, paragraph 2, which states the “designation of a specific arbitration commission” is a must for the arbitration contract.

[21] For a comprehensive analysis of the case by law firm Herbert Smith, please refer to the article titled “SINGAPORE COURT OF APPEAL CONFIRMS THAT THE PARTIES' 'INTENTION TO ARBITRATE SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN EFFECT' AT ALL 'COSTS',” available at: https://hsfnotes.com/arbitration/tag/bna-v-bnb-and-another-2019-sgca-84/. Additionally, the Shanghai Commerce Commission has provided an explanatory perspective on the case within its own context; see: https://www.minotdating.com/assets/RECP/y_03.html.

[22] Florian Quintard, A global view of the law applicable to an arbitration agreement. The original context read “Both the ICC and the LCIA recommend including the following four items in an arbitration clause: the seat of the arbitration; the number of arbitrators; the language of the arbitration; and the law governing the contract.” See: https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/analysis/a-global-view-law-applicable-arbitration-agreement.

[23] Qiuju JIANG, Determination of seat of arbitration, and its legal significance, see https://www.bjac.org.cn/news/view?id=3397.

[24] Gaillard demonstrated this issue from different perspectives in many works including his famous “Legal Theory of International Arbitration”. For details, please refer to his understanding of the “arbitral order” section.

[25] In Gaillard’s article “The Enforcement of Awards Set Aside in the Country of Origin”, he believes “Arbitrators do not derive their powers from the state in which they have their seat but rather from the sum of all the legal orders that recognize, under certain conditions, the validity of the arbitration agreement and the award. This is why it is often said that arbitrators have no forum”.

[26] Article 58 of the Arbitration Law stipulates that "a party may apply to the intermediate people's court at the place where the arbitration Commission is located for cancellation of the award if it provides evidence to prove that the award is made under any of the following circumstances..."

[27] As reflected in Article 27 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (Amendment) (Draft for Comment) issued by the Ministry of Justice in 2021, which addresses the seat of arbitration.

[28] E.g., ICC Arbitration Rules (2021) Article 21.

Note: Due to space constraints, other aspects related to the arbitration agreement, such as ad hoc vs. institutional arbitration, special procedure provisions, and crucial arbitration agreement issues like extension to non-signatories and evolving trends in arbitrability, will be discussed in detail in “Arbitration Agreements (Part II)”.

Disclaimer: The content in this article serves solely for information exchange and discussion purposes. It does not aim to comprehensively summarize or interpret relevant laws, nor does it constitute legal opinions or suggestions from the author. Further, it does not signify the author's endorsement or promotion of any business or investment activities. Reproduction and publication of this article by any entity, journal, or public platform require explicit consent from the author, along with proper attribution. The author expresses gratitude to all readers and extends a warm welcome to fellow arbitration enthusiasts for further communication.