《宁波市中级人民法院：2024宁波市中级人民法院商事仲裁司法审查白皮书（英文版）（49页）.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《宁波市中级人民法院：2024宁波市中级人民法院商事仲裁司法审查白皮书（英文版）（49页）.pdf（49页珍藏版）》请在三个皮匠报告上搜索。

1、1Ningbo Intermediate PeoplesCourt Reporton Judicial Review ofCommercial Arbitration(2018-2023)Ningbo Intermediate Peoples CourtJune 20242ContentsForeword.3I.Overview of Arbitration Judicial Review Cases.51.1 Arbitration Cases.51.2 Arbitration Judicial Review Cases.61.3 Main Features of Arbitration J

2、udicial Review Cases.13II.Adjudication Principles of Arbitration Judicial Review Cases.222.1 Validity Principles Governing Arbitration Agreements.222.2 Limited Supervision Applicable to Arbitral Award AnnulmentReview.322.3 Treaties and Obligations in Extraterritorial Arbitral AwardReview.40III.Pract

3、ice of Arbitration Judicial Review System.423.1 Major Developments.423.2 Existing Problems.44IV.Improvements in Arbitration Judicial Review.464.1 Regular Communication for Judicial Review Standards.464.2 Working for Stronger Arbitration Brands.474.3 Flexible Handling for Re-arbitration Systems.484.4

4、 Diversified Dispute Resolutions Beyond Procedural Review.483ForewordArbitration,as a means of dispute resolution parallel to litigation andmediation in modern society,has been widely applied in domestic andinternational commercial and investment-related issues by virtue of itshigh efficiency.The co

5、urts support and supervision of the judicialreview of arbitration are of prime importance to its development.TheOpinions on Furthering the Reform of the Diversified Dispute ResolutionMechanism in the Peoples Courts,issued by the Supreme Peoples CourtofthePeoplesRepublicofChinain2016,requestedfurther

6、collaboration with arbitration institutions in support of a reformedarbitration system.Then the Supreme Peoples Court released at the endof 2017 a series of judicial documents on arbitration judicial review,which provided legal support for the improvement and perfection of thediversified dispute res

7、olution mechanism with standardized reviewprocedures.Moreover,the requirement of the 20th National Congress ofthe CPC to safeguard the existing achievements,offer stable expectations,and benefit the long-term development through the integrated domesticand foreign-related rule of law guided the judic

8、ial review of arbitration.In recent years,the Ningbo Intermediate Peoples Court(hereinafterreferred to as“the Court”),performing its functions in accordance withthe law,has applied the law in a unified way,standardized the reviewprocedures,and streamlined collaboration mechanism.Much results have4th

9、us been achieved in the quality of the judicial review of arbitration,thedevelopment of the arbitration system in Ningbo,and the improvement ofthe social governance system.Starting with an overview of the arbitration judicial review cases1and adjudication principles of the Court from 2018 through 20

10、23,thiswhite paper outlines the development of the arbitration judicial reviewpractice,analyzes some of the typical problems,and proposes suggestionsfor better judicial review of arbitration.1In light of separated trial and enforcement and different centralized management departments,the“arbitration

11、judicial review cases”mentioned in this report do not include cases applying for the enforcement of arbitrationawards of mainland arbitration institutions.5I.Overview of Arbitration Judicial Review Cases1.1 Arbitration CasesThe Ningbo Arbitration Commission(hereinafter referred to as“theCommission”)

12、accepted 1,533 civil and commercial cases of varioustypes(including 6 foreign-related cases)in 2018,2,659 cases in 2019(including 3 foreign-related cases),9,707 cases in 2020(including 2foreign-related cases),15,775 cases in 2021(including 1 foreign-relatedcase),29,844 cases(including 3 foreign-rela

13、ted cases)in 2022,and26,994 cases(including 4 foreign-related cases)in 2023.A total of 1,460,2,197,9,130,10,860,34,097,and 26,474 cases were concluded annuallyfrom 2018 through 2023.Figure 1 Case Receipt of Ningbo Arbitration Commission(2018-2023)61.2 Arbitration Judicial Review Cases1.2.1 The ratio

14、 of cases concluded to cases accepted reached99.63%.From 2018 through 2023,the Court accepted 268 cases forjudicial review of arbitration,of which 45 applied for confirmation of thevalidity of the arbitration agreement,accounting for 16.79%,100 for theannulment of arbitral awards,taking up 37.31%,4

15、for the recognition andenforcement of foreign arbitral awards and 4 for the recognition andenforcement of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region arbitralawards,amounting to a total of 2.99%,and other 115 cases2involved thevalidity of arbitration agreements,making up 42.91%.Among the 267arbitration

16、judicial review cases concluded by the Court,44 wereapplications for confirming the validity of arbitration agreements,takingup 16.48%,102 for annulling arbitral awards,accounting for 38.20%,4for recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards and 4 forrecognizing and enforcing Hong Kong SAR arbit

17、ral awards,amounting toa total of 3%,and 113 were other cases involving the validity ofarbitration agreements,making up 42.32%.2It includes rejected cases,dismissal of lawsuits,and cases related to jurisdictional objections.7Figure 2 Receipt of Arbitration Judicial Review Cases by NingboIntermediate

18、 Peoples Court(2018-2023)Figure 3 Settlement of Arbitration Judicial Review Cases by NingboIntermediate Peoples Court(2018-2023)1.2.2 Of the various types of arbitration cases,50.96%wereconfirmed invalid agreements(including non-binding agreements).Inaddition to cases applying for validity confirmat

19、ion or annulment ofarbitrationagreements,allcivilandcommercialcasesinvolving8arbitration agreements,whether the Court takes the initiative to reviewand find an arbitration agreement or the defendant raises a jurisdictionalobjection,may require the determination of whether the arbitrationagreement ha

20、s been established,entered into force,lapsed,and hasbecome binding on the particular parties.From 2018 through 2023,theCourt concluded a total of 157 cases,44 cases of confirmation of thevalidity of arbitration agreements and 113 other cases involving thevalidity of arbitration agreements.The partie

21、s requested to confirm thevalidity of the arbitration agreement in 88 cases(including 39 withbinding effect)and confirm the invalidity in 69 cases(including 18 fornon-binding effect).The Court determined valid arbitration agreements in52 cases(18 for binding effect)and invalid arbitration agreements

22、 in 80cases(30 for non-binding effect)and withdrew the application ordismissed the lawsuit in another 25 cases.In terms of the geographicalareas involved,there were 4 foreign-related cases,4 Hong Kong-relatedcases,1 Macao-related case,and 2 Taiwan-related cases.9Figure 4 Cases of Ningbo Intermediate

23、 Peoples Court Involving theValidity Confirmation of the Arbitration Agreement(2018-2023)Figure 5 Decisions of Ningbo Intermediate Peoples Court Involving theValidity Confirmation of the Arbitration Agreement(2018-2023)1.2.3 A high proportion of cases were filed for annulment and4.90%of them were an

24、nulled.The receipt of cases filed for annulment,which made up a large proportion of the total in the previous years,10remained stable despite the surge in the number of cases received by theCommission in successive years.The Court dismissed 88 applications forannulment of arbitral awards and annulle

25、d 5 arbitral awards,including 1in 2018,3 in 2019,and 1 in 2023,which indicates the improved qualityof cases concluded by the Commission;other 9 cases withdrew theirapplications or were handled as withdrawal.Besides,the grounds forapplication for annulment were diversified and centralized,a majority

26、ofthe statutory grounds listed in Article 58 of the“Arbitration Law of thePeoples Republic of China”(hereinafter referred to as the“ArbitrationLaw”),and multiple grounds for annulment were usually claimed in thesame case.Meanwhile,the most frequent ground among the statutorygrounds lay in the compos

27、ition of the arbitral tribunal or the violation ofthe statutory arbitration procedures,followed by the concealment ofevidence sufficient to affect the fairness of the decision by the other party.Substantive faults in arbitration took a high proportion beyond thestatutory grounds.11Figure 6 Annulment

28、 Rate of Arbitral Award Annulment Cases of NingboIntermediate Peoples Court(2018-2023)1.2.4 Few cases applied for recognition(endorsement)andenforcement of extraterritorial arbitral awards,and none of the caseshad a negative conclusion.From 2018 through 2023,the Courtconcluded 4 cases of recognition

29、 and enforcement of foreign arbitralawards,involving arbitral institutions such as the Korean CommercialArbitrationBoard,theInternationalCourtofArbitrationoftheInternational Chamber of Commerce,and the International CottonAssociation(ICA),and 4 cases of endorsement and enforcement ofarbitral awards

30、of the Hong Kong SAR,pertaining to the arbitralinstitution of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center,of which 5cases were ruled to recognize(endorse)and enforce,and 3 caseswithdrew the applications.They were good examples of NingboIntermediate Peoples Court adhere to the equal protection of

31、the12legitimate rights and interests of domestic or foreign parties in accordancewith the law.Table 7 Cases of Application for Recognition(Endorsement)andEnforcement of Extraterritorial Arbitral AwardsCase No.Focus of DisputeResultRecognitionofForeignArbitralAwards(2017)Zhejiang02ForeignRecognition

32、No.1Whether there isanarbitrationclauseRecognition and enforcementof the arbitral award made bythe ICA(2019)Zhejiang02ForeignRecognition No.3Permission to withdraw theapplication(2019)Zhejiang02ForeignRecognition No.4AbsenceofhearingRecognitionofthearbitralaward made by the KoreanCommercial Arbitrat

33、ion Board(2019)Zhejiang02ForeignRecognition No.5Whethertheaward exceeds thescopeofarbitrationagreementRecognitionofthearbitralawardmadebytheInternationalCourtofArbitrationoftheInternationalChamberofCommerceRecognitionofHongKongArbitralAwards(2018)Zhejiang02HongKongRecognition No.2Substantive faultsE

34、nforcement of the arbitralawardmadebytheHongKong International ArbitrationCenter(2020)Zhejiang02HongKongRecognition No.1Permission to withdraw theapplication(2021)Zhejiang02HongKongRecognition No.1Permission to withdraw theapplication(2022)Zhejiang02HKRecognition No.1Whethertheproper notice ofthedes

35、ignatedarbitratorhasbeen received,orfailuretomakerepresentation forsome reasonRecognition and enforcementof the arbitral award made bythe Hong Kong InternationalArbitration Centre13Additionally,the Court,as the intermediate peoples court at theplace of domicile of the respondent or the place where t

36、he propertysubject to the application for preservation is located,accepted and heard atotal of 12 cases of applications for property preservation in the course ofarbitration involving foreign countries,Hong Kong,Macao,and Taiwan,and ruled that the preservations shall be granted.1.3 Main Features of

37、Arbitration Judicial Review Cases1.3.1 Cases involving the validity of arbitration agreementsFirstly,the matters applied for by the parties are closely related tothe types of cases.Most of the cases applying for validity confirmation ofthe arbitration agreement,as well as those rejected or dismissed

38、,were toconfirm that the arbitration agreement was invalid or non-binding,whereas most of the cases of jurisdictional objections were applications toconfirm that the arbitration agreement was valid or binding.According tostatistics,of the 44 cases on appeal applying for validity confirmation,35aimed

39、 to confirm the invalidity of the arbitration agreement;16 dismissedcases on appeal were all applications for confirmation of the invalid ornon-bindingarbitrationagreements;and79ofthe97casesofjurisdictional objections on appeal applied for confirmation of the valid orbinding arbitration agreements.T

40、he principal cause for the differenceslies in that the applicant confirmed the invalidity through litigation to14counter the arbitration agreement based on which the respondent wasapplying for arbitration,and the plaintiff confirmed the invalidity todetermine the jurisdiction of the court,whilst the

41、 defendant filed ajurisdictional objection to counter the plaintiffs prosecution.Secondly,a prior review is conducted on the arbitration agreementby the arbitration institution.The proportion of the number of invalidcases is vastly lower in the applications to confirm the validity of thearbitration

42、agreement than in the jurisdictional objections involving thearbitration agreement.Among the 50 cases whose arbitration agreementswere confirmed invalid,only 3 applied for confirmation of the validity ofthe arbitration agreement,and the rest of the cases were involved injurisdictional objections.It

43、is principally because the cases that appliedfor validity confirmation were those that had been accepted by thearbitration institution stipulated in the arbitration agreement and thatarbitration agreements with obvious validity defects shall be excluded bythe arbitration institution in the prior rev

44、iew.Of the 35 cases ofapplication for invalidity confirmation,30 had been arbitrated,2 wererejected by the arbitration institution and dismissed by the Court,and 3withdrew the application due to settlement after the case was filed.Thirdly,arbitration agreements frequently end in invalidity onaccount

45、 of non-standard declarations.Disputes over the validity of thearbitration agreement often occur due to certain declarations in the15arbitration agreement,such as“appeal to a court for litigation or appeal toan arbitration commission for arbitration”,“appeal to the local arbitrationcommission for ar

46、bitration”,“appeal to the local court of a party forarbitration”,which render it difficult to reach a supplemental agreementafter a dispute arises.This is mainly caused by the parties lack ofattention to the arbitration agreement and arbitrary acceptance of thearbitration clause as a contractual agr

47、eement without any knowledge ofthe arbitration method and the consequences of signing the arbitrationagreement.Only 6 of the 50 cases where the arbitration agreements wereruled invalid were confirmed on the ground of non-existent arbitrationagreement,while the remaining 44 cases were judged based on

48、non-standard agreements,including the“arbitration or litigation”clause,the nonexistent agreed arbitration institution,and unspecified arbitrationinstitution.Fourthly,the arbitration agreements binding on the third party isproblematic.Arbitration in essence is grounded on the parties consensusto reac

49、h an arbitration agreement,which means the arbitration agreementonly has binding effect on the parties to the agreement rather than thirdparties.However,given the complex and innovative characters ofcommercial transactions,determining the effectiveness of the arbitrationagreement on third parties un

50、der special circumstances can not only helpto properly solve the dispute between the parties but also may affect16whether the arbitral award can be recognized and enforced.Thirty-eightcases were concluded by the Court involving the binding effect of thearbitration agreement on third parties,and the

51、major disputes rested with:whether a creditor filing a lawsuit of subrogation right was bound by thearbitration agreement between the debtor and the sub-debtor;whether theassignee of a claim was bound by the arbitration agreement between theassignor of the claim and the debtor;whether a limited part

52、ner filing aderivative lawsuit against a third party for the benefit of the partnership inthe event of negligence by the managing partner in exercising his/herrights was bound by the arbitration agreement between the partnershipand the third party;whether a third party bringing a claim forconfirmati

53、on of the invalidity of a contract is bound by the arbitrationagreement between the parties to the contract;whether an insurancecompany is bound by the arbitration agreement between the third partyand the insured in the insurers claim for subrogation right;whether asurety is bound by the arbitration

54、 agreement in the master contract;andwhether an arbitration agreement between some of the parties can bindthe rest of the parties.The Court finally confirmed that the arbitrationagreement was binding on the third party in 7 cases,and the disputesbetween the parties shall be submitted to arbitration

55、in another 6 cases assome of the parties had agreed on the arbitration agreement.It shall bepointed out that the disputes between the above parties and the rest of the17parties could be resolved in separate litigations after the conclusion of thearbitration.Fifthly,different dispute resolutions agre

56、ed upon in related contractsare worthy of attention.There had been an increase in the number ofcases involving the confirmation of the arbitration agreement between therelated contracts,where the parties often signed several contracts on thesame matter,and each contract agreed to a different dispute

57、 resolution.Inparticular,in the case of construction engineering contracts that feature alongperiodofperformance,thepartiesusuallysignedseveralsupplemental agreements and settlement agreements,etc.,and agreed toresolve disputes through litigation and arbitration.Objections overjurisdiction and the v

58、alidity of the arbitration agreement often arose as theparties diverged as to whether to resolve their disputes through arbitrationor litigation.According to figures,15 cases involving the validity of thearbitration agreement were triggered by multiple contracts agreeing todifferent dispute resoluti

59、ons,including framework agreements andspecificcontracts,constructionprojectcontractsandsettlementagreements,minutes of meetings,and several related contracts signed bythe same parties beforehand and afterward.1.3.2 Cases of application for annulling arbitral awardsFirst,the legality and legitimacy o

60、f arbitration procedures are ofgreat concern.The substantive rights of the parties are inseparable from18their procedural rights,and“the composition of the arbitral tribunal or theviolation of the statutory procedures”are the most common grounds forthe parties to apply for annulment.Arbitration proc

61、edures includeacceptance,service,organization of hearings,hearing,and award.Theelaborate procedural issues make it impossible for the arbitration processto fully comply with the law or arbitration rules.The specific grounds forthe parties applications include violations of statutory procedures withr

62、espect to the composition of the arbitral tribunal,the right to defense,thepresentation and examination of evidence,the duration of the hearings,the service of the award,and prior award,and three of these cases weredetermined by the Court to annul the arbitral awards due to proceduralissues.Second,t

63、he statutory grounds for review of the revocation of theaward are misunderstood.In most of the cases,although the parties couldapply for revocation under the grounds listed in Article 58 of theArbitration Law,they disregarded the specific contents of the relevantgrounds.For example,if to revoke an a

64、rbitral award for the reason ofillegal procedures,the procedural violations shall be sufficient to affectthe substantive handling of the case,which testifies judicial prudence andmodesty.In addition,more specific,detailed review standards have beeninterpreted as to the revocation of arbitration in c

65、ases of forged evidence,concealment of evidence,adjudication by perverting the law,etc.In some19cases,the parties claiming and presentation of evidence conformedloosely to the above provisions,thus the Court did not support theapplication for revocation.It is calculated that only 1 of the 62applicat

66、ions for revocation on account of forged evidence,concealmentof evidence,and adjudication by perverting the law was approved by theCourt.Third,the grounds for the application for revocation are moreassociated with substantive faults.A great number of applicants thatequated the judicial review system

67、 of arbitration with the second instancesystem of civil litigation insisted on applying for annulment on thegrounds that the arbitration case was wrong in the determination of factsand the application of law.Their defense blurred the focus of the reviewand made it less liable to obtain the Courts co

68、nfirmation of theannulment.In addition to the four cases that were annulled by the Courtdue to procedural violations and concealment of evidence,one case wasannulled due to the absence of an arbitration agreement,and no caseswere revoked owing to perverse ruling and violation of the public interesto

69、f society within the statistical years,epitomizing the strict control of theCourt over the exercise of its supervisory power per the law.20Table 8 Grounds for Annulling Arbitral Awards3No.Grounds for annulling arbitral awardsNumberof claimsby partiesNumber ofcourtdeterminations1Non-existent arbitrat

70、ion agreement1712The subject matter of the award does not fallwithin the scope of the arbitration agreementorthearbitrationcommissionisnotauthorized for arbitration2003The compositionofthearbitraltribunalortheviolationofstatutoryproceduresFormation of the arbitraltribunal91Deprivation of the rightof

71、 defense40Appraisal20Access to evidence30Duration of hearings120Presentationandexamination of evidence130Prior decision10Appending the third party20Confidentiality20Service724Forged evidence on which the award is based605Theopposingpartyconcealedevidencesufficient to affect the impartiality of theaw

72、ard3616The arbitrator has solicited or taken bribery,acted wrongly out of personal considerations,committed fraudulent act,or adjudicated byperverting the law2007The award is contrary to the public interest1108Others(substantive)5303Since some of the cases have multiple grounds for annulment,the sta

73、tistic number is larger than the number ofcases concluded.211.3.3Casesapplyingforrecognition(endorsement)andenforcement of extraterritorial arbitral awardsOn the one hand,much emphasis is laid on the procedural review.Applications for recognition and enforcement of a foreign or HongKong-related arbi

74、tral award are different from applications for settingaside a Chinese mainland arbitral award in that a formal review will beconducted on the procedures rather than the substantive aspects forapplications for non-recognition(endorsement)and non-enforcement,andthat the parties may choose to apply for

75、 recognition(endorsement)only,or recognition(endorsement)and enforcement,in accordance with whichthe Court will conduct the review.On the other hand,the settlement of substantive disputes is alsotaken into account.Judicial review of arbitration usually does not involvethe arbitration institutions op

76、inion on the substantive aspects of the case.However,some substantively complicated international commercialdisputes may bring about an ambiguous standard of judgment as towhether the substantive injustice of international commercial arbitrationis caused by procedural impropriety.In order to protect

77、 the legitimaterights and interests of both parties in the review to the maximum extent,the Court started from the substantive disputes to facilitate the settlementof both parties,making itself an ideal destination for dispute resolution.Among the eight cases concluded,three cases withdrew the appli

78、cationsand reached a settlement with the mediation of the Court.22II.Adjudication Principles of ArbitrationJudicial Review Cases2.1 Validity Principles Governing Arbitration AgreementsIt is specified in the Arbitration Law that a valid arbitrationagreement shall include the declaration of the arbitr

79、ation intention,arbitration matter,and specific arbitration institution.Statutory arbitrablematters can only be contractual disputes between the parties and otherproperty disputes,excluding marriage,adoption,guardianship,foster care,succession disputes,and administrative disputes that shall be dealt

80、 withby administrative organs.Concerning the arbitration judicial review casesconcluded in the past six years,there was no arbitration agreement onlegally non-arbitrable disputes over personal rights,and individual casesinvolved the determination of whether an arbitration matter was anadministrative

81、 dispute.In practice,the contracts signed by state-ownedenterprises with public service functions and participating in marketeconomic activities may boast the features of administrative agreements.As the non-arbitrability of administrative disputes directly affects theeffectiveness of the arbitratio

82、n agreement,it shall determine whether thecontract is administrative or commercial.The basic standard of review forthe administrative agreement established by the Court in(2023)Zhejiang2302CivilSpecialNo.10casehelpedrealizetheadministrativemanagement or public service objectives of the contract whos

83、e contentsreflect the administrative privilege of a party.In addition,the intention ofarbitration and arbitration institutions are mainly reviewed to determinethe validity of the arbitration agreement.2.1.1 The existence of arbitration intention shall be determined.Consensus of the parties is the mo

84、st prominent feature of arbitration,andthe application for arbitration to solve disputes is grounded on thevoluntary consensus between the two parties.Therefore,determining theexistence of a consensual request for arbitration is pivotal to reviewingthe validity of the arbitration agreement.The first

85、 is to determine whether there is any problem with thearbitration agreement.According to Article 16 of the Summary of theNationalCourtSymposiumonForeign-RelatedCommercialandMaritime Trial(hereinafter referred to as“the Summary”)launched onDecember 31,2021,if there is a dispute over the establishment

86、 of thearbitration agreement and the parties apply for court confirmation,thecourt shall handle the case as an application for confirmation of thevalidity of the arbitration agreement and make a ruling on the request ofthe parties.The Court also takes the establishment or existence of thearbitration

87、 agreement as an important indicator in the review of validity.In the case where a party claimed a discrepancy between the contract24related to the arbitration agreement and the contract he/she signed,thecourt shall distribute the proof burden and require the party claiming theexistence of the arbit

88、ration agreement to provide the original contract.Ifit could not be provided,the party shall bear the consequences of thefailure to prove and the arbitration agreement shall be ruled nonexistent;if the original contract was provided,the Court shall determine whetherthe signature was true through app

89、raisal or a comprehensive assessmentof other facts of the case and then determine whether the parties had theintention of arbitration.The second is to take mediation as a preliminary procedure.Inmulti-level dispute resolution clauses,the parties often agree to takeconsultation and mediation within a

90、 certain period as a prepositiveprocedure for arbitration,and arbitration can only be initiated if theprepositive procedure is fulfilled.One party applies for arbitration on thisbasis,while the other party applies to confirm that the arbitrationagreement is invalid after a dispute arises.In its revi

91、ew of(2022)Zhejiang 02 Civil Special No.253 case,the Court held that thefulfillment of the prepositive procedure of mediation fell beyond thescope of arbitration jurisdiction and whether the arbitration institutionmet the requisition for case acceptance did not affect the validity of thearbitration

92、agreement.The third is the concurrence of arbitration and litigation.There are25two situations when the parties agree to resolve disputes throughlitigation and arbitration,that is,“arbitration or litigation”and“firstarbitration and then litigation”.The term“arbitration or litigation”represents optio

93、nality,and the mode of dispute resolution cannot bededuced from the contents of the above clause,i.e.,the arbitrationagreement shall be declared null and void with high uncertainty in thearbitration intention.In judicial practice,the parties concerned in manycases also recognized that the arbitratio

94、n agreement was null and void butraised objections to jurisdiction on the ground that the litigationjurisdiction agreement was also null and void.It shall be pinpointed thatthe litigation agreement in such cases is valid and the court maydetermine the jurisdiction court by the agreement.The parties

95、agreeing on“first arbitration and then litigation”shall abide by the order of arbitrationfirst and shall not appeal arbitration or litigation concurrently.In thesecases,there is no defect in the declaration of the arbitration intention,soarbitration can be determined as the first solution to dispute

96、s and thelitigation jurisdiction agreement thereafter takes no effect.The fourth is the effect of the standard arbitration clauses.The“request for the declaration of arbitration intention”shall be a unanimousdeclaration of intention rather than a unilateral one,meaning that theparties have a rationa

97、l expectation for future disputes to be submitted toarbitration.Thedifficultyofstandardarbitrationclausesliesin26determining the authenticity of the parties consent to arbitration in thecontracting process.The Court held the view that the clauses shallgenerally be set out in the original contract in

98、 a prominent andconspicuous form or the party providing the standard clauses shall provethat it has reasonably disclosed the arbitration clauses in other ways tomake the other party have a clear understanding of the arbitration clauses,so as to determine a consent to arbitration from the two parties

99、.When thevalidity is examined,based on the principles of protecting the weakerparty and supporting the development of arbitration,the identities of thecontracting parties,transaction background,arbitration venue,scope ofthe matter,etc.shall be fully considered to determine whether thestandard arbitr

100、ation clauses were invalid due to exclusion of the mainrights of the other party.2.1.2 Sole arbitration institution shall be determined.Disputesover the validity of the arbitration agreement may occur in cases where itis difficult to ensure an unambiguous agreement on the arbitrationinstitution give

101、n the parties lack of professional knowledge,insufficientunderstanding of the specific circumstances of the arbitration institution,establishment and renaming of the arbitration institution.First,inaccuracy in the agreement on the arbitration institution.TheCourt usually judged whether there was an

102、agreed sole arbitrationinstitution based on the principle of validity.For instance,in cases where27the parties agreed to“apply to Ningbo City Arbitration Commission forarbitration”,the non-standard declaration did not affect the intention ofthe parties to submit the dispute to“Ningbo Arbitration Com

103、mission forarbitration”without the word“city”.For other cases where arbitrationcommissions set up in the district and county-level administrativejurisdictions,for example,“Yuyao Arbitration Commission”,were agreedas the arbitration institution,the Court had changed its judgment from“inaccurate and i

104、nvalid agreement”to“valid agreement”for the reasonthat there is only one arbitration institution within the jurisdiction ofNingbo City,i.e.Ningbo Arbitration Commission.Second,the parties agree on the place of arbitration where there isonly one arbitration institution.If the parties agreed to choose

105、 the localarbitration institution,the Court shall first determine the scope of the“local”,i.e.,whether the“local”is the“certain place”the parties agreedon,and then examine whether there was a sole arbitration institution inthe municipal administrative district of the“certain place”.For caseswhere th

106、e“certain place”is a first-tier city such as Beijing or Shanghaiwhere there are more than two arbitration institutions,the Court shall,under the premise of respecting the autonomy of the parties in arbitration,explain to both parties the arbitration institutions they shall choose fromand navigate bo

107、th parties to reach an agreement on the arbitrationinstitution of the certain place,so as to amend the ambiguity of the28arbitration agreement for effective arbitration agreement.However,if theparties fail to reach an agreement,the arbitration agreement shall bedeclared null and void due to the lack

108、 of clarity of the arbitrationinstitution.2.1.3 Arbitration intention involves the third party.Traditionally,only those who sign the written arbitration agreement are bound by theagreement and are parties to the arbitration.However,with burgeoningcivil and commercial activities,a tendency to support

109、 and encouragearbitration has come into shape in the field of commercial arbitration.Absolute restriction of the expanded effectiveness of the arbitrationagreement to the third party who has not signed the agreement fails toprotect the third partys interests,detrimental to achieving the value ofdisp

110、ute resolution through arbitration.However,the effectiveness of thearbitration agreement cannot be arbitrarily expanded.It is stipulated inthe Summary that when the parties to the master contract and theaccessory contract are different,the arbitration agreement of the mastercontract shall not bind t

111、he parties to the accessory contract.The aboveprovision can be applied to determine whether the arbitration agreementof the master contract can expand its effectiveness to the surety.No.198Guiding Case establishes the rule that the actual constructor(excludingthe actual constructor with borrowed qua

112、lifications)is not bound by thearbitration agreement between thecontract letting party and the29contractor.There are very limited cases in which the effectiveness of anarbitration agreement extends to third parties.The reason are as follows.First,there are clear provisions.The third party is general

113、ly confirmed tobe bound by the arbitration agreement if it makes no explicit objection,has no other agreement or knowledge about a separate arbitrationagreement when assigning debts and liabilities,or if the insured,in aninheritance or a non-foreign insurance subrogation relationship after thedivisi

114、on or merger of the legal person or the death of the natural person,sign the arbitration agreement before the insurance accident occurs.Second,there are cases for reference.In a litigation dispute ofshareholder representatives,where a shareholder sues a third party in thename of the shareholder for

115、the benefit of the company,the benefit ofsuccess is attributed to the company,and the arbitration agreementbetween the company and the third party shall be binding on theshareholder.In the cases of(2019)Zhejiang 02 Civil Final No.4053,No.4054,and No.4055,the Court maintained that if the limited part

116、ner fileda derivative lawsuit based on the contract signed between the partnershipand other enterprises,the limited partner shall be bound by the arbitrationclause in the contract.In judicial practice,there are often cases where one party to acontract sues the other party and a third party based on

117、the contract with a30valid arbitration clause,which are usually dismissed.Pending thearbitration between the two parties to the contract,one party will thenhandle the dispute with the third party separately to avoid arbitrationevasion by way of a joint lawsuit.For cases where the contractor and thea

118、ctual constructor agree to arbitrate by an arbitration institution(thecontract letting party and the contractor agree to arbitrate by anotherarbitration institution),the actual constructor can sue the contract lettingparty to pay for the project and make the contractor the third party.In(2022)Zhejia

119、ng 02 Civil Jurisdiction Final No.524 case where the actualconstructor claimed that the contract letting party shall be liable for theunpaid project payment,the Court held that the actual constructor shallapply for arbitration following the relevant clause before filing a lawsuitagainst the contract

120、 letting party on the premise of the identification andhandling of the dispute between the actual constructor and the contractor.Also,if the parties have a contractual relationship and choose differentinstitutions for arbitration,the Court shall respect the willingness ofparties.In the cases of(2020

121、)Zhejiang 02 Civil Jurisdiction Final No.191and No.364,the Court determined that,as the plaintiff chose anarbitration institution with defendant A and another arbitration institutionwith defendant B,the plaintiff shall submit to arbitration based on therespective arbitration agreement and shall not

122、sue the defendants as aco-defendant.In subrogation lawsuits where the creditor sued the31sub-debtor as the defendant and the debtor as a third party,thesubrogation lawsuit shall be suspended if the sub-debtor took thearbitration agreement with the debtor as a defense and applied forarbitration to re

123、solve disputes with the debtor.2.1.4 Multiple contracts agree on different dispute resolutionclauses.It is not uncommon for the parties to sign different contracts forthe same matter,which triggers the controversy over the validity of thedispute settlement clause.The Court maintains that the special

124、 agreementon the application of the dispute resolution clauses of a certain contractdetermines the dispute resolution,for example,“the latter contract appliesto the dispute resolution clauses of the former one”and“the lattercontract shall prevail and the dispute resolution clauses of the formercontr

125、act shall no longer apply”.However,if there is no special agreement,the relationship between the contracts shall be determined based on thefacts of the cases.Independent and separable contracts shall be handledper their respective agreements;as for the indivisible contract,which isintegral in the le

126、gal sense,it shall determine whether to apply to the“arbitration or litigation”clause or to substitute the former contract withthe latter and make the latter the basis for the actual performance.2.1.5 Negation of the validity of the arbitration agreement shallbe reported for verification.In addition

127、 to the situation where thearbitration agreement is ruled invalid,the parties can appeal to a lawsuit32for the validity confirmation of the arbitration agreement in othersituations such as inadmissibility,dismissal,and jurisdictional objections.And the court of the second instance shall report to th

128、e higher courts tomake a ruling based on the examination and approval after confirmingthat the arbitration agreement is not established,null and void,invalid,ambiguous in contents and difficulty in enforcement.However,caseswhere the court of first instance denies the validity of the arbitrationagree

129、ment and the parties appeal does not involve the determination gobeyond the scope of report and verification.2.2LimitedSupervisionApplicabletoArbitralAwardAnnulment Review2.2.1 Arbitration agreement.How to determine the validity ofarbitration agreements has been described in detail,and in the case o

130、f anapplication for setting aside the arbitral award,it shall review whether theapplicant has accepted the jurisdiction of the arbitral institution by default.If it is ascertained that,after the arbitration institution effectively servesthe notice of arbitration,the applicant raises no jurisdictiona

131、l objectionsto the validity of the arbitration agreement within the prescribed period,the applicant is deemed to have accepted the jurisdiction of the arbitrationinstitution over the case.If the applicant objects to the validity of thearbitration agreement during the arbitration process,the court sh

132、all judge33the validity of the arbitration agreement substantively in the review ofrevocation even if the arbitral tribunal has made a decision.However,ifthe arbitration institution has determined on the validity of the arbitrationagreement,the court shall not accept the parties application for thev

133、alidity confirmation of the arbitration agreement.2.2.2 Over-award.Whether the arbitration award matters overstepthe arbitration agreement and arbitration request is the criterion forassessing over-award.Arbitration award matters that fall out of the scope of the agreementinclude both the matters th

134、at exceed the arbitration agreement and theinvalidated arbitration agreement after the award is made.For these twogrounds stipulated in Article 58 of the“Arbitration Law”,the court shallinvoke them specifically according to the parties claims.When theparties object that the award does not fall withi

135、n the scope of thearbitrationagreement,itshalldeterminewhetherthearbitrationagreement is binding on the particular claim between the parties.Inidentifying whether a partys claim is based on the contract containing thearbitration agreement,it shall further investigate whether the arbitrationmatters a

136、greed in the arbitration agreement are general agreements.Ifthere is such a general agreement as“all the disputes arising from theperformance of this contract”,the basic disputes related to the contractare arbitration matters;otherwise,the court shall judge whether there is34an inclusion relationshi

137、p between the specific contents of the contract andthe claim.For example,in(2018)Zhejiang 02 Civil Special No.135 case,the Court determined that the arbitration was applied for by therespondent in respect of all the construction payments in the context ofthe three independent construction contracts

138、between the claimant and therespondent.It finalized that the award matters exceeded the scope of thearbitration agreement and annulled the corresponding award because thearbitration tribunal had confirmed that the payment of the first contract,which had agreed on an arbitration agreement,had been se

139、ttled,and thatthere was no arbitration agreement in the rest two contracts.Then,the award goes beyond the scope of the parties claims.As thearbitration request fixes to the scope of arbitration tribunal,the arbitralaward shall be limited to the scope of the fact and the result that the partyrequests

140、.In the process of judicial review,the Court examines whetherthe arbitral tribunal makes a decision based on the request of the partieson the one hand,and reviews whether the award exceeds the amount ofthe partys request on the other.It is the discretionary power of thearbitral tribunal to adjudicat

141、e for certain reasons,which falls beyond thecourts scope of judicial review.Therefore,it is generally believed thatthe award matters in over-award shall be understood as those in the maintext of the arbitral award,and the arbitral tribunals determination of thefacts and the validity is not an award

142、matter in need of review.352.2.3 Procedures.When reviewing“the composition of the arbitraltribunal or the violation of the statutory procedures”,the court not onlyconsiders whether the arbitration procedures violate the arbitration lawand the arbitration rules chosen by the parties but also assesses

143、 whetherthe above circumstances affect the fair decision of the case or not.First,it shall determine whether the arbitration procedure is illegal.The Court shall first determine if the claim of illegal arbitration procedureis consistent with the facts.For example,as to the claim of overtimehearing,t

144、he arbitration rules and arbitration files shall be checked for aclear understanding of the arbitration rules on the hearing period,extension of time,and the formalities before it determined whether theextension of the hearing period had attained lawful approval of thearbitral tribunal.The Court had

145、 also annulled two arbitral awards for thereason of illegal service.In(2019)Zhejiang 02 Civil Special No.138 case,the Commission violated the arbitration provisions on valid service as ithad delivered arbitration documents to theapplicants householdregistration location,while,according to the facts,

146、the actual residence ofthe applicant and the residence of the respondent were in the samebuilding,and the respondent had served a reminder letter to the applicantat the same address.Unable to ascertain that the first arbitration documentwas signed by the applicant,the Commission continued to deliver

147、arbitration documents to the applicants household registration location36for next few times,which were not signed for.In(2022)Zhejiang 02Civil Special No.207 case,the Commission made no other attempt toserve the applicant by delivery and other possible means after the publicannouncement of the arbit

148、ration document that had been sent via EMS tothe registered address of the applicant(in Ningbo City)and returned onthe ground that“there was no such company at that address”.Theviolation of the statutory procedure resulted in the applicants failure toparticipate in the arbitration proceedings and mi

149、ght affect the correctdecision of the case.Second,whether the procedural violation affects the correct decisionof the case shall be ascertained.In this regard,it is essential to considerwhether the parties procedural rights have been fully exercised,including the right to choose arbitrators,to apply

150、 for avoidance for thesake of the grouping of the arbitral tribunal,to fully state the case,and topresent and cross-examine the evidence,which may affect the arbitralaward.The relationship between the above procedural rights and thesubstantiveawardissubjectiveratherthanobjective,i.e.,itisunnecessary

151、 to judge whether the arbitral award that has been made issubstantively wrong.In the case of illegal service mentioned above,theCourt annulled the arbitral award on the ground that the arbitral awardmight be heavily affected by the fact that the applicant did not exerciseany rights in absentia due t

152、o illegal service.Besides,the serious violation37of the“Arbitration Law”or the basic regulations and principles providedby the arbitration rules,such as violation of the final and bindingcharacter of arbitration and the independent decision of the arbitraltribunal,is part of the procedural violation

153、s that may affect the correctdecision.A key point is the relationship between the review of thearbitration institution and the independent ruling of the arbitral tribunal.The review system is vital for arbitration institutions to exercisearbitration supervision and case management though.In the revi

154、ewsystem,if the arbitral institution believes there are substantive problemswith the arbitral award,it may make recommendations to the arbitraltribunal for its attention,and the arbitral tribunal shall determine whetherto adopt the recommendations.In the arbitral awards annulled by theCourt on the g

155、rounds of procedural violations,the result of the award wasneither the opinion of the majority of the arbitrators nor the opinion of thepresiding arbitrator.In other words,it was not pursuant to the relevantprovisions of the arbitration rules and might affect the fairness of thedecision of the case.

156、2.2.4 Evidence.The first is the forged evidence and concealment ofevidence.There are two evidence-related grounds for the annulment ofarbitration listed in the“Arbitration Law”,i.e.,“the evidence on whichthe award is based is forged”and“the other party has concealed evidencesufficient to affect the

157、fairness of the award”.In the case of“forged38evidence”,the applicant is often unable to provide appropriate evidence,so the application is rejected.For“concealment of evidence”,theapplicant shall specify the name or content of the concealed evidence.The application may be flatly dismissed if it is

158、not provided;thejudgment shall be made according to the three conditions4stipulated inArticle 16 of the Provisions of the Supreme Peoples Court on SeveralIssues Concerning the Enforcement of Arbitral Award if it is specified.For instance,In(2019)Zhejiang 02 Civil Special No.57 case where theapplican

159、t claimed that the respondent concealed the lease contract itsigned with the outsider while applying for arbitration to request paymentof rent based on the lease contract signed between the applicant and therespondent,the Court retrieved the contract and invoices between therespondent and the outsid

160、er upon the application of the claimant andconcluded that the respondents concealment of the real lease contractduring the arbitration process had led to the wrong determination of thebasic facts of the case.The arbitral award was accordingly annulled,andthe Court also sent a judicial recommendation

161、 to the Commission due tothe suspected false arbitration in the case.The second is the arbitral tribunals substantive determination of theevidence.It shall be noted that,when using such reason for annulment,4The three conditions are:(a)The evidence is the main evidence for determining the basic fact

162、s of the case;(b)The evidence is only in the possession of the other party and has not been submitted to the arbitral tribunal;(c)During the arbitration process,the party is aware of the existence of such evidence and requests the other party topresent it or requests the arbitral tribunal to order t

163、he other party to present it,but the other party fails to present orsubmit it without justifiable reasons.39the parties often refer to the arbitral tribunals impropriety concerning theallocation of the burden of proof,the investigation and collection ofevidence,and the determination of evidence.As t

164、o the case where theapplicant claimed first concealed evidence and then the wrongfuldetermination of facts as the evidence had been submitted by therespondent to the arbitral tribunal but not determined,the Court held thatthe substantive handling of the case by the arbitral tribunal usually fellouts

165、ide the scope of judicial review of arbitration.Since the review of anapplication to annul an arbitral award does not equate a second instanceor retrial review,the Court has rigidly adhered to the principle of limitedsupervision in dealing with all reasons relating to the determination offacts or th

166、e application of law in arbitration cases.2.2.5 Public Interest.Although arbitral awards contrary to thepublic interest of society are generally ruled to annul,there is no uniformdefinition of“public interest of society”in judicial practice and thedetermination of this ground has taken a more string

167、ent standard.TheCourt had proposed to annul arbitral awards in two cases for the reasonthat they were“contrary to the public interest of society”,but afterreporting to the higher courts for approval,they were considered not yetcontrary to the public interest of society.Then the Court made clear this

168、reason for annulling the two cases:“Only in cases where the arbitralaward violates the basic principles of Chinas laws,infringes on Chinas40national sovereignty,jeopardizes social public security,goes against goodcustoms,and endangers Chinas fundamental social public interests,canthe court annul the

169、 arbitral award on the ground that it is contrary to thepublic interest of society”;“Social public interest is a non-exclusiveinterest enjoyed by the public and necessary for the survival of the society,which is not possessed by any specific person or group but has a directimpact on the interests of

170、 the unspecified majority of the people in thesociety.”2.3Treaties and Obligations in Extraterritorial Arbitral AwardReviewThe extraterritorial arbitral awards shall abide by the Convention ontheRecognitionandEnforcementofForeignArbitralAwards5(hereinafterreferredtoasthe“NewYorkConvention”)ortheArra

171、ngements of the Supreme Peoples Court on the Mutual Enforcementof Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and Hong Kong SpecialAdministrative Region6(hereinafter referred to as the“Arrangements”)and the Supplementary Arrangements on the Mutual Enforcement ofArbitral Awards between the Mainland and Hong

172、 Kong SpecialAdministrative Region7(hereinafter referred to as the“SupplementaryArrangements”)5https:/newyorkconvention1958.org/?opac_view=-16https:/ the country of the parties is a contracting state of the New YorkConvention and the arbitral award is made in the territory of thecontracting state(ot

173、her than the Peoples Republic of China),the foreignarbitral award is recognized and enforced based on the New YorkConvention.And as to arbitral awards made according to the ArbitrationOrdinance of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region that shall berecognized and enforced in the mainland,the releva

174、nt provisions of theArrangementsandtheSupplementaryArrangementsshallbeimplemented.In its review,the Court determines whether it has jurisdiction andwhether the application has exceeded the time limit by the CivilProcedure Law of the Peoples Republic of China,and if the applicationfor the submission

175、of documents does not comply with the provisions ofthe New York Convention or the Arrangements,the applicant is requiredto make a new or supplementary submission in accordance with theprovisions.Applicants can reject to recognize and enforce the arbitralawards if they can provide evidence that the c

176、ircumstances listed inParagraph 1 in Article 5 of the New York Convention or Paragraph 1 inArticle 7 of the Arrangements have been met,or if the Court candetermine ex officio that the circumstances listed in Paragraph 2 inArticle 5 of the New York Convention or Paragraphs 2 and 3 in Article 7of the

177、Arrangements have been met.For cases involving the validity42confirmationofthearbitrationagreement,theapplicablelawisdetermined per Paragraph 1(A)in Article 5 of the New York Conventionor Paragraph 1(A)in Article 7 of the Arrangements.III.Practice of Arbitration Judicial Review System3.1 Major Devel

178、opments3.1.1 Unified application of the law.In December 2017,theSupreme Peoples Court issued the Notice of the Supreme Peoples Courton the Issues Concerning the Centralized Handling of ArbitrationJudicial Review Cases,the Provisions of the Supreme Peoples Court onIssues Concerning the Reporting and

179、Verification of Arbitration JudicialReview Cases,and the Provisions of the Supreme Peoples Court onSeveral Issues Concerning the Trial of Arbitration Judicial Review Cases,with the latter two judicial interpretations officially implemented as ofJanuary 1,2018.Since then,arbitration judicial review c

180、ases have beencentralized,the reporting and verification system established,theoperating procedures refined,which is conducive to adopting the uniformscaleofadjudicationandthecorrectapplicationofthelawfundamentally.3.1.2 Standardized review procedures.The Court has strictlyobserved the relevant prov

181、isions on centralized handling and assigned the43foreign-related commercial trial division to hear cases involving validityconfirmation of arbitration agreements,application for annulling arbitralawards,inadmissibility,dismissal of prosecutions,and jurisdictionalobjections to adjudicate the validity

182、 of arbitration agreements at thesecond instance.Arbitration judicial review cases are heard by a panel ofthree judges,with specific procedures for the presiding judge to inquireinto the case and for the panel to deliberate on the case.Cases that mayinvolve the invalidity of an arbitration agreement

183、,the annulment of amainland commercial arbitral award,non-recognition or non-enforcementofanarbitralawardfromHongKong,Macao,orTaiwan,non-recognition or non-enforcement of a foreign arbitral award arediscussed at a meeting of professional judges and reported for verificationbefore a ruling is made.3.

184、1.3 Liberalized collaborative mechanism.Arbitration judicialreviewcasesmayinvolvearbitralinstitutions,filingdivisions,foreign-related commercial trial divisions,and counterpart trial divisionsin higher courts.On the one hand,within the court system,theforeign-related commercial court focuses on coor

185、dinating with the filingdivision to ensure the arbitration judicial review cases are properlyhandled,and meanwhile,it takes the initiative to report to the highercourts for instructions and guidance;on the other hand,the Court hasstrengthened the communication with arbitration institutions while44su

186、mming up the typical problems in the cases of annulment of arbitralawards in a timely manner and giving feedback to the Commission formore professional and standardized arbitration in Ningbo.3.1.4 Strengthened investigation and research.On the strength ofthe new practice and requirements since the c

187、entralized domestic andinternational judicial review of arbitration,the Court had carried outserious preliminary research before it declared and won the bid for themajor judicial research topic of the Supreme Peoples Court in 2019,i.e.,“Research on the Arbitration Judicial Review System”.Afterward,t

188、heCourtlaunchedin-depthresearchinconjunctionwithSouthwestUniversity of Political Science and Law,completed the research report ofhigh quality,and formulated the Guidelines for the Judicial Review ofCommercial Arbitration(Draft).3.2 Existing Problems3.2.1Moreattentionshallbepaidtoarbitration.Theeffec

189、tiveness of the arbitration agreement was severely affected in caseswhere the parties copied word for word the online template or thearbitration agreement in other contracts during the negotiation of thecontract,where one party,who failed to have a clear understanding of thearbitration meaning,did n

190、ot negotiate with the other party further on thecontents of the arbitration agreement,or where two parties did not make45clear whether the subsequent contracts were applicable to the formerarbitration agreement.All of the circumstances seriously affect the effectsof arbitration agreement and contrav

191、ene the intention of arbitrationefficiency as the substantive case shall be handled after the proceduralsettlement of the jurisdictional objections once a dispute arises.3.2.2 The quality of arbitration shall be improved.Despite thatthe arbitral tribunals handling of the substance is exclusive of ju

192、dicialreview of arbitration,a few cases of substantive handling are still open toquestion,some awards are unclear and illogical,and the arbitration insome cases is perverted.In light of the final and binding characteristics ofarbitration awards,the management of arbitrators is less organized,causing

193、 concerns from the parties about the quality of arbitral awards.Arbitrators are often suspected of wrongful rulings,which is a majorobstacle to the credibility of arbitration.In addition,the proportion ofarbitral awards annulled due to procedural violations is much higher thanthe proportion of court

194、 judgments remanded for retrial due to proceduralissues.3.2.3 Foreign-related arbitration needs a preferred location.Thesmall number and proportion of foreign-related cases accepted by theCommission are incompatible with the volume of foreign trade in Ningbo.The foreign trade enterprises in Ningbo t

195、end to agree in the contracts withforeign merchants to appeal to foreign arbitration institutions or those in46Beijing and Shanghai rather than Ningbo Arbitration Commission.Theconsequent outflow of arbitration business neither matches with the statusof Ningbo in foreign trade nor contributes to saf

196、eguarding the legitimaterights and interests of local enterprises given their increased cost toprotect their rights.3.2.4 The scales of arbitration judicial review shall be furtherunified.The non-unified scales of grass-roots courts in dealing withinadmissibility,dismissal,and jurisdictional objecti

197、ons of cases involvingthe validity of the arbitration agreement have resulted in a high rate ofamended judgment in the second stance.IV.Improvements in Arbitration Judicial Review4.1 Regular Communication for Judicial Review StandardsFirst,a regular communication mechanism has been established bythe

198、 Court and the Commission through periodic joint meetings wherethey exchange information on arbitration judicial review cases,studythorny legal issues,and refine adjudication rules;second,a digitalplatform has been built for the transfer of arbitration case files to realizethe paperless hearing of a

199、rbitration judicial review cases and provideonline feedback and review opinions on the cases for higher trialefficiency and quality;third,the Court has provided more guidance on the47hearing of cases involving the validity of arbitration agreements,inadmissibility,dismissal,and jurisdictional object

200、ions of cases throughthe contact between the post judges of the Court and the grassrootscourts.4.2 Working for Stronger Arbitration BrandsThe achievements of arbitration judicial review are closely related tothe development of arbitration in Ningbo.In this regard,the Commissionis suggested to take t

201、he following measures:(a)improve the expertise ofarbitrators,establish the concept of justice,and enhance the quality andcredibility of arbitration through training sessions and seminars forarbitrators;(b)modify and improve the arbitration rules,in particular,refine and implement the procedure of se

202、rvice,arbitrator disclosure,andextension of the time limit,which have been much complained by parties;(c)resort to multi-channel publicity and promotion to raise publicawareness and identification with arbitration,guide the parties to arbitratein good faith,prevent perverted arbitration,and avoid in

203、validatedarbitration agreements caused by non-standard declarations by providingstandardized arbitration agreement templates through the CommissionsWeChat account;(d)expand foreign-related arbitration business andstrengthen exchanges and cooperation with renowned domestic andinternational arbitratio

204、n institutions to share the existing resources of48foreign-related arbitrators.4.3 Flexible Handling for Re-arbitration SystemsFor arbitration judicial review cases where parties forge and concealevidence,the Court shall notify the arbitration institution to re-arbitratewithin a certain time to make

205、 up for the defects of the arbitral award.TheCourt and the Commission shall maintain smooth communication andoptimize the re-arbitration rules to make breakthroughs in re-arbitration,which also contributes to higher efficiency in judicial supervision.For thecircumstances in line with the above provi

206、sions,the re-arbitrationprocedure shall be started and the rate of annulment shall be reducedthrough the self-correction of the arbitral tribunal;for other circumstances,re-arbitration can be applied in a prudent manner and with reference tosuccessful practices if agreed by both parties and the arbi

207、trationinstitution.4.4 Diversified Dispute Resolutions Beyond Procedural ReviewLitigation and arbitration as means of dispute resolution both aim tosettle disputes.When coping with parties deliberate delay of arbitrationprocedures by claiming a substantive fault and applying for invalidityconfirmati

208、on of the arbitration agreement,the Court shall properly use theprocedural review and mediate with the Commission between the parties49in the substantive disputes to provide a package solution to proceduraland substantive controversies.With precedents of cooperation betweenthe two parties in this regard,a new pattern of diversified disputeresolutions with complementary advantages and organic connectionsshallbe builtto makeNingbo a preferred placeforresolvingforeign-related disputes under the rule of law.