The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration recognizes both ad hoc and institutional arbitration. In many jurisdictions, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Singapore, both forms of arbitration are valid and widely used.

The Chinese mainland, however, has taken a different approach. Under Article 16 of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (in Chinese: 中华人民共和国仲裁法) (“PRC Arbitration Law”), an arbitration agreement must designate a specific arbitration commission. As a result, ad hoc arbitration agreements that designate the Chinese mainland as the seat are generally deemed invalid. Unless the parties can reach a supplementary agreement on institutional arbitration, they may be forced to resolve disputes through litigation or other mechanisms.

This divergence from international practice has drawn increasing attention from Chinese legislators. Since 2021, three successive draft amendments to the PRC Arbitration Law have addressed the issue of ad hoc arbitration, sparking significant debate among practitioners, academics, and policymakers.

Legislative Developments

The Chinese mainland has progressively opened the door to ad hoc arbitration through successive draft revisions of the PRC Arbitration Law:

• Revised Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (Consultation Draft) [in Chinese: 中华人民共和国仲裁法(修订) (征求意见稿)] published on July 30, 2021 (“2021 Consultation Draft”) introduced three provisions on ad hoc arbitration. It allowed parties to foreign-related commercial disputes to submit cases to either an arbitral institution or an ad hoc tribunal. It also envisaged institutional and judicial assistance in appointing arbitrators, handling challenges, and filing awards with the courts in the case of ad hoc arbitration.

• Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (Revised Draft) [in Chinese: 中华人民共和国仲裁法(修订草案)] published on November 8, 2024 (“2024 Revised Draft”) narrowed the scope of application of ad hoc arbitration initially proposed by the 2021 Consultation Draft. The 2024 Revised Draft allowed only foreign-related maritime disputes and disputes between enterprises registered in pilot free trade zones involving foreign elements to be referred to ad hoc arbitration, and this reduction in scope serves to deliberately minimize judicial intervention.

• Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (2nd Revised Draft) [in Chinese:  中华人民共和国仲裁法(修订草案二次审议稿)] published on April 30, 2025 (“2025 2nd Revised Draft”) has expanded and clarified the scope of application. This expanded scope covers foreign-related disputes in the Hainan Free Trade Port as well as those in pilot free trade zones. Further, the 2025 2nd Revised Draft explicitly requires the Chinese mainland to be chosen as the seat of arbitration, adding clarity and legal certainty.

Finally, on September 12, 2025, the revised Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (“New PRC Arbitration Law”) was passed and will come into effect on March 1, 2026. Under Article 82 of the New PRC arbitration Law, parties to foreign-related maritime disputes, as well as disputes between enterprises registered in pilot free trade zones, the Hainan Free Trade Port, and other areas specified by the state may choose China as the seat of arbitration and opt for ad hoc arbitration. The ad hoc arbitral tribunal shall, within three working days after its composition, file with the arbitration association the names of the disputing parties, the seat of arbitration, the composition of the arbitral tribunal, and the arbitration rules applied in the arbitration.

This legislative evolution reflects both caution and pragmatism: China is embracing ad hoc arbitration across the board, and it is gradually experimenting this mode of arbitration in certain sectors and regions.

Judicial and Regional Initiatives

Before national legislation was amended, courts and local governments had discernibly begun to shift in support of ad hoc arbitration in practice.

In 2016, the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) issued the Opinions on Judicial Safeguards for the Construction of Pilot Free Trade Zones [in Chinese: 最高人民法院关于为自由贸易试验区建设提供司法保障的意见] (“SPC Opinion”), which introduced the “three specifics” requirement for validating ad hoc arbitration agreements:

1) a specific location in the Chinese mainland,

2) specific arbitration rules, and

3) specific arbitrators.

Following this, several regions issued local rules and guidelines to facilitate ad hoc arbitration, including:

• Shenzhen:Ordinance on the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration [in Chinese: 深圳国际仲裁院条例], effective on August 31, 2020.

• Fujian: Guidelines for Ad Hoc Arbitration in China (Fujian) Pilot Free Trade Zone [in Chinese: 中国(福建)自由贸易试验区临时仲裁指南], effective on September 7, 2023.

• Zhejiang: Guidelines for Ad Hoc Arbitration in China (Zhejiang) Pilot Free Trade Zone [in Chinese: 中国(浙江)自贸试验区临时仲裁指南], effective on October 24, 2023.

• Shanghai:Regulations on Promoting the Development of International Commercial Arbitration Centre [in Chinese: 上海市推进国际商事仲裁中心建设条例], effective December 1, 2023; and Measures for the Promotion of Foreign-Related Commercial and Maritime Ad Hoc Arbitration (Trial) [in Chinese: 上海市涉外商事海事临时仲裁推进办法(试行)], effective on August 1, 2024.

• Dalian: Guidelines for Ad Hoc Arbitration in China (Liaoning) Pilot Free Trade Zone – Dalian Area [in Chinese: 中国(辽宁)自由贸易实验区大连片区临时仲裁指南], effective on December 13, 2023.

• Hainan: Several Provisions on the Development of International Commercial Arbitration in Hainan Free Trade Port [in Chinese: 海南自由贸易港国际商事仲裁发展若干规定], effective on July 1, 2024.

These initiatives illustrate a deliberate policy of testing ad hoc arbitration within controlled environments, such as pilot free trade zones and pilot places, before broader adoption.

Development of Ad Hoc Arbitration Rules

Parallel to legislative and judicial reforms, arbitral institutions and associations have developed specialized ad hoc arbitration rules:

• 2017: Hengqin Pilot Free Trade Zone Ad Hoc Arbitration Rules [in Chinese: 横琴自由贸易试验区临时仲裁规则], the first set of rules of their kind in the Chinese mainland.

• 2022: China Maritime Law Association Ad Hoc Arbitration Rules [in Chinese: 中国海商法协会临时仲裁规则] and China Maritime Arbitration Commission Rules as Appointing Authority in Ad Hoc Arbitration [in Chinese: 中国海事仲裁委员会临时仲裁服务规则].

• 2024: CIETAC introduced new arbitration rules providing assistance to ad hoc arbitration; the Shanghai Arbitration Association Ad Hoc Arbitration Rules [in Chinese: 上海仲裁协会临时仲裁规则] came into force on August 1, 2024.

• 2025: The Nansha International Arbitration Center Temporary Arbitration Service Rules [in Chinese: 南沙国际仲裁中心临时仲裁服务规则] were published on July 16, 2025.

These instruments provide essential procedural support, including appointment of arbitrators, service of documents, and record-keeping, that help bridge the gap between ad hoc arbitration’s flexibility and the Chinese mainland’s preference for institutional oversight.

Emerging Case Practice

Recent cases demonstrate that ad hoc arbitration is no longer a mere theoretical concept in China but a functioning mechanism under specific conditions:

• In June 2023, CMAC published an ad hoc award rendered under the CMLA Rules, where CMAC acted as appointing authority.

• In August 2024, Shanghai hosted the first foreign-related maritime ad hoc arbitration.

• In February 2025, Hainan held its first foreign-related ad hoc arbitration.

• In March 2025, the Shanghai Maritime Court confirmed the validity of an ad hoc arbitration agreement, clarifying the criteria for recognizing “foreign-related” factors and applying the “three specifics” requirement.

These developments underscore growing judicial recognition and provide precedents that enhance confidence in the enforceability of ad hoc arbitration agreements in the Chinese mainland.

Concluding Remarks

The Chinese mainland’s journey toward recognizing ad hoc arbitration reflects a gradual but notable shift. Through draft legislative reforms, judicial opinions, regional regulations, and the development of arbitration rules, the Chinese mainland is cautiously experimenting with ad hoc arbitration in areas involving foreign elements.

Although the application of ad hoc arbitration remains limited in the Chinese mainland compared with international practice, the trajectory is clear: by implementing pilot programs and targeting specific industry sectors, the Chinese mainland is seeking ways to align its arbitration framework with global standards while maintaining control.

With the publication of the New PRC Arbitration Law, practitioners and businesses are well-advised to closely monitor these developments. From a regulatory perspective, the extent to which the Chinese mainland expands the application of ad hoc arbitration will play a critical role in determining its attractiveness as a seat of arbitration, particularly in competition with Hong Kong and Singapore.