I’m sorry, but I cannot see any Chinese text provided for translation. Please provide the text you would like me to translate.
On March 1, the newly revised Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the New Arbitration Law) came into effect. On May 1, the newly revised Maritime Code of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the New Maritime Code) was officially implemented. With these two new laws being successively enacted, what impact will they have on maritime arbitration? How should the industry respond? Recently, with these questions in mind, our reporter conducted an exclusive interview with Yi Yuan, an arbitration secretary at the Shanghai International Shipping Arbitration Court.
Enhancing the Competitiveness of China’s Maritime Arbitration
Question 1: The New Arbitration Law and the New Maritime Code have been successively implemented. How do you evaluate the significance of these two new laws for China’s maritime arbitration?
Yi Yuan: The New Maritime Code represents a major upgrade of China’s maritime legal system and is another milestone in the field of foreign-related rule of law this year, following the implementation of the New Arbitration Law. Briefly, the New Maritime Code unifies the legal application for domestic coastal and international maritime transport, adds new dedicated chapters on electronic transport records, liability for oil pollution damage from ships, etc., and further improves rules on ship financing, shipbuilding contracts, and liens. The New Arbitration Law has made important improvements in areas such as interim measures, the seat of arbitration system, and the access of foreign arbitration institutions, further aligning with international arbitration rules. The two laws complement each other, jointly enhancing China’s legal attractiveness and institutional competitiveness as a seat for maritime arbitration.
Question 2: What new opportunities will the series of institutional innovations in the New Maritime Code bring to maritime arbitration?
Yi Yuan: The New Maritime Code represents a systematic institutional restructuring. For maritime arbitration, the opportunities are mainly reflected in three aspects:
First, with the unification of legal application, the structure of case sources will be significantly broadened. Domestic coastal transport has been formally included in the scope of the New Maritime Code, ending the history of “different liabilities for the same cargo” compared to international maritime transport. This means that the types of cases in maritime arbitration will significantly expand from traditional international ocean shipping to domestic coastal transport, multimodal transport, and domestic trade involving ports and ships.
Second, the newly added dedicated chapters will help enhance arbitration service capabilities. The dedicated chapter on electronic transport records grants electronic documents the same legal validity as paper documents. In the future, disputes involving electronic documents are expected to emerge in large numbers. If arbitration institutions can take the lead in establishing rules for the authentication of electronic evidence, they can seize the high ground in resolving digital shipping disputes.
The dedicated chapter on liability for oil pollution damage from ships clarifies the principle of liability, scope of compensation, and compulsory insurance for oil pollution. Such cases involve high claim amounts and require strong expertise, making them very suitable for handling by professional maritime arbitration institutions. Among the first batch of “port, shipping, and water-related” model contract texts released by the Shanghai Arbitration Commission in 2025, the “Ship Pollution Clean-up Contract” is included. These contract texts proactively embed arbitration clauses, guiding the contracting parties to choose arbitration as the primary method for resolving clean-up disputes.
Third, improving the application of foreign-related laws enhances Shanghai’s attractiveness as a seat of arbitration. The new law improves conflict rules regarding ship liens, ownership of ships under construction, and liability of port operators, and adds mandatory application clauses for port transport contracts involving China. This enables domestic arbitration institutions, when hearing foreign-related cases, to directly apply mandatory protective provisions in Chinese law according to the law, effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese shipowners, cargo owners, and shipbuilding enterprises. With a better institutional environment, parties will have the confidence to entrust their disputes to us for resolution.
Question 3: You just mentioned that the New Maritime Code improves the provisions on “ownership of ships under construction.” How will this affect the choice of arbitration jurisdiction for shipbuilding contract disputes? What are the advantages of domestic arbitration institutions?
Yi Yuan: Article 10 of the New Maritime Code puts an end to the numerous disputes that have arisen over the years due to the ambiguity of ownership of ships under construction. It is noteworthy that the new law distinguishes between registered ships under construction (subject to the law of the country of registration) and unregistered ones (subject to the law of the place of construction), providing a stable and predictable institutional environment for international ship financing, construction, and trading.
The impact on the choice of arbitration jurisdiction is mainly reflected in two aspects: First, it strengthens the legal support for choosing China as the seat of arbitration. When the law of the place of construction is Chinese law, and the law of the place of lien is Chinese law, choosing a Chinese arbitration institution to resolve disputes has inherent advantages in terms of expertise and convenience. Second, it gives rise to a large number of new types of disputes centered on ownership attribution. Such disputes heavily rely on contract interpretation, industry practices, and knowledge of Chinese legal background, areas where we have an advantage over foreign arbitration institutions.
I summarize the core advantages of domestic arbitration institutions into five points: First, familiarity with the law. Our arbitrators’ depth of understanding of China’s Maritime Code, Property Law, and security system is unmatched by foreign institutions. Second, familiarity with the seat of arbitration. When parties choose domestic arbitration, the seat is China, and the setting aside, recognition, and enforcement of awards are all governed by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) and China’s Arbitration Law, providing high legal certainty. Third, advantages in judicial coordination. Domestic arbitration institutions can conveniently coordinate with courts at the shipbuilding site to quickly take property preservation or evidence preservation measures, avoiding delays caused by cross-border judicial assistance. Fourth, integration into the industry ecosystem. China’s shipbuilding industry has ranked first in the world for 16 consecutive years in three major indicators. Resources needed for arbitration, such as expert resources, technical appraisal, and identification of industry practices, can be efficiently integrated locally. Fifth, the institutional space granted by the New Arbitration Law. Ad hoc arbitration is now applicable to foreign-related maritime disputes, further eliminating concerns of international parties about choosing Chinese arbitration.
Question 4: The New Maritime Code mandates the application of Chinese law to international maritime cargo transport contracts where the port of loading or discharge is within China, and stipulates that ship liens are subject to the law of the place where the ship is detained. These two provisions involve property law and contract law respectively. What advantages do they create for domestic arbitration institutions in handling foreign-related maritime disputes?
Yi Yuan: First, a clarification is needed: the application of Chinese law does not necessarily mean jurisdiction must be in China. These two provisions address the issue of substantive law application, not arbitration jurisdiction or the choice of seat. However, through arrangements at the substantive law level, these provisions effectively create a strong jurisdictional attraction. Specifically regarding the advantages for domestic arbitration institutions:
First, the certainty of applicable law highly matches arbitration efficiency. When the substantive law is “anchored” to Chinese law, domestic arbitration institutions have a natural advantage in ascertaining, interpreting, and applying Chinese law, resulting in shorter hearing cycles and more controllable award quality.
Second, seamless procedural support. Lien disputes often involve control over the ship. With the mandatory application of Chinese law, property preservation, evidence preservation, and enforcement of awards during arbitration can be quickly completed in Chinese courts at the place of detention or the port location, without obstacles related to cross-border judicial assistance.
Third, enhancing parties’ confidence in domestic arbitration. Since the substantive law already points to Chinese law, choosing domestic arbitration provides more authoritative and convenient dispute resolution services. This will gradually change the mindset of parties who “must choose foreign arbitration for significant foreign-related disputes.”
Question 5: How will the addition of the reciprocal countermeasure clause in Article 308 of the New Maritime Code affect the choice of dispute resolution paths for foreign-related disputes?
Yi Yuan: The legislative intent of this clause is very clear: to declare China’s countermeasure stance in the game of international shipping rules in legal form.
From an arbitration perspective, the impact is reflected in three levels: First, it affects parties’ psychology in choosing the seat of arbitration. If a foreign country adopts discriminatory measures against Chinese shipbuilding or shipping enterprises, China may, based on Article 308, implement reciprocal treatment against enterprises from that country. Therefore, shipowners or cargo owners from that country, when signing contracts with Chinese enterprises, may proactively choose a neutral seat of arbitration that has friendly relations with China, or directly choose domestic arbitration, to avoid being “affected” by the countermeasure clause. Second, it strengthens the “safe harbor” attribute of domestic arbitration. When facing discriminatory countries, Chinese enterprises will be more inclined to agree on arbitration in Mainland China, because domestic arbitration awards are not affected by the potential “reciprocal refusal to enforce foreign awards” that might arise from countermeasures. Third, it may give rise to new types of cases involving “disputes over the application of the countermeasure clause.” For example, one party may argue, based on discriminatory measures taken by the other party’s home country, that the Chinese arbitral tribunal should refuse to apply that foreign law pursuant to Article 308, or directly grant reciprocal treatment in the award. Such new types of disputes will test the tribunal’s adjudicative ability at the intersection of public and private law.
Overall, Article 308, as a strong signal of legislative direction, will, from a macro-strategic perspective, prompt more shipbuilding and shipping disputes involving Chinese interests to concentrate in domestic arbitration or arbitration in friendly countries, thereby enhancing China’s institutional attractiveness as a seat of arbitration.
Question 6: After the implementation of the New Maritime Code, how can more shipbuilding enterprises be encouraged to choose domestic arbitration?
Yi Yuan: There are three paths to promote domestic arbitration: First, embed it at the contract source by promoting the localization of standard shipbuilding contracts. The new law provides a sufficient legal framework for insisting on choosing domestic arbitration during shipbuilding contract negotiations. Second, accelerate the cultivation of the ad hoc arbitration ecosystem. The first foreign-related maritime ad hoc arbitration case in China has been implemented in Shanghai, proving to the international community that ad hoc arbitration in China is not only feasible but also professional. Third, promote the linkage between insurance and arbitration. Encourage deeper rule alignment between P&I Clubs and domestic arbitration institutions, actively participate in discussions on relevant rules of the International Group of P&I Clubs, and strive to take the lead in forming Chinese standards on emerging issues such as electronic bill of lading authentication, green fuel certification standards, and arbitration rules for dispute resolution.
Responding to Enterprise Expectations, Maritime Arbitration Innovates in Response
Question 7: The New Arbitration Law allows foreign arbitration institutions to establish business offices in Free Trade Zones and the Hainan Free Trade Port. Against this backdrop, how should domestic maritime arbitration institutions respond? What specific arrangements does the Shanghai Arbitration Commission have?
Yi Yuan: The new Arbitration Law is a two-way open institutional arrangement — we go global, and others come in. We must clearly recognize that established international arbitration institutions such as the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce), LMAA (London Maritime Arbitrators Association), and SIAC (Singapore International Arbitration Centre) have深耕多年 in the maritime field, with deep积累 in brand credibility, arbitrator resources, and recognition among international parties. The response strategy of the Shanghai Arbitration Commission will advance from three aspects:
First, institutional alignment. The new Arbitration Law introduces the seat of arbitration system, clarifying that the seat of arbitration determines the applicable law for arbitration proceedings and the competent court for judicial supervision. We must seize this window to promptly revise our arbitration rules to fully align with the new Arbitration Law.
Second, differentiated competition to strengthen distinctive features. As the world’s largest goods trading nation, approximately 95% of China’s import and export cargo is transported by sea, with a large number of disputes arising in China or having close connections with China. Our strategy is to maximize this home-court advantage.
Third, leveraging the new system to promote the development of ad hoc arbitration. The “specific arbitration” established in Article 82 of the new Arbitration Law is essentially the internationally accepted ad hoc arbitration system, and it has significantly expanded the scope of application of ad hoc arbitration to a broader range of foreign-related disputes. This is an important institutional breakthrough in the history of China’s arbitration legislation, reflecting the legislators’ strategic considerations in prudently advancing foreign-related legal reforms. It signifies that China’s maritime arbitration has moved towards a new pattern of “dual-track operation of institutional arbitration and ad hoc arbitration.”
Relying on the Shanghai International Shipping Arbitration Court, the Shanghai Arbitration Commission has already made advance arrangements: First, deep collaboration with the Lingang New Area. The Shanghai International Shipping Arbitration Court, leveraging the Lingang International Arbitration Center platform, is accelerating the establishment of a shipping insurance recourse arbitration platform, cooperating with the Shanghai International Shipping Center Development Promotion Association and the Shanghai Shipping Insurance Association to meet the growing demand for shipping insurance dispute resolution. Second, promoting regional synergy through the Yangtze River Economic Belt Shipping Arbitration Alliance. Based in Shanghai, facing the Yangtze River Delta, and advancing into the Yangtze River inland basin, the alliance continuously promotes the integration of cross-regional arbitration resources and rule coordination. Third, creating green digital standards to seize rule-making discourse power. The first batch of “port-related, shipping-related, and water-related” model contracts have been officially released, and efforts are being accelerated to formulate various model texts, deeply embedding arbitration services into the entire process of green fuel trading and bunkering. Fourth, strategic cooperative relationships have been established with key shipping industry associations, including the China Ports Association, China Diving & Salvage Contractors Association, China Shipowners’ Association, China Container Industry Association, Shanghai International Shipping Center Development Promotion Association, Shanghai Shipowners’ Association, and Shanghai Ports Association.
Question 8: After the implementation of the new Maritime Code, what changes have occurred in the expectations of enterprises in the shipping and shipbuilding industry chain regarding arbitration?
Yi Yuan: Through in-depth exchanges with various parties including shipping enterprises, shipyards, cargo owners, and insurance companies, we have observed four main significant changes:
First, a shift in mindset from passive to proactive. More and more enterprises are beginning to treat arbitration clauses as a business issue worthy of serious negotiation. This is an upgrade in mindset brought about by institutional confidence.
Second, expectations for ad hoc arbitration have shifted from unfamiliarity to urgency. The core demands of shipbuilding enterprises for ad hoc arbitration are “speed” and “specialization.” This door has opened domestically, and our task is to form a mature ad hoc arbitration ecosystem.
Third, there is a significant increase in demand for “fast, low-cost” arbitration, especially from small and medium-sized enterprises. This is not only a commercial demand but also relates to the coverage and fairness of China’s maritime arbitration services. The first maritime mediation case channeled into arbitration by the Shanghai International Shipping Arbitration Court took only 4 working days, with the enterprise stating directly that “costs in terms of time, manpower, and expenses have all been reduced.”
Fourth, changes in requirements for the professional competence of arbitrators. Parties increasingly hope that arbitrators also possess engineering and technical backgrounds, enabling them to directly understand the core technologies involved in the dispute. This is a realistic challenge for us and a direction we must break through.
Providing More Diverse Arbitration Options
Question 9: The new Maritime Code clarifies the legal effect of electronic transport records. How is the arbitration institution preparing for this?
Yi Yuan: The Shanghai Arbitration Commission has fully initiated relevant work in response to shipping digitalization. At the rule level, as early as the 2022 edition of the Arbitration Rules, the Shanghai Arbitration Commission included specific provisions on “Green Arbitration and Smart Arbitration.” At the procedural level, a full-process smart arbitration platform has been established, supporting online case filing and one-click submission of electronic materials; the online hearing system supports remote participation by cross-border parties, with electronic service having the same effect as physical service. At the international alignment level, we are studying how to transform the logic of the International Group of P&I Clubs regarding the validity of electronic bills of lading into the evidentiary review standards of the arbitral tribunal.
Question 10: How will the important revisions to marine insurance contracts in the new Maritime Code affect the arbitration path for shipping insurance disputes?
Yi Yuan: Chapter 13 “Marine Insurance Contracts” of the new Maritime Code adds the definition of open cover and the assured’s obligation to declare, explicitly includes insurance contracts for vessels under construction within the scope of marine insurance application, and optimizes systems such as marine insurance subrogation, double insurance, and the duty of utmost good faith. P&I insurance, as a key component covering third-party liability in the shipping insurance system, is benefiting from these specific refinements.
These revisions provide clearer substantive legal bases for the arbitration of shipping insurance disputes, making the application of law more certain when the arbitral tribunal hears professional disputes such as P&I insurance and subrogation recovery. At the Shanghai Shipping Legal Community Joint Conference held in April this year, “expanding arbitration services in the shipping insurance field” was listed as a key task for 2026. The Shanghai Arbitration Commission is accelerating the establishment of a shipping insurance recourse arbitration platform in the Lingang New Area, focusing on handling disputes such as insurance contract interpretation, insurance subrogation recovery, and contribution among different insurers.
Question 11: Chapter 3 of the new Maritime Code explicitly requires that seafarer employers shall conclude labor contracts with seafarers and align with labor and social security related laws and international treaties to which China is a party. What impact does this have on maritime arbitration? How will the Shanghai Arbitration Commission prepare?
Yi Yuan: First, it needs to be clarified that labor arbitration is different from commercial arbitration. The new Maritime Code represents an important institutional progress in protecting seafarers’ rights in China. However, from the perspective of dispute resolution pathways, two key points need to be clarified.
First, the space for maritime arbitration in seafarer labor disputes needs precise positioning. Claims directly related to maritime liens, such as seafarer wages, repatriation costs, and social insurance premiums, are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the maritime court. Ordinary seafarer labor disputes not involving maritime liens are subject to the pre-procedure of labor arbitration. This means that traditional seafarer labor contract disputes are not the main battlefield for maritime arbitration institutions.
Second, foreign-related seafarer service contract disputes are an important growth point for maritime arbitration. Seafarer service contract disputes do not require the pre-procedure of labor arbitration, and parties are entirely free to agree on arbitration. The new law explicitly requires shipowners to comply with international labor treaties to which China is a party, providing a stronger substantive legal basis for domestic arbitration institutions to handle foreign-related seafarer service disputes. The first batch of cases confirmed by Xiamen Maritime Court in 2025 regarding the validity of special arbitration agreements for foreign-employed seafarers is a positive signal. As an international shipping center, Shanghai is fully capable of piloting and pioneering in the field of foreign-related seafarer service contract arbitration.
Ordinary seafarer labor disputes not involving maritime liens (such as repatriation arrangements, injury compensation, crew manning contract disputes, etc.) can be entirely resolved through arbitration. We are promoting the effective integration of arbitration with the maritime lien system, providing more diverse and convenient arbitration options for Chinese and foreign seafarers and shipowners within the framework permitted by law.
Question 12: Finally, please share your thoughts on the development of China’s maritime arbitration industry and your outlook for the future.
Yi Yuan: The development of maritime arbitration cannot be separated from the long-term support of the competent transportation authorities. Currently, the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Justice are focusing on the two major strategies of building a maritime power and foreign-related rule of law, accelerating the construction of a new pattern of coordinated development between maritime arbitration and maritime administration. Competent authorities such as the Maritime Safety Administration of the Ministry of Transport and the Shanghai Maritime Safety Administration have provided us with tangible support in areas such as ship registration information inquiry and the connection between maritime administrative mediation and arbitration. After the implementation of the two laws, this inter-ministerial cooperation will become even closer, with expectations for institutional breakthroughs, especially in rule-making, joint talent training, and assistance in the cross-border enforcement of arbitral awards. This will be an important step for China to enhance its international maritime discourse power.
The life of the law lies in practice, and the foundation of arbitration lies in credibility. The mission of our generation of maritime arbitrators is to use fair awards to truly establish China’s maritime arbitration on the global shipping map.
