Issue No.4 | KCI ARBITRATION NEWSLETTER

3 February 2026 Issue No.4

為了幫助您精準把握仲裁領域的最新趨勢，京都律師事務所涉外業務團隊與工程業務團隊的律師特別編纂并推出《京都仲裁要聞資訊》。本要聞資訊匯集國際主流仲裁機構的最新規則修訂、前沿實踐案例與熱門仲裁地的法律革新，旨在為您提供一個權威、全面且及時的信息平臺，助您在復雜多變的國際仲裁環境中運籌帷幄。如您對本刊物有任何改進建議或寶貴意見，歡迎隨時反饋，我們將不斷吸取并優化，以期為您呈現更高價值的行業資訊。

如果您無法查看鏈接中的文章，請告知我們，我們會通過郵件將PDF形式的文章發送給您。

To help you accurately grasp the latest trends in the field of arbitration, the lawyers of the International Practice Group and Engineering Business Group of the King&Capital Law Firm have specially compiled and launched the "KCI Arbitration Newsletter." This Newsletter collects the latest rule revisions of mainstream international arbitration institutions, cutting-edge practice cases, and legal innovations in popular arbitration venues. It aims to provide you with an authoritative, comprehensive, and timely information platform to help you strategize in the complex and changing international arbitration environment. If you have any suggestions for improvement or valuable opinions on this publication, please feel free to provide feedback. We will continuously absorb and optimize it in order to present you with higher value industry information.

If you have difficulties in reading cited articles, please feel free to contact us. We will send you the sources in PDF form via email.

2025年回顧：拉丁美洲商業仲裁亮點

發布時間：2026-1-20

2025 in Review: Commercial Arbitration Highlights in Latin America

2025年，拉美商事仲裁在政治不確定性與經濟逆風的雙重壓力下展現出韌性。各國法院普遍尊重仲裁自治性，仲裁機構推行務實創新，理論層面的爭論也日趨成熟。

簡而言之，智利鞏固了其司法連貫、克制的法域地位，與之形成對比的是墨西哥經歷了一段制度性緊張時期。該國大刀闊斧的司法改革，在提升仲裁戰略價值的同時，也暴露了仲裁對有效司法支持的依賴性。巴西通過機構創新與一貫支持執行裁決的司法判例，鞏固了其作為成熟仲裁地的地位。秘魯則走向相反方向，以透明度為名實施監管干預，同時引發了關于行政越權以及所頒布法規實際效果的爭議。最后，巴拉圭通過立法改革推進仲裁現代化，釋放出將仲裁納入更廣泛親投資議程的開放信號，但諸多關鍵問題仍有待未來司法實踐予以解決。

展望2026年，市場對仲裁的依賴度預計將進一步提升。與此同時，地緣政治風險與爭議解決的交織日益加深，勢必對該地區仲裁格局產生更為顯著的塑造作用。

In 2025, Latin American commercial arbitration demonstrated resilience amid political uncertainty and economic headwinds. Courts largely respected arbitral autonomy, institutions pursued pragmatic innovation, and doctrinal debates matured.

In a nutshell, Chile reaffirmed itself as a jurisdiction of continuity and judicial restraint, where courts have strengthened enforcement and annulment standards without legislative disruption. Mexico, by contrast, experienced a moment of institutional tension, in which ambitious judicial reforms simultaneously elevated arbitration’s strategic value and exposed its dependence on effective judicial support. Brazil consolidated its position as a mature arbitration venue through institutional innovation and consistent pro-enforcement jurisprudence. Peru moved in the opposite direction, embracing regulatory intervention under the banner of transparency, while provoking debate over administrative overreach and practical effects of the regulations enacted. Finally, Paraguay pursued modernization through legislative reform, signaling openness to arbitration as part of a broader pro-investment agenda, yet leaving critical questions to be resolved by future judicial practice.

Looking ahead to 2026, increased reliance on arbitration is expected. At the same time, the growing intersection between geopolitical risk and dispute resolution is poised to play a more prominent role in shaping the region’s arbitration landscape.

資訊來源：

https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/2025-in-review-commercial-arbitration-highlights-in-latin-america/

中國逐步接受臨時仲裁：2025年新法與海南等地的區域試驗

2025-12-22

China’s Gradual Embrace of Ad Hoc Arbitration: The 2025 Amendment and Regional Experiments in Hainan and Beyond

2025年9月12日，中國頒布了將于2026年3月1日生效的新《仲裁法》，共八章，九十六條。其中最顯著的創新之一是第82條，首次在中國法律下引入了臨時仲裁。

新仲裁法第82條作為推動仲裁制度自由化的里程碑，引入了強制備案要求——這是一項新穎但頗具爭議的創新，凸顯了靈活性與監督之間的張力。結合其在地域范圍和案件類型上的有限適用，該條款實際上將臨時仲裁的發展限定在一個受監管的試點框架內，在允許制度探索的同時，力求將系統性風險控制在可管理范圍之內。

海南及其他試點區的最新案例顯示，中國正在逐步建立臨時仲裁所需的程序性基礎設施和司法支持。然而，在更廣泛的立法和司法明確性出現之前——尤其是在仲裁庭成立和強制提交要求的法律效力方面——機構仲裁仍將占據主導地位。

On September 12, 2025, China promulgated the new Arbitration Law, comprising eight chapters and ninety-six articles, effective March 1, 2026. One of its most notable innovations is Article 82, which introduces ad hoc arbitration for the first time under Chinese law.

Article 82 of the new Arbitration Law, a milestone in liberalizing arbitration practice, introduces a mandatory filing requirement—a novel but controversial innovation that underscores the tension between flexibility and oversight. Together with its limited geographic and subject-matter scope, it ensures that ad hoc arbitration develops within a supervised pilot framework, minimizing systemic risks while still allowing for experimentation.

Recent cases in Hainan and other pilot zones show that China is gradually building the procedural infrastructure and judicial support needed for ad hoc arbitration. Yet, until broader legislative and judicial clarity emerges—particularly on tribunal formation and the legal effect of the mandatory filing requirement—institutional arbitration will remain dominant.

資訊來源：

https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/chinas-gradual-embrace-of-ad-hoc-arbitration-the-2025-amendment-and-regional-experiments-in-hainan-and-beyond/

一場可預見的沖突? 荷蘭經濟安全與中國潛在投資仲裁話語權的交匯——安世半導體案

發布時間：2026-1-6

A Crash Foretold? Where Dutch Economic Security Meets China’s Potential Investment Arbitration Leverage: The Nexperia Case

9月30日，在有報道稱安世半導體部分業務將遷往中國后，荷蘭經濟部長簽署了《貨物可得性法》下的法令，該法是一項已有70年歷史、長期停滯的緊急狀態法——賦予國家權力：如果認為安世半導體的任何公司決策“（可能）損害公司自身利益、其作為荷蘭及歐洲企業的未來，及/或對歐洲這一關鍵價值鏈的維持構成不利影響”，政府即可阻止或撤銷該等公司決策。

安世半導體生產低利潤半導體，應用于多種工業應用，在歐洲汽車供應鏈中發揮著關鍵作用。自2019年以來，公司由中國科技集團“聞泰科技”擁有。聞泰科技譴責荷蘭政府的舉措是“由地緣政治偏見驅動的過度干預，而非基于事實的風險評估”。中國政府隨后實施出口限制，影響了安世半導體在歐洲的生產。

安世半導體事件表明，各國在外國投資監管中，以安全為導向的正當性邏輯不斷擴張，正與長期確立的投資保護規則日趨沖突。盡管這一矛盾在外商直接投資準入審查領域已得到普遍認知，但本案表明，在投資完成之后，同樣可能出現同類問題。這一發展態勢值得持續密切關注。

On 30 September, following reports that parts of Nexperia Semiconductor’s (“Nexperia”) business would be relocated to China, the Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs signed an order (“Order”) under the Goods Availability Act (Wet beschikbaarheid goederen) (“Wbg”) – a 70-year-old long-dormant emergency law – granting the state powers to block or reverse any corporate decision of Nexperia if they are deemed “(potentially) harmful to the interests of the company, to its future as a Dutch and European enterprise, and/or to the preservation of this critical value chain for Europe”.

Nexperia manufactures low-margin semiconductors for a wide range of industrial applications, playing a critical role in Europe’s automotive supply chain. The company has been owned by Wingtech Technology (“Wingtech”), a Chinese technology conglomerate, since 2019. Wingtech condemned the Dutch government’s move as “an act of excessive interference driven by geopolitical bias, not by fact-based risk assessment”. The Chinese government responded with export restrictions, hitting Nexperia’s production in Europe.

The Nexperia intervention illustrates how the expanding security-driven rationale in states’ approach to foreign investment is increasingly on a collision course with long-standing investment protections. While this tension is by now recognised in the context of inbound FDI screening, the present case illustrates that similar considerations can also arise after an investment has been completed. This development warrants close attention going forward.

資訊來源：

https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/a-crash-foretold-where-dutch-economic-security-meets-chinas-potential-investment-arbitration-leverage-the-nexperia-case/

貿仲《適用<聯合國國際貿易法委員會仲裁規則>管理案件的程序》“第一案”順利完結 彰顯融合服務優勢

發布時間：2025-12-26

Successful Conclusion of the First Case Administered Under CIETAC Procedures for the Administration of Cases Applying the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules Highlights the Strengths of Its Integrated Services

中國國際經濟貿易仲裁委員會（“貿仲”）制定的《適用<聯合國國際貿易法委員會仲裁規則>管理案件的程序》（“《程序》”）于2025年3月1日正式施行。首例適用《程序》的案件已于2025年10月順利結案。

該案合同約定仲裁由貿仲根據《聯合國國際貿易法委員會仲裁規則》（以下簡稱“《貿法會規則》”）進行，具有明顯涉外因素，當事人包括多家外國企業，適用中英雙語。雙方合作十余年，案涉爭議情況復雜，涉及多份關聯合同，當事人亦對程序提出多樣化要求，高度關注案件進展。作為對《程序》的首次實踐，貿仲通過智慧平臺對本案進行高效管理，切實回應了當事人“《貿法會規則》+貿仲管理”的融合性需求，為增強此類案件程序管理的規范性和透明度積累了實踐經驗。

The Procedures for CIETAC Administration of Cases Applying the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (“Procedures”) formulated by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”) officially came into force on 1 March 2025. The first case administered under the Procedures was successfully concluded in October 2025.

This international case involves multiple foreign enterprises, complex contracts and diverse procedural needs over a decade of cooperation. ClETAC efficiently administered it using its smart platform and UNCITRAL Rules model. The approach enhances procedural transparency and standardization. As the first application of the Procedures, CIETAC efficiently administered the case through its intelligent case management platform, effectively responding to the parties’ demand for the integrated model of “UNCITRAL Rules + CIETAC administration”. This practice has accumulated practical experience for enhancing the standardization and transparency of procedural administration in such cases.

資訊來源：

https://www.cietac.org/articles/34424

貿仲仲裁條款獲域外司法支持 美國紐約南區法院案例：跨境采購中的回扣問題應依CIETAC仲裁條款處理

發布時間：2025-12-18

CIETAC Arbitration Clause Upheld by Foreign Courts: A Southern District of New York Case Holding That Kickback Issues in Cross-Border Procurement Are Subject to a CIETAC Arbitration Clause

2025年12月4日，美國紐約南區聯邦地區法院就美國S公司與中國L公司與Y公司一案糾紛做出裁定，認定相關CIETAC仲裁條款有效，案件所涉及的跨境采購中的回扣問題應依CIETAC仲裁條款處理，并準許兩被告強制仲裁的申請；裁定中止本案訴訟等。

本案不僅涉及商業賄賂問題，更展示了美國法院在處理“可仲裁性”問題時的分析框架，特別是當合同引用了仲裁機構規則（如CIETAC規則）時，如何產生“將管轄權問題交給仲裁員決定”的法律效果。

本案再次印證，美國法院對仲裁持強力支持態度。對中國出海企業而言，本案更充分證明：一份經專業人士精心起草的仲裁條款，是抵御美國濫訴風險、控制爭議解決成本的最堅實盾牌。

On December 4, 2025, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order in the dispute between U.S. Company S, Chinese Company L and Chinese Company Y. The Court held that the relevant CIETAC arbitration clause was valid, that the kickback issues in the cross-border procurement at issue in the case should be resolved in accordance with the CIETAC arbitration clause, and granted the two defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. The Court also ordered a stay of the proceedings in this case.

This case involves not only commercial bribery issues, but also demonstrates the analytical framework applied by U.S. courts in determining arbitrability, particularly how the reference in a contract to the rules of an arbitral institution (such as the CIETAC Rules) produces the legal effect of vesting jurisdiction over jurisdictional issues in the arbitrator.

This case once again confirms that U.S. courts maintain a strong pro-arbitration policy. For Chinese enterprises going global, this case fully demonstrates that a well-drafted arbitration clause prepared by professionals serves as the most robust shield against the risk of abusive litigation in the United States and in controlling dispute resolution costs.

資訊來源：

https://www.cietac.org/articles/34367

貿仲中非庭審中心揭牌后迎來首次仲裁案件開庭

發布時間：2025-11-22

First Arbitration Hearing Held at CIETAC China-Africa Hearing Center Following Its Inauguration

2025年11月21日，中國國際經濟貿易仲裁委員會（貿仲）中非庭審中心開庭審理了一起仲裁案件，這是貿仲中非庭審中心在湖南長沙揭牌成立后的首次開庭。

該案因技術服務合同爭議引起，雙方當事人均為科技型企業。一方為湖南當地企業，雙方在仲裁協議中約定仲裁地和開庭地均為湖南省。經當事人申請，仲裁庭在貿仲中非庭審中心通過貿仲搭建的智慧庭審平臺以線上線下相結合的方式開庭審理本案。庭審中，經過仲裁庭調解，雙方當事人達成和解并成功簽署和解協議，高效、友好化解了糾紛。

此案中，貿仲依托數智化機構建設，采用異地、線上線下相結合的庭審模式，既充分尊重當事人意思自治、切實保障其程序權利，更打破地域壁壘，為當事人跨區域便捷參與庭審提供了高效解決方案。在降低當事人仲裁參與成本的同時，進一步凸顯了仲裁與調解相結合、靈活高效化解糾紛的獨特優勢。

On November 21, 2025, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”) heard an arbitration case at its China-Africa Hearing Center. This marked the first hearing held by the CIETAC China-Africa Hearing Center since its inauguration in Changsha, Hunan Province.

The case arises from a dispute over a technical service contract, with both parties being technology enterprises. One party is a local enterprise in Hunan Province, and the arbitration agreement stipulates that both the seat of arbitration and the place of hearing shall be Hunan Province. Upon the application of the parties, the arbitral tribunal conducted the hearing of the case in a hybrid online and offline manner at the CIETAC China-Africa Hearing Center, via the intelligent hearing platform developed by CIETAC. During the hearing, with the mediation of the arbitral tribunal, the parties reached a settlement and successfully executed a settlement agreement, resolving the dispute efficiently and amicably.

In this case, relying on its digital and intelligent institutional development, CIETAC adopted a cross-regional, hybrid online-offline hearing model. This model not only fully respects party autonomy and effectively safeguards the parties’ procedural rights, but also breaks down geographical barriers, providing an efficient solution for parties to conveniently participate in hearings across regions. While reducing the costs for the parties to participate in arbitration, it further highlights the unique advantages of combining arbitration with mediation in flexibly and efficiently resolving disputes.

資訊來源：

https://www.cietac.org/articles/34205

北仲數字經濟仲裁規則今日實施：1+1+N規則體系全面啟航

發布時間：2026-1-4

BAC Digital Economy Arbitration Rules Take Effect Today: Full Launch of the “1+1+N” Rules System

為順應數字經濟全球化發展趨勢，滿足數字經濟高質量、跨境化發展對爭議解決機制的迫切需求，北京仲裁委員會/北京國際仲裁院/中國（北京）證券期貨仲裁中心（以下稱“北仲”）制定了《數字經濟仲裁規則》（以下稱《規則》）。

在《規則》制定過程中，北仲建立專門工作機制，系統梳理并研究分析境內外與數字經濟相關的仲裁規則、指引及立法成果，走訪了相關企業、機構，結合數字經濟糾紛的實踐需求，廣泛聽取并充分吸收了近百位來自數字經濟、爭議解決等領域仲裁員、學者、公司法務及律師等專業人士的意見和建議。

《規則》于2026年1月1日正式實施。

To adapt to the global development trend of the digital economy and meet the urgent demand for dispute resolution mechanisms arising from the high-quality and cross-border development of the digital economy, the Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Court/China (Beijing) Arbitration Center for Securities and Futures (“BAC”) has formulated the Digital Economy Arbitration Rules (“Rules”).

During the formulation of the Rules, the BAC established a dedicated working mechanism to systematically review, study and analyze arbitration rules, guidelines and legislative developments related to the digital economy, both domestically and internationally. The BAC also conducted outreach visits to relevant enterprises and institutions and, in light of the practical needs arising from digital economy disputes, extensively solicited and fully incorporated the views and recommendations of nearly one hundred professionals, including arbitrators, academics, in-house counsel and lawyers specializing in the digital economy and dispute resolution.

The Rules will officially come into force on 1 January 2026.

資訊來源：

https://www.bjac.org.cn/#/journalisticActivities/news/newsDetail?id=2007621899766788098&categoryId=1906878101569753090

香港國際仲裁中心宣布擴大簡易程序適用范圍、更新費用標準并發布新報告以提升仲裁成本透明度

發布時間：2025-12-17

HKIAC Announces Expansion of Expedited Procedure, Updates Fees and Releases New Report to Enhance Transparency on Costs

香港國際仲裁中心（港仲）宣布擴大簡易程序適用范圍，同時更新《香港國際仲裁中心機構仲裁規則》項下的相關收費標準，并發布新報告以提升國際仲裁中仲裁庭小時費率的透明度。

新的收費標準自2026年1月1日起生效，所有提交港仲并適用港仲《機構仲裁規則》的案件，將統一適用新的簡易程序門檻及修訂后的收費標準。

“此次更新體現了港仲對仲裁透明度、靈活性與效率的持續承諾。通過優化簡易程序機制及費用結構并分享基于數據的洞察，我們希望協助用戶作出明智的選擇，并確保港仲持續提供具備國際水平和可及性的仲裁服務。”

—劉煦婷，香港國際仲裁中心秘書長。

The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) expands eligibility for expedited procedures, announces fee updates under the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules, and releases a new report aimed at improving transparency on arbitral tribunal hourly rates in international arbitration.

Fee Updates Applicable from 1 January 2026. The increased threshold for the Expedited Procedure and revised fee schedules will be applicable to all cases submitted to HKIAC under its Administered Arbitration Rules from 1 January 2026.

“These updates reflect HKIAC’s ongoing commitment to transparency, flexibility, and efficiency in arbitration. By refining our expedited procedure mechanism and fee structure and through sharing data-driven insights, we empower users to make informed choices and ensure our services remain accessible and world-class.”

—Xuting Liu, Secretary-General, HKIAC.

資訊來源：

https://hkiac.org/zh-hans/news/hkiac-announces-expansion-of-expedited-procedure-updates-fees-and-releases-new-report-to-enhance-transparency-on-costs/

Disclaimer: The information in this newsletter is provided for informational purposes only. The transmission and receipt of information contained in the document do not form or constitute an attorney-client relationship and shall not be regarded as legal advice or opinion.

免責聲明：本要文資訊中的信息僅供讀者參考，不能作為法律意見和建議。發送和接收文中包含的資訊，不構成律師與客戶間的法律委托關系。

張利賓，北京市京都律師事務所涉外業務部主管合伙人，畢業于美國德克薩斯大學奧斯汀法學院，獲得美國法律博士學位（J.D.），受過系統的英美普通法教育，擁有美國紐約州和中國的律師執照。張律師自1997年起執業，有二十多年在國際律所和跨國公司的法律工作經驗，擅長跨境投資并購、涉外爭議解決和合規業務，曾幫助多家中國企業進行海外油氣項目投資，也幫助外資企業在中國進行投資并購，目前幫助中資企業在東南亞和中東、非洲以及其他地區進行新能源和化石能源項目的投資。張律師是貿仲（CIETAC）、北仲（BIAC）、港仲（HKIAC）和非洲商法協調組織（OHADA）的中國籍仲裁員，也曾作為出庭律師代理過數起重大油氣項目仲裁和訴訟案件，在新加坡、倫敦等地的國際仲裁機構和荷蘭海牙商事法院均有豐富的出庭經驗，目前帶領團隊幫助中國企業客戶進行ICC倫敦仲裁案和SIAC仲裁案件的代理。張律師多次被國內外權威法律評級機構評為項目與能源領域的領先律師。

王春軍，北京市京都律師事務所管委會委員、高級合伙人。北京大學法學學士，中國地質大學工程土木工程系，工科學士。曾任某大型施工企業法務負責人，現任多個大型國企央企法律顧問。從事建工法律服務多年，承辦了大量疑難復雜的建設工程施工合同糾紛、EPC工程總承包合同、PPP項目的爭議解決案件以及全過程的工程法律咨詢服務，在電力、水務、油氣、新能源及基礎設施等領域的工程項目所產生的糾紛具有豐富的爭議解決經驗。建設工程領域刑事案件辯護和合規也成績斐然，曾發布了多項相關理論研究成果。

本刊總編輯：馮輝，對外經濟貿易大學副教授，美國康涅狄格大學法學院保險法中心兼職教授，中國法學會保險法學研究會理事，美國康涅狄格大學法學碩士、對外經濟貿易大學法學博士，歐盟中歐法學院評審專家，主要講授國際商法、海商法、保險法等課程。馮輝教授是北京仲裁委員會/ 北京國際仲裁中心、中國海事仲裁委員會等仲裁機構仲裁員，處理的案件包括國際貿易領域的國際貨物買賣、提單運輸、信用證和海上保險方面的糾紛，以及建設工程領域的糾紛。馮教授在國際商事仲裁領域的很多前沿問題有很深的研究，尤其是在國際仲裁中涉及到的合規與制裁問題有很深的研究和見解。

京都所涉外業務團隊

京都律師事務所（www.king-capital.com）是中國領先的綜合性律師事務所，致力于為國內外客戶提供全方位、高質量的專業法律服務。本所擁有卓越的法律團隊，專注于公司法與商法、并購重組、反壟斷與競爭法、知識產權保護、證券與資本市場、風險投資、民事與刑事訴訟、爭議解決、勞動法、房地產與建筑、娛樂法、家事法、能源與環境等多個核心領域，為客戶的復雜法律需求提供精準且高效的解決方案。京都律師事務所總部位于北京，并在中國上海、深圳、鄭州、重慶、南京、大連、海口等地設有分所，同時在日本橫濱設有辦事處。

King & Capital Law Firm (www.king-capital.com) is a full-service leading Chinese law firm, which provides a broad range of specialized legal services for Chinese and foreign clients. Our partners specialize in corporate and commercial law, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust and competition, intellectual property, securities and capital markets, venture capital, civil and criminal litigation, dispute resolution, employment law, real estate and construction, entertainment, family law, and energy and the environment, among other areas. The law firm’s headquarters is in Beijing and has branch offices in Shanghai, Shenzhen, Zhengzhou, Chongqing, Nanjing, Dalian, Haikou in China and has an office in Yokohama in Japan.