China’s General Administration of Sport Center for Sports Arbitration Releases 

Sports Arbitration Service Guide (2026)

In mid-September 2026, the 14th China Arbitration Week 2026—jointly initiated by institutions including the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), Renmin University of China, and the All China Lawyers Association (ACLA)—kicked off simultaneously across dozens of cities both in China and abroad. As an annual commercial dispute resolution event with broad international reach, this year's Arbitration Week was held under the theme "Gathering Legal Wisdom, Connecting Global Resources, and Jointly Promoting Arbitration Development," drawing wide participation from domestic and international arbitral institutions, judicial authorities, academic scholars, and corporate legal counsels from multinational enterprises.

During the week, the flagship event—the China Arbitration Summit—convened in Beijing. Aligning closely with the strategic imperative to strengthen the foreign-related rule of law and promote high-level opening-up, Chinese and foreign experts engaged in in-depth deliberations on key topics, including emerging trends in international commercial dispute resolution, cross-border investment risk management, digital arbitration, and the application of artificial intelligence. Concurrently, more than 40 cities across China and multiple overseas branch venues hosted dozens of specialized exchange events, such as topical seminars, moot arbitration proceedings, and young arbitrator forums.

Since its launch in 2013, China Arbitration Week has expanded to nearly 100 cities globally, drawing more than 10 million online and offline participants. The success of this year's event has further fostered mutual learning and integration in Chinese and international commercial arbitration practice, injecting sustained professional momentum into elevating the credibility and global competitiveness of Chinese arbitration and facilitating international economic and trade cooperation.

ICSID Releases FY2026 Caseload Statistics: 60 New Cases Maintain Near-Record Highs, with Extractives Accounting for 43%

According to the latest annual statistics released by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), the Centre registered 60 new arbitration cases in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026. While representing a slight dip from the 67 cases recorded during the previous fiscal year, the caseload remains near historic highs spanning multiple years, reflecting sustained, strong global demand for cross-border investment dispute settlement.

In terms of case characteristics and sectoral distribution, the extractives sector (oil, gas, and mining) remained the dominant focus, accounting for 43% of all newly registered cases. Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) continued to serve as the primary basis of jurisdiction, climbing to 62% (a year-on-year increase of 4 percentage points). Geographically, Western European investors demonstrated the highest propensity to initiate proceedings, accounting for 45% of all claimants.

The resurgence of resource nationalism alongside the accelerating pace of global energy transition policies have served as dual drivers sustaining elevated levels of investment disputes. With governments tightening regulatory scrutiny and screening over critical strategic minerals, coupled with sweeping shifts in renewable energy subsidy and regulatory frameworks, the tension between host states' sovereign regulatory powers and investors' "legitimate expectations" has intensified. Investor-State arbitrations involving the energy transition and natural resource protection are expected to remain active over the near term.

UNCITRAL Working Group III Convenes Tenth Intersessional Meeting in Ninh Binh, Vietnam

From September 7 to 9, 2026, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform, WG III) held its tenth intersessional meeting in Ninh Binh, Vietnam. The meeting centered on two key agenda items: first, a standing multilateral mechanism—the establishment of a permanent investment tribunal and a permanent appellate tribunal; and second, methodologies for the assessment of damages and compensation. Meeting documents included informal papers on the standing mechanism, draft statutes for the permanent tribunal and appellate tribunal (WP.259, WP.260), and draft guidelines on damages (WP.255), underscoring the steady multilateral progress of ISDS reform toward permanent institutionalization and an appellate review framework.

Shanwei Intermediate People's Court:Unilateral Post-Execution Additions to Blank Contract Terms 

Without Counterparty Consent Do Not Constitute Genuine Mutual Intent; Arbitration Clause Invalid

Legal Basis:

"Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China"

Article 27

An arbitration agreement shall contain the following: (1) an expression of intent to apply for arbitration; (2) matters submitted to arbitration; and (3) a designated arbitration institution."

Article 29

Where an arbitration agreement makes no provision or makes ambiguous provisions for matters to be arbitrated or for the selection of an arbitration institution, the parties may reach a supplementary agreement; failing such a supplementary agreement, the arbitration agreement shall be void.

Case Description：

On January 4, 2024, a third party, Mr. Li, entered into a Personal Loan Contract with a bank for a loan amount of RMB 5 million. On the same day, Mr. Sha executed a Mortgage Contract with the bank, securing the aforementioned loan with real property registered under his name in Nanshan District, Shenzhen. Concurrently, Company A, Company B, and Mr. Sha jointly executed a Guarantee Contract with the bank, assuming guarantee liability for the debt. In the Personal Loan Contract, Mortgage Contract, and Guarantee Contract, all parties expressly agreed that any dispute arising thereunder would be resolved via arbitration, designating the "Shenzhen Arbitration Commission" as the arbitral institution.

On the same date, the bank entered into a Supplementary Agreement with the borrower Li, the guarantors, and the mortgagor Sha. Article 4 of the agreement provided for a new agreement on the dispute resolution mechanisms established in the master loan and security contracts, while Article 5 provided that any dispute arising out of the performance of the relevant loan, guarantee, and mortgage contracts may be submitted by either party to an arbitration institution. However, when Sha signed the Supplementary Agreement, the blank space for the name of the arbitration commission under Article 5 was left entirely unfilled. After Sha signed and thumbprinted the blank template, a bank representative unilaterally inserted the handwritten words "Shanwei" before "Arbitration Commission" and designated "Shenzhen" as the hearing venue after the fact.

Subsequently, a dispute arose among the parties. Relying on the handwritten arbitration clause in Article 5 of the Supplementary Agreement, the bank filed an arbitration application directly with the Shanwei Arbitration Commission, which docketed and accepted the case. Upon receiving notice, Sha filed an objection, asserting that the arbitral institution field was completely blank when he executed the Supplementary Agreement, that the bank’s post-execution unilateral insertion of "Shanwei Arbitration Commission" lacked his consent and failed to establish genuine mutual assent to arbitrate, and that it materially altered the parties' original contractual consensus to submit disputes to the Shenzhen Arbitration Commission. Sha then petitioned the Shanwei Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong Province, seeking a judicial declaration that the arbitration clause in Article 5 of the Supplementary Agreement was void. In defense, the bank argued that Sha, an individual with full capacity for civil conduct, should be deemed to have granted general authorization for subsequent completion and final confirmation of the contract contents by signing the blank document, thus rendering the clause legally effective. During court proceedings, both the bank and Sha confirmed that the handwritten portion of the disputed clause was indeed blank at the time Sha executed the agreement.

Court's View:

Upon review, the court held that the core issue was whether the arbitration clause in Article 5 of the Supplementary Agreement was legally formed and binding upon Sha. Under the relevant provisions of the Arbitration Law of the PRC, the formation and validity of an arbitration agreement are predicated upon the genuine and voluntary consensus of the parties. Because arbitration ousts judicial jurisdiction and is governed by strict contractual principles and procedural party autonomy, the formation of an arbitration clause requires, as an indispensable prerequisite, a meeting of the minds regarding both the chosen dispute resolution method and the explicit designation of an arbitral institution.

Specifically regarding the facts of this case, although the final text of the Supplementary Agreement contained the handwritten words "submitted to Shanwei Arbitration Commission for arbitration," both parties confirmed that the institutional name line was blank when Sha signed and confirmed the document. This demonstrates that at the time of contracting, Sha and the bank reached no common understanding or mutual assent on the core jurisdictional matter of "submitting disputes to the Shanwei Arbitration Commission." Sha's act of signing a document with blank spaces demonstrated only a general intent to execute the agreement; due to the absence of core terms, it lacked definitive legal direction, and it cannot be presumed that he implicitly granted blanket authorization for the bank to unilaterally determine and insert the vital choice of arbitral institution. Unilateral post-execution additions made by one party into blank spaces of a contract, absent express acceptance or subsequent ratification by the counterparty, cannot be recognized as the genuine mutual intent of both parties. Therefore, the bank's defense that "signing constitutes general authorization" lacked factual and legal basis. The arbitration clause at issue failed to be legally formed due to the absence of mutual arbitral intent, and thus cannot be legally binding upon Sha.

In conclusion, because the handwritten arbitration clause in Article 5 of the Supplementary Agreement lacked a consensual foundation, Sha's claim seeking to confirm its invalidity was supported by clear facts and well-grounded in law. Given that this case constitutes a judicial review of arbitration, the hearing court strictly complied with the prior-reporting mechanism mandated by judicial interpretations. Following review and approval by the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province, the court ruled in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Arbitration Law of the PRC and the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC, confirming that the arbitration clause in the Supplementary Agreement executed between Sha and the bank was void.

Hong Kong High Court Issues Anti-Suit Injunction in Xinjingdi v. Eton Properties Case Involving Xiamen Intermediate Court

Case Description：

On July 4, 2003, Xiamen Xinjingdi Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Xinjingdi") entered into a land development agreement with Eton Properties Limited and Eton Properties (Holdings) Limited (collectively hereinafter "Eton"). The agreement provided that Eton guaranteed absolute control over Hong Kong Legend Properties (Xiamen) Limited, and that Xinjingdi would acquire the equity of this Hong Kong company for RMB 120 million to develop a land parcel in Xiamen through an affiliated entity. After Xinjingdi paid an agreed deposit of RMB 5 million, Eton failed to deliver the subject land parcel; instead, in November of the same year, Eton unilaterally issued a letter purporting to terminate the agreement and proceeded to develop the land on its own.

In August 2005, Xinjingdi initiated arbitration before the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) pursuant to the arbitration clause in the agreement. In October 2006, the arbitral tribunal rendered an award in favour of Xinjingdi, ordering Eton to continue performing the agreement. However, during the arbitral proceedings, Eton concealed the fact that it had completed an offshore corporate restructuring, thereby objectively rendering the awarded specific performance impossible. After unsuccessful attempts to enforce the award before the Xiamen Intermediate People's Court, Xinjingdi applied to the High Court of Hong Kong for enforcement in 2007, where the court entered a statutory judgment enforcing the award. It was only during Eton's application to set aside that judgment that Eton first disclosed the previously concealed offshore restructuring.

In May 2008, alleging Eton's bad-faith concealment of the restructuring, Xinjingdi initiated common law proceedings in Hong Kong seeking equitable relief to enforce the arbitral award. Following more than a decade of protracted litigation, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (HKCFA) established two landmark principles: first, that an "implied promise to honour the award" exists between the parties, constituting an independent contractual obligation separate from the underlying contract; and second, that the enforcement of this implied promise is governed by the lex fori (Hong Kong law), conferring upon Hong Kong courts the jurisdiction to grant relief independent of the arbitral proceedings. On this basis, the HKCFA ruled against Eton. In May 2024, the Court of First Instance of the High Court of Hong Kong completed the assessment of damages, ordering Eton to pay Xinjingdi approximately RMB 169 million in damages. This judgment was subsequently affirmed in full by both the Court of Appeal and the Court of Final Appeal in 2025 and 2026, respectively. Furthermore, in response to Eton's attempt in 2022 to initiate fresh arbitration in the Mainland under new Mainland statutory provisions to terminate the contract, the Hong Kong court issued an anti-arbitration injunction in 2023.

Having suffered a complete defeat in Hong Kong, Eton instituted civil tort proceedings before the Xiamen Intermediate People's Court in January 2026, asserting that Xinjingdi's recourse to Hong Kong common law causes of action to circumvent arbitration jurisdiction constituted an actionable tort. Eton claimed damages or restitution of RMB 180 million, while applying to the Xiamen Intermediate People's Court for an anti-suit injunction and an anti-anti-suit injunction in an attempt to thwart the execution of the effective Hong Kong judgment. The Xiamen Intermediate People's Court subsequently scheduled a substantive hearing on the merits for September 18, 2026. In response, Xinjingdi applied to the High Court of Hong Kong for an anti-suit injunction in April 2026, followed by an urgent application for an interim anti-suit injunction in August in view of the imminent Xiamen hearing, seeking to restrain Eton's litigious conduct before the Mainland court.

Court's View：

On September 14, 2026, the Court of First Instance of the High Court of Hong Kong rendered its decision, formally granting Xinjingdi's application and issuing an anti-suit injunction against Eton. The court underscored that an anti-suit injunction is an equitable remedy rooted in principles of fairness and justice, with the core threshold being whether the respondent's conduct is "vexatious or oppressive," or whether it improperly interferes with the established judicial order and authority of judgments in the forum jurisdiction.

Upon review, the court observed that the purported tort action commenced by Eton before the Xiamen Intermediate People's Court was, in substance, an evasive collateral attack against the final and binding judgment rendered by the Hong Kong courts after years of litigation. Eton had participated fully across fifteen years of multi-tiered proceedings before the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Final Appeal. Having exhaustively litigated and ultimately lost, Eton's turn to a Mainland court to reignite the exact same substantive controversy under the guise of "tort" was a textbook case of "heads I win, tails you lose." Such conduct gravely offended the principle of litigious bona fides, undermined judicial finality, and constituted an abuse of process.

The court reaffirmed the doctrine settled by the Court of Final Appeal that the parties' "implied promise to honour the award" is a legally binding independent obligation, which had been adjudicated under Hong Kong common law proceedings and converted into an enforceable monetary judgment for damages. Eton's attempt to redefine the parties' contractual rights and obligations and claw back the awarded damages via collateral litigation constituted an indirect erosion of the binding Hong Kong judgment. Given the imminent substantive hearing before the Xiamen Intermediate People's Court, absent an injunction, the applicant would be forced to endure duplicative and vexatious litigation across multiple jurisdictions; meanwhile, the injunction would not compromise any of Eton's defense rights that had already been fully exhausted through due process. The issuance of the injunction was therefore characterized by high urgency and proportionality (the balance of convenience).

Ultimately, the court granted the anti-suit injunction, ordering Eton to immediately and no later than September 18, 2026, withdraw or terminate its proceedings before the Xiamen Intermediate People's Court, and enjoining Eton from taking any further steps to advance the case or any interim measure applications therein. The judge made clear that, pursuant to the doctrine of international judicial comity, the injunction is an in personam order directed solely at the personal conduct of the litigant—namely, Eton's unconscionable acts in commencing and pursuing the Mainland litigation. The Hong Kong court expressed no opinion on the judicial authority of the Mainland courts or on the rules of Mainland law themselves.