Challenging Arbitral Awards: A Comparative Study of Chinese Law, British Law and UNCITRAL Model Law

in Frontiers of Law in China
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Support and supervision of a court ensure the integrity of the arbitral process and protect the public interest. However, to prevent the confidence of the arbitral system from being damaged, the judicial control should not be too strict. The support and supervision of a court can be seen in many aspects, among which is to challenge an award. Under the Chinese arbitration law, an award made by a foreign arbitration agency is regarded as a foreign award, challenge of which involves resisting recognition and enforcement in accordance with the relevant provisions of the international treaties concluded or acceded to by the People’s Republic of China or on the principle of reciprocity.1 Accordingly, an award made by a Chinese arbitration agency is regarded as a domestic award, challenge of which includes setting aside and resisting enforcement. As to the grounds and procedures for challenging a domestic award, including foreign-related awards and non-foreign-related awards, some Chinese provisions are either obscure or contradictory. There may be room for the Chinese system to be modernized. The Model Law and the English Arbitration Act of 1996 may be used for its reference.

Challenging Arbitral Awards: A Comparative Study of Chinese Law, British Law and UNCITRAL Model Law

in Frontiers of Law in China

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 5 5 3
Full Text Views 2 2 2
PDF Downloads 2 2 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0