Consensual settlement of competition disputes in China: a call for conditional arbitrability

ABSTRACT

The current reform of China’s Arbitration Law is aimed at making the country a more attractive seat for international commercial arbitration and at encouraging consensual dispute settlement to supplement the heavy workload of the courts. At the same time, due to the lack of certainty as to the arbitrability of antitrust disputes, the competition-related arguments may effectively stall or delay arbitration proceedings or create the risks of setting aside of arbitral awards on public policy grounds. The paper addresses the aforementioned problem by advancing a call for conditional arbitrability of antitrust disputes in China, which will require clarification of the applicable legal standards and detailed procedural guidance by the Supreme People’s Court that would instruct the arbitrators and the parties about applying competition rules in the context of contractual disputes. This policy proposal is grounded on the analysis of the divergent judicial approaches to arbitrability of competition-related issues developed by the Chinese judiciary.

KEYWORDS:

• China
• arbitration
• competition law
• courts
• public policy

Acknowledgements

The earlier versions of this paper were presented by the author at various academic events: (1) the VIII International Conference on "Issues on Development and Implementation of Competition Policy" hosted online by Lviv Polytechnic National University on 24 December 2023; (2) the 10th United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Regional Centre for Asia and the Pacific (RCAP) and University of Macau (UM) Joint Conference "National and Regional Harmonization of International Trade Law: A Decade in Retrospect and the Desiderata of the Future" hosted by the University of Macau, Faculty of Law on 1 December 2023; (3) the Macau Colloquium of Legal Theory, hosted by Research Circle of Legal Philosophy, Legal History and Roman Law, Faculty of Law, University of Macau on 23 November 2023; (4) the 2023 Taipei International Conference on Arbitration and Mediation "International Dispute Resolution and Development: The Technological and Economic Perspectives" hosted by the Chinese Arbitration Association, Taipei on 25 October 2023. The author expresses gratitude to the organizers and attendees of these events for their valuable feedback. The paper also gained insights from discussions with Sara Migliorini and Joao Ilhao Moreira and from research assistance provided by Monica Chan, Fali Xie, and Lina Zhang. Further thanks are extended to three anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback on the initial version of the paper. Additionally, the author would like to acknowledge the Asia Pacific Law Review editorial team for their professional support and exceptional dedication throughout the submission and publication process.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Anti-Monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China [2008] Order (no. 68) of the President of the People’s Republic of China, as amended in accordance with the Decision to Amend the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China adopted at the 35th Session of the Standing Committee of the Thirteenth National People’s Congress on 24 June 2022 (hereinafter Anti-Monopoly Law).

2 See Alexandr Svetlicinii and Juan-Juan Zhang, ‘The Competition Law Institutions in the BRICS Countries: Developing Better Institutional Models for the Protection of Market Competition’ (2017) 2 Chinese Political Science Review 85.

3 Anti-Monopoly Law, Article 60.

4 Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Dispute Cases Arising from Monopolistic Conduct [2012] Interpretation (No. 5) of the Supreme People’s Court, Article 1.

5 See Alexandr Svetlicinii, ‘Private Litigation Under China’s Anti-Monopoly Law: Empirical Evidence and Procedural Developments’ (2017) 7 KLRI Journal of Law and Legislation 163, 173.

6 Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China, ‘The three major arbitration institutions are the most popular, and CIETAC has the highest overall satisfaction’ (Legal Daily, 1 November 2022) <http://www.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbgw/fzgz/fzgzggflfwx/fzgzggflfw/202211/t20221101_466447.html> accessed 14 March 2024.

7 ‘Institutional construction and innovation of international commercial courts in the construction of “One Belt and One Road”’ (China Law Society, 2 July 2022) <https://www.chinalaw.org.cn/portal/article/index/id/31036/cid/990999.html> accessed 14 March 2024.

8 Several Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Providing Judicial Services and Safeguards for the Construction of the “One Belt and One Road” by People’s Courts [2015] No. 9, paras 8, 11.

9 See Model Cases regarding Providing Judicial Services and Safeguards by the Supreme People’s Court for the Construction of “One Belt and One Road” (7 July 2015), Case 6 Zhejiang Yisheng Petrochemical C., Ltd. v. INVISTA Technology Co., Ltd. (disputes over application for confirming the effect of an arbitration clause). See also Susan Finder, ‘Supreme People’s Court and “One Belt, One Road”’ (Supreme People’s Court Monitor, 14 July 2015) <https://supremepeoplescourtmonitor.com/2015/07/14/supreme-peoples-court-and-one-belt-one-road/> accessed 14 March 2024; Susan Finder, ‘How China’s Supreme People’s Court Supports the Development of Foreign-Related Rule of Law’ (2023) 8 China Law and Society Review 62.

10 ‘The Supreme People’s Court issued the “Guiding Opinions on Optimizing the Legal Environment and Promoting the Development and Growth of the Private Economy” and typical cases involving the protection of property rights of private enterprises and the legitimate rights and interests of entrepreneurs’ (Supreme People’s Court, 10 October 2023) <https://www.court.gov.cn/fabu/xiangqing/413942.html> accessed 14 March 2024.

11 See Kevin Wang and Jie Lin, ‘Anti-Monopoly Disputes – Arbitration or Litigation?’ (CMS, 9 September 2016) <https://cms.law/en/chn/publication/anti-monopoly-disputes-arbitration-or-litigation> accessed 14 March 2024; Lester Ross and Tingting Liu, ‘Anti-Monopoly Disputes Are Not Arbitrable According to Chinese Court’ (Wilmer Hale, 7 September 2016) <https://www.wilmerhale.com/insights/client-alerts/2016-09-07-anti-monopoly-disputes-are-not-arbitrable-according-to-chinese-court> accessed 14 March 2024; Wei Huang and Guizhen Han, ‘Are monopoly disputes arbitrable in China?’(China Business Law Journal, 17 October 2017) <https://law.asia/monopoly-disputes-arbitrable-china/> accessed 14 March 2024; Ryan Fang and Simon Shi, ‘Observations on the arbitrability of anti-monopoly disputes’ (China Business Law Journal, 3 September 2022) <https://law.asia/arbitrability-observations-anti-monopoly-disputes/> accessed 14 March 2024; ‘Arbitrability of Antitrust Disputes in PRC and Hong Kong’ (Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, 9 March 2020) <https://www.bclplaw.com/en-US/events-insights-news/arbitrability-of-antitrust-disputes-in-prc-and-hong-kong.html> accessed 14 March 2024; Wei Lin, ‘Conflict between arbitration and court trials for monopoly disputes’ (China Business Law Journal, 23 May 2022) <https://law.asia/arbitration-and-court-trials-monopoly/> accessed 14 March 2024.

12 See Colette Downie, ‘Will Australia Trust Arbitrators with Antitrust? – Examining the Challenges in International Antitrust Arbitrations to Develop a Competition Arbitration Model for Australia’ (2013) 30 Journal of International Arbitration 221.

13 See Izak Hodge-Englishby, ‘Can Australia Compete? A Tri-Jurisdiction Analysis of Competition Law Arbitration’ (2020) 5 Perth International Law Journal 29.

14 ‘International Arbitration in Australia 2023 – Chambers (Gilbert Tobin, 26 September 2023) <https://www.gtlaw.com.au/knowledge/chambers-international-arbitration-australia> accessed 14 March 2024.

15 See G. Datta Prasad, ‘A Case for Arbitrability of Private Enforcement Competition Law Claims in India’ (2019) 12 Global Competition Law Review 179.

16 See ‘Arbitrability of Antitrust Disputes in PRC and Hong Kong’ (Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, 9 March 2020) <https://www.bclplaw.com/en-US/events-insights-news/arbitrability-of-antitrust-disputes-in-prc-and-hong-kong.html> accessed 14 March 2024.

17 See Anselmo Reyes, The Practice of International Commercial Arbitration: A Handbook for Hong Kong Arbitrators (1st edn, Routledge 2018), 194–195.

18 See Alexandr Svetlicinii, ‘Building Regional Competition Policy in ASEAN: Lessons from the European Competition Network’ (2017) 15 Asia Europe Journal 341.

19 Milton Lawson and Hoang Thi Thanh Thuy, ‘Vietnam’ in Michael Moser and John Choong (eds), Asia Arbitration Handbook (Oxford 2011), para 10.76.

20 See Kazuaki Nishioka, ‘The Enforcement of Cross-Border Competition Law Claims in Asia-Pacific and Choice of Forum Agreements: Private Litigation or Arbitration?’ (2022) 10 Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 279, 286-288.

21 See James Gregory Alcaraz Villasis, ‘Public Policy Defense and the Arbitrability of Competition Disputes

Under the Philippine Arbitration Regime’ (2020) 4 Sriwijaya Law Review 79.

22 See Yoshimi Ohara and Shuji Yanase, ‘Japan’ in Michael Moser and John Choong (eds), Asia Arbitration Handbook (Oxford 2011), para 1.66.

23 See Kazuaki Nishioka, ‘Choice of Court Agreements and Derogation from Competition Law’ (2020) 16 Journal of Private International Law 300.

24 See Kap-You (Kevin) Kim and James Morrison, ‘Republic of Korea’ in Michael J. Moser and John Choong (eds), Asia Arbitration Handbook (Oxford 2011), para 2.93.

25 See Jipyong LLC, ‘Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Korea and Interplay with the Korean Fair Trade Act’ (Asia Law, 25 April 2023) <https://www.asialaw.com/NewsAndAnalysis/enforcement-of-arbitral-awards-in-korea-and-interplay-with-the-korean-fair-trade/Index/1686> accessed 14 March 2024.

26 See OECD, Arbitration and Competition DAF/COMP(2010)40, 14. See also Gordon Blanke, ‘OECD Publishes Hearing Report on Arbitration and Competition’ (2013) 6 Global Competition Litigation Review R9.

27 See Susan Finder, ‘Supreme People’s Court’s Ongoing Contribution to the Revision of the Arbitration Law’ (Supreme People’s Court Monitor, 3 December 2022) <https://supremepeoplescourtmonitor.com/2022/12/03/supreme-peoples-courts-ongoing-contribution-to-the-revision-of-the-arbitration-law/> accessed 14 March 2024.

28 See Mingji Qu, ‘Status Quo of Enforcing Commercial Arbitral Awards in the People’s Republic of China: An Empirical Study of the Enforcement Practices in China’s Two Economically Less-Developed Regions’ (2019) 36 Journal of International Arbitration 451.

29 Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China [2009] Order (No. 18) of the President of the People’s Republic of China, as amended for the first time according to the Decision on Amending Certain Laws adopted at the 10th session of the Standing Committee of the Eleventh National People’s Congress on 27 August 2009 (hereinafter Arbitration Law (2009)).

30 Arbitration Law (2009), Articles 63, 70, 71.

31 Arbitration Law (2009), Article 13. Specifically, this amendment adds the requirement that an arbitrator should pass the national uniform legal profession qualification examination and obtain the legal profession qualification.

32 General Office of the State Council, General Office of the CCP Central Committee, ‘Notice on improving the arbitration system and improving the credibility of arbitration’ (31 December 2018) General Office of the CCP [2018] No. 76.

33 See Kai-Shen Huang, ‘Internationalization as a Leap of Faith: Arbitration Reforms in China and the Challenges of Implementation’ (2023) 10 Asian Journal of Law and Society 241.

34 Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China [2017] Order (No. 76) of the President of the People’s Republic of China, as amended for the second time in accordance with the Decision on Amending Eight Laws Including the Judges Law of the People’s Republic of China at the 29th Session of the Twelfth National People’s Congress on 1 September 2017 (hereinafter Arbitration Law (2017)), Article 2.

35 Arbitration Law (2017), Article 3.

36 See Yongming Wu, ‘Chinese Ministry of Justice Proposes Amendments to its Arbitration Law’ (American Review of International Arbitration, 29 November 2021) <https://aria.law.columbia.edu/chinese-ministry-of-justice-proposes-amendments-to-its-arbitration-law/> accessed 14 March 2024.

37 See ‘Accelerate the Amendment of the Arbitration Law and Improve the Arbitration System - Summary of the biweekly consultation symposium on “Revision of the Arbitration Law” of the CPPCC National Committee’ (National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, 31 May 2022) <http://www.cppcc.gov.cn/zxww/2022/05/31/ARTI1653959717711208.shtml> accessed 14 March 2024.

38 See ‘Based on reality, learn from experience, improve the socialist arbitration legal system with Chinese characteristics: Excerpts from speeches at the biweekly consultation symposium on “Revision of the Arbitration Law” of the CPPCC National Committee’ (National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, 2 June 2022) <http://www.cppcc.gov.cn/zxww/2022/06/02/ARTI1654138071912173.shtml> accessed 14 March 2024.

39 See ‘Consistency and Integration under “Chinese Characteristics”’ (National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, 31 May 2022) <https://www.rmzxb.com.cn/c/2022-05-31/3128562.shtml> accessed 14 March 2024.

40 Announcement on Soliciting Public Opinions on the Draft Judicial Interpretation of Anti-Monopoly Civil Procedures (Supreme People’s Court, 18 November 2022) (hereinafter Revised draft SPC Provisions) <https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-380101.html> accessed 14 March 2024.

41 Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Dispute Cases Arising from Monopolistic Conduct [2012] Interpretation (No. 5) of the Supreme People’s Court.

42 Revised draft SPC Provisions, Article 3.

43 Revised draft SPC Provisions, Article 7.

44 See Weixia Gu, ‘Piercing the Veil of Arbitration Reform in China’ (2017) 65 American Journal of Comparative Law 799, 805-808.

45 These should be distinguished from the arbitral awards issued in Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan. See Supplemental Arrangement of the Supreme People’s Court on Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [2020] Interpretation (No. 13) of the Supreme People’s Court; Arrangement of the Supreme People’s Court between the Mainland and the Macau SAR on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitration Awards [2007] Interpretation (No. 17) of the Supreme People’s Court; Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Recognition and Enforcement of the Arbitral Awards of the Taiwan Region [2015] Interpretation (No. 14) of the Supreme People’s Court.

46 Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning Trying Cases of Arbitration-Related Judicial Review [2017] Interpretation (No. 22) of the Supreme People’s Court, Article 12; Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning Application of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Choice of Law for Foreign-Related Civil Relationships (I) [2012] Interpretation (No. 24) of the Supreme People’s Court.

47 Arbitration Law (2017), Articles 58, 70, 71. Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2023 Amendment) [2023] Order (No. 11) of the President of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter Civil Procedure Law), Articles 244, 281.

48 See Joao Ribeiro and Stephanie Teh, ‘The Time for a New Arbitration Law in China: Comparing the Arbitration Law in China with the UNCITRAL Model Law’ (2017) 34 Journal of International Arbitration 459.

49 Civil Procedure Law, Article 274, Arbitration Law (2017), Article 70.

50 Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Issues concerning Applications for Verification of Arbitration Cases under Judicial Review (2021 Amendment) [2021] Interpretation (No. 21) of the Supreme People’s Court, Article 2. See also Qisheng He, ‘Interpretation I of the Supreme People’s Court on Certain Issues Concerning the Application of the “Law of the People’s Republic of China on Application of Law to Foreign-Related Civil Relations”’ (2014) 2 Chinese Journal of Comparative Law 175.

51 See Arthur Dong and Alex Dong, ‘An Empirical Study on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan Arbitral Awards in Mainland China’ (2022) 39 Journal of International Arbitration 491.

52 See Shen Wei and Shang Shu, ‘Tackling Local Protectionism in Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards in China: An Empirical Study of the Supreme People’s Court’s Review Decisions, 1995–2015’ (2020) 241 China Quarterly 144.

53 See Fan Yang, ‘“How Long Have You Got?” Towards a More Streamlined System for Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards in China’ (2017) 34 Journal of International Arbitration 489.

54 See Sam (Ronghui) Li, Michael (Haomin) Zhang, Lucas (Zhouquan) Lu and Tina (Yanfei) Qian, ‘Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in China Between 2012-2022: Review and Remarks (Pari II)’ (Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 12 September 2023) <https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2023/09/12/recognition-and-enforcement-of-foreign-arbitral-awards-in-china-between-2012-2022-review-and-remarks-part-ii-2/> accessed 14 March 2024.

55 See Weidong Zhu, ‘The Recognition and Enforcement of the Foreign Arbitral Awards “with No Foreign Element” in China’ (2015) 32 Journal of International Arbitration 351.

56 Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning Application of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Choice of Law for Foreign-Related Civil Relationships (I) [2012] Interpretation (No. 24) of the Supreme People’s Court, Article 10.

57 See Qisheng He, ‘Public Policy in Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in the Supreme People’s Court of China’ (2013) 43 Hong Kong Law Journal 1037, 1056.

58 Hohhot Intermediate People’s Court, Hohhot Huili Materials Co., Ltd v Shell (China) Co., Ltd (2018) Nei 01 Minchu No. 451, judgment of 17 January 2019.

59 Supreme People’s Court, Shell (China) Co., Ltd v Hohhot Huili Materials Co., Ltd (2019) Zhimin No. 46, judgment of 21 August 2019.

60 Hohhot Huili v Shell (China) (n 58).

61 See Kai-chieh Chan, ‘China’s Top Court Says No to Arbitrability of Private Antitrust Actions’ (Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 23 January 2020) <https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/01/23/chinas-top-court-says-no-to-arbitrability-of-private-antitrust-actions/> accessed 14 March 2024.

62 Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court, Nanjing Songxu Technology Co., Ltd v Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd (2014) Ning Zhi Min Xia Chu Zi No. 44. As the parties failed to reach an agreement on which specific arbitration institution should handle their dispute, the arbitration clause was declared invalid, and Samsung’s objection to the court’s jurisdiction was rejected.

63 Jiangsu Higher People’s Court, Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd v Nanjing Songxu Technology Co., Ltd (2015) Su Zhi Min Xia Zhong Zi No. 72, judgment of 29 August 2016.

64 Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court, Nanjing Songxu Technology Co., Ltd v. Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd (2014) Ning Zhi Minchu Zi No. 223, judgment of 5 April 2017.

65 Beijing Intellectual Property Court, Shanxi Changlin Industrial Co., Ltd v. Shell (China) Co., Ltd, (2018) Beijing 73 Minchu No. 124, judgment of 3 August 2018.

66 Beijing Higher People’s Court, Shell (China) Co., Ltd v. Shanxi Changlin Industrial Co., Ltd (2019) Jing Min No. 44, judgment of 28 June 2019.

67 See Qingxiu Bu, ‘Reassess the Arbitrability of Antitrust Disputes in China’ (2022) 19 Transnational Dispute Management 1.

68 Supreme People’s Court, Shanxi Changlin Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Shell (China) Co., Ltd. (2019) Min Shen No. 6242, judgment of 10 June 2020.

69 Pursuant to Article 200(6) of the Civil Procedure Law.

70 Supreme People’s Court, Shanxi Changlin Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Shell (China) Co., Ltd. (2022) Min Kang No. 12, 19 September 2022. See also See Hao Zhan, Ying Song and Libo Zhu, ‘The Draft of New Judicial Interpretation on PRC Antitrust Law Part I: Changes to Procedural Matters’ (Anjie Broad, 5 January 2023) <https://www.chinalawvision.com/2023/01/uncategorized/the-draft-of-new-judicial-interpretation-on-prc-antitrust-law-part-i-changes-to-procedural-matters/> accessed 14 March 2024.

71 See ‘Shell loses hub-and-spoke cartel appeal at China’s Supreme Court’ (MLex, 2 February 2024) <https://mlexmarketinsight.com/news/insight/shell-loses-hub-spoke-cartel-appeal-at-china-s-supreme-court> accessed 14 March 2024.

72 CIETAC, State Grid Shanghai Electric Power Company v VISCAS Co., Ltd. (Japan) Jing (Hu) Cai Zi No. 0039, arbitral award of 5 February 2021.

73 Beijing Fourth Intermediate People’s Court, Hangzhou Xuezhong Carbon Thermostatic Technology Co., Ltd. v Controlled Environments Ltd (Canada) (2021) Jing 04 Minte No. 590, judgment of 5 November 2021.

74 Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, State Grid Shanghai Electric Power Company v VISCAS Co., Ltd. (Japan) (2018) 73 Minchu No. 813, judgment of 14 June 2019.

75 Supreme People’s Court, VISCAS Co., Ltd. (Japan) v State Grid Shanghai Electric Power Company (2019) Zhimin No. 356, judgment of 1 December 2019.

76 Beijing Intellectual Property Court, Beijing Longsheng Xingye Technology Development Co., Ltd. v Yu Shidu Intelligent Equipment (Tianjin) Co., Ltd and Honeywell Automation Control (China) Co., Ltd (2020) Jing 73 Minchu No. 983, judgment of 30 August 2021.

77 See Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China [2020] Order (No. 45) of the President of the People's Republic of China, Article 186.

78 Supreme People’s Court, Beijing Longsheng Xingye Technology Development Co., Ltd v Yushidu Intelligent Equipment (Tianjin) Co., Ltd and Honeywell Automation Control (China) Co., Ltd (2022) Zhi Min No. 1276, judgment of 19 August 2022.

79 Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, Shanghai Youzu Information Technology Co., Ltd. v Walt Disney (China) Co., Ltd (2020) Hu 73 Zhi Minchu No. 1202, judgment of 3 December 2020.

80 See Lin (n 11).

81 See Gordon Blanke, ‘Entrusting Antitrust Issues to Arbitration: Some Personal Thoughts and Considerations’ (2016) 32 Arbitration International 275, 284. See also Joao Ilhao Moreira, ‘Arbitration vis-à-vis Other Professions: A Sociology of Professions Account of International Commercial Arbitrators’ (2022) 49 Journal of Law and Society 48.

82 See Gordon Blanke, ‘Defining the Limits of Scrutiny of Awards Based on Alleged Violations of European Competition Law’ (2006) 23 Journal of International Arbitration 249, 252.

83 See Joao Ilhao Moreira, ‘The Insider/Outsider Divide and the Ethics of Commercial Arbitrators’ (2022) 19 Manchester Journal of International Economic Law 132.

84 See Alexandra Theobald, ‘Mandatory Antitrust Law and Multiparty International Arbitration’ (2016) 37 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 1059, 1065-1067.

85 See Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo, ‘Arbitration and Competition Law: The Position of the Courts and of Arbitrators’ (2011) 27 Arbitration International 1, 7.

86 See Susan Beth Farmer, ‘Recent Developments in Regulation and Competition Policy in China: Trends in Private Civil Litigation’ In Michael Faure and Xinzhu Zhang (eds.), The Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law: New Developments and Empirical Evidence (Edward Elgar 2013) 15-72; Svetlicinii (n 5).

87 Vice President of the Supreme People’s Court Tao Kaiyuan, ‘The Arbitration Law Should Protect the Legal Rights and Interests of Those Not in the Case’ (Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, 2 June 2022) <https://www.rmzxb.com.cn/c/2022-06-02/3130051.shtml> accessed 14 March 2024. See also Susan Finder, ‘Justice Tao Kaiyuan on the State of Chinese International Commercial Dispute Resolution’ (Supreme People’s Court Monitor, 16 April 2023) <https://supremepeoplescourtmonitor.com/2023/04/16/justice-tao-kaiyuan-on-the-state-of-chinese-international-commercial-dispute-resolution/> accessed 14 March 2024.