Major PRC institutions report statistics for 2024

Headline points

• Number of cases across 5 leading institutions increased 12% to nearly 47,000.
• Value of cases increased 5% to approximately USD 77 billion.
• CIETAC ranked first by value of disputes (up 25% to approximately USD 26 billion).
• SCIA had highest caseload (up 21%), closely followed by BAC (up 15%).
• Number of foreign-related disputes up 23% to nearly 2,000 (4% of total).
• Value of foreign-related disputes up 20% to approximately USD 22 billion (29% of total).
• CIETAC and SCIA ranked first and second for foreign-related disputes by number/value.
• Foreign-related cases represented 43% of caseload by value at CIETAC, 36% at SCIA.
• Modest increases in number of foreign arbitrators and geographical diversity of parties.
• Foreign arbitrators comprised up to 3% of appointments (depending on institution).
• Online case filings grew substantially, accounting for 82% of all filings.
• Virtual hearings grew by 40% and made up a significant proportion of total hearings.

The scale and depth of the Mainland PRC arbitration market is underlined by the recently published statistics of five leading institutions for 2024.

Following our post last year on the 2023 numbers, this article reviews and compares the latest figures, breaking down the numbers for each institution, providing year-on-year comparisons, and highlighting key trends.

Read on for detailed coverage of the 2024 statistics of:

• CIETAC (China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission).
• BAC (Beijing Arbitration Commission).
• SHIAC (Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission).
• SHAC (Shanghai Arbitration Commission).
• SCIA (Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration).

The links above are to the English versions of the annual reports where available (those of BAC and SCIA and are available in Chinese only).

Presentation of data

This post seeks to compare institutions on a like-for-like basis and provide year-on-year comparisons for individual institutions where possible.

The statistics below are derived from the annual reports of the institutions and generally cover all branches. There is an exception in the case of SCIA, whose statistics have since 2023 covered only SCIA headquarters (referred to below as "SCIA (headquarters)") and excluded SCIA Jiangmen and SCIA Hong Kong. This difference should be taken into account when reviewing the data below in relation to caseloads and amounts in dispute, which should be treated as broadly indicative only.

Unless otherwise indicated, USD figures given below are the approximate equivalent of original RMB figures. Percentages given in the text are rounded to the nearest percent while those given in tables are generally also rounded to the nearest percent (except in a small number of cases where the level of the percentages makes it appropriate to round to 1 or 2 decimal places).

References to "foreign-related" or "international" cases are to cases with at least one factor, such as a party or subject matter, involving a non-Mainland PRC jurisdiction.

Caseloads and amounts in dispute

A total of 46,666 new cases were filed with the five leading PRC institutions in 2024 (up 12% compared with 2023), with the total amount in dispute in all arbitration cases handled by those institutions being RMB 557.7 billion (USD 77 billion) (up 5% compared with 2023).

All five institutions reported increases in the total amount in dispute, while four of the five reported increases in total case numbers. The headline points for each institution are as follows (with a tabular breakdown of the figures being set out below):

• CIETAC reported 6,013 new arbitration cases in 2024, an increase of 15% on the figure for 2023 (and a record for the institution). The total amount in dispute in arbitration cases handled by CIETAC in 2024 was RMB 189.0 billion (USD 26.1 billion), the highest of the five institutions and a 25% increase on the 2023 figure. This was the seventh consecutive year in which the total amount in dispute surpassed RMB 100 billion (USD 13.8 billion).
• SCIA (headquarters) reported 14,518 commercial arbitration filings in 2024 (the highest among the 5 institutions), an increase of 20.9% on the figures for 2023 (when 12,004 new cases were filed). The total amount in dispute was RMB 142.3 billion (USD 19.7 billion), a 2.9% increase on the previous year's figure of RMB 138.3 billion (USD 19.1 billion).
• BAC reported 14,060 new arbitration cases for 2024, an increase of 15% on the figure for 2023 and the second highest of any of the five institutions (having recorded the highest number in 2023).  The total amount in dispute was RMB 103.3 billion (USD 14.3 billion), a 17.2% decrease on the previous year’s figure.
• SHIAC registered 4,028 new cases in 2024, a 17% fall compared with 2023 (although the number and proportion of foreign-related cases increased, as discussed further below). The total amount in dispute reached RMB 75.4 billion (USD 10.4 billion), representing a 6.5% increase on the 2023 figure.
• SHAC registered a total of 8,047 cases, representing nearly 10% year-on-year growth from compared with 2023. The total amount in dispute was RMB 47.7 billion (USD 6.6 billion), an increase of 7.7%.  

Zooming out and comparing these figures with key regional institutions, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) received 503 new cases in 2024 with a total amount in dispute equivalent to USD 13.6 billion in all arbitration cases, while the Singapore International Arbitration (SIAC) received 625 new cases with a total amount in dispute equivalent to USD 11.9 billion (with the caveat that comparisons between institutions in different markets and with different characteristics should generally be drawn with caution).

The following tables set out the number of new cases and the total amount in dispute for each of the five institutions, ranked from highest to lowest and with a comparison between the 2024 and 2023 figures. 

Number of new cases

Total amount in dispute (rounded to nearest 0.1 billion)

Foreign-related cases

The number and value of foreign-related cases increased at a significantly higher rate (23% and 20% respectively) than the number and value of cases overall (12% and 5% respectively).

Although foreign-related cases represented only 4% of the total number of new cases filed in 2024, they accounted for 29% of the total value in dispute across all five institutions.

CIETAC and SCIA (headquarters) were the clear leaders by number, value and proportion by value of foreign-related disputes, although SHIAC grew its foreign-related cases at a faster rate and SHAC posted exceptionally high growth by value:

• CIETAC had the highest number of foreign-related cases by a significant margin (almost 1.5 times the number of SCIA (headquarters), which itself had approximately 1.7 times the number of SHIAC, the institution with the third-highest number). The number of new foreign-related cases at both CIETAC and SCIA (headquarters) was broadly comparable with the total number of new cases at HKIAC and SIAC. If the four institutions were ranked on that basis, CIETAC would come first, followed by SIAC, HKIAC and SCIA (headquarters).
• Measured by total value of foreign-related cases, CIETAC (which ranked second in 2023) overtook SCIA (headquarters) to record the highest amount in dispute by a considerable margin (USD 11.2 billion equivalent). This was in the same ballpark as the total value in dispute for both HKIAC (USD 13.6 billion equivalent) and SIAC (USD 11.9 billion equivalent). The figure for SCIA (headquarters), whilst somewhat lower (USD 7 billion equivalent), was nevertheless substantial. The total values of foreign-related disputes at each of CIETAC and SCIA (headquarters) were, respectively, approximately 5 and 3 times that of the third ranked institution by value of foreign-related cases (SHIAC). 
• Measured as a proportion of the total value in dispute, foreign-related cases accounted for nearly half (43%) of CIETAC's caseload by value and more than one third (36%) of the total value in dispute at SCIA (headquarters). The next highest institution was SHIAC at 21%.
• SHIAC grew its foreign-related caseload by 41% (by number) and 55% (by value), ahead of all other institutions except for SHAC, which (as discussed below) posted a 625% increase in foreign-related cases by value.

Breaking down the numbers for each of the five institutions:

• CIETAC (which has the longest history and most established track-record in this area) ranked first by the number and value of foreign-related disputes, and by the proportion of its total caseload and total amount in dispute that was foreign-related. The institution reported 758 new foreign-related cases (13% of all new cases filed in 2024), an increase of 18% from 2023. The total value of foreign-related cases increased by 54% to RMB 81.1 billion (USD 11.2 billion). Foreign-related cases represented 43% of CIETAC’s total caseload by value in 2024 (compared with 35% in 2023).
• SCIA (headquarters) handled 520 foreign-related commercial arbitration cases (3.6% of all new cases filed in 2024). The total amount in dispute in foreign-related disputes was RMB 51 billion (USD 7 billion), representing 36% of the total amount in dispute in 2024 (down from 43% in 2023).
• SHIAC received 302 foreign-related cases in 2024 (8% of all new cases filed in 2024), an increase of 40.5% on the 2023 figure. The total amount in dispute in foreign-related cases was RMB 15.8 billion (USD 2.2 billion), representing a 55% increase on the previous year.  Foreign-related cases represented 21% of SHIAC’s total caseload by value in 2024.
• BAC received 277 foreign-related arbitration cases (2% of all new cases filed in 2024), representing a year-on-year increase of 10%. The total amount in dispute in foreign-related cases decreased by 9% to RMB 10.5 billion (USD 1.4 billion). Foreign-related cases accounted for 10% of BAC’s total caseload by value in 2024 (compared with 9% in 2023).
• SHAC handled 109 foreign-related commercial and maritime cases (1.4% of all new cases filed in 2024), an increase of 32% on the 2023 figure. The total amount in dispute in such cases was RMB 2.9 billion (USD 0.4 billion), representing a 625% increase on the previous year. Although SHAC's report did not provide an explanation for the surge in value, it appears that a small number of cases with unusually high amounts in dispute may have contributed significantly.  For example, SHAC's 2024 annual report notes that the highest amount in dispute in a single foreign-related case reached RMB 0.96 billion (USD 0.14 billion), which alone accounted for 40% of the increase in the total amount in dispute in foreign-related commercial and maritime cases. As a result of this significant growth, such cases represented a significantly larger proportion of SHAC’s total caseload by value in 2024 (around 6%) compared with 2024 (around 1%).

The following tables set out the number of new foreign-related cases and the total amount in dispute in foreign-related cases for each of the five institutions, ranked from highest to lowest and with a comparison (where possible) between the 2023 and 2024 figures.

Number of foreign-related / international cases

Total amount in dispute in foreign-related / international cases (rounded to nearest 0.1 billion)

Other international elements

The statistics on the geographical origins of parties, languages used, governing laws, appointment of foreign arbitrators and cross-border enforcement of awards are summarised below. 

Geographical origin of parties

There was significant geographical diversity in the parties using all five institutions in 2024:

• CIETAC administered cases involving parties from 77 countries and regions (up from 71 in 2023).
• SCIA handled new cases involving parties from 64 countries and regions (up from 44 in 2023).
• SHIAC served parties from 37 countries and regions (up from 33 in 2023).
• SHAC arbitrations involved parties 19 countries and regions respectively (up from 14 in 2023).
• BAC managed cases involving 7 new countries and regions, covering 72 countries and regions since its establishment.

Language of arbitration

There was a modest increase in the number of arbitrations reported to have been conducted bilingually or in a language other than Chinese, although such cases continue to represent a small proportion of overall caseloads:

• CIETAC reported 106 cases (1.7% of the total caseload and equivalent to 14% of foreign-related cases) using English or both English and Chinese as the language(s) of the arbitration, compared with 93 cases of the same category in 2023.
• SHIAC reported 41 cases using English or both English and Chinese (1% of the total caseload and equivalent to 13.6% of foreign-related cases), compared with 12 cases using English in 2023.
• BAC reported 2 cases using English, 4 cases using both English and Chinese and 1 case using Chinese and Korean (together, 0.05% of the total caseload and equivalent to 2.5% of foreign-related cases), compared with 8 cases using languages other than Chinese (including 7 English cases and 1 Chinese-Russian bilingual case) in 2023.
• The data of SCIA and SHAC for 2024 is unavailable.

Governing laws

A range of treaties and laws were applied as the governing law of the disputes administered by the five institutions, including the laws of the PRC, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, England and Wales, Australia, and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. 

Appointment of arbitrators

There was an increase in the number of foreign (i.e. non-Mainland PRC) arbitrators appointed by CIETAC, SCIA and SHIAC (although such appointments continue to represent a small percentage of total appointments). 

SCIA appointed the highest number (338) of foreign arbitrators, a 67% increase on the previous year's figure of 2023. At CIETAC, 141 foreign arbitrators were appointed in a total of 126 cases. 

BAC recorded a substantial drop in the number of foreign arbitrators appointed, while SHAC did not disclose statistics regarding the appointments of foreign arbitrators.

The relevant statistics are summarised in the table below:

BAC, SHAC and SCIA also stated in their annual reports that the percentages of foreign arbitrators on their institutional panels of arbitrators were 28.4%, 19.5% and 35.12% respectively.

Following the introduction of expanded options for the appointment of arbitrators in the latest rules of SHIAC (reported here) and CIETAC (reported here), both of which came into effect on 1 January 2024:

• SHIAC reported 7 arbitrator appointments from a "shortlist" provided by its Secretariat and 5 cases where the presiding arbitrator was appointed by the co-arbitrators.
• CIETAC also reported a "significant increase" in cases in which presiding and sole arbitrators were appointed by list procedures (including party lists and shortlists provided by the Chairman of CIETAC) or by the co-arbitrators.

Cross-border enforcement of awards

CIETAC indicated that its arbitral awards were recognised and enforced by courts in various countries and regions in 2024, including the United States, Canada, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Vietnam, Hong Kong and Macau.  

BAC indicated that it was aware of the enforcement of one of its awards in the United States in 2024, along with enforcement of BAC awards in the EU, Chile, Singapore, Australia, Russia, Hong Kong and Taiwan in previous years. 

Types of disputes

Each of the five major institutions published statistics regarding the types of cases registered in 2024. The top 5 sectors for each institution are set out in the table below. Construction was the top sector across most institutions (with the exception of SCIA, whose case profile appears to have been more heavily weighted towards the financial sector). 

In addition, CIETAC and SHIAC shared the following observations:

• CIETAC emphasised the growth of disputes in the finance, intellectual property, corporate governance and new energy sectors, and noted the continued growth of newer sectors previously highlighted in its 2023 report, such as financial derivatives, carbon emissions trading and environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues.
• SHIAC highlighted a rapid growth in equity investment disputes, which increased by 68% in 2024 compared with 2023.

Virtual arbitration services

Online case filings

There was an increase in the absolute number of online case filings and the proportion of cases filed online at all of the institutions except for SHIAC. SCIA reported that 100% of its cases were filed online in 2024, closely followed by BAC at 95%. No institution recorded online case filings below 50% of total filings. 

* As we noted in our blog on the 2023 reports, the figure for the number of online case filings given in SHIAC's 2023 annual report represented a year-on-year increase of more than 600% and amounts to 110% of the total number of new cases, the reasons for which were unclear.

Virtual hearings

All institutions reported growth in the number of virtual hearings apart from BAC (which did not report statistics on this point). Growth was particularly marked at SHIAC (77%) and SCIA (63%).    

A full 50% of all SHIAC hearings were virtual in 2024 (an increase from 29% in 2023), while the proportion of virtual hearings at CIETAC (the only other institution for which figures are available) remained broadly stable at around one third (30% in 2024 compared with 33% in 2023). These figures are broadly comparable with those for the HKIAC, which recorded that 39% of its hearings were fully or partially virtual in 2024 (as we reported here).

* The numbers of virtual hearings stated in SCIA's 2023 and 2024 reports suggest a 63% year-on-year increase, but SCIA states that the growth rate was 41.03%. The reasons for this discrepancy are unclear.

Other institutional developments

Ad hoc arbitration

None of the institutions covered in this article disclosed specific statistics on ad hoc proceedings for 2024 (a change from the position for 2023, when a number of institutions shared their experience of handling ad hoc arbitrations, as we reported here). Nevertheless, leading Mainland PRC institutions appear to be taking steps to build their experience of and support infrastructure for ad hoc arbitration (which currently remains prohibited for arbitrations with a Mainland PRC seat).

The 2024 version of the CIETAC Rules (on which we reported here) permit CIETAC to provide "administration and supporting services for ad hoc arbitration" on the agreement or request of the parties.  Similarly, SHIAC published "Guidance for Services for Ad Hoc Arbitration" alongside its new rules in 2024 (as we reported here). SHAC and SCIA have also previously published guidance concerning ad hoc arbitration.

Such measures will be helpful in the event that the PRC Arbitration Law is amended to permit ad hoc arbitration with a Mainland PRC seat in certain limited scenarios (as appears to be envisaged by draft revisions to the law which are currently under consideration by lawmakers).

Hong Kong / Mainland PRC cooperation

SCIA Hong Kong (which administered cases involving 10 countries and regions in 2024) reported the completion of its first preservation case before the Shenzhen court (see SCIA's report here, available in Chinese only) pursuant to the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (see here for our report on the arrangement). As we reported in our recent blog on the HKIAC's 2024 statistics, the arrangement has proven popular with parties to Hong Kong-seated arbitrations with a PRC nexus, with the HKIAC having processed a total of 145 applications in respect of nearly US$5 billion in assets since it came into force in 2019.

Separately, SHIAC opened its Hong Kong centre (the Shanghai International Arbitration (Hong Kong) Center) on 5 May 2024, joining its peers as the third PRC arbitration institution providing institutional services in Hong Kong (following the CIETAC Hong Kong Arbitration Center, which was established in September 2012, and SCIA Hong Kong, which was established in September 2019) and further underling Hong Kong's importance as a forum for resolving PRC-related disputes.

This article has been co-authored by Herbert Smith Freehills (in relation to non-PRC law matters only) and Herbert Smith Freehills Kewei, a joint operation between Herbert Smith Freehills LLP and Kewei Law Firm based in the Shanghai Free Trade Zone (which is exclusively responsible for any statements or commentary in relation to PRC law).