The 6th Yangtze River Delta Arbitration Lawyers Forum was held in Hefei on 21 June 2025 under the theme “Foreign-related Rule of Law and the Development of the Arbitration Profession”. Dandan Fei, then head of the international practice at Qingheqing Law Firm, attended the forum. Her paper, “The Public Policy Defence in International Arbitration: A Comparative Perspective”, was included in the forum’s collected papers, and she was invited to present its principal findings.
The forum was jointly organised by the Anhui, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang lawyers associations, with special support from the Anhui Arbitration Association. It combined an in-person conference with a live online broadcast. Nearly 200 representatives of lawyers associations, arbitration institutions and professional committees, together with academics, practitioners and other specialists, attended in person.
Foreign-related legal practice and arbitration
At the opening ceremony, Yin Bangding, President of the Anhui Lawyers Association, delivered an address. Huang Ningning, Vice President of the Shanghai Bar Association; Wang Xiaoqing, Vice President of the Jiangsu Lawyers Association; Lu Jincai, Vice President of the Zhejiang Lawyers Association; and Xu Fang, President of the Anhui Arbitration Association, also addressed the forum.
From top left: Yin Bangding, Huang Ningning, Wang Xiaoqing and Lu Jincai
In the keynote session, Yang Liangyi, a member of the International Commercial Expert Committee of the Supreme People’s Court, spoke on foreign-related rule of law, arbitration risk control and responses to unilateral United States sanctions. Drawing on case experience, he examined risks that Chinese companies may encounter when operating internationally and discussed how international arbitration can be used to manage those risks.
Four roundtable sessions followed. They addressed foreign-related arbitration, arbitration of corporate and M&A disputes, arbitration of construction and real estate disputes, and technology-assisted arbitration. Lawyers and representatives of arbitration institutions from the three provinces and Shanghai presented papers in each session.
A comparative examination of the public policy defence
Fei’s paper considers the public policy defence in proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. It asks when a court at the place of enforcement may refuse recognition or enforcement because an award conflicts with local public policy.
Public policy is one of the grounds for refusal under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, commonly known as the New York Convention. The Convention does not, however, provide a uniform definition. Jurisdictions differ in the scope of public policy, the intensity of judicial review and the degree of permissible court intervention. An overly broad interpretation may weaken the finality of arbitral awards, while an unduly narrow approach may fail to protect the basic legal order and procedural justice at the place of enforcement.
The paper compares the legal basis, scope of application, judicial approach and institutional safeguards in Mainland China, India, Singapore and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
It observes that Singapore and Hong Kong generally adopt a narrow construction of public policy, emphasise finality and maintain a restrained approach to judicial intervention. India previously applied a broader conception, which was later narrowed through legislative amendment and case law. Courts in Mainland China have generally applied the defence cautiously, supported by the reporting and review mechanism for arbitration-related judicial decisions.
Consistency and predictability in judicial review
Based on that comparison, the paper argues for a clearer distinction between public policy that protects the state’s fundamental legal order and ordinary state policy concerning industrial planning, sector administration or macroeconomic regulation. General regulatory requirements should not be expanded into grounds for refusing enforcement. Greater use of guiding cases and improved access to judgments could also make review standards more consistent and predictable.
The paper further proposes a proportionality analysis. Courts could consider whether intervention is necessary, whether the award directly conflicts with the public policy invoked, and whether refusal would impose an excessive restriction on arbitral autonomy and finality. This would provide a clearer framework for balancing fundamental legal interests with respect for arbitration.
Forum publications
During the forum, Mao Huigang, Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the Shanghai Bar Association, and Zheng Shumu, Chair of the Arbitration and Mediation Committee of the Zhejiang Lawyers Association, launched the forum’s collected papers and the Trial Practice Guidelines on Claims and Counterclaims in Domestic Commercial Arbitration.
The Yangtze River Delta Arbitration Lawyers Forum provides a regional platform for research and professional exchange among arbitration practitioners in Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Anhui. This year’s programme combined keynote speeches, roundtable discussions, paper presentations and the launch of professional publications on current issues in foreign-related legal practice and arbitration.