HOZU Capital Invited to Symposium on Global Practices and Rulemaking for Interim Measures in Arbitration at the China University of Political Science and Law (CUPL)

HOZU Capital Invited to Symposium on Global Practices and Rulemaking for Interim Measures in Arbitration at the China University of Political Science and Law (CUPL)

On October 29, 2025, Jialu Wang, co-founder at HOZU Capital, hosted CUPL’s Institute of Arbitration’s symposium, “Global Practices and Rulemaking for Interim Measures in Arbitration.”  This symposium attracted more than 70 leading experts from premier Chines academic institutions, major Chinse and global arbitration institutions, and prominent law firms for a discussion on interim measures in international arbitration.

Interim measures in arbitration refer to temporary relief granted by arbitral tribunals or national courts to prevent irreparable harm, preserve assets, maintain the status quo, or safeguard essential evidence while the dispute is being resolved. These mechanisms are vital to protecting the integrity of the arbitral process, as without them, parties might dissipate assets, destroy evidence, or otherwise obstruct the effective enforcement of a final arbitral award. A key development in this regard has been the introduction of emergency arbitrator procedures, which enable parties to obtain urgent relief before the substantive tribunal is formed. Another major trend in this area has been the gradual evolution of the interim relief mechanism in international arbitration from one dominated by the national courts to one primarily administered by arbitral tribunals. The 2025 amendment of China’s Arbitration Law aligns with this trend.

Professor Qingjiang Kong delivered the opening remarks, highlighting that the interim-measure related provisions in the 2025 amendment boosts China’s profile in the international arbitration field and demonstrates a more open and inclusive attitude toward global arbitration practices. Professor Kong also expressed his hope that the symposium would become a platform for meaningful dialogue and collaboration on interim measures, promoting collective efforts to strengthen China’s role in the global arbitration landscape.

The first session of the symposium explored “who currently holds — and who ought to hold — the final authority over interim measures: the national courts or the arbitral tribunals?” The panelists included Yongjian Zhang, Justice of the Singapore International Commercial Court; Lili Jiang, Secretary-General of the Beijing Arbitration Commission (BAC); Yusi Chen, Deputy Director of China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC). Jialu Wang, co-founder of HOZU Capital, moderated the discussion with Professor Song Lu of the China Foreign Affairs University offering commentaries. The session covered (1) the specific framework and underlying policy rationale of the SIAC Rules 2025 provisions on ex-parte applications for Protective Preliminary Orders (PPOs); (2) the similarities and differences between the tribunal-administered interim measures in international arbitration and the court-rendered preservation measures in Chinese domestic arbitration; and (3) the theoretical and practical differences between the court-centric and the tribunal-centric approaches, in terms of decision-making authorities over interim measures in international arbitration.

The second session examined “international arbitration: practices of interim measures and lessons for China.” The speakers included Ji Qi from the China Maritime Arbitration Commission; Suosheng Xu from the Shanghai International Arbitration Center (SHIAC); Anran Zhang from the ICC; Cunyuan Zhang from the SIAC; and Ya Chen, an arbitrator at the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA). Tong Xue, Deputy Secretary-General of the Institute of Arbitration, CUPL, moderated the discussion with Professor Yulin Fu of Peking University Law School contributing insights. This session explored (1) the differing legislative approaches to interim measures in common law and civil law systems; (2) the rules and practices of international arbitration institutions such as the ICC and SIAC concerning interim measures and emergency arbitrator mechanisms; and (3) the innovative efforts of Chinese arbitration institutions to explore the feasibility of tribunals independently granting interim measures within China’s existing legal framework.

The third session covered “the emergency arbitrator mechanism: international perspectives and Chinese practice,” featuring insights from experienced practitioners. Drawing on their hands-on experience, Rajah & Tann Asia’s Michelle Li, King & Wood Mallesons’ Jia Fei, Dentons’ Ming Wu, and Huizhong’s Ying Wu, shared their perspectives. Professor Xinli Du, CUPL Institute of Arbitration’s Honorary Dean, moderated the discussion with Associate Professor Beibei Zhang from the Shandong University providing insights. Based on their practical experience, the speakers examined (1) the strategic and practical considerations parties and counsels face when deciding whether to initiate ex-parte emergency arbitrator proceedings; (2) emergency arbitrators’ considerations in evaluating ex-parte interim measures application — including the likelihood of success on the merits, necessity, and urgency—and (3) the procedural and substantive variations across different jurisdictions on the emergency arbitrator mechanism.

During the final open discussion, Jialu Wang, co-founder of HOZU Capital, drew on his experience as an emergency arbitrator to share the key factors considered in decision-making — including urgency, prima facie assessment of the merits, necessity, prevention of abuse, and enforceability. Dr. Hang Zhao then offered an overview of the emergency arbitrator mechanism in Germany, noting the judicial review of such decisions there, and reflected on how an emergency decision can continue to meet the parties’ urgent needs once it is transferred to the courts for enforcement — a point that strongly resonated with the experts in attendance.

The symposium concluded with in-depth discussions on both the theory and practice of interim measures in international arbitration, providing valuable insights for developing a distinctly Chinese approach in this field. Experts agreed that while China’s system of interim measures should be grounded in domestic practice, it must also draw on international best practices. They further emphasized that stronger coordination between the judiciary and arbitral institutions is essential to achieving this goal.