《2025年仲裁法》保留了1996年法的基本结构，同时引入增量改进，以提高仲裁程序的效率、清晰度和公正性。其主要特征包括：

1. 默认管辖法规则：2025年法第6A条引入了一项默认规则，即除非当事人明确另有约定，仲裁协议（而非主合同）的管辖法为仲裁地点的法律。这解决了《Enka诉Chubb》[2020] UKSC 38案带来的先前不确定性，该案中法院假定在未明确选择的情况下，主合同的法律适用于仲裁条款，这可能与仲裁地点的支持仲裁框架发生冲突。例如，若仲裁地点为伦敦，则仲裁协议默认适用英国法，从而确保程序一致性，即便主合同受中国法管辖。这一规则通过第7条的可分性原则得到了法律实践上的明确，提升了可预见性，例如在可仲裁性和可执行性问题上。

2. 仲裁员公正性与披露：该法通过《Halliburton诉Chubb》（2020）判决的法定化，要求仲裁员披露可能合理引发对其公正性怀疑的情况，从而增强了仲裁程序的透明度和信任度。

3. 简易驳回请求：仲裁员现拥有明确的法定权力，可在简易程序中驳回“无真实成功前景”的请求或问题（第7条）。这与英国法院的简易判决标准一致，通过尽早剔除无理请求提高效率。

4. 加强仲裁员豁免权：该法将仲裁员的豁免权扩展至辞职（除非不合理）和移除申请（第3条和第4条），保护仲裁员免受策略性诉讼的影响，鼓励其做出坚定且公正的决定。

5. 管辖权挑战改革：1996年法第67条下的管辖权挑战不再是全面重审，而是限于基于现有证据和论点的审查（第11条），从而减少了延误和成本。

6. 对第三方的法院权力：该法明确法院可根据第44条对第三方发布支持仲裁的命令（第9条），并为第三方提供完整的上诉权，平衡了仲裁支持与公平性。

7. 紧急仲裁员条款：法院现可强制执行紧急仲裁员发布的强制性命令（第8条），增强了紧急案件中临时措施的有效性。

这些特征共同旨在简化程序、提升仲裁员的正直性，并使英国框架与全球标准保持一致，确保伦敦继续成为首选仲裁地点。

The Arbitration Act 2025 retains the core structure of the 1996 Act while introducing incremental enhancements to improve efficiency, clarity, and impartiality in arbitral proceedings. Its key features include:

1. Default Governing Law Rule: Section 6A of the Arbitration Act 2025 introduces a default rule that the law governing the arbitration agreement—not the main contract—is the law of the seat of arbitration, unless the parties expressly agree otherwise. This resolves prior uncertainties from Enka v Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, where courts presumed the main contract’s law applied to the arbitration clause absent a clear choice, potentially clashing with the seat’s pro-arbitration framework. For instance, a London-seated arbitration would default to English law for the arbitration agreement, ensuring procedural consistency, even if the main contract is governed by, say, Chinese law. This codifies the separability doctrine’s practical implications (Section 7), enhancing predictability for issues like arbitrability and enforceability.

2. Arbitrator Impartiality and Disclosure: Codifying the Halliburton v Chubb (2020) ruling, the Act imposes a statutory duty on arbitrators to disclose circumstances that might reasonably raise doubts about their impartiality. This enhances transparency and trust in the arbitral process.

3. Summary Disposal of Claims: Arbitrators now have explicit statutory authority to dismiss claims or issues with "no real prospect of success" on a summary basis (Section 7). This mirrors the English courts’ summary judgment threshold, promoting efficiency by eliminating unmeritorious claims early.

4. Strengthened Arbitrator Immunity: The Act extends immunity to arbitrators for resignations (unless unreasonable) and applications for their removal (Sections 3 and 4). This protects arbitrators from tactical litigation, encouraging robust and impartial decision-making.

5. Jurisdictional Challenges Reform: Under Section 67 of the 1996 Act, challenges to an award for lack of jurisdiction are no longer full rehearings but are limited to a review based on existing evidence and arguments (Section 11). This reduces delays and costs.

6. Court Powers Over Third Parties: The Act clarifies that courts can issue orders under Section 44 against third parties in support of arbitration (Section 9), with full appeal rights for those parties, balancing arbitral support with fairness.

7. Emergency Arbitrator Provisions: Courts can now enforce peremptory orders issued by emergency arbitrators (Section 8), enhancing the effectiveness of interim measures in urgent cases.

These features collectively aim to streamline proceedings, bolster arbitrator integrity, and align the UK framework with global standards, ensuring London remains a preferred arbitration seat.

《1996年仲裁法》是一部开创性的法规，整合并现代化了英国仲裁法，借鉴了《UNCITRAL示范法》，同时根据英国法律传统进行了调整。它建立了一个灵活、以当事人自治为中心的框架，减少了法院干预，支持伦敦成为顶级仲裁中心。然而，历经25年后，几个因素促使其更新：

1. 案例法的不确定性：《Enka诉Chubb》等司法判决凸显了确定仲裁协议管辖法的不确定性，可能导致非支持仲裁的法律削弱仲裁地意图的情况。1996年法对此缺乏明确规定，促使立法介入。

2. 全球竞争：新加坡（2023年更新）、香港（2022年）和迪拜（2018年）等司法管辖区更新了其仲裁法，提供高效且现代的框架。若不更新，英国可能失去竞争优势，当事人可能更倾向于选择拥有最新立法的仲裁地。

3. 实践的演变：紧急仲裁员的兴起、对仲裁员公正性更高的重视以及对更快争议解决的需求，均未在1996年法中得到充分解决。这些差距通过实践和利益相关者的反馈显现出来，如法律委员会在2022-2023年的审查中所指出。

4. 经济利益：仲裁每年为英国经济带来约25亿英镑的费用收入，年均案件超5000起。在全球变化中，现代化对于维持这一经济贡献至关重要。

法律委员会的审查得出结论，尽管1996年法基本稳健，但有针对性的改革对于保持其“最先进”地位并适应21世纪需求至关重要。

The Arbitration Act 1996 was a groundbreaking statute that consolidated and modernized UK arbitration law, drawing inspiration from the UNCITRAL Model Law while tailoring it to English legal traditions. It established a flexible, party-autonomous framework that minimized court interference and supported London’s rise as a top arbitration hub. However, after over 25 years, several factors necessitated its update:

1. Emerging Case Law Ambiguities: Judicial decisions like Enka v Chubb highlighted uncertainties in determining the governing law of arbitration agreements, risking outcomes where non-arbitration-friendly laws undermined the seat’s intent. The 1996 Act lacked clarity on this point, prompting legislative intervention.

2. Global Competition: Jurisdictions such as Singapore (updated in 2023), Hong Kong (2022), and Dubai (2018) modernized their arbitration laws, offering efficient and contemporary frameworks. Without updates, the UK risked losing its competitive edge as parties might favor seats with more current legislation.

3. Evolving Practices: The rise of emergency arbitrators, increased emphasis on arbitrator impartiality, and demand for faster dispute resolution were not fully addressed in the 1996 Act. These gaps became evident through practice and stakeholder feedback, as noted in the Law Commission’s 2022–2023 review.

4. Economic Stakes: Arbitration generates approximately £2.5 billion annually in fees for the UK economy, with over 5,000 cases yearly. Modernization was critical to sustain this economic contribution amid global shifts.

The Law Commission’s review concluded that while the 1996 Act remained fundamentally sound, targeted reforms were essential to maintain its "state-of-the-art" status and adapt to 21st-century needs.

从1996年法到2025年法的演变反映了一种务实的完善，而非全面大修，重点在于清晰度、效率和国际接轨：

1. 管辖法清晰度：将仲裁协议的默认规则转向以仲裁地为准，改变了1996年法的沉默态度，解决了关键的解释问题，并与新加坡等司法管辖区的实践一致。这确保了与仲裁条款相关的程序事项与主合同的实体法保持分离。

2. 程序效率：引入简易驳回权和简化的管辖权挑战，标志着向更快、更具成本效益的争议解决转变，这在1996年法较为开放的方法中未有体现。

3. 仲裁员责任与保护：法定披露义务和扩大豁免权的发展，超越了1996年法对仲裁员义务的轻描淡写，反映了全球对透明度更高的期望。

4. 支持现代机制：明确承认紧急仲裁员和第三方法院命令，使1996年法适应了当代仲裁创新。

这些变化提升了英国框架对用户需求的响应能力，同时保留了其当事人自治和最少法院干预的基本原则。

The evolution from the 1996 Act to the 2025 Act reflects a pragmatic refinement rather than a wholesale overhaul, focusing on clarity, efficiency, and international alignment:

1. Governing Law Clarity: The shift to a seat-based default rule for the arbitration agreement departs from the 1996 Act’s silence, resolving a key interpretive issue and aligning with practices in jurisdictions like Singapore. It ensures that procedural matters tied to the arbitration clause remain distinct from the main contract’s substantive law.

2. Procedural Efficiency: The introduction of summary disposal powers and streamlined jurisdictional challenges mark a shift toward faster, cost-effective dispute resolution, absent in the 1996 Act’s more open-ended approach.

3. Arbitrator Accountability and Protection: Codifying disclosure duties and expanding immunity evolve the 1996 Act’s lighter touch on arbitrator obligations, reflecting heightened global expectations for transparency.

4. Support for Modern Mechanisms: Explicit recognition of emergency arbitrators and third-party court orders updates the 1996 Act to accommodate contemporary arbitral innovations.

These changes enhance the UK framework’s responsiveness to user needs while preserving its foundational principles of party autonomy and minimal court intervention.

中国的仲裁制度主要由1994年《仲裁法》（2017年修订） регули，支撑了其在国际贸易和争议解决中的日益重要角色，中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（CIETAC）等机构声誉渐增。然而，随着中国寻求进一步现代化其框架，《2025年仲裁法》提供了若干启发性要素：

1. 默认管辖法规则：中国现行法律未明确规定仲裁协议的管辖法，常留给司法或仲裁裁量。实践中，中国法院可能假定主合同的法律适用，这可能导致不一致，尤其是在涉及多种法律体系的“一带一路”合同中。采用类似英国的以仲裁地法律为默认的规则（例如，北京仲裁默认适用中国法），可增强可预见性并强化中国仲裁地的支持仲裁地位。

2. 简易驳回机制：2017年修订引入了有限的快速程序，但中国缺乏法定简易驳回权。引入这一机制可加速程序，吸引寻求效率的商业当事人——这在中国快节奏经济中是优先事项。

3. 仲裁员披露义务：尽管CIETAC规则要求公正性，但类似英国的法定披露义务可增强对中国仲裁员的信任，尤其对担心国家影响系统的国际用户而言。

4. 法院对仲裁的支持：英国对第三方和紧急仲裁员的法院权力澄清，可启发中国在其《仲裁法》下增强司法协助，在当事人自治与有效执行之间取得平衡——鉴于中国司法历来谨慎，这是一项挑战。

5. 竞争性现代化：英国对全球竞争的回应强调了定期更新的必要性。中国可类似地审查其1994年框架，与《UNCITRAL示范法》趋势及香港、新加坡等竞争中心接轨，提升其对“一带一路”争议的吸引力。

中国还可考虑保留灵活性，如英国那样，允许当事人选择退出某些条款（例如简易驳回），以适应多样化的商业需求，同时推进效率。

China’s arbitration regime, primarily governed by the Arbitration Law of 1994 (amended in 2017), has supported its growing role in international trade and dispute resolution, with institutions like CIETAC gaining prominence. However, as China seeks to further modernize its framework, the UK Arbitration Act 2025 offers several instructive elements:

1. Default Governing Law Rule: China’s current law does not explicitly address the governing law of arbitration agreements, often leaving it to judicial or arbitral discretion. In practice, Chinese courts may assume the law of the main contract applies, absent a clear choice, which can lead to inconsistencies—especially in Belt and Road contracts involving diverse legal systems. Adopting a seat-based default, as in the UK, tying the arbitration agreement to the seat’s law (e.g., Chinese law for Beijing-seated arbitrations), could enhance predictability and reinforce China’s arbitration seats as pro-arbitration jurisdictions.

2. Summary Disposal Mechanism: The 2017 amendments introduced limited expedited procedures, but China lacks a statutory summary dismissal power. Incorporating this could expedite proceedings, appealing to commercial parties seeking efficiency—a priority in China’s fast-paced economy.

3. Arbitrator Disclosure Duty: While CIETAC rules require impartiality, a statutory disclosure obligation akin to the UK’s could strengthen trust in Chinese arbitrators, particularly for international users wary of perceived bias in state-influenced systems.

4. Court Support for Arbitration: The UK’s clarified court powers over third parties and emergency arbitrators could inspire China to enhance judicial assistance under its Arbitration Law, balancing party autonomy with effective enforcement—a challenge given China’s historically cautious judicial stance.

5. Competitive Modernization: The UK’s response to global rivalry underscores the need for periodic updates. China could similarly review its 1994 framework to align with UNCITRAL Model Law trends and rival hubs like Hong Kong and Singapore, boosting its attractiveness for Belt and Road disputes.

China might also consider retaining flexibility, as the UK does, allowing parties to opt out of certain provisions (e.g., summary disposal), accommodating diverse commercial needs while advancing efficiency.

《英国2025年仲裁法》展示了一个成功框架的战略性演变，保留了1996年法的优势，同时应对现代需求。其特征——仲裁协议管辖法的清晰度、增强的仲裁员义务、程序效率和强有力的法院支持——反映了保持全球仲裁领导地位的承诺。对于中国，这些改革为完善其仲裁法提供了蓝图，增强了可预见性、透明度和竞争力。通过借鉴此类模式，中国可定位自身为顶级仲裁中心，使其法律框架与其作为全球经济强国的雄心相匹配。

The UK Arbitration Act 2025 exemplifies a strategic evolution of a successful framework, preserving the strengths of the 1996 Act while addressing modern demands. Its characteristics—clarity in the arbitration agreement’s governing law, enhanced arbitrator duties, procedural efficiency, and robust court support—reflect a commitment to maintaining global leadership in arbitration. For China, these reforms offer a blueprint to refine its own arbitration law, enhancing predictability, transparency, and competitiveness. By drawing on such models, China can position itself as a premier arbitration hub, aligning its legal framework with its ambitions as a global economic powerhouse.