This article examines the historical ties between the SCC Arbitration Institute (SCC) and China, the legal framework underpinning the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, and the known cases involving SCC awards. In short, SCC awards enjoy a remarkable record of recognition and enforcement in Chinese courts.

Historical roots between SCC and China

The SCC’s reputation as a neutral institution for international arbitration extends well beyond Europe, with SCC awards achieving truly global reach — and China is no exception. Between 2000 and 2024, the SCC registered a total of 115 disputes with Chinese parties. The connection between the SCC and China has deep historical roots: Sweden was the first Western country to establish official diplomatic ties with China in 1950, laying the foundation for sustained bilateral engagement. Building on this relationship, the SCC and the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) entered into a cooperation agreement in 1984, which led Chinese companies to begin resolving their international commercial disputes at the SCC. Since then, the SCC has maintained and expanded its institutional ties with China’s leading arbitral bodies, including through its ongoing cooperation with the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC). Demonstrating its long-standing commitment to Chinese parties, the SCC has made both its rules and model clauses available in Chinese.

China’s legal framework and pro-arbitration mechanisms

Since China acceded to the New York Convention in 1987, it has progressively developed its domestic framework for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. A key provision in this regard is Article 304 of the Civil Procedure Law.

Of particular note is the “Reporting-up Mechanism,” which applies where a court considers refusing to recognise or enforce a foreign arbitral award, or setting it aside. Under this mechanism, an Intermediate People’s Court that intends to refuse recognition or enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, or to set it aside, must refer the matter to the competent High People’s Court; if the High People’s Court agrees, it must in turn refer the matter to the Supreme People’s Court for final review. The lower court may only issue its ruling upon receipt of the Supreme People’s Court’s reply. This reporting-up system imposes rigorous supervisory oversight over decisions to refuse recognition and enforcement, establishing an exceptionally high bar that must be met before a foreign arbitral award can be denied.

Statistics on the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in Chinese courts

Between 2011 and 2022, Chinese courts received an average of over 20 applications annually for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, with more than 90% of such applications successfully granted. A more recent study conducted by Zhong Lun Law Firm reveals an even higher rate. From 2016 to 2025, a total of 127 cases concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards were brought before Chinese courts, of which 121 awards received a favourable recognition and enforcement ruling, representing a success rate of 95%. The upward trajectory shows no sign of abating.

What about SCC Awards?

Across online case databases, including China Judgments Online, seven cases have been identified concerning the recognition and enforcement of SCC awards in China, with one further case arising from an ad hoc arbitration seated in Stockholm. This list is not necessarily exhaustive. Notably, all eight awards were ultimately recognised, and four were recognised after 2016.

	Case name	Case number
Case 1	A Equipment Company v. A Company in Jiangyin	(2024) 苏02协外认6号之一
Case 2	Dow, Johnson Matthey v. Luxi Chemical Group Co., Ltd.	(2019) 鲁15协外认1号
Case 3	Changsheng Trading Co., Inc. v. Henan Jianghe Machinery Co., Ltd.	(2017) 豫01协外认11号
Case 4	SPS Ouhua Company (td) v. Panjin Heyun Industrial Group Co.	(2016) 辽02协外认12号
Case 5	GRD Minproc Limited v. Shanghai Flying Wheel Non-Ferrous Company	(2009) ⺠四他字第 48 号
Case 6	Mitsui Corporation (Japan) v. Hainan Textile Industry General Corporation	(2001) ⺠四他字第 12 号
Case 7	Aiba Ipsen Industrial v. Tai Li Electrical Appliances (Jiangmen) Co., Ltd.	(2002) 江中法经初字第398号
Case 8	Svensk Honungsförädling AB v. Nanjing Changli Bees Product Company Limited (ad hoc Arbitration)	(2018) 苏01协外认8号

Among them, Case 8 is an ad hoc arbitration seated in Stockholm, which was designated by the Supreme People’s Court as “Guiding Case No. 200.” This is a designation reserved for decisions intended to guide the adjudication of similar cases across Chinese courts, thereby elevating the decision to an authoritative reference point within the Chinese judicial system. Guiding cases touching on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards are rare within this framework. It is an award rendered in Stockholm that occupies such a place of prominence.

In addition, Case 6 has also had a distinctive position. In this case, the Supreme People’s Court issued a reply as the last stage of the Reporting-up Mechanism. Both the intermediate court and the high court had recommended refusal of recognition and enforcement on multiple grounds, including violations of China’s public policy. Nevertheless, the Supreme People’s Court rejected every one of those grounds, holding that a breach of administrative regulations and departmental rules does not automatically constitute a violation of China’s public policy. This case was also invoked by courts in subsequent cases, guiding the assessment of violations of public policy. Once again, it was an SCC award that occupied the centre of a defining moment in the development of China’s approach to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

Conclusion

As China deepens its integration into global trade and investment, demand for reliable cross-border dispute resolution will only grow. The track record documented above speaks for itself: every SCC award brought before Chinese courts for recognition and enforcement has been recognised — including in cases that have shaped the development of China’s own legal framework. For parties with a China nexus, the SCC offers not only neutrality and procedural rigour, but a demonstrated record of enforceability where it matters most.

Written by: Lexie Gao, Former Visiting Professional at the SCC Arbitration Institute and Ph.D. Candidate at Durham University.