In the 14th “Zhonglun Cup” International Commercial Arbitration Essay Contest, the essay titled “A Tiered Review of Public Interest Considerations in Arbitration: With a Discussion on the Application of Public Policy Provisions Following the Implementation of the New Arbitration Law,” written by Attorney Chen Yu of Beijing King&Capital Law Firm, won first prize.

 

 

 

This year’s essay contest received a total of 210 submissions from both domestic and international participants, and two first-prize winners were ultimately selected, with Attorney Chen Yu’s paper being one of them.

 

 

 

Rigorous Review to Select Outstanding Research Findings

 

 

 

 

 

Since the announcement of this year’s essay contest on June 2, 2026, it has garnered widespread attention from legal practitioners and academics both domestically and internationally. As of August 15, the organizing committee had received a total of 210 submissions from lawyers, judges, arbitrators, university faculty and students, corporate legal counsel, and other industry professionals, bringing together research findings on international commercial arbitration from diverse professional perspectives.

 

 

 

The organizing committee invited nine experts and scholars in the fields of international commercial arbitration theory and practice to form a review committee, which conducted the evaluation process in three phases. In the first stage, the nine reviewers independently scored the submissions through anonymous written evaluations; in the second stage, the Review Committee convened a meeting on September 12 to conduct a collective review based on the scores from the written evaluations, taking into account the paper’s theme, academic significance, and practical value to determine the proposed awardees and award levels; in the third stage, following a review by the Organizing Committee and a check for academic misconduct, the final results were confirmed.

 

 

 

Following this review process, Attorney Chen Yu’s paper was awarded First Prize, reflecting the positive outcomes of his professional research on cutting-edge issues in arbitration.

 

 

 

 

Focusing on Institutional Boundaries: Proposing a Tiered Review Framework

 

 

 

 

 

The core issue addressed by the award-winning paper is how to properly identify and protect the public interest while respecting arbitral autonomy and upholding the finality of awards.

 

 

 

Set against the backdrop of the new Arbitration Law, the paper points out that arbitral autonomy and the public interest are not simply opposed to one another: excessive expansion of public interest review may turn public policy clauses into tools for the losing party to delay enforcement or seek a de facto appeal; conversely, excessive restraint regarding public interest risks may turn arbitration into a channel for circumventing mandatory norms. Therefore, the focus of this study is not on simply expanding or narrowing the scope of public policy application, but rather on establishing an operational and verifiable review methodology.

 

 

 

Addressing this issue, the paper proposes a four-tier threshold comprising public nature, legal basis, relevance, and significance, and argues that public interest defenses should be screened sequentially; only when all four conditions are simultaneously met should the matter proceed to relevant judicial review following the award. Through this framework, the paper attempts to transform abstract judgments of public interest into review criteria that can be argued, substantiated, and rebutted, and to link the court’s ex post supervision with the arbitral tribunal’s ex ante risk management, thereby providing an interpretive approach for the application of public interest clauses that balances an arbitration-friendly stance with the bottom line of the legal order.

 

 

 

 

Bridging the Gap Between Pre- and Post-Award Phases to Address the Needs of Arbitration Practice

 

 

 

 

 

Beyond the review thresholds, the paper further proposes three procedural rules—procedural prioritization, issue segmentation, and minimal intervention—emphasizing that the management of public interest risks should not be confined solely to the judicial review stage following the issuance of an award.

 

 

 

Prior to the award, the paper advocates that arbitration tribunals identify and address public interest risks in advance through means such as clarification, hearings, separation of governing laws, and partial awards; after the award, it advocates that courts conduct a limited review of matters that have met the threshold, in principle basing their review on the arbitration record and necessary new evidence. This framework aims to distinguish genuine public interest from private interests in individual cases, as well as mandatory norms from public policy, thereby enhancing the predictability and credibility of arbitration while upholding the fundamental principles of the legal order.

 

 

 

The paper also prioritizes the practicality of institutional recommendations, proposing that judicial interpretations, guiding opinions, or guiding cases be used to further clarify methods for reviewing public interest matters. It further suggests that arbitration institutions improve their procedures for clarification, record-keeping, and remedies regarding public interest issues, thereby advancing related research from case-by-case analysis toward the refinement of legal rules.

 

 

 

 

Deepening Expertise Through Research, Serving Practice Through Expertise

 

 

 

 

 

This award represents a concrete example of Attorney Chen Yu’s ability to transform concerns from legal practice into academic research outcomes, and it also demonstrates the professional value of attorneys engaging in research on the arbitration system by grounding their work in specific issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The significance of professional research lies not only in identifying problems but, more importantly, in providing clear and feasible analytical pathways for practice. King&Capital Law Firm will continue to encourage attorneys to conduct research on key, challenging, and cutting-edge issues in legal services, fostering the mutual transformation of theoretical thinking and practical experience. By integrating professional expertise into legal services, the firm aims to provide clients with more in-depth and tailored dispute resolution support, thereby contributing professional expertise to the refinement and development of the commercial arbitration system.