Intro

The "Regulations of the State Council of China on Outward Investment" (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations") will take effect on July 1, 2026. Article 22 has emerged as a critical focal point for the international arbitration community. This article sets a clear "Compliance Redline" for Chinese parties providing evidence in overseas proceedings.

What is Article 22

It mandates that Chinese domestic organizations or individuals involved in overseas arbitration or litigation must comply with laws regarding State Secrets, Data Security, Personal Information Protection, Technology Export Management, and Export Control when providing evidence. If official approval is required, legal procedures must be strictly followed.

Deep Dive: Strategic Implications for Arbitration

1. The "Compliance Buffer" for Evidence Disclosure

Arbitral tribunals typically follow a strict procedural timetable. However, the administrative approval processes required by Article 22 (such as assessments of important data exports or reviews of sensitive technologies) have statutory timelines. Failing to account for these "unavoidable" domestic legal obligations may place Chinese parties in a dilemma of "violating the arbitral tribunal's order" and "violating their domestic laws."

2. 【Best Practice】Negotiating "Compliance Time" in Evidence Protocols

To mitigate this risk, practitioners should proactively include"Regulatory Grace Periods" when drafting or negotiating theEvidence Protocol. Specifically, parties should explicitly agree thateach side must reserve reasonable time for the other to fulfill its domestic compliance and administrative approval obligations. This ensures that regulatory hurdles are recognized as legitimate procedural factors rather than tactical delays.

3. Data and Technology Sovereignty

Article 22 explicitly covers data and technology export management. In disputes involving high-tech sectors or critical infrastructure, providing technical specifications or datasets could trigger national security reviews. Understanding these boundaries early is paramount to maintaining the integrity of the case.

Actionable Strategy for Practitioners

1. Pre-emptive Classification：

Article 22 explicitly covers data and technology export management. In disputes involving high-tech sectors or critical infrastructure, providing technical specifications or datasets could trigger national security reviews. Understanding these boundaries early is paramount to maintaining the integrity of the case.

2. Procedural Transparency：

During the first Case Management Conference (CMC), use Article 22 to inform the tribunal of domestic legal requirements and integrate "Compliance Time" into the first Procedural Order (PO1)

3. Alternative Production Methods：

For evidence restricted from cross-border transfer, negotiate for alternative presentation methods such as redaction, summarization, or other alternatives.

Conclusion

Article 22 signals that compliance is no longer just a back-office function, it is afront-line tactical element that can dictate the outcome of international disputes.

律師介紹

張帆律師

中國(guó)執(zhí)業(yè)律師、美國(guó)加州執(zhí)業(yè)律師

美國(guó)聯(lián)邦法院注冊(cè)律師

（聯(lián)邦巡回、第九巡回、加州中區(qū)、加州北區(qū)、國(guó)際貿(mào)易法院）

迪拜國(guó)際仲裁中心DIAC仲裁員

www.lawyerfanzhang.com

英國(guó)皇家特許仲裁協(xié)會(huì)全球青工委大使

英國(guó)皇家特許仲裁師資深會(huì)員 FCIArb

ACCA國(guó)際特許會(huì)計(jì)師高級(jí)商業(yè)會(huì)計(jì)

國(guó)際貿(mào)易金融專家(CITF)

FIDIC認(rèn)證咨詢專家

國(guó)際商會(huì)（ICC）歐盟外國(guó)補(bǔ)貼條例工作組成員

成都市涉外律師領(lǐng)軍人才

京師律所（全國(guó)）商事仲裁專委會(huì)理事

京師律所（全國(guó)）公司法專委會(huì)理事

京師成都律所黨總支委員、第一支部書記

京師成都律所涉外法律事務(wù)部主任

京師律所阿聯(lián)酋迪拜合作辦公室（籌）業(yè)務(wù)負(fù)責(zé)人

成都市發(fā)展和改革委員會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)體制改革智庫(kù)專家

中國(guó)貿(mào)促會(huì)、中國(guó)國(guó)際商會(huì)商委會(huì)聯(lián)合認(rèn)證RCEP培訓(xùn)師資

高級(jí)企業(yè)法律顧問(wèn)、高級(jí)建設(shè)工程法務(wù)師

張帆律師有10余年企業(yè)運(yùn)營(yíng)、投融資經(jīng)驗(yàn)，金融、法學(xué)雙學(xué)士，擅長(zhǎng)涉外糾紛、國(guó)際貿(mào)易、商事談判、財(cái)會(huì)稅法、民行刑綜合糾紛。

跨境訴訟與仲裁 >
跨境訴訟與仲裁跨境投資與財(cái)稅 >
跨境投資與財(cái)稅跨境電商與國(guó)際貿(mào)易 >
跨境電商與國(guó)際貿(mào)易AI與科技 >
AI與科技