Institutional case filing, tribunal review of the parties’ status and authority, and proceedings before the people’s courts for litigation, interim preservation or enforcement are three separate regimes. The documentary formalities of one cannot be transposed into another. Reading the institutional filing guides against the Supreme People’s Court rules makes the boundary precise.

1. Three questions, not oneWHAT MUST BE PROVEN

Foreign corporate participation in international commercial arbitration managed by a Chinese institution raises three related but distinct legal questions:

• Corporate status — whether the company was validly incorporated, remains in existence and has the legal capacity to be a party to the arbitration;
• Representative authority — whether the individuals who signed the arbitration agreement, the request for arbitration or the power of attorney were authorised to bind the company, and whether the instructed counsel holds a valid appointment;
• Documentary formalities — whether documents formed abroad must be notarised, carry an Apostille under the Hague Convention, or be consularly legalised.

The three questions interact — a defective power of attorney undermines both authority and formality — but they are governed by different norms in different fora, and each must be answered for its own procedural context.

2. The statutory frameworkARBITRATION LAW AND CIETAC RULES

Article 4 of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (2025 revision) rests arbitration on party autonomy: a party may apply for arbitration only where the parties have agreed to it, and an institution will not accept an application without an arbitration agreement. Neither the statute nor its framework of agreement, commencement, hearing and judicial supervision imposes a uniform precondition that foreign corporate documents and powers of attorney be notarised and legalised before an application may be filed.

Under the CIETAC Arbitration Rules (2024), Article 12 requires the request for arbitration to identify the parties, their domiciles, the arbitration agreement, the claims and the facts and reasons, supported by evidence and other supporting documents. Article 22(1) requires a party or its arbitration agent to submit a power of attorney to the arbitration court of the Commission, and the Rules admit both Chinese and foreign counsel. These are submission obligations — they say what must be filed, not that every foreign-formed document must first be notarised or legalised. The specifics of document type, language, number of copies and cure of defects are found in the applicable rules, the institution’s filing guidance and the tribunal’s procedural orders.

3. The institutional guidance answersCIETAC AND SCIA

The Shenzhen International Arbitration Institute (SCIA) reaches the same result. Its Arbitration Guide, Q32, lists the documents for an application: the request for arbitration, proof of corporate status, the appointment formalities and the evidence. Q34 states that documents formed abroad may be submitted without notarisation or legalisation, but where the tribunal so requires in the course of the hearing, the parties shall comply. Q34 adds a distinct point: where a party applies to a mainland Chinese court for interim measures in aid of the arbitration, the formalities must follow the requirements of the relevant court.

4. Why the court rules do not carry overTHE LITIGATION RULES

The notarisation and consular authentication requirements that practitioners most often reach for come from court procedure, not arbitration:

• Article 521 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on the Civil Procedure Law (2022 amendment): a foreign enterprise or organisation participating in litigation must submit identity documents notarised by a notary in its country of domicile and authenticated by the Chinese embassy or consulate there, or processed under the formalities prescribed by a relevant treaty between China and that state.
• Article 16 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Provisions on Evidence in Civil Procedure (2019 amendment): public documents formed abroad must be notarised in the country of formation or processed under an applicable treaty; identity-related evidence formed abroad must be both notarised and consularly authenticated. Article 17 requires foreign-language documentary evidence submitted to a court to be accompanied by a Chinese translation.

Both sets of rules address filings to the people’s courts. Their direct object is the foreign party’s standing and evidence in Chinese litigation — not the materials an applicant files with an arbitration institution. To the extent that treaty formalities are engaged, the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, in force for China since 7 November 2023, is one of the routes covered by the statutory reference to treaty procedures, substituting an Apostille for consular legalisation between contracting states.

5. Drawing the boundaryTHREE PROCEDURAL CONTEXTS

The review of a foreign party’s identity documents should therefore be separated into three contexts, each with its own legal basis, purpose and standard of proof.

Three consequences follow. First, an institution accepts documents under its rules and guidance; acceptance does not foreclose later tribunal scrutiny. Second, where arbitration intersects with the courts through an application for property or evidence preservation, the court examines the applicant’s status and authority under the preservation regime, and the form of the materials is judged against that regime and the requirements of the specific court — not against the institution’s filing standard. Third, once an award moves to setting aside, recognition or enforcement, the formal requirements of identity and authorisation documents are determined afresh by the law, interpretations and treaties applicable to that judicial procedure.

6. The working ruleCONCLUSION

The working rule is separation. A foreign company need not pre-notarise its constitutive documents and powers of attorney merely to commence arbitration before CIETAC or SCIA.