{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020813623462630087, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007568590350047304, 'mean_word_length': 5.2976190476190474, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Time to Make a Change? A Comparative Study of Chinese Arbitration Law and the 2006 UNCITRAL Model Law and the Forecast of Chinese Arbitration Law Reform

In addition to the introduction (Part A) and conclusion (Part F), this Note consists of four parts: Part B discuses the legal framework of Chinese arbitration law; Part C, D and E respectively focus on three major amendments of the 2006 UNCITRAL Model Law vis-a-vis the Chinese arbitration law: the written form requirement of arbitration agreement, the interim measures of protection in arbitration proceedings and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral award, and raise suggestions for the upcoming reform of Chinese arbitration law in these aspects. This Note observes that the transplantation of the “new standard” into Chinese arbitration law is an issue of more political than legislative nature. Even though China may partly adopt the “new standard” under the current sociopolitical background, no fundamental outbreak could be expected unless the complete judicial independence is achieved.