Article 22 of the "Regulations on Outward Investment"

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.

律师介绍

张帆律师

中国执业律师、美国加州执业律师

美国联邦法院注册律师

（联邦巡回、第九巡回、加州中区、加州北区、国际贸易法院）

迪拜国际仲裁中心DIAC仲裁员

英国皇家特许仲裁协会全球青工委大使

英国皇家特许仲裁师资深会员 FCIArb

ACCA国际特许会计师高级商业会计

国际贸易金融专家(CITF)

FIDIC认证咨询专家

国际商会（ICC）欧盟外国补贴条例工作组成员

成都市涉外律师领军人才

京师律所（全国）商事仲裁专委会理事

京师律所（全国）公司法专委会理事

京师成都律所党总支委员、第一支部书记

京师成都律所涉外法律事务部主任

京师律所阿联酋迪拜合作办公室（筹）业务负责人

成都市发展和改革委员会经济体制改革智库专家

中国贸促会、中国国际商会商委会联合认证RCEP培训师资

高级企业法律顾问、高级建设工程法务师