Structural Neutrality Deficits and the Limits of Judicial Impartiality in the China International Commercial Court: A Comparative Institutional Analysis

Li Nan (Doctor Candidate, Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Bangi, Malaysia)
Nabeel Mahdi Althabhawi (Doctor in Law, Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Bangi, Malaysia College of Law, Al-Bayan University, Baghdad, Iraq)
Nadhilah Binti A. Kadir (Doctor in Law, Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Bangi, Malaysia)

Jurnal Cita Hukum
Vol. 14 No. 2 (2026): Summer Edition

The rise of international commercial courts indicates that cross-border commercial dispute resolution is moving beyond an arbitration-dominated model towards a landscape in which national courts, arbitration mechanisms and hybrid dispute resolution platforms coexist. Established within the Supreme People’s Court, the China International Commercial Court (CICC) reflects China’s institutional effort to strengthen foreign-related commercial adjudication and participate in global competition in commercial justice. This paper argues that the CICC’s central difficulty is not merely a lack of internationalization, nor actual bias in individual cases, but the insufficient institutionalization of structural neutrality, which limits the generation, manifestation and cross-border acceptance of judicial impartiality. Drawing on normative jurisprudence, comparative law and conceptual institutional analysis, this paper develops a three-dimensional framework of organizational neutrality, procedural neutrality and perceived neutrality, and examines the CICC’s structural deficits in jurisdiction, judicial composition, organizational embedding, the Expert Committee, procedural autonomy, foreign lawyer participation and language mechanisms. It finds that the actual connection requirement restricts the CICC’s function as a neutral forum; its single-nationality adjudicatory structure and internal embedding within the Supreme People’s Court weaken organizational neutrality; and the Expert Committee cannot substitute for international participation with adjudicatory authority. Through comparison with the SICC, the DIFC and the CICAP, this paper argues that the CICC should pursue structural inclusivity within the framework of sovereignty through limited jurisdictional openness, regulated international participation, procedural autonomy, limited access for foreign lawyers, bilingual administration of justice and adjudicatory transparency, thereby reconstructing structural neutrality and enhancing cross-border credibility.