The increasingly frequent unilateral economic sanctions have triggered a large number of international commercial arbitration cases, and the results of commercial arbitration awards directly affect the effectiveness of unilateral economic sanctions. In order to prevent parties from evading economic sanctions through international commercial arbitration, the public policy exception stipulated in Article 5 of the New York Convention has become an important tool of international law for courts in various countries to maintain the authority of their own economic sanctions and refuse to recognize and enforce arbitral awards involving their own economic sanctions. Since China’s anti-sanctions legislation has similar characteristics to unilateral sanctions, in order to avoid the constraints of international commercial arbitration on China’s anti-sanctions measures, how Chinese courts understand and apply the concept of public policy and how to deal with the relationship between public policy and anti-sanctions measures are crucial. While maintaining the effectiveness of China’s anti-sanctions measures, in order to avoid the generalization and abuse of the concept of public policy, China should strengthen the public interest attributes of anti-sanctions measures, reasonably explain the concept of public policy in judicial practice, and provide necessary assistance when China’s overseas enterprises face commercial disputes involving China’s anti-sanction measures.