Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS:
Title: Grounds for refusal of enforcement of foreign commercial arbitral awards in GCC states law
Author: Al-Enazi, Mohamed Saud
Awarding Body: Brunel University
Current Institution: Brunel University
Date of Award: 2013
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Access from Institution:
This thesis posed the question whether foreign arbitral awards are enforced in accordance with the demands of the New York Convention in the UAE and Bahrain and moreover whether the conditions for enforcement compel the conclusion that these two nations are enforcement-friendly in the same manner as leading arbitral nations such as the UK, France, Hong-Kong and NYC. On the basis of legislative and judicial practice in the UAE and Bahrain it was found that Bahrain and all UAE emirates, with the exception of Dubai, are enforcement friendly and more importantly place few constraints on the enforcement of foreign awards. Dubai is also enforcement-friendly but a small number of decisions, particularly Bechtel, leave significant latitude to foreign investors to consider Dubai courts, and particularly its court of Cassation, as dubious when it comes to enforcement. It was also found that Islamic law per se is not an obstacle in the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and very few constraints were found from the perspective of public policy and arbitrability in particular. In fact, the courts of Bahrain and the UAE have applied a rather liberal interpretation of Islamic law in order to accommodate arbitral practices that have been sustained in other jurisdictions and under the lex mercatoria with a view to assisting the commercial vision of the two nations. Hence, it was found that Islamic law is an enabling vehicle in the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the UAE and Bahrain, rather than an obstacle.
Supervisor: Bantakes, I. Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID:  DOI: Not available
Keywords: Sources of arbitration ; Public policy to refuse the enforcement ; Lack of arbitrability ; Nullity of award ; Grounds for non-enforcement