Arbitration in the Middle East: recent developments and the path toward international alignment

Over the past three years the Middle East has continued its pronounced shift toward modernised, arbitration-friendly dispute-resolution frameworks. Governments and major regional institutions have adopted new institutional rules, encouraged procedural innovation and, in some jurisdictions, are pursuing legislative reform designed to bring domestic arbitration law into closer alignment with international practice. The result is a patchwork of rapid evolution, selective legislative reform, and a maturing judicial approach that together materially improve the attractiveness of the region as a seat for cross-border commercial arbitration. 

Institutional rule-making: efficiency, digitalisation and multi-party tools

Regional arbitral institutions have been at the forefront of change. Cairo’s new International Arbitration Centre (Cairo IAC) rules, and updated rules from established bodies such as the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (CRCICA), expressly address previously neglected procedural issues: online filing, consolidation/joinder, early dismissal of claims and provisions on third-party funding and expedited procedures. These rule updates are explicitly aimed at increasing procedural predictability and efficiency in multi-party, multi-contract disputes—an area of particular relevance to the complex construction, energy and hospitality projects that drive much of the regions arbitration. These changes will be welcomed by arbitrating parties as some of these early teething problems acted as barriers to having parties elect arbitration to determine their disputes.

CRCICA’s 2024 Rules (now widely used in other countries in the region) demonstrate this trend; building on UNCITRAL-model flexibility while adding express mechanisms for consolidation, emergency relief and expedited timetables where appropriate. The emphasis on written and digital communication, case management powers for tribunals, and clearer rules on third-party funding reflects market expectations and practises—businesses and shareholders demand speed, transparency and cost-control. 

Legislative reform: draft laws and incremental modernisation

Legislative developments are a little uneven, but significant. Several Gulf states and North African jurisdictions have signalled their intent to modernise arbitration statutes or have published draft laws that would consolidate and clarify existing rules, strengthen party autonomy and provide for better judicial support of arbitration. Saudi Arabia’s draft arbitration law, published for consultation in 2025, is a notable example and has perhaps made the greatest strides: it aims to replace the existing framework with a more comprehensive statute that aligns domestic procedure with international norms and codify reforms that improve efficiency and transparency. If enacted in its current form, the draft law would mark a major step in embedding investor confidence in the Kingdom’s dispute-resolution regime and provide significant clarity and stability to the arbitration process. 

The UAE’s federal arbitration law (2018) - Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 and the onshore/offshore frameworks in Dubai International Finance Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) remain active, with recent years seeing mostly judicial clarification rather than wholesale statutory change. The UAE courts have issued rulings in recent years that reinforce a pro-arbitration reading of domestic procedure and enforcement, and institutions such as DIAC continue administrative reforms to improve case management and award enforcement. These developments are very positive for the region and combine legislative stability with institutional development.  

Judicial practice: growing support but local particularities remain

Courts across the region are increasingly supportive of arbitration, but national particularities persist. Studies by regional centres—such as the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA)—confirm low annulment rates in appeal courts, signalling judicial willingness to uphold arbitration autonomy. Yet isolated decisions in some jurisdictions remind practitioners that domestic courts retain the capacity to scrutinise awards and, in some contexts, re-examine merits where local public policy or jurisdictional issues are raised. The Omani Supreme Court’s 2023 decision allowing the re-opening of enforcement proceedings illustrates the continuing need for careful drafting of arbitration agreements and enforcement strategies so as to be compliant with local practises. 

The practical implications of these decisions mean that parties and counsel should not assume homogenised judicial behaviour across the region, just as with judicial authority across any multi-jurisdictional region. While courts in major hubs such as Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Riyadh and Cairo are largely pro-arbitration; enforcement and annulment risk profiles still depend on local procedural rules, case-law and the particular factual matrix of the dispute.

Procedural innovations and market responses

Several procedural trends deserve specific mention. First, expedited procedures and strict timetables are becoming more common: both institutional rules and ad hoc agreements now frequently provide mechanisms for accelerated disposal of lower-value claims and interim relief via emergency arbitrators. Second, digitalisation including electronic filing, virtual hearings and secure document platforms has moved from optional to expected. Third, the recognition of third-party funding and clarity on disclosure of funders have reduced uncertainty and encouraged claimant financing in high-value cases.

These innovations appear largely a market response to the types of disputes prevalent in the region such as complex construction, energy and hospitality matters that require multi-party case management, tight scheduling and effective interim relief. Institutions that integrate these tools are therefore better positioned to capture regional and international filings. 

Remaining challenges and considerations for practitioners

Despite clear progress, challenges remain. First, fragmentation: differing institutional rules and varying domestic court practices mean that seat selection and governing law remain critical strategic decisions. Second, enforcement risk in certain jurisdictions can still be a concern. Practitioners should conduct seat-specific enforcement risk assessments and consider protective measures (e.g., asset security, forum selection clauses, and carefully drafted waiver and jurisdictional language). Third, capacity building: local pools of experienced arbitrators and tribunal secretariats are growing, but complex and/or high value arbitrations still draw on international panels, which raise questions about costs.

Finally, geopolitical and economic volatility will continue to shape the arbitration landscape. States balancing national development objectives with the need to attract foreign investment will likely continue to adjust their arbitration framework - legislatively, judicially, and institutionally toward international standards, while safeguarding public policy objectives.

Outlook: convergence toward international norms with local distinctiveness

The Middle Eastern arbitration landscape is moving steadily toward greater alignment with international arbitration practice through a mix of institutional rule-making, legislative drafting and evolving judicial practise. The net effect is a safer, more predictable environment for cross-border dispute resolution, albeit one still shaped by national legal traditions and policy concerns. For international parties and counsel, the region now offers a competitive range of seats and procedural options; success will turn on careful choice of seat and institutional rules, meticulous drafting of arbitration clauses and a pragmatic approach to enforcement strategy. If the current pace of institutional reform and legislative attention continues, the coming years are likely to consolidate the region’s status as a viable, and in some cases preferred, destination for international arbitration. 

Contact

Kyle Lecuona

Barrister

London