Finality of Arbitral Awards: Comparing Approaches in Sharia Law and International Law

This study investigates the effect of the application of Sharia law in Saudi Arabia on the finality of arbitral awards on the basis of questions of law and public policy. International arbitration laws tend to circumvent the two issues by limiting the scope of their applicability. Based on the need to retain a degree of authority over enforcement of arbitral awards and other internationally issued legal determinations, this study finds that the Saudi Arbitration Law 2012 Act has some positive features and moves closer to international law in comparison to the Old Saudi Law, specifically on the issue of finality. The study finds that although not on a par with international law, it is a step in the right direction for Saudi Law to work more flexibly in the international sphere with issues involving finality. Where in the past, issues would not have been resolved due to the refusal to enforce arbitral awards, a more facilitating scenario comes about and the scope of enforcement of finality is set to rise due to the New Saudi Law. In addition, this study finds that the Saudi 2012 Act demonstrates the willingness of the Kingdom to cooperate with international laws. Although this is a breakthrough in dealing with finality, a fundamental principle of Saudi law is that the new Saudi law Act conforms to Sharia and the Kingdom’s public policy. However, with a lack of empirical cases specifically involving the New Saudi Law, it is yet to be established that it has achieved the positive impact intended. This study supports continued efforts and ultimately recommends the decision to work towards the amendment of Saudi law to better aid the achievement of finality without undue subjection to unnecessary scrutiny based on public policy requirements and also to realign Saudi public policy with international standards while maintaining fidelity to the values and principles of Sharia law.