Arbitration Law
Nature of Foreign Arbitral Awards
This summary explains the concept of foreign arbitration and the criteria used to characterize an arbitral award as foreign, examines the award’s legal nature, and outlines enforcement procedures in Jordan and grounds for refusal. It highlights practical implications of obtaining exequatur, the required procedural steps and judicial reasons that may prevent enforcement.
Updated: 13 April 2023
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Concept of Foreign Arbitration
Arbitration is a dispute-resolution method chosen by the parties outside ordinary courts. An arbitration is regarded as foreign when the proceedings or award arise in a State other than the State of intended enforcement, or when the procedural law applied is that of another State. Practically, an award may be foreign even if hearings occurred in the enforcement State where a foreign law governed the proceedings.
Foreign Arbitral Award: Definition and Criteria
An arbitral award is the final decision by the arbitral tribunal on the submitted claims; its foreign character depends on a non‑domestic element. Doctrine and legislation recognize two main tests: a geographical test (where the award was made) and a legal test (the procedural law applied). Domestic enforcement laws and regional/international instruments rely on one or both tests to classify an award as foreign.
Legal Nature of a Foreign Arbitral Award and Practical Effects
Views diverge on whether a foreign award is essentially judicial, contractual, or of a mixed nature. The practical approach recognizes both elements: the contractual basis (the parties’ agreement to arbitrate) and the judicial character of the tribunal’s final, binding decision. This hybrid nature means the award is treated as an enforceable obligation, while its contractual origin informs the scope of local courts’ review at enforcement stage.
Enforcement Procedure in Jordan and Practical Limits
Enforcement in Jordan requires obtaining an exequatur by filing an enforcement action before the competent Court of First Instance under the law on foreign judgments. The enforcement petitioner must submit a certified copy of the award and a certified translation if not in Arabic, and effect proper service. Courts may refuse exequatur for specified reasons: conflict with public policy, lack of reciprocity by the country of origin, defective notice or denial of defense, fraud in securing the award, non‑finality, or tribunal excess of authority. Provisions of the New York Convention also support some refusal grounds under international standards.
Selected Jordanian Case Law and Practical Interpretations
Jordanian Court of Cassation rulings have addressed the application of refusal grounds for foreign judgments, evidentiary burdens and procedural formalities. The cases emphasize courts’ scrutiny of service and whether the award has become final, and they confirm that reciprocity considerations may justify refusal. The jurisprudence shows that trial and appellate courts must examine supporting evidence before granting exequatur, and failure to do so can result in reversal by higher courts.
Legal notice
Notice: This summary is for general information and legal education only and does not constitute actionable legal advice. The original source is linked on the publication page and should be consulted; statutory texts, amendments and effective dates must be verified and you should consult a licensed lawyer before taking any action.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.
A related service path
Commercial and civil litigation
If this study is close to your matter, review the service scope and contact the firm to discuss the facts and documents.
Review the related service