Contemporary Issues in Arbitration Agreements: Sharia Public Order and Civil Law Perspectives
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v5i2.13682Keywords:
Arbitration Agreement; Group of Companies; Party Autonomy; Sharia Public Order.Abstract
This study examines contemporary issues concerning the law applicable to arbitration agreements in multinational corporate contracts and evaluates their compatibility with Sharia public order across five jurisdictions: France, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Against the backdrop of evolving international arbitration practice, the study employs a doctrinal comparative legal methodology, supplemented by an illustrative analysis of 50 arbitration clauses from multinational corporate contracts, to assess contemporary drafting practices. The research analyzes three core doctrines of international arbitration law: separability of the arbitration agreement, extension of arbitration clauses to non-signatory group companies, and party autonomy in the choice of applicable law. The findings demonstrate that the separability doctrine is generally compatible with Sharia under the maxim al-‘ibrah bi al-maqāṣid wa al-ma‘ānī lā bi al-alfāẓ wa al-mabānī (substance over form), except where the main contract is void ab initio for violating a definitive (qaṭ‘ī) prohibition such as ribā or maysir. The study further finds that extension of arbitration agreements to non-signatories is permissible only upon clear evidence of fraud, active participation, or explicit or implied consent, while mere economic unity is insufficient under Sharia principles of contractual privity. In relation to party autonomy, the study concludes that parties may freely choose the governing law of the arbitration agreement provided that the chosen law does not contravene definitive Sharia prohibitions. The article proposes a reconciled framework based on a cumulative method that preserves party autonomy while requiring compliance with definitive Sharia norms forming part of public order in certain Arab jurisdictions. The study's academic contribution lies in integrating the doctrines of separability, non-signatory extension, and applicable law within a contemporary Sharia-based comparative framework. The findings offer practical guidance for cross-border commercial arbitration.
References
2023 ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics. “2023 ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics.” 2023 ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics, no. 1 (2024): 11–15.
Abdallah, Amel K. “Islamic Sharia and Arbitration in GCC States: The Way Ahead.” International Review of Law 9, no. 2 (2021): 318–336. https://doi.org/10.29117/irl.2020.0114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29117/irl.2020.0114
Abdul Jamil, Farid Sufian Bin Shuaib, and Dodik Setiawan Nur Heriyanto. “Recognition And Enforcement Of Indonesian Sharia Arbitration Awards In Foreign Countries: Challenges And Opportunities.” IIUM Law Journal 31, no. 1 (2023): 309–332. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumlj.v31i1.827. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumlj.v31i1.827
Alaloosh, Mahmood, Ali Shaker Mahmood, and Sabir Hussien Eliwy. “Securing Digital Trade: A Techno-Legal Analysis of E-Commerce Safeguards in Iraq’s Regulation No. 4/2025.” Nusantara: Journal of Law Studies 5, no. 1 (2026): 44–60. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18452737.
Aldhafeeri, Ahmed. The Public Policy Exception to The New York Convention: The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Perspective. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48683/1926.00121236.
Allouzi, Adel Salem, Khaled Mohammad Alomari, Nawal Louzi, and Ghazi Ayed Alghathian. “Assessing Stakeholder Perceptions of the Effectiveness of the UAE Arbitration Law in Resolving Off-Plan Real Estate Disputes in Dubai.” Social Sciences & Humanities Open 12 (2025): 102090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.102090. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.102090
Al-Mardāwī, ‘Alī ibn Sulaymān. Al-Inṣāf. Vol. 8. Dār Iḥyā’ al-Turāth, 1998. https://shamela.ws/book/21609.
Alotaibi, Hajed A., Bandar A. Alyahya, and Saud H. Alharthi. “From Custom to Modernisation: A Legal-Historical Study of Saudi Arabia’s Legal Development.” De Jure: Jurnal Hukum Dan Syar’iah 18, no. 1 (2026): 84–101. https://doi.org/10.18860/j-fsh.v18i1.37829. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18860/j-fsh.v18i1.37829
Al-Serhan, Bakr A. F. “The Separability of Arbitration Agreement in the Emirati Law.” Arbitration International 32, no. 2 (2016): 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiv073. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiv073
Alsharqawi, A., G. A. Alghathian, and A. S. Younes. “International Arbitration: Law and Practice under Dispute Settlement Understanding.” Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues 23, no. 6 (2020): 1–9.
Al-Suyūṭī, Jalāl al-Dīn. Al-Ashbāh wa al-Naẓā’ir. Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1990. https://shamela.ws/book/21719.
Anggriani, Reni, Farhanin Abdullah Asuhaimi, Jarot Wahyudi, Nafiza Fauziah, and Fadhilah Abdullah Asuhaimi. “Agreement of Waqf in Indonesia and Malaysia: Harmonisation with Quranic Principles and Modern Legal Frameworks.” Ijtihad : Jurnal Wacana Hukum Islam Dan Kemanusiaan 25, no. 2 (2025): 231–255. https://doi.org/10.18326/ijtihad.v25i2.231-255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18326/ijtihad.v25i2.231-255
Appeal Nos. 4729 & 4730/72 (Egyptian Court of Cassation June 22, 2004).
Arbitration Law, Royal Decree No. M/34 Umm Al Qura Gazette No. 4409 (2012). https://www.acerislaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Saudi-Arbitration-law-reduced.pdf.
‘Arī, 1992 Revue de l’arbitrage 95 (Paris Court of Appeal 1990). https://www.academia.edu/33427131/Circulation_of_the_international_arbitration_clause_French_and_Swiss_cases.
Asyiqin, Istianah Zainal, Muhammad Khaeruddin Hamsin, and Ayesha Binti Abul Hisyam. “From Hybrid Contracts to Waqf–Musyārakah-Based Takaful: A Maqāṣid al-Syarī‘ah Comparative Legal Analysis of Indonesia and Malaysia.” JURIS (Jurnal Ilmiah Syariah) 25, no. 1 (2026): 61–81. https://doi.org/10.31958/juris.v25i1.13147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31958/juris.v25i1.13147
Auda, Jasser. Maqasid Al-Shariah as Philosophy of Islamic Law: A Systems Approach. International Institute of Islamic Thought, 2008. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvkc67tg. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvkc67tg
Baamir, Abdulrahman Yahya. Shari’a Law in Commercial and Banking Arbitration: Law and Practice in Saudi Arabia. Routledge, 2016. https://www.routledge.com/Sharia-Law-in-Commercial-and-Banking-Arbitration-Law-and-Practice-in-Saudi-Arabia/Baamir/p/book/9781138277069.
Basic Law of Governance, Article 1 (1992). https://www.acerislaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Saudi-Arabia-Basic-Law-of-Governance.pdf.
Born, Gary B. International Commercial Arbitration. 3rd ed. Kluwer Law International, 2021. https://law-store.wolterskluwer.com/s/product/international-commercial-arbitration-3e-3-volume-set/01t4R00000OkdUZQAZ.
Camilleri, Simon. “Sense and Separability.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 72, no. 2 (2023): 509–525. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589323000131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589323000131
Code de procédure civile, Décret No. 2011-48 Articles 1442–1527 (2011). https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/id/LEGISCTA000006089134.
Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt, Article 2 (2014). https://sis.gov.eg/media/67726/dustor-eng.pdf.
Constitution of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Article 2 (1952). https://istd.gov.jo/EBV4.0/Root_Storage/EN/EB_Pages/Constitution_of_the_Hashemite_Kingdom_of_Jordan.pdf.
Constitution of the United Arab Emirates, Article 7 (1971). https://www.difccourts.ae/application/files/3115/9465/4789/United_Arab_Emirates_2004.pdf.
Decision No. 1783/2010 (Jordanian Court of Cassation (Legal Panel) October 6, 2010).
Decision of 10 October 1979, 1980 Journal du Droit International (Clunet) 581 (Swiss Federal Tribunal 1979).
Dewan, Nakul, and Sathvik Chandrashekar. “Stretching Separability to Its Yield Point.” Arbitration International 41, no. 3 (2025): 535–564. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiae050. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiae050
Dobinson, Ian, and Francis Johns. “Qualitative Legal Research.” In Research Methods for Law, 2nd ed., edited by Mike McConville and Wing Hong Chui. Edinburgh University Press, 2017. https://dokumen.pub/research-methods-for-law-9781474404259.html.
Dow Chemical France, The Dow Chemical Company, Dow Chemical A.G., Dow Chemical Europe v. ISOVER Saint Gobain, Jus Mundi ___ (Paris Court of Appeal 1983). https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/fr-1-dow-chemical-france-2-the-dow-chemical-company-3-dow-chemical-a-g-4-dow-chemical-europe-v-isover-saint-gobain-arret-de-la-cour-dappel-de-paris-friday-21st-october-1983.
“Dow Chemical v. ISOVER, Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal, 21 Oct 1983.” Accessed May 19, 2026. https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/fr-1-dow-chemical-france-2-the-dow-chemical-company-3-dow-chemical-a-g-4-dow-chemical-europe-v-isover-saint-gobain-arret-de-la-cour-dappel-de-paris-friday-21st-october-1983.
Egyptian Arbitration Law No. 27 of 1994, Law No. 27 of 1994 (1994). https://www.newyorkconvention.org/media/uploads/pdf/5/4/549_law-no-27-1994-promulgating-the-law-concerning-arbitration-in-civil-and-commercial-matters.pdf.
El Maknouzi, Mohammed El Hadi, Iyad Mohammad Jadalhaq, Imad Eldin Abdulhay, and Enas Mohammed Alqodsi. “Islamic Commercial Arbitration and Private International Law: Mapping Controversies and Exploring Pathways towards Greater Coordination.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10, no. 1 (2023): 523. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02031-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02031-z
Farah, Ahmad Q., and Rasha M. Hattab. “The Application of Sharīʿah Finance Rules in International Commercial Arbitration.” Utrecht Law Review 16, no. 1 (2020): 117–139. https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.592. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.592
Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 on Arbitration, Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 Official Gazette No. 634 (2018). https://uaelegislation.gov.ae/en/legislations/1069/download.
Fernández Rozas, José Carlos. “Ley Aplicable al Convenio Arbitral En Ausencia de Elección Expresa de Las Partes.” Cuadernos De Derecho Transnacional 16, no. 2 (2024): 646–673. https://doi.org/10.20318/cdt.2024.8936. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20318/cdt.2024.8936
Fouchard, Philippe. L’arbitrage commercial international. Dalloz, 1965. https://books.google.com/.
Gaillard, Emmanuel. Legal Theory of International Arbitration. Brill, 2010. https://brill.com/display/title/18822?srsltid=AfmBOooP--wvwYPL1ibKwYzMwCGXkxWnSsCAodlOGkviw1HgihhiRkli. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004186415.i-196
Gaillard, Emmanuel. “The Group of Companies Doctrine in International Arbitration.” In Liber Amicorum Pierre Lalive. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 2013. https://www.abebooks.com/LALIVE-Pierre-%25C3%2589tudes-droit-international-lhonneur/32268598210/bd.
Goh, J. J. B. “Separability Doctrine: Perspectives from China, England and the Model Law.” Singapore Academy of Law Journal 37 (2025): 47–71.
Goldman, Berthold. “Les conflits de lois dans l’arbitrage international de droit privé.” Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International 109 (1963): 347–480.
Gosset, 52 Revue critique de droit international privé 615 (Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation), Civil Chamber 1963). https://books.google.jo/books/about/Revue_critique_de_droit_international_pr.html?id=WMEvAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y.
Humaidi, M. Wildan, Ridwan, and Mohd Mahyeddin Mohd Salleh. “State-Religion Relations and Halal Governance: Islamic Legal Policy in Indonesia and Malaysia.” Al-Manahij: Jurnal Kajian Hukum Islam, April 1, 2026, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.24090/mnh.v20i1.15374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24090/mnh.v20i1.15374
Hussain, Mohammad Azam, Mohamad Fateh Labanieh, Nazli Mahdzir, Nooraini Sulaiman, and Omar Saleh Abdullah Bawazir. “The Potential Prospect Of Artificial Intelligence (Ai) In Arbitration From The International, National And Islamic Perspectives.” Journal of International Studies 19 (2023). https://doi.org/10.32890/jis2023.19.1.4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32890/jis2023.19.1.4
Ibn Qudāmah, Muwaffaq al-Dīn. Al-Mughnī. Vol. 6. Maktabat al-Qāhirah, 1968. https://shamela.ws/book/8463.
ICC Award No. 1434/1975, 1976 Journal du Droit International (Clunet) 973 (International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Arbitration 1975). https://www.trans-lex.org/196143/_/derains-yves-note-to-icc-award-no-1434-clunet-1976-at-982-et-seq/.
ICC Award No. 4131/1982, 1983 Journal du Droit International (Clunet) 899 (International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Arbitration 1982). https://www.trans-lex.org/204131/_/icc-award-no-4131-yca-1984-at-131-et-seq-/.
ICC Award No. 5721/1990, 1991 Journal du Droit International (Clunet) 1020 (International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Arbitration 1990). https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-icc-case-ndeg5721-final-award-in-case-ndeg-5721-extract.
ICC Award No. 6673/1992, 1992 Journal du Droit International (Clunet) 992 (International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Arbitration 1992). https://www.trans-lex.org/206673/_/icc-award-no-6673-clunet-1992-at-992-et-seq/.
IICRA Award No. 2021-17/A (International Islamic Centre for Reconciliation and Arbitration (IICRA) 2021).
IICRA Award No. 2022-09/B (International Islamic Centre for Reconciliation and Arbitration (IICRA) 2022).
Imam Syafi’i, Ramdan Wagianto, Hawa’ Hidayatul Hikmiyah, Irzak Yuliardy Nugroho, and Syaikhoni. Harmonization of Islamic Law and Local Wisdom: A Methodological Reconstruction of Ijtihad in Family Law Based on Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s Istinbāṭ Approach. January 24, 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.18359276.
International Chamber of Commerce. ICC Arbitration Rules. 2021. https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/rules-procedure/2021-arbitration-rules/.
International Islamic Centre for Reconciliation and Arbitration. IICRA Arbitration and Reconciliation Rules. International Islamic Centre for Reconciliation and Arbitration, 2022. https://iicra.com/download/iicra-arbitration-and-reconciliation-rules/.
Jordanian Arbitration Law No. 31 of 2001, Law No. 31 of 2001 (2001). https://www.newyorkconvention.org/media/uploads/pdf/5/7/576_law-no-31-of-2001-jordan-arbitration-law.pdf.
Kamali, Mohammad Hashim author. Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. With Internet Archive. Cambridge, United Kingdom : The Islamic Texts Society, 2003. http://archive.org/details/principlesofisla0000kama.
Kelik Wardiono, Arief Budiono, Isman Isman, Arova Bakhtiar, and Dwinuryidha Ken Rifqi. “Reconstructing Contemporary Legal Methodology through the Noetic Triadic Spiral Model: A Trans-Epistemological Perspective.” MILRev: Metro Islamic Law Review 5, no. 1 (2026): 533–574. https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v5i1.13039. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v5i1.13039
Kis France, 1992 Revue de l’Arbitrage 90 (Paris Court of Appeal 1989). https://cfa-arbitrage.com/en/.
Law No. 2 of 2017 Promulgating the Civil and Commercial Arbitration Law, Law No. 2 of 2017 Official Gazette No. 16 (2017). https://www.qicdrc.gov.qa/sites/default/files/2021-12/law_02_2017_booklet.pdf. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5339/irl.2017.ADR.12
Ling, Andrew. “Neither Express nor Implied: Rethinking Governing Law of the Arbitration Agreement.” Arbitration International 39, no. 3 (2023): 401–424. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiad032. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiad032
Maaiteh, Yazan Al. “Joining Non-Signatory Third Parties to Arbitration Agreements in Jordan.” Journal of International Arbitration 41, no. Issue 6 (2024): 745–768. https://doi.org/10.54648/JOIA2024033. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/JOIA2024033
Masadeh, Aymen K., and Ahmed Alozn. “Contemporary Issues of Arbitration under UAE Law.” Arab Law Quarterly 40, nos. 1–2 (2024): 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1163/15730255-bja10175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15730255-bja10175
Mohamad Ridhuan Mohd Zawawi, Wafaa’ Yusof, Zaini Nasohah, Anwar Fakhri Omar, and Safiyyah Hannah Souit. “Rethinking Hisbah and Sharia Proceduralism: A Comparative Approach to Justice in Contemporary Islamic Law.” MILRev: Metro Islamic Law Review 4, no. 1 (2025): 234–268. https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v4i1.10391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v4i1.10391
Muhammad Azam, Anis Mashdurohatun, Angga Nugraha Firmansyah, Muhammad Dias Saktiawan, and King On Putra Jaya. “Harmonizing Contemporary International Commercial Law with Sharia-Based National Legal Systems: A Comparative Study of Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia.” MILRev: Metro Islamic Law Review 4, no. 2 (2025): 1074–1096. https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v4i2.11334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v4i2.11334
Muhammad Azam, Naji Mohammad Alwreikat, Burhan Alsyouf, Abdel Salam Atwa Ali Al Fandi, and Rawdah Abdul Karim Mohammad Pharaon. “Contemporary Trade Governance and Cross-Border Data Flows: A Comparative Study of Sharīʿah Principles and International Legal Frameworks.” MILRev: Metro Islamic Law Review 5, no. 1 (2026): 686–721. https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v5i1.13387. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v5i1.13387
New York Convention. “United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 10 June 1958).” June 10, 1958. https://www.newyorkconvention.org/english.
Pratama, Abdul Hakim, Hasbir Paserangi, Adi Nurhani Mufrih, Abdul Halim Talli, and Mohd Al Adib Bin Samuri. “The Position of Choice of Forum and Alternative Dispute Resolution Principles in Contemporary Sharia-Based Property Dispute.” MILRev: Metro Islamic Law Review 4, no. 1 (2025): 184–207. https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v4i1.10140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v4i1.10140
Rahman, Tunis Abu Bakr, Widad Mahdi Jasim, and Nooruldeen Mustafa Al-Gburi. “Legal and Sharia Analysis of Commercial Paper Discounting and Islamic Banking Finance Alternatives.” Nusantara: Journal of Law Studies 5, no. 1 (2026): 84–101. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18676735. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61987/fiqh.v1i2.1323
Rana Saad Shakar, Mohammed Faroq Mahmood, Nibras Arif Abdulameer, Zahraa Mahdi Dahash, and Iskaliev Azat. “Balancing National Sovereignty: The Impact of Bilateral Investment Treaties on Contemporary Islamic Economic Law.” MILRev: Metro Islamic Law Review 4, no. 1 (2025): 31–63. https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v4i1.10265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v4i1.10265
Sahat Maruli Tua Situmeang, Athari Farhani, Subagyo Sri Utomo, and Musa Darwin Pane. “Contemporary Human Rights Safeguards in Islamic Law Justice: A Comparative Study in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.” MILRev: Metro Islamic Law Review 5, no. 1 (2026): 575–610. https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v5i1.13066. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v5i1.13066
Smits, Jan M. “What Is Legal Doctrine?: On The Aims and Methods of Legal-Dogmatic Research.” In Rethinking Legal Scholarship, 1st ed., edited by Rob Van Gestel, Hans-W. Micklitz, and Edward L. Rubin. Cambridge University Press, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316442906.006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316442906.006
So, Hilary HW. “Lex Contractus Arbitratus: A Critical Evaluation of Doctrine, Policy, and Law.” Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management 91, no. 1 (2025). https://kluwerlawonline.com/api/Product/CitationPDFURL?file=JournalsAMDMAMDM2025002.pdf. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/AMDM2025002
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, UN Doc. A/40/17, Annex I (1985). https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/622718/files/UNCITRAL_Model_Law.pdf.
Zarra, Giovanni. “Separability and the Law Applicable to the Substantive Validity of Arbitration Agreements.” Journal of International Arbitration 41, no. Issue 1 (2024): 29–50. https://doi.org/10.54648/JOIA2024002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/JOIA2024002
Zuḥaylī, Wahbah al-. Al-Fiqh al-Islāmī Wa Adillatuhu. 4th ed. Vol. 5. Dār al-Fikr, 2018.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ghazi Ayed Alghathian, Mohammad Saleh Alqudah, Adel Salem Allouzi, Mashal Mufleh Jarrah

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.






