International Arbitration in Jordan

The governing statute is the Jordanian Arbitration Law No. 31 of 2001 as amended by Law No. 41 of 2018. The law is modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law and applies to all conventional arbitrations seated in Jordan and to international arbitrations where the parties have agreed to subject their dispute to Jordanian law. Article 3(b) requires the law to be interpreted in light of international arbitration principles and trade customs. Jordan acceded to the New York Convention 1958 in 1979 and is a party to the Riyadh Arab Convention on Judicial Cooperation 1983 and the ICSID Convention 1965. Article 24 of the Arbitration Law permits parties to refer to the procedural rules of any arbitration centre in Jordan or abroad, with the Jordan International Arbitration Centre (JIAC) and major international institutions such as the ICC, LCIA, ICSID, and DIAC available as institutional choices.

Set-aside applications against Jordan-seated arbitral awards are filed at the Court of Cassation in a single-tier review under Article 50(a) of the Arbitration Law No. 31 of 2001 as amended by Law No. 41 of 2018. The 2018 amendments removed the previous two-tier system, in which the Court of Appeal heard the annulment and decisions could be appealed to the Court of Cassation. The application must be filed within thirty days of notification of the award; the opposing party files its response within thirty days following notification of the application. The Court of Cassation reviews on documents unless it decides otherwise, and its decision is final. Waiver of the right to file a set-aside action before the award is rendered does not preclude a party from filing the action after the award.

Enforcement of a foreign-seated arbitral award follows a procedural route distinct from the set-aside route. The application is filed at the Court of First Instance, with appellate recourse to the Court of Appeal and ultimately to the Court of Cassation. The substantive grounds for refusing enforcement are drawn from Article 7 of the Foreign Judgments Enforcement Law No. 8 of 1952 and the applicable convention. The Court of Cassation has confirmed this procedure in Tamyiz Huquq No. 7561/2024 (Saudi-seated award enforced under the Riyadh Convention 1983) and Tamyiz Huquq No. 8837/2023 (United Kingdom-seated maritime award enforced under the New York Convention 1958). The role of each court is limited to verifying procedural compliance and the Article 7 grounds; merits review is not available, as confirmed by Tamyiz Huquq No. 4558/2011 (General Body).

The applicable treaty is determined by the country of origin and Jordan's treaty relationships. The Court of Cassation has established a hierarchy in Tamyiz Huquq No. 7561/2024 and reaffirmed in Tamyiz Huquq No. 5474/2020: bilateral conventions take priority; then multilateral regional conventions such as the Riyadh Arab Convention on Judicial Cooperation 1983 (which applies to awards from member states of the League of Arab States party to the Convention, including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Lebanon); then the New York Convention 1958 (which applies to awards from non-Arab New York Convention member states such as the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, and the United States). Where no convention applies, the Foreign Judgments Enforcement Law No. 8 of 1952 governs subject to reciprocity considerations under Article 7 of that law.

On average, enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in Jordan takes between six and eighteen months from the date the application is filed, depending on the complexity of the case and the level of contestation. Uncontested applications are typically resolved at the Court of First Instance within four to six months. Where the matter is contested through the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation, the full procedural cycle commonly extends to twelve to eighteen months. Cases involving procedural complications such as initial jurisdictional objections may extend to twenty-four months or more. Recent Court of Cassation precedents reflect this range: Tamyiz Huquq No. 7561/2024 (Saudi-seated award) was decided approximately thirteen months after the initial filing, while Tamyiz Huquq No. 8837/2023 (London-seated award) ran approximately twenty-six months due to a procedural reversal at the Court of First Instance level.

Under the Jordanian framework, an arbitral award is classified as domestic if the arbitration was seated in Jordan, regardless of the parties' nationalities or the language of the proceedings. An award is classified as foreign if the arbitration was seated outside Jordan. Domestic awards are enforced at the Court of Cassation under Articles 53 to 54 of the Arbitration Law No. 31 of 2001 as amended by Law No. 41 of 2018, in a single-tier review. Foreign awards are enforced at the Court of First Instance under Article 7 of the Foreign Judgments Enforcement Law No. 8 of 1952 plus the applicable convention, with appellate recourse through the Court of Appeal to the Court of Cassation. The classification turns on the seat of the arbitration, not on the parties or the substantive law.

Article 10(d) of the Arbitration Law No. 31 of 2001 as amended by Law No. 41 of 2018 makes pre-dispute arbitration agreements void in two specific situations: consumer contracts on pre-printed forms (paragraph 1) and employment contracts (paragraph 2). The Court of Cassation General Body has confirmed this in a precedent line including Tamyiz Huquq Nos. 320/2015, 2637/2016, 529/2017, and 5820/2024. The New York Convention Article II(3) ‘null and void’ exception activates and Jordanian courts retain jurisdiction notwithstanding any foreign-seated arbitration clause. For all other commercial contracts, party autonomy under Article 27(a) governs and arbitration clauses are valid, including foreign-seated arbitration clauses such as ICC Amsterdam, ICC Dubai, or LCIA London. This was confirmed by Tamyiz Huquq No. 9054/2023 and Tamyiz Huquq No. 4164/2018 (General Body).

No. Pre-dispute arbitration agreements in employment contracts are void under Article 10(d)(2) of the Arbitration Law No. 31 of 2001 as amended by Law No. 41 of 2018, read together with Article 4(b) of the Labour Law (which voids any waiver of worker rights) and Articles 27 and 28 of the Civil Procedure Code (which govern Jordanian court jurisdiction over Jordan-resident defendants and Jordan-concluded agreements). Jordanian courts retain jurisdiction over employment disputes regardless of any arbitration clause specifying foreign-seated arbitration. The Court of Cassation General Body in Tamyiz Huquq No. 5820/2024 (18 September 2024) applied this rule to a clause specifying ICC Dubai arbitration; the doctrinal basis is Article 102 of the Constitution, which vests ordinary courts with jurisdiction over civil matters.

Yes. Article 13 of the Arbitration Law preserves the right of either party to apply to the Judge of Summary Matters before or during arbitration proceedings for any provisional or precautionary measure under the Civil Procedure Code. This is parallel to and does not preclude tribunal-ordered interim measures under Article 23, which permits the arbitral tribunal to order interim or precautionary measures necessitated by the nature of the dispute. Pre-judgment attachment over the assets of the opposing party, including bank accounts, real estate, vessels, and movable property, is available subject to posting the required security. The Court of Cassation in Tamyiz Huquq No. 8837/2023 confirmed the availability of pre-judgment attachment in the foreign-award enforcement context, including over vessels registered under the Jordanian flag.

Article 49(a) of the Arbitration Law No. 31 of 2001 as amended by Law No. 41 of 2018 enumerates seven exclusive grounds for set-aside: (1) absence, invalidity, or lapse of a valid written arbitration agreement; (2) incapacity of a party at the time of agreement under the law governing that party's capacity; (3) inability of a party to present its defence due to improper notification of arbitrator appointment or proceedings, or any other reason beyond the party's control; (4) the award disregarded the law the parties agreed should apply to the merits; (5) the tribunal was constituted, or arbitrators were appointed, contrary to this Law or the parties' agreement; (6) the award decided matters not covered by the arbitration agreement or exceeded its scope (with severability where possible); (7) the tribunal failed to observe required conditions affecting the award's substance. Article 49(b) adds an ex officio public-policy ground.

Yes, where the interest is compensation for delay or non-payment rather than ribawi interest. Tamyiz Huquq No. 8837/2023 enforced a London-seated maritime arbitration award that included 4.5 percent interest accrued quarterly from the date of the original award until full payment, with the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Cassation each finding no public-policy bar. Tamyiz Huquq No. 7561/2024 supports the same outcome: compensation for late performance and non-payment, awarded by an arbitral tribunal applying foreign substantive law, is not contrary to Jordanian public policy under Article 7 of the Foreign Judgments Enforcement Law No. 8 of 1952 or Article 49(b) of the Arbitration Law. The public-policy review is statutorily framed and does not extend to characterising the award's substantive monetary calculations as ribawi interest.

The limitation period to file an application for enforcement is fifteen years from the date the award was rendered, applying the general contractual limitation period under Article 449 of the Jordanian Civil Code No. 43 of 1976. This period applies to both Jordan-seated awards being enforced under Articles 53 to 54 of the Arbitration Law No. 31 of 2001 as amended by Law No. 41 of 2018 and foreign awards being enforced under the Foreign Judgments Enforcement Law No. 8 of 1952. The clock runs from the date of issuance of the arbitral award, not from the date of any subsequent foreign court ruling certifying the award's finality. Parties seeking to enforce an older award should consult counsel promptly to avoid limitation issues, as the period cannot be revived once it has expired.

No. The Court of Cassation in Tamyiz Huquq No. 9054/2023 (21 April 2024) held that Article 5 of the Civil Code No. 43 of 1976, which permits implied repeal of statutes by later inconsistent statutes, does not apply to provisions of international conventions that have completed their constitutional ratification process. International conventions retain supremacy over later domestic legislation by virtue of their conclusion procedure (royal decree, Council of Ministers approval, and Gazette publication) and the elevated status this confers. Constitutional review of conventions is available only through the procedural route established by the Constitutional Court Law No. 15 of 2012. The practical implication is that the New York Convention 1958, the Riyadh Convention 1983, and the ICSID Convention 1965 prevail over later Jordanian statutes that purport to limit their scope.