Latest News
Reasoning in Arbitral Awards: Legal Principles under Jordanian Law and Comparative Perspectives
Reasoning in Arbitral Awards: Legal Principles under Jordanian Law and Comparative Perspectives
Commercial conflicts are best resolved by arbitration, however, there is debate over arbitral logic and explanation due to its independence and flexibility. The Jordanian Arbitration Law governs reasoned arbitration awards, although the law is vague and weak, unreasonably awarded awards might have legal consequences. The purpose of this research is to evaluate and make clear the principles governing the legal significance of arbitral rulings that are rendered arbitrarily unreasonable. Arbitrators' legal standing has become unstable due to discussions about the rationale behind an arbitration ruling and the absence of precise guidelines and clarity in arbitration regulations. The purpose of the study is to define legal causality, define the terms used in arbitral award reasoning, and ascertain how international treaties and comparative laws affect the logic used in the arbitration award procedure. The study will be broken up into two chapters that will cover the definition and legal aspects of reasoning.
To avoid unfairness or arbitrariness, reasoning is essential in arbitration rulings. When choosing whether to resolve a disagreement in a court setting, judges take into account several factual and legal considerations. A court's explanation and reasons, comprising factual and legal arguments, the reasoning for approving important requests, and crucial defences, are referred to as reasoning. It respects the rights of the defence, upholds rights to prevent tyranny, arbitrariness, and emotional control, and increases the parties' confidence in the arbitral ruling.
The rationale encompasses some security features in arbitration proceedings, physical presence, and application of transparent, candid petitions for challenge and defences. Arguments must be supported by the facts and case processes, and the outcome must be connected to the reasoning behind the decision. Agreements set rules, expectations, and guidelines that arbitrators or arbitral tribunals must follow to deliver justice. Every Contracting State is required under the 1958 New York Convention to acknowledge arbitral awards as legally binding and to implement them in compliance with the procedural laws of the jurisdiction in which the award is being used.
The recognition or execution of arbitral decisions is not subject to more onerous requirements or costs under the Convention on Arbitration in the Arab World than it is for domestic awards. National legislation is in charge of making the choice about rational measures and enforcing them. According to the 1961 European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, parties must consent that reasons will be provided for the award unless otherwise stated or agreed upon in an arbitral process where it is not conventional to do so. The American Arbitration Commission and the Milan Chamber of Arbitration grant the parties the choice to choose whether or not to accept the arbitration ruling under Article 28. The legal implications of an arbitrator's decision that lacks rationale are still unknown, even with the proliferation of legal publications stressing this point. Jurisprudence has discussed the reasoning process; some have argued that an arbitrator's award should be illegitimate if it is rendered without sufficient justification, while others have disagreed.
According to Jordanian arbitration legislation, an arbitral tribunal must examine and explain contracts as well as documents and evidence submitted by opposing parties. To guarantee that the arbitrator's ruling is upheld, the arbitration award must include reasoning that takes into account the relevant facts, evidence, and legal framework. Reasoned arbitration awards are crucial, as both the Egyptian Court of Cassation and the Cairo Court of Appeal have noted, as they might reveal flaws that could undermine the verdict and render it void. Rules stating that arbitrators' judgments must not follow court procedures and that the grounds for arbitration awards need not be provided in detail have also been adopted by the Dubai Court of Cassation and the Cairo Court of Appeal. The arbitrator was released from following the rules of judicial reasoning by the Dubai Court of Cassation, provided that they did not contravene any laws about public order.
Various court opinions have addressed the logic behind arbitration awards; some have connected reasoning to public order. According to several court decisions, an arbitration verdict that is not reasoned may be deemed unlawful. This method has been adopted by the Spanish Constitutional Court, the Netherlands, the Cairo Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Libya, and the Egyptian Courts of Cassation. Additionally, the Spanish Constitutional Court has ruled that arbitration verdicts must be read narrowly and cannot be reviewed based on the case's merits. According to the European Union Arbitration Law, the basis for nullifying an arbitration result must be the same as the cause for the award itself. Examining any potential procedural errors in the arbitration proceedings should be the main goal of the annulment procedure. The Transitional Council advises against taking judicial action in arbitration cases where the meaning of public order has been expanded to the point of excessive intrusion.
Section 41 (1) (f) of the Los Angeles Code prohibits courts considering annulment petitions from substituting their standards for those set out by the arbitrator. The arbitration award must possess non-capricious components and logic, which facilitate the disclosure of the legal norms or equitable foundation that underpins the decision. When it comes to judgments made by judges or other higher authorities, the requirement to give explanations does not have the same weight. According to the Transitional Court, while defining the foundation upon which it should be established, the word "judicial equivalent" refers to the consequences of res judicata that may be expanded to encompass arbitration verdicts. With the new standards applicable to technical cooperation and the competitiveness and efficiency in managing international arbitration processes offered by the recently established Madrid Centre for International Arbitration, the decision to ratify Spain's status as a venue for international arbitration marks a significant turning point in the development of arbitration in Spain.
- Clear reasoning in arbitral awards is crucial to prevent unfairness and ensure parties' confidence in the decision.
- Comparative laws and international treaties, like the New York Convention, shape the standards and enforcement of arbitral awards.
- The vague guidelines in Jordanian Arbitration Law can lead to legal instability and potential invalidation of arbitral awards due to insufficient reasoning
