Articles 51 and 54 of the Jordanian Arbitration Act

Abstract

Purpose On two different occasions, the Jordanian Constitutional Court has ruled that Articles 51 and 54 of the Jordanian Arbitration Act no. 31 of the year 2001 are unconstitutional and null. In view of this, this paper aims to attempt to give the reader a brief preview of the Jordanian Arbitration Act, the Jordanian Constitution and the Jordanian Constitutional Court. It also highlights and critically analyzes the Jordanian Constitutional Court two decisions pertaining to the Arbitration Act and its special implications in this regard from the perspective of arbitration law and the distinct characteristics embedded in it. Design/methodology/approach To examine how effective is the approach followed by the Constitutional Court in ruling the unconstitutionality of the aforementioned Articles, this work makes use of the primary and secondary data available in this regard as the main method to complete such an examination. By critically analyzing and comparing the various data contained in these sources, this work identifies the problems associated with such decisions. Findings This work submits that while the Constitutional Court has rested its rulings largely on constitutional principles, concerns arising from the Arbitration Act perspective have not been dealt with adequately by the Court. Furthermore, it argues that while the principles of the constitution shall be respected, the distinct characteristics of the arbitration law warrant a more careful approach than actually followed by the Court. Originality/value Taking into consideration the importance of arbitration as an alternative mean for dispute resolution, the Jordanian legislator has addressed the application of arbitration as early as the year 1953. However, while the Constitutional Court’s questionable approach to the aforementioned articles would necessarily hinder the use of arbitration, no comprehensive scholarly work has either examined such approach or addressed its implications. Accordingly, this work derives its originality and value from being the first of its kind to examine and address such a matter.

Between commitment and reality: A critical examination of Jordan's adherence to the New York Convention 1958

“…The country's inaugural legislative framework for arbitration, enacted in 1953, drew its inspiration from the English Arbitration Act of 1950. In recognition of the growing complexities in the arbitration field, this initial legislation was subsequently supplanted by Jordan's Arbitration Law 31 of 2001, which caters to the multifaceted demands that have emerged over the years (Alawamleh et al, 2018).…”

To what extent is arbitration acceptable in individual labor disputes? A critique from a Jordanian law perspective

“…As a result of the inadequacy of other various dispute resolution mechanisms and because of the effectiveness of arbitration, the Jordanian legislator has had regulated the implementation of arbitration as early as the year 1953 (Alawamleh et al , 2018). In fact, the first Jordanian Arbitration Act no.…”

“…In view of that, the abovementioned Act has been replaced by the new Jordanian Arbitration Act no. 31 of the year 2001 (Alawamleh et al , 2018). By the same token, and for the same reasons that justified the replacement of this vital piece of law at the first place, the new Act has recently seen different amendments which took place at the first half of the year 2018 [2].…”

“…Within an international commercial environment, it is well known that different parties can pursue a variety of choices to settle their various disputes and this might include ordinary litigation, negotiation, mediation and arbitration among other different accessible and applicable mechanisms (Alawamleh et al , 2018). However, it is almost agreed now that arbitration is one of the most significant and practical alternative means for resolving different disputes (Zilic and LaVan, 2020).…”