Malaysia has shown tremendous progress in the arena of Islamic banking and the finance industry, and has become an essential Islamic financial hub within the region. The comprehensive legal framework consisting of legislation and dispute resolution mechanisms have been crucial elements that ensured the robust development of the industry. The court system and arbitration are two significant platforms for the settlement of Islamic banking disputes that are brought before them. However, the court system has been widely favoured compared to the arbitration, even though both approaches have almost identical roles. Therefore, one question arises; why is arbitration less preferred compared to the court system? By using legal research methods, this article seeks to analyse the challenges and drawbacks that faces the current arbitration framework when dealing with Islamic banking disputes. This study suggests that the Malaysian arbitration framework faces several challenges such as, issues regarding high-cost, high-formality, less-speed, and the uncertainties when referring any Shariah matters to the Shariah Advisory Council. This article suggests that some improvements should be made by the relevant authorities and establish the necessary statutory amendments to strengthen the role of arbitration in Malaysia as a complementary forum to the court system in settling Islamic financial disputes.

The COVID-19 pandemic has put the global justice system under pressure and strain. Malaysia is among the countries that have been fundamentally strived to enhance access to justice for the disputing parties through traditional arbitration during the chaos of COVID-19. For instance, several well-known arbitration centres allow the conduct of oral hearings electronically besides other arbitral proceedings. By using legal research methodology, this article endeavours to examine whether e-arbitration can provide a suitable response for the “new normal” phenomenon during the COVID-19 pandemic. The collected data is then analytically and critically analysed using the content analysis method. This article finds that there are legal ambiguity and logistical challenges regarding the use of technologies for the purpose of oral hearing. Also, there is an urgent need to ensure that the right to equal treatment will not be compromised during e-hearing. Furthermore, the Malaysian authorities should examine the possibility of implanting e-arbitration on a full scale, since the role of electronic communication technologies in e-arbitration is fundamental rather than limited and restricted on facilitating the process of resolution as applied in traditional arbitration. Finally, this humble article provides several recommendations to enhance access to justice during and after the era of the COVID-19 pandemic because “Justice delayed is justice denied”.

Arbitration is the most widespread mechanism for resolving disputes in the modern and Islamic eras. The current global tendency calls for an increase in the integration of disruptive technology, such as artificial intelligence (AI), into arbitration. Using doctrinal legal research methodology, this article examines the potential prospect of artificial intelligence (AI) in arbitration from international, national, and Islamic perspectives. To achieve that, several international arbitration laws, such as the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 and UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985, national arbitration laws, such as Arbitration Act 2005 (Act 646), UK Arbitration Act 1996, and Singaporean Arbitration Act 2011, and the Islamic law were analysed. The collected data was analytically and critically analysed using the content analysis method. It is found that AI technologies would bring added value to arbitration if they are appropriately employed. However, from a legal perspective, arbitration laws are not mature enough to absorb AI technologies. Besides, it has been discovered that Islam does not prohibit AI technologies as long as they can serve humanity. According to the Islamic point of view, an artificial intelligence arbitrator (AIA) cannot replace human arbitrators. Finally, this article provides several recommendations to enhance the use of AI technologies and AIA in arbitration. This, in turn, would help in creating a modern, prosperous, and just world and improving the international relations between nations, international organisations, and individuals from different countries as any of them could resolve their disputes effectively.

Using electronic technology in the dispute resolution industry has been encouraged globally. Electronic arbitration (e-arbitration) is one of the main online dispute resolution mechanisms, and it should be implemented in Malaysia because of its significant advantages. Unfortunately, the future of e-arbitration in Malaysia is still hazy. Therefore, it is important to examine whether existing Malaysian laws are sufficient to legalise the e-arbitral agreement and e-arbitral proceedings. This article is based on a research carried out for a doctoral degree. Primary and secondary sources were consulted. The novelty of the contribution has provided legal evidence and arguments that the relevant laws in Malaysia were to some extent, modern and advanced to recognise e-arbitration. However, from a purely legal perspective, several gaps should be appropriately addressed by Malaysian lawmakers in order to ensure the sustainable and successful establishment of e-arbitration in the country.

Traditional arbitration is not seen as exhaustive anymore and faces several shortcomings in dealing with international commercial disputes. Therefore, the need for a more effective arbitration method to complement the existing traditional method of arbitration in handling domestic and international commercial disputes becomes a pressing necessity. Electronic arbitration (hereinafter referred to as “e-arbitration”) might be the initial step to accomplish this aspired goal. However, e-arbitration has not been regulated yet at the international level. By using doctrinal legal research methodology, this contribution endeavours to examine the legal capacity of international conventions and laws to legalise e-arbitration. Both primary and secondary data are analytically and critically evaluated using content analysis method. It is discovered that the New York Convention 1958 is not legally sufficient to recognise e-arbitration because it was enacted before the emergence of current modern technologies and communication. However, the UNCITRAL Model Laws, such as Electronic Commerce 1996, Electronic Signatures 2001, Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985, and the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts 2005, may play a considerable role in recognising e-arbitration in the context of New York Convention 1958. To summarise, several legal gaps need to be addressed; therefore, the study recommends that the international arbitration communities, such as UNCITRAL, should develop an international legal framework to directly and precisely regulate e-arbitration to enhance legal validity of e-arbitration and to provide international harmonisation and uniformity.