Recognition and enforcement are crucial elements of arbitration. Without the possibility for the winning party to enforce the arbitral award in its desired country, the whole arbitration process becomes pointless. This paper discusses the requirements for recognition and enforcement of international arbitration awards in Malaysia and Saudi Arabia. The paper aims to provide a clarification to the Arbitration law in both countries focusing mainly on the issue of the requirements regarding the recognition and enforcement of international arbitration awards. In this paper, both the Malaysian Arbitration Act 2005 and the Saudi Arbitration Act 2012 were compared with the Convention on Settlement of Investment Disputes 1965 (ICSID Convention). The methodology adopted in this paper was purely doctrinal in nature focusing mainly on the primary and secondary sources. On a final note, the paper concluded that the two Acts are less similar to the ICSID Convention when it comes to the requirements for recognition and enforcement of international arbitration awards. Hence, there is an urgent need for the two countries to adopt some form of reforms as far as the two Acts are concerned especially on the issue of ‘reciprocity reservation’ since it adds more complications to business transaction.
Current arbitration laws and rules assume that national court and the Tribunal coexist together in terms of their granting of interim measures particularly in international cases of arbitration. This paper attempted the stance of Jordan Arbitration Law 2018 on granting interim measures during arbitration by providing a discussion of the entity in authority in the country that grants such measures. The study used a major approach namely qualitative based on exploratory method with minimal usage to comparative analysis in order to benefit from those states in the point of granting of interim measures. Data were gathered from libraries and published reports and the research found that the major power that grants interim measures in Jordan is the National Court with the least authority held by the tribunal-a power that should be enumerated in the arbitration agreement.
An interim measure is, broadly speaking, a remedy or a relief that is aimed at safeguarding the rights of parties to a dispute pending its final resolution. The paper aims to provide a clarification to the Arbitration law in Saudi Arabia focusing mainly on the issue of the issuing of interim measures in arbitration by identifying the process stages under the Saudi Arbitration Law 2012. This paper discusses the issuing of interim measure in international arbitration in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia through identification of laws, process and procedure in the issuance of interim measures in arbitration proceedings. Two major research strategies are adopted in this study, which are, qualitative and analysis based on exploratory approach for process of issuing interim measures in arbitration. Data were collected from libraries and published reports as well as interviews conducted with judges and arbitrators in Saudi Arabia. This paper challenges the argument of issuing interim measures by showing the process and the mechanism used in Saudi Arabia. The researchers explored the missing issues of the law related to the issue of interim measures in international arbitration in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia as well as the standards of issuing the interim measures.
The OECD defined corporate governance as, enforce laws, rules and standards that define the relationship between company management on the one hand, shareholders, stakeholders or parties associated with the company on the other, and urge financial institutions to adopt those laws and standards in their systems to ensure universal classification, such laws and standards are called corporate governance. Some countries have adopted such standards, which are based on integrity and transparency, such as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, but the apply these standards to protect the minority of shareholders in the joint stock companies are in conflict with certain legal provisions laid down by the Jordanian legislature in the companies Act. The Jordanian companies' law and some other financial laws have, of course, included a number of factors that encourage corporate governance, but on the other hand, we find texts that still impede the application of these standards and provide indicators that do not encourage the application of their standards and affect the rights of minority shareholders. The study will refer to the most important corporate governance criteria that balance the rights of the minority and majority shareholders with those that still need to be modified.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.