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

• Published date: 01 June 2024
• Author: Mosleh A. Tarawneh,Tariq K. Alhasan
• Date: 01 June 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21419

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Between commitment and reality: A critical

examination of Jordan's adherence to the New

York Convention 1958

Mosleh A. Tarawneh

1

| Tariq K. Alhasan

2

1

Vice President for Administrative Affairs

and Dean of Law, Professor of

International Commercial Arbitration,

Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman,

Jordan

2

Lecturer of Commercial Law, Private

Law Department, Faculty of Law, Al-

Ahliyya Amman University, Amman,

Jordan

Correspondence

Tariq K. Alhasan, Lecturer of

Commercial Law, Private Law

Department, Faculty of Law, Al-Ahliyya

Amman University, Amman, Jordan.

Email: t.alhasan@ammanu.edu.jo

Abstract

This study critically evaluates Jordan's bifurcated

approach to the enforcement of arbitral awards, with

an emphasis on its domestic laws and international

obligations under the New York Convention. Utilizing

a rigorous methodology that melds doctrinal scrutiny

with comparative legal analysis, the research delves

into Jordan's Arbitration Law 31 of 2001, its subsequent

amendments, and the Enforcement of Foreign Judg-

ments Law 8 of 1952. The analysis reveals a marked

incongruence between Jordan's national legal frame-

works for recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral

awards and its commitments under Article 3 of the

New York Convention. The study further quantifies the

financial and procedural barriers erected by Jordan's

stratified judicial system, contrasting them with univer-

sally accepted benchmarks. Informed by international

jurisprudence, the research proffers targeted policy rec-

ommendations designed to harmonize Jordan's arbitra-

tion regulations with prevailing pro-enforcement

international standards. This investigation fills a schol-

arly void and offers pragmatic, timely solutions,

thereby contributing to the global dialogue on compli-

ance with international arbitration norms, particularly

from a Jordanian vantage point.

Received: 13 September 2023 Revised: 20 November 2023 Accepted: 23 December 2023

DOI: 10.1002/crq.21419

Conflict Resolution Quarterly. 2024;41:491–506. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/crq © 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC. 491

1|INTRODUCTION

1.1 |Background

Consider the case of XYZ Corp., a foreign entity that has secured an arbitral award issued in

London against a Jordanian-based ABC Ltd. over a breach of a commercial contract. As XYZ

Corp. embarks on the enforcement process in Jordan, it confronts a labyrinthine legal system

rife with procedural intricacies and substantive ambiguities. This case study serves a dual pur-

pose: it underscores the indispensable role of arbitration in international trade and, more criti-

cally, it poses an urgent and unresolved question—Does Jordan's legal framework truly align

with its obligations under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of

Foreign Arbitral Awards?

Arbitration is a critical nexus between legal frameworks, commercial norms, and geopoliti-

cal factors, a concept well-established in literature (Tesfay, 2021; Wolff, 2019). The New York

Convention aims to standardize the enforceability of arbitral awards across its 172 member

states, thereby enhancing the stability of international trade. Jordan, a signatory to the Conven-

tion since 1979 (Daradkeh, 2018), presents a compelling case for scrutiny due to its bifurcated

approach to enforcing domestic and international arbitral awards.

Jordan's judicial landscape is a complex tapestry of domestic laws, bilateral agreements, and

regional accords. While the country has formalized Judicial Cooperation Agreements with

states like Syria (1953), Egypt (1987), and Kuwait (2006) and is a member of the Arab League's

Judgment Enforcement Agreement (Bremer, 2018), these regional commitments do not absolve

it from its global obligations under the New York Convention.

This duality in Jordan's enforcement mechanisms serves as the focal point of this study, lay-

ing the foundation for an in-depth examination of the challenges and intricacies Jordan faces in

aligning with international arbitration norms. The article aims to dissect these complexities,

offering insights into Jordan's unique position within the broader context of international

arbitration law.

1.2 |Problem statement

The ratification of the New York Convention by Jordan introduced a paradox in its legal system,

particularly in the enforcement of arbitral awards. Jordan maintains a dualistic legal structure:

Domestic awards are governed under Jordan's Arbitration Law 31 of 2001, along with its 2018

amendments, while foreign awards fall under the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law of

1952. This bifurcation, a relic of Jordan's civil law heritage, significantly hinders the enforce-

ment process.

The existence of two separate enforcement mechanisms raises serious concerns about

Jordan's compliance with Article 3 of the New York Convention, which requires member

states to treat foreign and domestic arbitral awards on an equal footing. The complexity intro-

duced by this dualistic system transcends administrative intricacies, posing tangible chal-

lenges for legal practitioners, businesses, and policymakers. It calls into question Jordan's

commitment to the global arbitration standards established by the New York Convention.

Despite its critical nature, this issue remains underexplored in academic literature, creating a

significant gap that this study aims to fill by providing a comprehensive analysis and offering

pragmatic solutions.

492 TARAWNEH and ALHASAN