Book Description

Comparison of Gulf International Arbitration Rules has been inspired by its sister publications, Comparison of Asian International Arbitration Rules and Comparison of International Arbitration Rules, which were prepared by Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP and published by Juris Publishing in 2003 and 2008 respectively. This volume sets forth the main arbitration rules and regulations available in the Middle East region and provides a basis of comparison on their efficiency and cost-effectiveness Due to the great number of arbitration institutions that have been forming across the Middle East over the past couple of decades the present overview is confined to the most commonly-used sets of rules in the Gulf region: the Arbitration Rules of the 2007 Dubai International Arbitration Centre (the “DIAC Arbitration Rules”), the 2008 Arbitration Rules of the Dubai International Financial Centre-London Court of International Arbitration (the “DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Rules”), the 1993 Arbitration Regulations of the Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation and Arbitration Centre (the “ADDCAC Rules”), the 2006 Arbitration Rules of the Qatar International Centre for Commercial Arbitration (the “QICCA Arbitration Rules”), the 1994 Arbitration Rules of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Commercial Arbitration Centre (the “GCC Arbitration Rules”) and the 2009 Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association/Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution (the “AAA/BCDR Arbitration Rules”). Due to their increasing prominence for ad hoc arbitration in the region, the 2005 Arbitration Rules of the Qatar Financial Centre (the “QFC Arbitration Rules”) and the 1976 Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) (the “UNCITRAL Rules”) including recent 2010 revisions are included. Full sets of these rules are appended to the comparative chart that makes up the core of this publication. There is also a comparative table on costs and fees to give the reader a clear idea of filing, administrative and arbitrators’ costs under the various arbitration rules. The comparative entries in the chart on parallel provisions of the various sets of arbitration rules follows a logical self-explanatory sequence, mapping the course of an arbitration from the commencement of the proceedings to the issuance of the final award. The first two headline entries on the “arbitration clause” and the “arbitral institution” are meant to provide relevant framework information and to assist the client in swiftly identifying the standard wording of an arbitration clause under the relevant rules (to avoid any debilitating pathologies in the famous midnight drafting process of commercial contracts) as well as the main services and functions provided by the arbitration institution concerned. The arrangement of the information and data provided in the various entries is meant to facilitate consultation of the rules on particular comparative aspects, which we hope is further assisted by the detailed table of contents contained at the very beginning of the volume.