A Review of the UAE Arbitration Law’s Fundamental Principles using the UNCITRAL Model Law as a Global Standard

Abstract

The evolution of international commercial arbitration has aimed to create a consistent and predictable framework for cross-border dispute resolution. The UNCITRAL Model Law has been central in this process, serving as a widely accepted standard for arbitration legislation . This dissertation critically examines the UAE Arbitration Law (Federal Law No. 6 of 2018) in comparison with the UNCITRAL Model Law, focusing on fairness, comprehensiveness, party autonomy, and limited court intervention. It assesses the UAE’s alignment with global arbitration norms while considering its unique legal and policy landscape. The research traces the historical development of international arbitration, from the Geneva Protocol (1923) and the New York Convention (1958) to the UNCITRAL Model Law (1985, amended 2006). It also examines how legislative reforms have shaped the UAE into a major arbitration hub. A comparative analysis evaluates the UAE Arbitration Law’s adherence to international best practices while addressing legal, cultural, and commercial realities. Using doctrinal legal analysis, the study examines statutes, case law, and international conventions. It finds that while the UAE Arbitration Law incorporates fundamental arbitration principles, it differs from the UNCITRAL Model Law in areas like judicial intervention, arbitrability, and public policy interpretation. Courts in the UAE retain broader authority over jurisdictional disputes and enforcement, impacting predictability. To strengthen the UAE’s arbitration framework, the dissertation proposes legislative reforms aimed at limiting judicial discretion, standardizing enforcement, and refining arbitration rules.