Insights from the 3rd MENA International Arbitration Forum held by Sciences Po & Bredin Prat in Paris
THE AUTHOR:
Zahra Hosseinpour, LL.M. Candidate in Transnational Arbitration and Dispute Settlement (“TADS”) at Sciences Po
The 3rd MENA International Arbitration Forum brought together some of the most experienced and influential practitioners active in Middle Eastern disputes. Over the course of three panels, a coherent narrative emerged: arbitration in the region is evolving simultaneously on three fronts: substantive integrity, procedural ethics, and the delicate interplay between civil law traditions, common law practices, and local legal culture.
What follows is a unified account of the day’s discussions, weaving together insights from all three panels to map the shifting landscape of arbitration in the MENA region.
The Forum opened with remarks by Prof. Diego P. Fernández Arroyo, Academic Director of the TADS LL.M., and Dr. Raed Fathallah, Partner at Bredin Prat. Both highlighted the unique position of the MENA region at the crossroads of diverse legal traditions, political dynamics, and rapidly evolving economic landscapes. They emphasized the importance of fostering dialogue between practitioners and academics to better understand how corruption, procedural integrity, and civil–common law influences are reshaping arbitration across the region. Their introduction set the tone for an evening of thoughtful, candid, and deeply practical reflections.
Panel I — Corruption, Illegality, and Fraud: From Late Allegations to Structural Issues
The first panel, moderated by Nadia Darwazeh (Clyde & Co), focused on corruption and illegality, issues that have moved from the periphery of arbitral pleadings to their very centre. Although corruption itself is hardly new, its procedural and strategic significance has increased dramatically in MENA-related arbitrations.
Speakers noted that corruption allegations, once raised cautiously and briefly, now routinely open the parties’ submissions and shape the trajectory of the case. Practitioners across the region report a visible rise in how often corruption is invoked, not necessarily because corruption is more prevalent, but because parties have become more willing to deploy it as a tactical or jurisdictional argument.
A recurring question was why state entities in the region frequently raise corruption only at the enforcement or annulment phase. Bassam Mirza (Kecsmar Mirza Arbitration) explained that institutional delays, fragmented decision-making within ministries, and even political transitions often mean that corruption arguments are formulated too late. Sometimes the timing is strategic; other times it reflects the realities of public administration. This phenomenon has had direct consequences before national courts, most notably the French courts, which have spent the past decade refining the boundaries of how late-stage corruption allegations should be handled.
The panel also observed a substantive evolution in corruption cases. Samy Markbaoui (White & Case) highlighted that disputes increasingly involve grand corruption, schemes involving senior officials, complex financial layers, or conduct intertwined with sanctions and money-laundering risks. Gone are the days when corruption allegations centered on inflated invoices or small-scale facilitation payments. In many contemporary cases, the corruption narrative forms the backbone of the respondent’s case and can overshadow even the substantive treaty standards in investor–state disputes.
Against this background, Ziva Filipic (ICC International Court of Arbitration) offered the ICC’s institutional perspective, emphasizing that statistical data does not indicate that MENA disputes are inherently more corruption-heavy than cases from other regions. What has increased is visibility: tribunals are more alert to red flags, institutions scrutinize awards more closely, and international soft law, such as the ICC’s Red Flags Report, has equipped tribunals with structured methodologies for approaching corruption.
A doctrinal distinction proved especially important: corruption at the formation of a contract differs radically from corruption during performance. While the former can render a contract void ab initio, the latter may allow tribunals to preserve parts of the contract and adjust damages accordingly. Mirza explained how French courts have evolved from minimal scrutiny in the early 2000s to a period of maximal review, sometimes reassessing evidence themselves, to a more calibrated approach in the past two years, in which late allegations are carefully examined for their true relevance to public policy.
Finally, Abdulhay Sayed (Sayed & Sayed) raised a pressing normative concern: Investor–State Dispute Settlement (“ISDS”) jurisprudence often places all the consequences of corruption on the investor, while the state faces no equivalent sanction. The tribunal in Spentex v. Uzbekistan attempted to rebalance this dynamic through an innovative recommendation that the state contribute to anti-corruption initiatives. Though unusual, this approach reflects a wider debate on how to ensure accountability on both sides.
Panel II — Counsel Misconduct, Guerrilla Tactics, and Ethical Pressures
If the first panel addressed substantive integrity, the second, moderated by Roland Ziadé (Linklaters), confronted the procedural fragilities that increasingly challenge arbitration in the region. The speakers presented a nuanced, and at times unsettling, picture of the pressures exerted on tribunals and counsel.
Alexander Leventhal (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan) opened with a taxonomy of guerrilla tactics that practitioners encounter: challenges intended purely to delay proceedings; procedural ambushes framed as due-process complaints; and, in some cases, more troubling forms of intimidation involving threats of criminal action. Some states have previously enacted laws that inadvertently exposed arbitrators to criminal liability, creating a climate of uncertainty that opportunistic parties can exploit.
The panel emphasized that the MENA region’s unique combination of civil-law systems, common-law enclaves like the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (“ADGM”), and politically sensitive environments can give rise to procedural unpredictability. Anti-suit injunctions issued by offshore courts, for example, may both protect arbitration agreements and generate friction when deployed strategically.
The discussion intensified when Sami Houerbi (Houerbi Law Firm) shared two firsthand incidents involving arbitrator intimidation. In one case, a tribunal’s procedural decisions escalated into criminal proceedings before a national court. In another case, an institution accepted a clearly unfounded challenge, while a Swiss institution later rejected the exact same tactic in a parallel case. His examples underscored how inconsistent institutional approaches can embolden parties to engage in procedural abuse.
Girgis Abd El-Shahid (Shahid Law Firm) highlighted more subtle but equally disruptive tactics, such as attempts to pressure institutions into choosing arbitrators of specific nationalities, or appointing arbitrators who cannot understand the arbitration’s language, creating fertile ground for later challenges.
The panel also examined the responsibility tribunals bear. Sally El Sawah (Sawah | Junction) argued that arbitrators’ hesitancy, whether in deciding interim measures or sanctioning frivolous submissions, often enables misconduct. She described a recent case where counsel submitted AI-generated citations; the tribunal ultimately imposed costs, demonstrating that corrective measures are possible when tribunals act decisively.
Finally, May Khoury (Chaffetz Lindsey) situated these issues in the broader context of ethical fragmentation. Practices that are acceptable in one jurisdiction may be perceived as misconduct in another. Without harmonized ethical standards, the risk of misunderstanding or abuse multiplies. She also noted the intensifying scrutiny of arbitrator appointments by enforcement courts, particularly in cases involving state entities.
Taken together, the panel painted a picture of arbitration in the region that is vibrant but procedurally vulnerable, requiring stronger institutional safeguards, firmer tribunal responses, and a more unified ethical culture.
Panel III — The Civil–Common Law Balance: Hybridization, Tension, and the Search for Procedural Fairness
The final panel, moderated by Marina Weiss (Bredin Prat), moved the discussion from corruption and conduct to deeper structural questions: Has international arbitration in the MENA region become too “common-law-ised”?
The answer, according to the panel, is more complex than a simple yes or no.
Dr Pascale Accaoui-Lorfing (ESCP Business School) noted that no MENA jurisdiction is a pure common law system. The region is anchored in civil law traditions, influenced by French and Egyptian models, with Sharia principles playing a decisive role in Saudi Arabia. Common law is present mainly through designated financial zones such as the DIFC and ADGM. The region, therefore, constitutes a natural laboratory of legal hybridisation.
Yet, despite these foundations, arbitration across the region has gradually adopted a procedural toolkit that resembles common law practice, most notably witness statements, cross-examination, structured document production, and precedent-inspired reasoning. Ahmed Ibrahim (Ibrahim ADR) traced this trend to the influence of international soft law (particularly the IBA Rules), the rise of global firms in the region, and the long-standing use of ICC arbitration in MENA disputes.
Document production was examined in depth. Dorine Farah (Baker Botts) clarified that while document production has indeed become a standard phase of arbitration in the region, it has not mutated into U.S.-style discovery. Rather, it functions within the disciplined parameters of relevance and materiality. Her argument that tribunals should err on the side of granting production when requests are properly framed sparked engaged debate, especially in light of cases where limited disclosure led to divergent outcomes in parallel proceedings.
Hussein Haeri KC (Withers) added vivid examples of parties redacting entire documents or denying the existence of materials later confirmed by witnesses, behaviors rooted partly in civil-law cultures unfamiliar with broad disclosure. These tensions reveal the cultural translation required when applying international standards of transparency to local contexts.
The use of witness evidence produced equally rich discussion. Danny Rifaat (Teynier Pic) observed that while lengthy witness statements and adversarial cross-examination have become routine, they are often unnecessary in disputes where documents already carry decisive probative weight. Overreliance on adversarial techniques can also distort credibility assessments, particularly when tribunals unfamiliar with regional communication styles misinterpret deference or formality as evasiveness.
This led naturally to Lillian Khoury’s (Steptoe) intervention on diversity. Her firm’s study showed that over 70% of ISDS cases involving Arab states are decided by arbitrators lacking cultural or linguistic ties to the region, highlighting a systemic imbalance. As she noted, linguistic nuance, contractual style, and even witness demeanor depend heavily on cultural literacy, a quality underrepresented in current tribunal compositions.
The discussion then turned to substantive civil-law concepts that risk being overshadowed. Accaoui-Lorfing emphasized the continued relevance of principles such as contractual intention, proportionality, judicial moderation of penalty clauses, and good faith. Haeri added that good faith, in particular, serves as a valuable bridge between legal traditions, especially when expressly incorporated into the contract.
The panel closed with a discussion of interest, costs, and enforcement, areas in which regional particularities (including Sharia prohibitions on interest) require creative legal framing.
Yet the enforcement picture is more positive than stereotypes suggest: recent studies show that public policy objections succeed only rarely, and arbitration laws across the Gulf Cooperation Council (“GCC”) continue to modernise.
Conclusion — A Region Shaping Its Own Arbitration Identity
Across all three panels, a single overarching theme emerged: MENA arbitration is not merely absorbing international practice; it is actively redefining it.
The region presents:
- a sophisticated awareness of corruption and illegality,
- an increasingly assertive approach to procedural fairness,
- a willingness to confront ethical fragilities,
- and a nuanced balance between civil-law substance and common-law procedure.
Rather than drifting toward any one tradition, arbitration in the MENA region is evolving into a distinctly international practice, carved through local sensitivities, influenced by global norms, and shaped by a growing demand for cultural literacy, ethical clarity, and procedural coherence.
This year’s Forum made one thing clear: the future of arbitration in the region will be hybrid, dynamic, and increasingly self-defined.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Zahra Hosseinpour is an Iranian legal counsel with over four years of experience in domestic and international dispute resolution, including commercial arbitration and mediation. She also holds an academic background in public international law. She is currently pursuing an LL.M. in Transnational Arbitration and Dispute Settlement (“TADS”) at Sciences Po, Paris.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
