{"id":290832,"date":"2026-06-02T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-02T14:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=290832"},"modified":"2026-06-03T17:12:06","modified_gmt":"2026-06-03T15:12:06","slug":"2025-arbitration-year-in-review-lebanon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2026\/06\/02\/2025-arbitration-year-in-review-lebanon\/","title":{"rendered":"2025 Arbitration Year In Review – Lebanon"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

This article was featured in Jus Mundi<\/a>‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review<\/strong>, an annual publication analyzing arbitration developments across 40+ jurisdictions on 6 continents. This edition brings together young practitioners and senior experts to capture the year’s most significant legislative reforms, enforcement trends, and institutional innovations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Download now<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

THE AUTHORS:<\/strong>
Roy\u00a0Madkour<\/a><\/strong>, Founding Partner,\u00a0Madkour\u00a0Law Firm<\/a><\/strong>
Michel\u00a0Madkour<\/a><\/strong>, Junior Associate,\u00a0Madkour\u00a0Law Firm<\/a><\/strong>
Ghady Rizk<\/strong>, Junior Associate,\u00a0Madkour\u00a0Law Firm<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Beirut\u2019s legal heritage is often evoked through the expression\u00a0Berytus Nutrix Legum<\/em>\u00a0(\u201cBeirut, Nourisher of Laws\u201d), which the Beirut Bar Association has adopted as its official motto. The phrase recalls the city\u2019s ancient Law School of Berytus\u2014widely regarded as one of the earliest formal law faculties\u2014which flourished during the Roman Empire and famously hosted jurists such as\u00a0Ulpian<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Papinian<\/em>. While the city\u2019s legal preeminence has dimmed over the centuries, particularly in light of\u00a0Lebanon<\/a>\u2019s recent crises, 2025 offered several signs of a renewed and more modern role for Beirut within the regional arbitration landscape.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A major development was the inaugural of Beirut Arbitration Days, which drew an unprecedented gathering of regional and international practitioners. The event marked the first coordinated effort in years to insert Beirut into the broader arbitration map through substantive panels, institutional participation, and cross-border engagement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the institutional front, both of Beirut\u2019s principal arbitral institutions advance important reforms. The\u00a0LAMC (Lebanese Arbitration & Mediation Centre of the Beirut and Mount-Lebanon Chamber of Commerce)<\/a>\u00a0continued to consolidate its position following its\u00a02024 Arbitration Rules<\/a>\u00a0overhaul, while the LIAC-BBA (Lebanese and International Arbitration Center of the Beirut Bar Association) presented its new Arbitration Rules in the\u00a02025 Beirut Arbitration Days<\/a>, further aligning Beirut-based arbitration with contemporary international standards and reinforcing institutional pluralism in the market.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, on the disputes\u2019 side, investor\u2013state matters involving Lebanon remained active, while several Lebanon-seated commercial arbitrations tackled questions arising from the country\u2019s financial collapse\u2014particularly the duties owed by banks and financial institutions to their clients, these cases increasingly turned Beirut into a forum for resolving crisis-related commercial disputes. This reflects both necessity and the growing maturity of the local arbitral framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Market Highlights<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Despite persistent macro-economic headwinds and institutional strain on the court system, Beirut continued to entrench its profile as a regional arbitration forum in 2025. The inaugural of the\u00a0Beirut Arbitration Days<\/a>\u00a0(20\u201322 May 2025) convened a large regional and international audience and featured the public presentation of the updated LIAC-BBA (Lebanese and International Arbitration Center of the Beirut Bar Association) Arbitration Rules, which had not yet been made publicly available as of the date of this article. Over the course of the event, several conferences addressing procedure, damages, arbitration, judiciary cooperation and advocacy matters were held. The scale and quality of participation marked a high point in community engagement and signaled a clear intention within the arbitration community to re-position Beirut as a credible regional hub for complex commercial and investment disputes, even as broader structural economic reforms remain outstanding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In parallel, treaty exposure arising from Lebanon\u2019s de-facto capital control continued to intensify; driven by foreign investors impacted by the banking crisis. Most notably, Al Habtoor Group (UAE) served a notice of dispute under the\u00a0Lebanon – United Arab Emirates BIT (1998)<\/a>\u00a0alleging impeded\u00a0transfers of funds<\/a>\u00a0and violations of treaty protections\u2014particularly\u00a0fair and equitable treatment<\/a>\u00a0and free-transfer guarantees. The Group\u00a0publicly announced in January 2025 that it was cancelling all planned investments in Lebanon<\/a>, a development that highlighted the mounting risk of additional Investor-Sate Dispute Settlement (\u201cISDS<\/strong>\u201d) claims premised on blocked deposits and transfer-of-funds provisions. Since then, however,\u00a0Al Habtoor has signaled an intention to resume\u2014or at least reconsider\u2014the operation of its investments in the country<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Significant Cases and ISDS Developments<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

On the dispute landscape, investor\u2013state matters with a Lebanese nexus remained active:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AVAX v. Lebanese Republic<\/em>\u00a0(ICSID) \u2014 Annulment Phase<\/a>: The dispute arises from alleged breaches by the Lebanese Republic of a construction contract concluded with AVAX for the Deir Ammar II power plant, principally relating to non-payment. Following the tribunal\u2019s June 2024 award dismissing the investor\u2019s claims, an\u00a0ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes)<\/a>\u00a0ad hoc committee was constituted on\u00a014 January 2025<\/a>\u00a0to hear the investor\u2019s annulment application. To date, the annulment proceedings remain pending. The committee\u2019s eventual decision is expected to provide additional guidance on the scope of annulment review under the\u00a0Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (1965)<\/a>\u00a0(\u201cICSID Convention<\/strong>\u201d). While the merits award relieved the State of a substantial potential liability, careful management of the annulment phase\u2014and of any subsequent enforcement or costs issues\u2014remains essential. Practitioners should also monitor any partial or interim decisions addressing the customary annulment grounds, including alleged serious departures from a fundamental rule of procedure or manifest excess of powers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abed El Jaouni v. Lebanon<\/em>\u00a0(ICSID) \u2014 Post-Award Posture<\/a>:\u00a0<\/strong>for context, readers will recall that the case stems from the revocation of aviation licenses held by the claimant\u2019s subsidiary. Following the ad hoc committee\u2019s rejection of Lebanon\u2019s annulment application on 5 December 2024, the\u00a0US$218.2 million award<\/a>\u00a0in favour of the investor remains final and in force. In 2025, the focus has therefore shifted to post-award strategy\u2014including settlement dynamics, budgetary\/sovereign considerations, and potential foreign enforcement measures. For counsel advising States or investors with similar aviation-licensing fact patterns, the case continues to shape expectations around expropriation analysis and damages quantification under applicable treaties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lebanon-seated commercial arbitrations have also addressed matters relating to the Lebanese economic crisis:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zeyad Salah v Ahli Investment Group and Arab Finance Corporation<\/em>, BCCI Case No. 232\/2021<\/a>:<\/strong>\u00a0in the commercial arbitration sphere, 2025 continued to illustrate how Lebanon\u2019s financial crisis is generating non-treaty claims against domestic financial institutions. The dispute arose from an alleged breach of a portfolio management and financial services agreement between a Jordanian investor and the respondent financial entities. In March 2024, a majority LAMC tribunal seated in Beirut rendered an award ordering the respondents to pay approximately US$5.1 million plus interest, finding breaches of their duties to inform, advise, and warn, as well as failures to exercise due diligence and care in managing a conservative-risk portfolio heavily exposed to Lebanese sovereign Eurobonds. Although the Beirut Court of First Instance granted exequatur in late 2024, enforcement has been suspended following annulment proceedings initiated by the respondents under Lebanese law. While the case remains pending, it is likely to shape both the trajectory of future banking-related arbitrations and the strategic risk assessment of foreign investors operating in Lebanon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Court Support and Enforcement Outlook<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Lebanese courts have consistently adopted a favorem arbitrandum<\/em> approach, reinforcing party autonomy and the effectiveness of arbitration agreements. Traditionally, the courts have held that: <\/p>\n\n\n\n