Jordan’s draft amendment to the Arbitration Law, published on the website of the Legislation and Opinion Bureau, is a welcome step toward modernising the Kingdom’s dispute resolution framework and strengthening its appeal to foreign investors, international companies and cross-border legal practitioners.

 

The draft introduces several features now common in modern institutional arbitration, including the establishment of a Jordanian arbitration centre, emergency arbitration, expedited procedures, multi-party and multi-contract arbitration, disclosure of third-party funding and shorter procedural timelines. These reforms show Jordan’s intention to keep pace with regional and international arbitration practice.

 

For foreign users, however, the central question is not only whether Jordan has modern arbitration concepts in its legislation. The more important question is whether the legal framework creates confidence, neutrality, efficiency and institutional independence.

 

In this regard, one point deserves careful consideration: the Jordanian Arbitration Centre may be better regulated through a separate law rather than being established within the general Arbitration Law itself. The Arbitration Law should remain a neutral framework governing arbitration agreements, tribunals, proceedings, interim measures, awards, annulment and enforcement. By contrast, the governance, structure, board of trustees, resources, exemptions, rules and institutional liability of a specific arbitration centre are matters better addressed in a dedicated statute.

 

This approach would strengthen both the centre and the Arbitration Law. A separate law could give the Jordanian Arbitration Centre a clear legal identity, transparent governance rules, proper financial oversight, a code of conduct, conflict-of-interest standards, and detailed provisions on emergency arbitration and expedited procedures. At the same time, the general Arbitration Law would remain neutral and applicable to all arbitrations, whether administered by the Jordanian centre, another local institution, an international centre, or conducted on an ad hoc basis.

 

For international parties, party autonomy is essential. Any reform should expressly confirm that the creation of the Jordanian Arbitration Centre does not prevent parties from choosing another arbitration institution, does not give the centre exclusive jurisdiction, and does not make its rules applicable unless the parties agree to them. The centre should succeed through the quality of its administration, the competence of its arbitrators, the clarity of its fees, and the enforceability of its decisions.

 

Institutional independence is equally important. If the centre is to compete regionally, its board of trustees should be formed in a manner that inspires confidence. A broad nomination model involving independent professional bodies, such as the Bar Association, Engineers Association, Contractors Association, chambers of commerce and industry, universities and arbitration experts, would help reinforce the centre’s credibility. Clear rules on disclosure, conflicts of interest and removal would further strengthen trust.

 

The proposed tax and fee exemptions should also be drafted with precision. Supporting a national arbitration centre is a legitimate policy choice, but exemptions should be clear, proportionate and transparent, so that the centre’s competitive position is based primarily on performance rather than statutory privilege.

 

The introduction of emergency arbitration is especially positive. An emergency arbitrator can protect rights before a tribunal is fully constituted, for example by preserving assets, evidence, goods or the status quo. Yet the law should clarify the legal effect of an emergency arbitrator’s decision, its enforceability before Jordanian courts, and its relationship with urgent judicial relief.

 

Finally, the draft would benefit from clear transitional provisions. Parties to ongoing arbitrations should not be unexpectedly affected by new rules or new time limits that did not exist when their arbitration began or when their arbitration agreement was concluded.

 

Jordan is right to modernise its arbitration framework. A strong national arbitration centre can support investment, reduce reliance on foreign venues and enhance Jordan’s role as a regional dispute resolution hub. The best path is to preserve the Arbitration Law as a general and neutral framework, while establishing the Jordanian Arbitration Centre through a separate, carefully drafted law. This would send a clear message to foreign users: Jordan supports modern arbitration, respects party autonomy, and is committed to credible, independent and enforceable dispute resolution.

 

The writer is an attorney-at-law and professor of law at the University of Jordan