Between commitment and reality: A critical examination of Jordan's adherence to the New York Convention 1958

Abstract

AbstractThis study critically evaluates Jordan's bifurcated approach to the enforcement of arbitral awards, with an emphasis on its domestic laws and international obligations under the New York Convention. Utilizing a rigorous methodology that melds doctrinal scrutiny with comparative legal analysis, the research delves into Jordan's Arbitration Law 31 of 2001, its subsequent amendments, and the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law 8 of 1952. The analysis reveals a marked incongruence between Jordan's national legal frameworks for recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards and its commitments under Article 3 of the New York Convention. The study further quantifies the financial and procedural barriers erected by Jordan's stratified judicial system, contrasting them with universally accepted benchmarks. Informed by international jurisprudence, the research proffers targeted policy recommendations designed to harmonize Jordan's arbitration regulations with prevailing pro‐enforcement international standards. This investigation fills a scholarly void and offers pragmatic, timely solutions, thereby contributing to the global dialogue on compliance with international arbitration norms, particularly from a Jordanian vantage point.