Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards in Palestine: Between the New York Convention and Domestic Law

The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is a key feature of international commercial law, allowing parties to resolve cross-border disputes with confidence that an award issued in one jurisdiction can be enforced in another. For Palestine, this process is governed by both international treaty obligations and domestic legislation—namely, the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Arbitration Law No. 3 of 2000.

This article examines the interaction between these two legal frameworks and the practical requirements for enforcing a foreign arbitral award before Palestinian courts, with particular focus on the role of public policy, procedural safeguards, and reciprocity.

Palestine and the New York Convention

Palestine acceded to the New York Convention in 2015, and the Convention entered into force on 2 April 2015. By doing so, Palestine committed to recognizing and enforcing arbitral awards issued in the territories of other contracting states, subject to the limited grounds for refusal laid out in Article V of the Convention.

In line with the Convention, Palestinian courts are required to treat foreign arbitral awards as binding and to enforce them unless the respondent proves a valid reason for refusal, such as invalid arbitration agreements, lack of due process, or violation of public policy.

Palestinian Arbitration Law No. 3 of 2000: Domestic Requirements

The domestic legal regime complements the Convention by establishing a clear procedural route for enforcement. Articles 48 through 53 of the Palestinian Arbitration Law detail how a foreign arbitral award may be enforced and on what grounds it may be challenged.

Article 48 provides that enforcement of a foreign award may be refused even sua sponte (on the court’s own motion) if:

1. The award contravenes Palestinian public order.
   
2. The award is inconsistent with international treaties to which Palestine is a party.
   
   

Meanwhile, Article 49 allows the respondent (the party against whom enforcement is sought) to request non-enforcement of a foreign arbitral award based on specific conditions, including:

1. The availability of one of the grounds for annulment under Article 43 (e.g., incapacity, invalid arbitration agreement, procedural irregularity, fraud).
   
2. Annulment or suspension of the award in its country of origin.
   
3. Ongoing appeal proceedings against the award abroad.
   
4. The existence of a conflicting judgment already rendered by a Palestinian court on the same dispute.
   

Procedural Prerequisites for Enforcement

A party seeking enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in Palestine must comply with several procedural requirements under Articles 50 to 52 of the Arbitration Law. These include:

1. Submitting the original or a certified copy of the award, duly authenticated by the relevant Palestinian diplomatic mission, if one exists.
   
2. Providing a certified Arabic translation by an officially recognized translator.
   
3. Serving the enforcement order and supporting documents to the opposing party.
   
4. Allowing the respondent thirty days from notification to submit a written reply.
   

Importantly, Article 53 grants either party the right to appeal the court’s decision to enforce or reject the award within thirty days of its issuance or formal notification.

The Role of Public Policy in Enforcement

One of the most commonly invoked grounds for refusal is a violation of public policy. Although not defined in the statute, public policy in the Palestinian legal context is interpreted narrowly, often referring to fundamental legal, religious, or moral norms.

Palestinian courts typically consider whether the contents of the award or the manner in which it was rendered offend local legal values. For example, awards involving usurious interest rates, illegal activities, or a denial of basic procedural fairness could potentially be denied enforcement. However, general dissatisfaction with the outcome or minor procedural deviations are unlikely to meet this threshold.

Impact of the New York Convention on Reciprocity

Before accession to the New York Convention, the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Palestine was subject to a reciprocity requirement under general enforcement principles. However, with Palestine now a contracting party to the Convention, reciprocity is presumed for awards issued in other Convention jurisdictions.

This development effectively removes the burden on applicants to demonstrate that the foreign country would, in turn, enforce Palestinian awards—a significant advancement that aligns Palestine with prevailing international standards.

Conclusion

The dual legal regime governing the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Palestine—comprising the New York Convention and the Palestinian Arbitration Law No. 3 of 2000—provides a clear and reliable pathway for recognition and enforcement. While procedural compliance is critical, and certain safeguards remain in place to protect against enforcement of awards that violate local norms or due process, the legal system overall reflects a strong commitment to upholding international arbitration outcomes.

For businesses and legal professionals, understanding both the international and domestic components of this framework is essential to ensuring that arbitral awards can be effectively and predictably enforced within Palestinian courts.

If you require assistance with arbitration enforcement or dispute resolution matters, our Litigation & Alternative Dispute Resolution in Palestine team is ready to support you with expert legal guidance.