Dr. Kilian Bälz on Arbitration and the International Dispute Market in MENA
Attending Dr. Bälz’s lecture provided us with a comprehensive understanding of why the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is such a pivotal hub for global arbitration. We realised that this vast region, stretching from Mauritania to Iran, is critical for international trade and hosts a rapidly developing legal market, as well as landmark cases such as Salini v. Morocco.
Particularly interesting was his explanation of the region’s legal foundations. While legal systems in the MENA region have largely been influenced by French and Egyptian law, Dr. Bälz noted that the growing acceptance of the UNCITRAL Model Law has effectively encouraged legal harmonisation, establishing a far more predictable framework for international disputes.
Another important distinction that I found interesting during the lecture was the region’s ‘property owner/state-centred’ approach to dispute resolution, which contrasts sharply with the West’s ‘delegation-centred’ structure. As Dr. Bälz pointed out, this structure facilitates faster resolutions by providing direct access to the decision-maker, offering the flexibility to conclude processes with the approval of a key figure.
Furthermore, his geopolitical perspective on MENA centres such as the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (CRCICA) was fascinating. It was eye-opening to learn that these centres provide a neutral forum for disputes between Russia and the EU. By promoting the idea that 'your case will not be subject to sanctions', they are actively reshaping the global arbitration landscape and demonstrating that neutrality is as much an economic strategy as a political one.
In addressing the practical risks in the region, Dr. Bälz drew our attention to two major obstacles. The first is the requirement for parliamentary or ministerial approval before proceeding to arbitration in countries such as Iran and Egypt. Although enforcement of the award is impossible without this approval, Dr. Bälz suggested that the principle of estoppel in international law might offer a solution. The second obstacle is local courts in countries such as Jordan asserting jurisdiction over commercial agency disputes despite valid arbitration agreements. In this context, it was striking to learn of the UAE’s progressive Agency Law of 2022, which finally permits such disputes to be referred to arbitration.
Regarding the enforcement of awards, it was reassuring to learn that exceptions such as Yemen and Libya fall within the scope of the Riyadh Convention, and that much of the region is a party to the New York Convention. Given the significant challenges involved in enforcing local court judgements across borders, Dr. Bälz presented a highly persuasive argument that arbitration is the safest option for investors.
Finally, his observations on disputes involving both state and Sharia law were extremely illuminating. Unlike state court judges, who categorically refuse to apply Islamic principles, he explained that arbitration offers the flexibility to allow the parties to authorise the arbitral tribunal to apply frameworks such as lex mercatoria or Sharia law. This makes arbitration almost the only viable solution for Islamic finance disputes.
Overall, Dr. Bälz’s lecture showed us that, in the MENA region, arbitration is much more than a complex legal procedure: it is an extremely dynamic field in which cultural assumptions, institutional practices, and geopolitical strategies are deeply intertwined.
- Ahmet Nahit Güneş, IDR LL.M. Candidate, Class of 2025/2026