backOn 1 July 2026, the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (the “SCCA”) published its Country Report (the “Report”), providing a comprehensive assessment of the Kingdom’s arbitration framework against the benchmark of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985, as amended in 2006; the “Model Law”).
The Report analyses 967 appellate court decisions issued between January 2023 and June 2025, alongside a textual comparison of the Model Law, the Saudi Arbitration Law 2012 (the “Arbitration Law”), and the Draft Saudi Arbitration Law currently under consideration (the “Draft Law”).
The appellate court decisions set out in the Report continue to reinforce Saudi Arabia’s standing as a credible and competitive seat for international arbitration, underpinned by modern legislation, an arbitration-friendly judiciary, and a clear legislative trajectory towards closer alignment with internationally recognised standards.
Key Findings
The three most significant findings in the Report are (i) the Saudi judiciary’s respect for the finality of arbitral awards; (ii) the relationship between arbitral awards and Sharia; and (iii) legislative harmonisation with the Model Law.
Finality of awards
An important indicator of a reliable arbitral seat is the extent to which local courts respect the finality of arbitral awards. The Report’s analysis of case law demonstrates that Saudi appellate courts have uniformly declined to revisit the merits of disputes, reassess evidence, or the tribunal’s interpretation of the applicable substantive law except for when one of the exhaustive grounds for annulment prescribed by Article 50 of the Arbitration Law is established, which largely mirror those set out in Article 34 of the Model Law and Article V of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the “New York Convention”).
The statistical record is compelling. Of 194 annulment applications filed during the study period, 174 (89.7%) were rejected. Rejections were made either on procedural bases (due to non-compliance with prescribed statutory time limits) or on substantive grounds after admissibility, where none of the exclusive grounds listed in Article 50 of the Saudi Arbitration Law were established.
Importantly, where annulment was granted, courts demonstrated a tendency to limit its scope where possible, with partial annulment ordered in cases involving separable issues, reflecting a broader judicial inclination to confine annulment to the narrowest feasible extent while still permitting full annulment where necessary.
On the legislative side, the Draft Law entrenches this approach further by empowering the court to suspend annulment proceedings for up to 60 days to allow the tribunal to remedy formal defects – a mechanism directly modelled on Article 34(4) of the Model Law and designed to avoid unnecessary annulment. International users can therefore expect a stable, non-interventionist judicial approach both now and under any successor statute.
The involvement of Sharia
A perennial concern for international parties considering Saudi Arabia as a seat has been the prospect that awards might be set aside on Sharia or public policy grounds in an unpredictable fashion. The Report addresses this concern head-on. During the study period, only one case (0.5% of annulment applications) involved partial annulment on Sharia grounds – and even in that instance the court simultaneously relied on public policy and other statutory grounds. Annulment on public policy grounds occurred in only three cases (1.55% of annulment applications).
Across a broader cumulative dataset of over 3,300 decisions extending beyond the study period, annulment on either Sharia or public policy grounds was limited to just 13 cases – representing just 2.3% of all annulment applications. The Report notes that annulment is “extremely rare” and that it “underscor[es] the Saudi judiciary’s consistent and arbitration-supportive stance”.1The Report, p. 104.
Legislatively, both the Arbitration Law and the Draft Law expressly identify Sharia and public policy as court-initiated grounds for annulment; however, the Report’s textual analysis characterises these as “expressions of the domestic legal environment rather than departures from the structural logic of the Model Law”.2The Report, p. 234. Public policy operates as a narrow ground for annulment and the practical reality is that it is generally confined to serious violations of fundamental principles, such as corruption or fraud.
Harmonisation with the Model Law
The Report’s provision-by-provision textual comparison confirms that the Arbitration Law already “largely reflects internationally recognized arbitration standards”.3The Report, p. 12. The Draft Law continues this trajectory, introducing reforms that bring the framework still closer to the Model Law in several critical respects, including:
- Reduced formalism around arbitrator eligibility – the requirement that the presiding sole arbitrator hold a degree in Sharia or law has been removed, permitting parties to appoint technical specialists;
- Express recognition of digital procedures – email and electronic notifications are effective for delivery of notices, virtual hearings expressly authorised, and electronic signatures given legal effect for signing arbitral awards;
- Expanded emergency and interim relief – a comprehensive regime for interim measures and express recognition of emergency arbitrators are introduced;
- Removal of the default 12-month time limit – this time limit for rendering final awards has been removed, eliminating a constraint that has previously generated satellite litigation; and
- Codification of res judicata – arbitral awards have been confirmed to have res judicata effect regardless of the country in which they are issued.
The Report summarises the overall direction as “a shift from a stage of national adaptation of the Model Law toward a more advanced phase of integration and harmonization with the global arbitration framework”.4The Report, p. 18. On the judicial side, courts have already begun applying principles consistent with many of these reforms – for instance, by recognising electronic notifications as valid service and by treating institutional arbitration rules as binding.
Key Takeaways
The Report paints a clear picture of a jurisdiction that has achieved substantial alignment with the UNCITRAL Model Law across both its legislative framework and judicial practice. The judiciary is one which is increasingly cognisant of the autonomy of tribunals and the finality of awards and rarely intervenes on the grounds of Sharia or public policy. In addition, the Draft Law signals a clear legislative commitment to further modernisation and alignment with established international standards. Overall, Saudi Arabia is becoming an increasingly attractive choice of seat for international arbitrations.
Additional authors: Jonathan Green