Cultural differences and jurisdictional variations can impact upon arbitration processes in the Middle East. From the selection of arbitrators to the role of witness testimony, parties and counsel often find that local attitudes and legal frameworks demand a nuanced approach. During a recent panel discussion as part of London International Disputes Week 2025, leading practitioners Duran Ross (Partner in Lewis Silkin’s Dispute Resolution team), Srishti Jain (Managing Associate and Solicitor Advocate at Keidan Harrison LLP), Paul Taylor (Partner and Regional Head of Arbitration at Al Tamimi & Co) and Noa Barhum (Partner at FISCHER (FBC & Co.)) examined these differences and offered guidance on how to navigate key arbitration considerations in different jurisdictions.

One of the central themes was the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. In a region as diverse as the Middle East, there are compelling reasons to appoint a tribunal that possesses not only expertise in the relevant subject matter but also familiarity with local legal customs, where relevant. As in all jurisdictions, careful selection of the arbitrator or arbitral panel is key. In construction, engineering and tech disputes which feature often in Middle Eastern jurisdictions, having a technical expert as part of an arbitration panel is arguably more common. In Israel, for instance, a three-person tribunal commonly features a retired judge, a lawyer and an expert, reflecting the desire to capture both legal and technical perspectives.

The involvement of counsel also varies regionally. In the UK, where there is differentiation between the role of a solicitor (who will typically advise on, prepare and direct the case from start to finish) and a barrister (who has honed advocacy skills and is often called upon to give specialist advice or conduct the advocacy in proceedings), practice varies as to whether or not a barrister is engaged in arbitration to present the case. This will often be a strategic decision and will depend on the circumstances. However, many Middle Eastern clients may not be as accustomed to the split role of solicitors and barristers.

A frequently cited advantage of arbitration generally concerns the efficiency and flexibility it can offer over litigation. Courts in certain jurisdictions (for example, Israel) have significant backlogs, and arbitration can proceed more swiftly. Moreover, parties value the ability to select their tribunal and the confidentiality that arbitration typically provides. However, there are also disadvantages. For example, reforms introduced in Israel in 2008 increase the scope of parties to appeal a commercial arbitral award, thus attenuating somewhat the usual finality of arbitration, making it a less attractive option. Yet, for most parties, the ability to pre-select neutral decision-makers and operate within a more malleable procedural framework continues to be a strong motivator to arbitrate.

Attitudes to settlement discussions vary across jurisdictions. In England and Wales, mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution can be mandated by the courts and attempts to settle are often encouraged by tribunals. By contrast, while settlement via traditional forms of negotiation is a part of Middle Eastern culture, a formal mediation framework as a way in which to resolve business disputes remains less widely embraced. That said, some Middle Eastern parties – particularly in Israel – are open to med-arb models, which does not often feature in UK practice, whereby points that cannot be agreed in a mediation are then determined by arbitration.

Another point of divergence relates to witness evidence. In England and Wales, witness statements are an important part of the presentation of a case but are increasingly scrutinised for their length and content including due to their perceived ‘over-lawyering’. By contrast, in certain Middle Eastern jurisdictions, local law does not provide for witness evidence. Whether or not witnesses feature prominently, it is agreed across the board that proper preparation is key. In England and Wales, there are clear restrictions against ‘coaching’ witnesses, although familiarising a witness with the process and the manner in which to answer questions (not coaching on the content) is permitted. In Israel, coaching is generally permitted, albeit within certain limits (such as avoiding suggesting specific answers), but it is generally not practiced given the risk this can create for the witness under cross-examination.

Court intervention in the arbitral process across the Middle East will vary depending on the applicable law. In Israel, intervention depends on which arbitration law governs the procedure. Under the new international commercial arbitration law, courts are more willing to intervene than they are under the older domestic legislation. Similarly, in the Gulf, the availability of emergency relief and injunctions often hinges on whether the parties choose an international financial centre such as the DIFC (in the UAE) as the seat or instead remain subject to more traditional local court powers.

A final area of discussion concerns enforcement. In Israel, courts strive to uphold arbitral awards unless faced with an especially serious procedural or substantive defect that constitutes a miscarriage of justice. The approach in the UAE is broadly pro-arbitration, yet courts have authority to set aside awards on a limited number of grounds, including public policy. Many states in the Middle East are signatories to international conventions, such as the New York Convention, reinforcing the enforceability of international arbitral awards. In England and Wales, challenges to awards remain tightly constrained under sections 67, 68, and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996, with the latter allowing appeals on a point of law in narrow circumstances.

Overall, while much of arbitration’s appeal in the Middle East mirrors that found in other international centres – confidentiality, flexibility, and party autonomy – cultural considerations and local legal frameworks can influence the conduct of proceedings. By carefully selecting the tribunal and seat, and understanding nuances in each jurisdiction, practitioners and parties alike can maximise the chances of a fair, efficient, and enforceable resolution of their disputes. The panel discussion served as a reminder that local knowledge and cultural sensitivity continue to be of paramount importance.