Critical Analysis of Granting Interim Measures in Arbitration in the Context of Jordan Arbitration Law No. 16. 2018
- 1 Faculty of Law, Al Zaytoonah Jordan University, Amman, Jordan
- 2 Faculty of Law, Amman Arab University, Amman, Jordan
- 3 Faculty of Law, Al Isra University, Amman, Jordan
Abstract
Current arbitration laws and rules assume that national court and the Tribunal coexist together in terms of their granting of interim measures particularly in international cases of arbitration. This paper attempted the stance of Jordan Arbitration Law 2018 on granting interim measures during arbitration by providing a discussion of the entity in authority in the country that grants such measures. The study used a major approach namely qualitative based on exploratory method with minimal usage to comparative analysis in order to benefit from those states in the point of granting of interim measures. Data were gathered from libraries and published reports and the research found that the major power that grants interim measures in Jordan is the National Court with the least authority held by the tribunal—a power that should be enumerated in the arbitration agreement.
- Association for International Arbitration (2007). Interim Measures in International Commercial Arbitration (p. 75). Antwerp: Maklu Publishers.
- Born, G. B. (2016). International Commercial Arbitration: Cases, Materials, and Notes on the Resolution of International Business Disputes by W. Michael Reisman, W. Laurence Craig, William W. Park and Jan Paulssonm. Journal of the London Court of International Arbitration, 32, 373-376.
- Davidson, W. S. W., & Rajoo, S. (2006). The New Malaysian Arbitration Act 2005. The Malayan Law Journal, 72, 9-10.
- den Berg, A. J. (ed.) (2009) International Council for Commercial Arbitration Congress series No. 14: 50 Years of the New York Convention(pp. 576-579).
- Donovan, D. F. (2003). The Scope and Enforceability of Provisional Measures in International Commercial Arbitration: A Survey of Jurisdictions, the Work of UNCITRAL and Proposals for Moving Forward. In A. J. van den Berg (Ed.), International Commercial Arbitration: Important Contemporary Questions (pp. 82-83). New York: Kluwer Law International.
- Ferguson, S. M. (2003). Interim Measures of Protection in International Commercial Arbitration: Problems, Proposed Solutions, and Anticipated Results. Currents: International Trade Law Journal, 12, 55.
- Kaminskiene, N. (2010). Application of Interim Measures in International Arbitration: The Lithuanian Approach. Jurisprudence, 1, 243-260.
- Kohler, G. K., & Stucki, B. (2004). International Arbitration in Switzerland: A Handbook for Practitioners (p. 69). Dordrecht: Kluwer Law International.
- Lemenez, G., & Quigley, P. (2009). The ICDR’S Emergency Arbitration Procedure in Action. Dispute Resolution Journal, 63, 3.
- Lew, J. D. M. (2009). Does National Court Involvement Undermine the International Arbitration Process? American University International Law Review, 24, 489-537.
- Lew, J. D., Mistelis, L. A., Kröll, S. M., & Kröll, S. (2003). Comparative International Commercial Arbitration. Kluwer Law International.
- Masadeh, A. (2013). The Court’s Supportive Role in Arbitration under the Law of United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Humanities and Management Sciences, 1, 129-131.
- Pryles, M., & Moser, M. (2007). Asian Leading Arbitrators’ Guide to International Arbitration (p. 249). Juris Publishing, Inc.
- Redfern, A. (1995). Arbitration and the Courts: Interim Measures of Protection—Is the Tide About to Turn? The Texas International Law Journal, 30, 77-78.