In Iraq, commercial disputes are primarily resolved through litigation before the civil courts, which constitute the general jurisdictional framework for civil and commercial matters. The court system operates under a civil law structure and remains the default mechanism where no alternative dispute resolution clause is agreed.

Arbitration is also recognised under Iraqi law as a contractual dispute resolution mechanism. It is available where parties expressly agree to submit disputes to arbitration, and it is commonly incorporated in commercial contracts as a parallel private adjudicatory process.

In addition to litigation and arbitration, parties may also rely on amicable settlement mechanisms such as negotiation or contractual escalation procedures. These mechanisms are not standalone judicial processes but are frequently incorporated within commercial agreements as preliminary steps before formal dispute resolution.

The choice of dispute resolution mechanism in Iraq is primarily driven by the nature of the transaction, the profile of the contracting parties and the level of contractual sophistication.

In purely domestic transactions, parties typically rely on litigation due to familiarity with court procedures and the absence of complex cross-border enforcement considerations. This is particularly the case in lower-value commercial relationships where procedural cost and accessibility are key factors.

In contrast, in cross-border and internationally structured transactions, parties generally opt for arbitration, particularly where foreign investors or multinational corporations are involved. The decision to adopt arbitration is typically influenced by considerations of neutrality, enforceability in multiple jurisdictions and perceived procedural flexibility.

Amicable settlement mechanisms are commonly included as a contractual risk-management tool rather than as a standalone choice. They are typically used to preserve ongoing commercial relationships and to avoid escalation into formal proceedings where possible.

Gradual but Uneven Shift Towards Arbitration in Cross-Border Transactions

In Iraq, there is a gradual but uneven shift towards the use of arbitration in cross-border and high-value commercial contracts. This trend is most visible in sectors such as oil and gas, EPC and infrastructure, where international counterparties consistently seek arbitration clauses to mitigate perceived uncertainties associated with domestic court proceedings. However, this shift remains selective rather than systemic, as arbitration is still primarily confined to contracts involving foreign investors or internationally structured transactions.

Continued Structural Reliance on Court Litigation

Despite the increased inclusion of arbitration clauses in sophisticated contracts, litigation before the Iraqi civil courts continues to serve as the primary dispute resolution forum in practice. This is largely due to the absence of arbitration agreements in many domestic contracts and the established role of the courts in resolving commercial disputes. The judiciary therefore remains the central enforcement and adjudicatory mechanism within the Iraqi legal framework, particularly for purely local disputes.

Growing Sophistication in Dispute Resolution Drafting

A clear trend is the increasing sophistication of dispute resolution clauses in commercial contracts. Parties are more frequently adopting structured, multi-tiered mechanisms combining negotiation, amicable settlement, and arbitration or litigation. This reflects a more risk-conscious contracting approach, particularly in long-term projects where maintaining operational continuity is a priority.

Enforcement and Predictability as Key Drivers of Forum Selection

Forum selection is increasingly influenced by enforcement strategy and predictability concerns rather than purely procedural preference. Parties are giving greater attention to the enforceability of judgments and arbitral awards, both within Iraq and internationally. This has led to more careful drafting of governing law, seat of arbitration and enforcement pathways, particularly in transactions involving cross-border asset exposure.

General Framework

In Iraq, limitation periods are governed primarily by the Iraqi Civil Code and related procedural legislation. These periods vary depending on the nature of the claim, and courts generally apply statutory limitation rules strictly where properly raised by a defendant.

Limitation periods are generally considered substantive in nature. Accordingly, once a claim becomes time-barred, the court will dismiss it if the defendant raises the limitation objection.

General Limitation Period

The general limitation period for contractual and commercial claims is ten years, unless a shorter specific statutory period applies. This applies to most civil and commercial obligations, including breach of contract and payment claims, subject to sector-specific exceptions.

Shorter Statutory Limitation Periods

Certain categories of claims are subject to shorter limitation periods, including:

• periodic and recurring obligations (depending on legal classification);
• employment-related claims;
• insurance-related claims; and
• commercial instruments and negotiable papers governed by commercial rules.

Commencement of Limitation Period

The limitation period generally begins from the date the cause of action arises, which is typically:

• the date of breach; or
• the date the obligation becomes due and enforceable.

Interruption and Suspension of Limitation

Judicial proceedings

The filing of a lawsuit interrupts the limitation period. Once proceedings are validly initiated, the limitation clock stops running for the duration of the case.

Procedural participation (hearings)

Active participation in court proceedings, including attendance at hearings, does not itself restart or extend limitation periods. However, once proceedings are initiated, limitation is considered interrupted, and subsequent procedural steps do not re-trigger limitation concerns.

Objections and defence conduct

Raising procedural or substantive objections during proceedings does not affect the running of limitation periods. However, the key legal effect arises from the filing of the claim itself, which interrupts limitation, rather than from any later procedural defence activity.

Acknowledgment of debt

Limitation may also be interrupted by an explicit or implicit acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor, which resets the limitation period.

Practical approach of courts

In practice, Iraqi courts apply limitation rules formally once invoked by a party. The most critical factor is the timing of claim submission rather than procedural developments during hearings. As a result, early filing remains essential to preserve rights, particularly in long-term commercial relationships.

Key takeaway

The decisive factor in limitation analysis is the initiation of legal proceedings or acknowledgment of the obligation, rather than procedural participation or objections during hearings.

Overview of the Judicial System

In Iraq, the court system is structured as a civil law hierarchy with a clear appellate framework. Commercial and civil disputes are primarily handled within the general civil courts, which form the backbone of the judicial system. The judiciary operates independently, and proceedings are governed by the Iraqi Civil Procedure Code.

The system is hierarchical, allowing for multiple levels of review, culminating in the Court of Cassation as the highest judicial authority for ordinary civil and commercial matters.

First Instance Courts (Courts of First Instance)

The Courts of First Instance are the primary trial courts for civil and commercial disputes. They have general jurisdiction over contractual disputes, corporate matters and financial claims.

Key features include:

• full examination of facts and law;
• hearing of witnesses and expert evidence where necessary; and
• issuance of binding first-instance judgments.

These courts form the main entry point for most commercial litigation.

Appeal Courts

Appeal Courts review decisions issued by the Courts of First Instance. Their role is both factual and legal review, although in practice greater emphasis is placed on legal interpretation.

Key characteristics:

• reassessment of evidence and legal reasoning;
• authority to uphold, amend or revoke first-instance judgments; and
• function as an intermediate corrective stage before cassation review.

Appeals are generally available as of right in most civil and commercial matters.

Court of Cassation

The Court of Cassation is the highest judicial authority for civil and commercial disputes. Its role is primarily supervisory and focused on ensuring correct application of law rather than reassessment of facts.

Its functions include:

• reviewing legal errors in lower court decisions;
• ensuring consistency in judicial interpretation; and
• issuing final and binding judgments in ordinary civil and commercial cases.

Specialised and Parallel Jurisdictions

In addition to the general courts, certain specialised bodies operate within the broader judicial framework, including:

• tax-related dispute committees and judicial review mechanisms;
• labour dispute structures with quasi-judicial stages prior to court escalation; and
• administrative courts for disputes involving public authorities, where applicable.

Practical Operation of the System

In practice, most commercial disputes follow a structured path from First Instance Courts to Appeal Courts and ultimately the Court of Cassation if required. The process is formal and document-driven, with limited oral advocacy compared to common law systems.

Key Takeaway

The Iraqi judicial system is a three-tier hierarchy (First Instance – Appeal – Cassation), supported by specialised quasi-judicial bodies for sector-specific disputes, ensuring both factual review and legal consistency.

In Iraq, there are no general statutory pre-action conduct requirements mandating parties to follow a prescribed procedure before initiating court proceedings. As a result, a claimant is generally entitled to file a lawsuit directly before the competent civil courts without the need to exhaust formal pre-litigation steps, unless such requirements arise from specific legislation or contractual arrangements between the parties.

In commercial practice, pre-action conduct is primarily governed by contractual notice obligations, particularly in relation to termination, cancellation or withdrawal from contracts. It is common for agreements to require a party intending to terminate a contract to issue a written notice clearly stating the intention to terminate, the contractual basis for termination, and a defined notice period allowing the other party an opportunity to remedy any alleged breach. These requirements are typically treated as a condition precedent to valid termination rather than a mere formality.

Failure to comply with contractual notice requirements may have significant legal consequences. Iraqi courts may consider a termination carried out without proper notice as procedurally defective or premature, which may in turn expose the terminating party to claims for damages arising from wrongful termination or breach of contract. In addition, non-compliance may weaken the legal position of a claimant relying on termination as the basis of its claim and may lead to counterclaims by the opposing party.

Nevertheless, failure to observe pre-action contractual notice obligations does not generally bar access to the courts. Instead, it is assessed within the broader context of contractual interpretation and the conduct of the parties, with courts placing particular emphasis on the principle of good faith and the intent underlying the contractual relationship.

In Iraq, civil and commercial proceedings follow a structured, multi-stage process governed by the Civil Procedure Code, with a strong emphasis on written pleadings supported by judicially managed hearings and evidentiary review.

Commencement of Proceedings

Proceedings are initiated by filing a statement of claim before the competent Court of First Instance. The court registers the claim and formally serves it on the defendant, who is granted a period to submit a written defence. This stage also allows the submission of preliminary objections and counterclaims, which may influence the scope of the dispute from an early stage.

Pleadings and Written Submissions

The proceedings then move into a written phase in which both parties exchange detailed pleadings, including claims, defences, rejoinders and supporting documents. The court may request clarifications or supplementary memoranda, and this stage is central in defining the factual and legal framework of the case.

Hearings and Evidentiary Phase

The court conducts periodic hearings during which the judge reviews submissions, examines documentary evidence, hears oral arguments where necessary and may appoint experts, particularly in technical, accounting or industry-specific disputes. This phase is often decisive in practice, as it allows the court to test the evidentiary record and resolve factual issues.

Judgment at First Instance

Once the court considers the case sufficiently examined, it issues a reasoned written judgment. In practice, where documentation is complete and hearings proceed efficiently, the first instance stage – including pleadings, hearings and judgment – may take approximately six months in straightforward commercial disputes.

Appeal and Cassation Stages

Following the first instance judgment, parties may appeal to the Court of Appeal, which reviews both factual and legal issues. A further recourse is available before the Court of Cassation, which focuses primarily on points of law and legal interpretation. Each of these appellate stages typically requires between three to six months, depending on complexity and procedural developments.

In Iraq, court proceedings are generally grounded in the principle of public hearings, meaning that disputes are, as a rule, heard in open court. This reflects the broader principle of transparency in judicial processes, particularly in civil and commercial litigation. However, in practice, the level of public access is often limited by procedural realities and the nature of the dispute.

Although hearings are formally public, courts retain discretion to restrict attendance in specific circumstances, particularly where confidentiality is required for reasons relating to public order, morality, or sensitive commercial information. In complex commercial disputes, parties frequently request that certain documents or expert reports be treated with confidentiality, especially where they involve financial data, trade secrets or proprietary business information.

Judgments are generally issued in written form and may be accessible to the parties and, in some cases, to the public. However, commercially sensitive details are not typically disseminated beyond the scope of the case file, and practical confidentiality is often maintained through the procedural handling of documents rather than formal legal classification.

Certain categories of disputes, such as those involving family matters or specific regulated sectors, may benefit from additional confidentiality protections. In commercial litigation, however, confidentiality is not automatic and must usually be requested and justified before the court.

Overall, while the Iraqi court system is formally public in nature, a degree of practical confidentiality is achievable through procedural management and targeted court requests, particularly in sensitive commercial and corporate disputes.

In Iraq, interim relief is available through the civil courts and forms an important procedural mechanism to preserve rights and prevent irreparable harm pending the resolution of the main dispute. The courts have broad discretion to grant precautionary and protective measures where there is urgency or a risk that the enforcement of a future judgment may be prejudiced.

Types of Interim Relief

The most commonly sought forms of interim relief include precautionary attachment orders over movable and immovable assets, injunction-type measures to prevent ongoing harm, and orders aimed at preserving the status quo between the parties. Courts may also order the deposit of disputed assets or funds with a court-appointed custodian in certain circumstances, particularly where ownership or entitlement is contested.

In commercial disputes, interim relief is frequently used to secure monetary claims, prevent asset dissipation, or maintain contractual performance pending adjudication. The court may also appoint experts or issue procedural orders to safeguard evidence where there is a risk of loss or alteration.

Conditions for Granting Relief

Interim measures are generally subject to the applicant demonstrating urgency, prima facie rights and a risk of harm that cannot be adequately remedied by damages alone. Courts exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis, balancing the interests of both parties and ensuring that interim relief is not used as a substitute for a final judgment.

Practical Use

In practice, interim relief is commonly sought in commercial litigation, particularly in disputes involving debt recovery, contractual breaches, and enforcement risks. However, success depends heavily on the strength of documentary evidence and the ability to demonstrate immediate risk.

In Iraq, courts have broad authority to grant final relief in civil and commercial disputes, with remedies generally aimed at enforcing contractual rights, compensating loss or restoring parties to their pre-dispute position.

Monetary Damages

Monetary damages are the primary form of final relief. Courts award compensation for proven loss resulting from breach of contract or wrongful conduct. The claimant must establish causation and quantify loss with supporting evidence, typically documentary in nature.

Specific Performance

Courts may order specific performance where contractual obligations are clear, enforceable and capable of execution. This remedy is more common in commercial contracts involving defined obligations, although courts may refuse it where performance is impractical or overly burdensome.

Termination and Rescission

Termination or rescission may be granted in cases of material breach. This is often accompanied by restitutionary consequences, including reversal of payments or restoration of parties to their original position where feasible.

Restitutionary Relief

Courts may order restitution where one party has been unjustly enriched. This typically arises in cases involving invalid contracts, overpayments or transactions lacking legal basis.

Declaratory and Ancillary Relief

Courts may issue declaratory judgments confirming legal rights and obligations. Ancillary orders may also be granted to give practical effect to the judgment, particularly in enforcement contexts.

In Iraq, damages are assessed on the basis of proven loss directly resulting from the wrongful act or breach of contract. The courts generally require a clear causal link between the breach and the claimed damage, supported by documentary and, where necessary, expert evidence.

Compensatory Nature

Damages are primarily compensatory rather than punitive. The objective is to place the injured party in the position it would have been in had the breach not occurred, rather than to penalise the breaching party.

Assessment Methodology

Courts assess damages based on actual and direct loss. Claims for indirect or speculative loss are typically not accepted unless clearly substantiated. Expert reports are frequently relied upon in commercial disputes, particularly in cases involving financial loss, construction or technical valuation.

Mitigation of Loss

The injured party is generally expected to take reasonable steps to mitigate its loss. Failure to do so may reduce the amount of recoverable damages, depending on the circumstances of the case.

Judicial Discretion

While the legal framework is structured, courts retain discretion in quantifying damages where precise calculation is not possible. This is particularly relevant in complex commercial disputes where valuation depends on market or operational factors.

In Iraq, arbitration is recognised as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism and is increasingly used in commercial contracts, particularly in cross-border and investment-related transactions. It is most commonly adopted in sectors such as oil and gas, construction and international trade.

Arbitration is primarily contractual in nature and depends on an express agreement between the parties. As a result, domestic litigation remains the default forum for resolving commercial disputes, with arbitration used mainly in international or high-value contracts.

Arbitration is permitted in commercial disputes provided there is a valid written arbitration agreement. However, disputes involving public policy, criminal matters or rights that cannot be waived by agreement are not arbitrable.

In addition, arbitral awards may be refused enforcement if they conflict with Iraqi public policy, including principles derived from Islamic law or mandatory statutory provisions.

The perceived advantages of the use of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism in Iraq include:

• recognition of party autonomy to select arbitration through written agreement;
• flexibility in procedural rules, language, applicable law and seat of arbitration;
• ability to resolve international disputes under neutral frameworks, supported by Iraq’s accession to the New York Convention;
• availability of specialised decision-makers in complex commercial disputes; and
• potential for more adaptable procedures compared to court litigation.

The perceived disadvantages of the use of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism in Iraq include:

• dependence on a valid written arbitration agreement for enforceability;
• continued involvement of Iraqi courts in appointment, support and enforcement stages;
• limited predictability in enforcement due to public policy review;
• potential delays where court intervention is required; and
• less developed institutional arbitration infrastructure domestically.

In Iraq, there is limited reliance on domestic arbitration institutions, including the Iraqi Institute for Arbitration. In practice, parties frequently opt for international institutions such as the International Chamber of Commerce and the London Court of International Arbitration, particularly in cross-border contracts.

Ad hoc arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules is also widely used. Regional arbitration centres, particularly in Dubai, are often preferred in practice due to accessibility and regional familiarity.

The duration of arbitration in Iraq varies depending on complexity and procedural structure. In typical commercial disputes, proceedings may range from 12 to 18 months.

More complex disputes, particularly in construction or energy-related sectors, may take longer due to evidentiary complexity, tribunal constitution and procedural steps agreed by the parties.

In Iraq, arbitration is primarily regulated by the Iraqi Civil Procedure Code (1969), particularly Articles 172 to 214, which set out the framework governing arbitration agreements, appointment of arbitrators, procedural rules and enforcement of awards. Law No 40 of 1977 also governs aspects of international commercial arbitration.

In addition, Iraq is a party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which supports the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards subject to public policy considerations.

Arbitration agreements must be in writing and are generally enforceable where they comply with mandatory provisions of Iraqi law. The procedural framework allows parties significant autonomy, while Iraqi courts retain a limited supervisory role, particularly in relation to tribunal constitution, interim support and enforcement.

In Iraq, the courts play a supportive role in arbitration under the Iraqi Civil Procedure Code (Articles 172–214) and Law No 40 of 1977.

Their main powers include assisting with the constitution of the arbitral tribunal where parties fail to agree on appointments, as well as ordering interim measures in support of ongoing arbitration. Courts may also assist in procedural matters to ensure the effective conduct of proceedings.

At the post-award stage, courts exercise a limited supervisory function focused on procedural compliance and public policy considerations.

In Iraq, court intervention in arbitration is limited and primarily supportive in nature under the Iraqi Civil Procedure Code (Articles 172–214).

Courts may intervene where parties fail to appoint arbitrators or where assistance is required in constituting the tribunal. They may also grant interim measures in support of arbitration, including protective orders where appropriate.

In addition, courts play a role in the execution and enforcement of arbitral awards, including reviewing awards for compliance with mandatory legal requirements and public policy considerations prior to enforcement.

Overall, judicial intervention is intended to facilitate arbitration without interfering with the autonomy of the arbitral process.

In Iraq, arbitral tribunals may grant remedies such as monetary damages and specific performance, in line with the arbitration agreement.

Interim relief may be available depending on the agreed procedural rules, although practical effectiveness may depend on court support for enforcement.

All relief remains subject to mandatory provisions of Iraqi law and public policy limitations.

In Iraq, formal alternative dispute resolution mechanisms outside litigation and arbitration remain limited but are primarily based on amicable settlement and mediation.

Commercial parties commonly attempt settlement negotiations either directly or through contractual dispute resolution clauses requiring escalation before formal proceedings. Mediation may also be used on an ad hoc basis, although it is not yet highly institutionalised in commercial practice.

There are no general statutory requirements mandating ADR before litigation unless the parties have contractually agreed to an escalation or amicable settlement mechanism.

Where ADR clauses exist, parties are expected to comply with the agreed steps. Failure to do so does not generally invalidate a claim, but may affect procedural standing or lead to temporary suspension of proceedings until contractual steps are fulfilled.

ADR does not generally prevent access to courts in Iraq unless it is expressly agreed as a mandatory pre-condition.

In practice, courts may encourage settlement efforts, particularly in civil and commercial disputes, but ADR primarily affects timing and procedural progression rather than substantive rights.

ADR is typically used at an early stage of a dispute, often before formal proceedings are initiated, particularly where required under contract.

Engagement in ADR does not automatically suspend limitation periods unless expressly agreed by the parties or provided for in the contract.

ADR processes such as mediation and negotiation are generally treated as confidential in practice, particularly where conducted privately or under contractual arrangements. However, there is no comprehensive statutory regime governing confidentiality across all ADR mechanisms.

ADR costs are generally borne by the parties based on mutual agreement. In the absence of agreement, costs are typically shared equally or allocated as part of settlement terms reached between the parties.

Courts in Iraq generally adopt a supportive but non-interventionist approach to ADR. While ADR is not mandatory, courts may encourage parties to explore settlement options, particularly in commercial and civil disputes, in order to reduce procedural backlog and promote efficient resolution.

In Iraq, legal fees are generally agreed between lawyers and clients in accordance with the professional rules of the Iraqi Bar Association. Fee structures may be fixed, hourly or case-based depending on the complexity and nature of the dispute.

In litigation, court fees are payable upon filing and are generally calculated based on the value of the claim, with higher-value claims attracting higher court fees. Additional procedural fees may apply at different stages of the proceedings.

Court-awarded legal costs are typically limited and do not reflect the actual legal fees incurred by the successful party.

Third-party litigation funding is not formally regulated and is not commonly used in Iraq. In practice, it remains very limited and is not a recognised feature of dispute resolution proceedings.

Contingency fee arrangements are not expressly regulated under Iraqi law and are generally uncommon in practice. Where used, they are typically subject to professional conduct rules and must comply with Iraqi Bar Association regulations.

Litigation and arbitration-related insurance products are not widely developed in Iraq. While certain corporate insurance structures may indirectly cover legal risks, dedicated litigation or dispute funding insurance is not commonly available in the market.

Courts in Iraq may award costs as part of final judgments; however, recovery is generally limited and does not fully compensate the successful party for actual legal expenses incurred. In arbitration, costs are typically allocated by the tribunal in accordance with the arbitration agreement or applicable rules.

When awarding costs, Iraqi courts generally take into account the outcome of the dispute, procedural conduct of the parties and statutory fee schedules. In arbitration, tribunals have broader discretion and may consider factors such as reasonableness, proportionality and party conduct during the proceedings.

In Iraq, courts may grant interim relief to preserve rights and maintain the status quo pending resolution of the dispute. Common measures include precautionary attachments over assets, freezing orders and orders preventing disposal of disputed property.

Interim measures are generally discretionary and are granted where there is urgency and a risk of irreparable harm.

Courts may grant interim relief in support of arbitration proceedings, particularly where urgent protective measures are required before or during the arbitral process.

Such relief is available even where the dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement, reflecting the supportive role of the courts.

Applications for interim relief are typically made at an early stage of proceedings and may also be filed before the substantive claim is initiated where urgency can be demonstrated.

Courts generally require a prima facie showing of urgency and risk of prejudice if relief is not granted.

Security for costs may be requested by a defendant where there is concern regarding the claimant’s ability to satisfy a potential adverse costs order.

Courts consider factors such as financial capacity, domicile and risk of non-enforcement before granting such orders.

Courts may grant interim injunctions to prevent ongoing or imminent harm, particularly where financial compensation would not be an adequate remedy.

Such measures are typically granted where there is urgency, a serious underlying claim and a balance of convenience in favour of the applicant.

Summary judgment is not a widely developed procedural mechanism in Iraq. However, courts may expedite resolution in cases where the claim is clearly established on the basis of documentary evidence and there is no substantial dispute of fact.

In practice, full evidentiary proceedings remain the standard approach in most commercial disputes.

In Iraq, there is no formal class action or representative collective action mechanism under the current procedural framework. Claims are generally brought on an individual basis before the competent courts. Where multiple claimants are involved, cases may be consolidated procedurally where they arise from the same facts or legal relationship, subject to the court’s discretion.

Standing is determined individually under Iraqi procedural law. Each claimant must demonstrate a direct legal interest in bringing the claim. There is no statutory framework allowing representative standing for group or class-based litigation in commercial disputes.

Relief is awarded on an individual basis depending on the merits of each claim. Available remedies include monetary compensation and specific performance where applicable.

Damages are assessed based on proven loss and causation, without any collective damages calculation mechanism.

Class actions and mass claims are not a recognised feature of arbitration or court practice in Iraq. Arbitration remains strictly consensual and bilateral in structure, even where multiple parties are involved.

There is no established trend toward formal class actions in Iraq. However, in practice, courts occasionally deal with multiple related claims arising from similar facts, particularly in labour and commercial disputes, which are handled through procedural consolidation rather than collective litigation.

Under Iraqi Civil Evidence Law No 107 of 1979, there is no automatic pre-trial duty of disclosure between parties; evidence is typically submitted directly to the court during proceedings. Courts may order a party to produce relevant documents under Article 9, with refusal leading to adverse inferences against the non-compliant party. Parameters include relevance to the dispute (Article 65), excluding privileged or state secret documents.

Iraqi law recognises attorney-client privilege, protecting confidential communications between lawyers and clients from disclosure, per Evidence Law No 107/1979 and Bar Association Law No 173/1965; this applies to both external and in-house counsel. Documents can be withheld on privilege grounds, including professional confidentiality and state secrets. Privilege is waived by client consent or court order in exceptional cases, such as national security needs.

Evidence may be withheld on confidentiality grounds if it involves professional privilege (eg, attorney-client) or state secrets, as exceptions to disclosure under Evidence Law No 107/1979. Recognised exceptions to confidentiality duties include court orders for relevant evidence, national security or public interest, where the judge assesses necessity versus protection. Personal or irrelevant documents can also be refused if not proven essential.

Witness evidence is admissible under Article 45 of Evidence Law No 107/1979; witnesses must be competent, swear an oath and testify to facts they directly observed. There are no pre-trial depositions; and testimony occurs in court hearings. Witnesses are subject to cross-examination or questioning by opposing parties and the court to test credibility.

Expert evidence is permitted under Article 126 when technical knowledge is required; courts appoint independent experts or accept party-nominated ones. Experts owe duties of impartiality, accuracy and basing opinions on verified facts, with reports treated as evidence subject to court discretion. The court is not bound by the opinion and must justify rejection.

Foreign judgments are enforced under Iraqi Execution Law No 45/1980 (as amended), which applies once recognition is obtained via Law No 30/1928 or international agreements. Procedures involve filing an application at the Primary Court of First Instance in the debtor’s domicile or asset location, attaching a legalised/translated copy; the court verifies conditions (eg, finality, jurisdiction, reciprocity, no public policy violation), notifies the debtor, holds hearings and issues an enforcement order if satisfied. Execution then proceeds like domestic judgments via justice executors.

Domestic awards follow Execution Law No 45/1980 directly if final; the creditor applies to the Primary Court for an enforcement order, with execution by justice executors. Foreign awards require prior recognition (treated as judgments) or UNCITRAL Model Law principles if applicable, subject to reciprocity and public policy; this is simplified for Arab League Convention states (ratified by Iraq). Applications mirror foreign judgments: court approval after verification and then execution per Law 45/1980.

Enforcement proceedings typically take between six and 18 months, depending on court backlog, debtor objections (15-day period per Law 45/1980), appeals to Court of Cassation and notification complexities for non-residents. Execution post-order can be swift (weeks) if there is no resistance, but delays arise from asset attachment or force majeure objections.

Under Law 45/1980, resistance grounds include: lack of reciprocity, foreign court lacked jurisdiction, improper notification, non-final judgment, fraud/irregular hearing, or violation of Iraqi public policy/justice principles. The debtor may object within 15 days of notification; the court rejects this if conditions are unmet; and appeals go to Cassation. Arbitral awards face similar scrutiny plus non-arbitrability.

Iraq lacks specific legislation regulating AI in dispute resolution as of April 2026; no dedicated AI law exists, though general civil procedure (Law 83/1969) and evidence laws apply. The Supreme Committee for Artificial Intelligence oversees national AI integration but judicial use falls under judicial council oversight without binding rules on AI tools like predictive analytics or ODR platforms.

AI’s impact remains minimal in Iraqi courts, limited to pilot projects like trial monitoring in the Kurdistan Region and administrative case management tools for backlog reduction. It aids efficiency in document review and case prediction but raises concerns over bias, liability and fair trial rights under Evidence Law 107/1979, with no widespread adoption due to infrastructure gaps.

Courts have not embraced AI; UNESCO supports training at the Iraqi Judicial Institute (2026), but practical use is nascent. Evolution likely involves gradual integration for case triage and analytics by 2027–2030, driven by digital reforms, with new ethics legislation proposed to ensure transparency and judicial oversight.