Arbitration is a recognised method for resolving disputes in Saudi Arabia, though courts remain the primary venue if settlement efforts fail. Recent government initiatives are aimed at promoting arbitration among domestic and governmental entities.
Notably, on 19 January 2019 the President of the Council of Ministers issued High Order No 28004, marking a policy shift that encourages ministries, government authorities and state-owned companies to resolve disputes with foreign investors through arbitration. This directive mandates that arbitration occur within Saudi Arabia and highlights the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) as the preferred option. Additionally, it allows for arbitration under other licensed centres in Saudi Arabia.
The SCCA’s 2025 caseload demonstrates growing market confidence in arbitration. In 2025, the SCCA registered 182 new arbitration cases, a 63% increase from 2024, reinforcing arbitration’s position as an increasingly trusted and established mechanism for resolving commercial disputes in the Kingdom.
In recent years, arbitration activity has notably increased in the construction and sports industries. This surge can be attributed to several factors:
Additionally, with Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 (aimed at diversifying the Saudi economy and fostering growth in various sectors), there has been a corresponding rise in disputes within these evolving industries. This shift highlights the growing importance of arbitration as a preferred method of resolving conflicts in these rapidly developing fields.
The SCCA is the premier arbitration institution in Saudi Arabia. Since its establishment in 2014, it has made significant strides, including the introduction of updated arbitration rules in 2023 that align with top international standards. It has also set up an arbitration court featuring globally recognised practitioners and scholars, and opened an office in Dubai to boost regional presence and accessibility. The SCCA is now the preferred centre for resolving disputes involving state-owned entities and governmental bodies.
Additionally, the SCCA has played an active role in promoting arbitration within Saudi Arabia, notably through Riyadh International Disputes Week (RIDW), which was successfully held for the third time in February 2026 (RIDW26).
RIDW26 featured several notable institutional developments. The SCCA partnered with Jus Mundi to integrate Jus AI capabilities into its case management system, and signed an agreement with Professor Gary B Born, in collaboration with Kluwer Arbitration, to translate International Arbitration: Law and Practice into Arabic. It also launched its dedicated research centre, SADEED Research and Legal Development. Together, these initiatives underline the SCCA’s commitment not only to administering arbitration in line with international best practices but also to advancing arbitration knowledge, infrastructure and professional capacity in Saudi Arabia and across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.
Alongside the SCCA, the Saudi Sports Arbitration Centre (SSAC) continues to gain traction as the Kingdom’s specialist institution for sports-related disputes, reflecting Saudi Arabia’s growing investment in the sports sector, particularly football. The SSAC has strengthened its institutional profile through a memorandum of understanding with the Gulf Sports Arbitration Authority to enhance co-operation and knowledge-sharing, as well as by expanding its roster to include leading sports arbitration specialists, including CAS-listed arbitrators. Its board has also approved a framework for classifying arbitrators and assessing their performance. These developments highlight the SSAC’s ongoing efforts to enhance the quality, credibility and efficiency of sports arbitration in the Kingdom.
There is no single court designated for all matters arising from arbitration agreements. Instead, the appeal court that would have had jurisdiction without an arbitration agreement will handle disputes related to both international and domestic arbitrations (eg, the Appeal Labour Court for labour disputes and the Appeal Commercial Court for commercial disputes).
For international commercial arbitration conducted within the Kingdom or abroad, Article 7(2) of the Saudi Arbitration Law, issued under Royal Decree No (M/34) dated 24/05/1433H (16 April 2012), specifies that the territorial jurisdiction would be for the relevant Court of Appeal in Riyadh, unless the parties agree on another Court of Appeal within the Kingdom. Typically, the Commercial Court, particularly its appeal circuits, handles most arbitration cases, as most arbitrations arise from commercial relationships.
However, there are specialised courts dedicated to enforcement actions related to arbitral awards. The Enforcement Law, introduced by Royal Decree No M/53 dated 13/8/1433H (3 July 2012) (the “Enforcement Law”), marked a substantial shift in Saudi Arabia’s arbitration landscape by transferring enforcement proceedings from the Saudi Board of Grievances (BoG) to specialised enforcement courts.
At the date of this publication, arbitration in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is governed by the Arbitration Law, established by Royal Decree No M/34 dated 24/05/1433H (16 April 2012), which took effect on 8 July 2012, and its Implementing Regulations dated 22 May 2017 (the “Implementing Regulations”).
The Arbitration Law is based on the UNICTRAL Model Law. The most notable difference between the Saudi Arbitration Law and the UNCITRAL Model Law is that the Saudi law includes references to Shari’ah principles, specifically in Articles 5, 14, 25, 38, 50 and 55.
There have been no enacted changes to the Saudi Arbitration Law itself in the past year. However, two recent developments are expected to impact the arbitration landscape in the Kingdom.
First, Saudi Arabia has issued a new Enforcement Law under Royal Decree No M/237 dated 3/11/1447H (20 April 2026) (the “New Enforcement Law”). The law has not yet taken effect and will enter into force on or around 29 October 2026. Once in force, it will replace the current Enforcement Law and introduce a more comprehensive enforcement framework, including clearer rules on enforcement instruments, foreign judgments and arbitral awards, streamlined asset disclosure procedures, and enhanced enforcement mechanisms. This is expected to further strengthen the enforcement of arbitral awards in the Kingdom.
Second, the National Competitiveness Centre has recently published a Draft Arbitration Law for public consultation. If enacted, the Draft Arbitration Law would replace the current Arbitration Law and its Implementing Regulations. It proposes several important reforms, including:
These proposed reforms reflect the Kingdom’s ongoing efforts to modernise its arbitration framework and further align it with international best practice.
The Civil Transactions Law, which came into force on 16 December 2023, also remains relevant to arbitration practice. By codifying key principles of contract and civil liability, it continues to enhance predictability for courts, arbitral tribunals and parties involved in disputes governed by Saudi law.
Under Article 9 of the Saudi Arbitration Law, an arbitration agreement must be in writing to be valid and enforceable. While this is the primary requirement, other rules may impact its validity, as outlined below.
Furthermore, under Article 10 of the Saudi Arbitration Law, the individual entering into the agreement must have the legal capacity to bind the party they represent to arbitration.
Article 10(2) of the Saudi Arbitration Law stipulates that government bodies can enter into arbitration agreements only with the approval of the Prime Minister, unless a specific legal provision allows otherwise. Subsequently, the Government Tenders and Procurement Law (the “GTP Law”), enacted by Royal Decree No M/128 on 13/11/1440H (corresponding to 16 July 2019), and its Implementing Regulations issued by Minister of Finance Resolution No 1242 on 21/031441H (corresponding to 19 November 2019), which took effect on 1 December 2019, updated this requirement. Under Article 92(2) of the GTP Law, government entities can now enter into arbitration agreements with prior approval from the Saudi Minister of Finance.
Article 154 of the Implementing Regulations of the GTP Law outlines additional requirements for government entities agreeing to arbitration:
Under the Saudi Arabian law, certain subject matters are excluded from arbitration. Specifically, Article 2 of the Saudi Arbitration Law states that the provisions of the law do not apply to personal status disputes or matters not subject to reconciliation:
The general approach to determining whether a dispute is “arbitrable” in Saudi Arabia involves assessing whether the dispute falls within these excluded categories. If the dispute pertains to personal status or involves issues that cannot be reconciled, it is deemed non-arbitrable and cannot be resolved through arbitration.
In Saudi Arabia, national courts generally do not have the authority to decide on the applicable law in an arbitration agreement as this is left to the parties. According to the law and practice, parties to an arbitration agreement typically have the autonomy to determine the applicable law themselves. This choice is usually specified within the arbitration agreement itself or agreed upon during the arbitration proceedings. The role of the national courts is primarily to support arbitration proceedings, enforce arbitration agreements, and assist in the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, rather than deciding on the substantive law applicable to the dispute.
In Saudi Arabia, national courts generally support the enforcement of arbitration agreements. They honour the parties’ choice to use arbitration instead of litigation for resolving disputes. When a dispute is covered by a valid arbitration clause, courts usually enforce the agreement by directing the parties to arbitration. In fact, Article 11 of the Arbitration Law specifies that courts cannot hear a dispute subject to an arbitration clause if the respondent raises a non-jurisdictional defence based on the arbitration clause before presenting any other claims or defences.
Furthermore, Saudi courts adhere to the principle of competence-competence, which means they recognise arbitrators’ authority to determine their own jurisdiction. Courts usually intervene minimally in arbitration proceedings, focusing on upholding the parties’ agreement and ensuring compliance with the Saudi Arbitration Law. They also support arbitration when necessary, such as by, for instance, issuing interim orders in support of arbitration (see Article 22 of the Saudi Arbitration Law).
However, courts may refuse to enforce arbitration agreements or awards if they conflict with public policy or involve issues considered non-arbitrable under Saudi law.
Article 21 of the Saudi Arbitration Law embraces the global principle of separability, which treats the arbitration agreement as distinct from the main contract. This principle ensures that the arbitration clause is autonomous and independent from the main contract, thereby protecting it from challenges directed at the main contract itself.
In Saudi Arabia, parties have complete autonomy in selecting arbitrators, subject to specific conditions outlined in Article 14 of the Saudi Arbitration Law. In short, the chosen arbitrator:
Under Article 15 of the Saudi Arbitration Law, if the parties cannot agree on the selection of arbitrators, a default procedure is applied.
For a tribunal with one arbitrator, the competent court (refer to 1.4 National Courts) appoints the arbitrator within 30 days of receiving a request from one of the parties.
In a tribunal with three arbitrators, each party selects one arbitrator, and these two then appoint the chairperson (or president). If a party fails to appoint their arbitrator within 15 days or if the two appointed arbitrators cannot agree on the chairperson within 15 days, the competent court will appoint the chairperson within 15 days upon receiving a petition from a party requesting to expedite the arbitration. This procedure also applies to tribunals with more than three arbitrators.
Additionally, if the parties fail to agree on appointment procedures or if procedural failures occur, the competent court will intervene to take necessary measures unless the arbitration agreement specifies alternative methods. When appointing an arbitrator, the competent court must adhere to the conditions specified in the arbitration agreement and meet the requirements outlined in Article 14 of the Saudi Arbitration Law. The decision of the competent court appointing the arbitrator is not subject to appeal.
Please refer to 4.2 Default Procedures.
Under Article 16 of the Saudi Arbitration Law, the grounds for challenging an arbitrator include several key factors. An arbitrator must have no vested interest in the dispute and must disclose any circumstances that might raise justifiable doubts about their impartiality or independence, both at the time of appointment and throughout the arbitration proceedings. Additionally, an arbitrator is barred from considering or hearing a case for reasons like those that bar a judge, even if neither party requests it. Under Article 94 of the Saudi Law of Civil Procedure, these grounds include where the arbitrator:
The Arbitration Law also specifies additional grounds for challenging an arbitrator, including:
Furthermore, a party cannot challenge an arbitrator they appointed or participated in appointing, except for reasons that became known after the arbitrator’s appointment.
The parties to the arbitration can agree on the procedures for challenging arbitrators. However, if no procedure is agreed, the procedure highlighted in Article 17 of the Saudi Arbitration Law will apply.
Article 17 of the Saudi Arbitration Law states that a party seeking to disqualify an arbitrator must submit a written challenge within five days of becoming aware of the arbitrator’s appointment or discovering grounds that permit challenging such arbitrator, such as doubts about the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence, or the lack of qualifications agreed upon by the parties.
If the arbitrator does not recuse themselves or if the other party did not accept the petition within five days, the tribunal must decide on the disqualification within 15 days. Should the tribunal reject the challenge, the party may appeal to the competent court (see 4.1 Limits on Selection) within 30 days, with the court’s decision being final and not subject to further appeal.
Filing a disqualification petition with the arbitral tribunal suspends the arbitration proceedings. However, an appeal to the competent national court against the tribunal’s decision on the challenge does not suspend the proceedings.
If the disqualification is granted, either by the tribunal or the court on appeal, all prior arbitration procedures, including any awards, are rendered null and void.
Under Article 16 of the Saudi Arbitration Law, an arbitrator must disclose in writing any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts about their independence and impartiality from the time of their appointment and throughout the arbitration process. Please refer to 4.2 Default Procedures for more details.
The Saudi Arbitration Law recognises the principle of competence-competence. Article 20 stipulates that the arbitral tribunal decides on all jurisdictional issues, including challenges to the validity of the arbitration agreement or claims that the dispute is not covered by the agreement.
The Saudi Arbitration Law supports minimal court intervention, highlighting the arbitral tribunal’s independence and the parties’ autonomy. However, it permits court intervention under specific conditions. Notably, the court can review jurisdictional issues only if the arbitral tribunal rejects a plea of lack of jurisdiction. This review occurs exclusively at the annulment stage (see Article 20(3) of the Saudi Arbitration Law).
Parties can challenge the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction in court only after the tribunal has rendered a final award. Article 20(3) of the Saudi Arbitration Law states that a decision by the arbitral tribunal to reject a defence based on the tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction can only be challenged during the annulment stage, which occurs after the final award has been issued.
If a tribunal rejects a jurisdictional challenge and the affected party files a request for annulment under Article 50(4) of the Saudi Arbitration Law, the competent court will evaluate the appeal based solely on procedural aspects of the jurisdictional issue, without delving into the facts or merits of the underlying dispute. The court will review the relevant documents, particularly the arbitration agreement or clause, and render its decision accordingly. If the court upholds the award as valid, this decision is final and cannot be appealed, as outlined in Article 51(2) of the Saudi Arbitration Law. If the court decides to annul the award, the losing party may appeal the decision within 30 days of receiving the court’s notification.
In general, courts rarely annul arbitration awards in the absence of a clear violation of the law. In fact, based on a recent statistic published by the SCCA, only 8% of all annulment requests have been accepted by Saudi courts.
Under the competence-competence principle, the Saudi Arbitration Law outlines specific procedures when a dispute is brought before a court despite being covered by an arbitration agreement. According to Article 11, the court must dismiss the case if the defendant raises a jurisdictional defence based on the arbitration agreement before addressing any other issues.
Additionally, Article 12 requires the court to refer the parties to arbitration if an agreement to resort to arbitration is reached while the dispute is being considered before the competent court.
There have been few instances where courts have denied requests to compel arbitration due to violations of the arbitration agreement, such as failing to follow agreed-upon pre-arbitration steps. Recently, however, courts have generally deferred these matters to the arbitral tribunal, in accordance with Article 20 of the Arbitration Law.
Although the Arbitration Law does not address multiparty arbitration directly, Article 13 of the Implementing Regulations allows the arbitral tribunal to approve the intervention or joinder of a third party, provided that all parties, including the third party, give their explicit consent. In the absence of such consent, the tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction over third parties.
Under Article 23 of the Saudi Arbitration Law, an arbitral tribunal is permitted to award preliminary or interim relief if granted the authority to do so by the parties. Therefore, the tribunal may, at the request of either party, issue provisional or precautionary measures as deemed necessary based on the nature of the dispute. The tribunal may also require the requesting party to provide a financial guarantee to cover the enforcement of these measures. If the party against whom the order is issued fails to comply, the tribunal can authorise the other party to take necessary steps to enforce the order or request enforcement from the competent authority. The tribunal’s interim measures are binding and enforceable.
The competent Saudi court can order provisional or precautionary measures. Parties can file such requests prior to commencing arbitration proceedings, or upon request by the arbitral tribunal during arbitration proceedings (see Article 22(1) of the Saudi Arbitration Law).
Although the Saudi Arbitration Law does not specifically address whether interim relief can be granted in support of foreign-seated arbitration, there is no indication that it would be excluded if the Saudi court has jurisdiction to hear the interim relief request.
The Arbitration Law does not mention emergency arbitrators. However, under the 2023 SCCA Arbitration Rules (ie, the leading arbitration rules in the Kingdom) an emergency arbitrator can issue interim orders (see 2023 SCCA Rules, Appendix III, Article 7(2)). These orders have the same effect as those issued in regular arbitration. The interim award or order is binding from the date it is issued, and the parties agree to comply immediately, waiving any rights to appeal or judicial review.
The 2023 SCCA Rules, Appendix III, Article 7(3) grants the emergency arbitrator the power to award provisional or precautionary measures deemed necessary, including maintaining or restoring the status quo, preventing imminent harm, providing injunctive relief or preserving evidence relevant to the dispute.
If a party fails to comply with precautionary measures issued by the arbitral tribunal, the other party may seek assistance from the competent authority to enforce these measures, as outlined in Article 22 of the Arbitration Law.
Saudi law does not cover security for costs when filing claims. Additionally, it is uncommon for Saudi courts to require claimants to provide security for costs in disputes before Saudi courts.
However, Article 54 of the Saudi Arbitration Law allows a court to require a guarantee or financial security when it orders the suspension of enforcement of an award. The Saudi Enforcement Law further permits enforcement courts to mandate security for claims through the precautionary sequestration of movable and immovable assets (see Articles 32 and 42 of the Saudi Enforcement Law). The applicant might need to provide cross-indemnity secured by a bank guarantee to cover any costs or losses incurred by the debtor due to these measures.
Under the 2023 SCCA Arbitration Rules, the Arbitral Tribunal can order any party to provide security for costs upon request (see Article 35(2) of the 2023 SCCA Arbitration Rules).
Article 4 of the Saudi Arbitration Law provides that the parties to arbitration may determine the procedure to be followed, including the option to delegate this choice to a third party, such as an individual, tribunal, organisation or arbitration centre, either within the Kingdom or internationally.
Article 25 of the Arbitration Law further allows the parties to agree on the procedural rules for the arbitration tribunal, including adopting the rules of any arbitration institution, whether in Saudi Arabia or abroad, as long as these rules comply with Shari’ah. In the absence of such an agreement, the arbitral tribunal may establish the procedures it deems appropriate, in accordance with Shari’ah and the law.
The Saudi Arbitration Law does not provide for any particular mandatory procedural steps as long as public policy is preserved. The law ensures that all parties are treated equally and given a full and equal opportunity to present their case (see Article 27 of the Saudi Arbitration Law).
The Saudi Arbitration Law provides for default procedural steps/matters which generally pertain to the following.
Arbitrators must exercise their mission in compliance with the duties of impartiality and independence (see Article 16 of the Saudi Arbitration Law).
The powers attributed to the arbitral tribunal include the following, inter alia:
However, the tribunal cannot hear challenges related to document forgery as such matters fall within the jurisdiction of national courts, which handle criminal proceedings. If issues such as forgery or other criminal acts arise, the tribunal may continue with the dispute if deciding on these issues is not essential. Otherwise, it shall suspend the proceedings until a final judgment on such criminal proceedings is reached, which will also suspend the deadline for issuing the arbitration award (Article 37 of the Saudi Arbitration Law).
For more information on this point, please see 10.2 Types of Remedies.
In a recent study conducted by the SCCA in co-ordination with the Saudi Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (discussed on the SCCA website on 16 August 2022), it was confirmed that Saudi legislation allows parties to select any representative of their choosing, including foreign legal counsel, for arbitral tribunals. In addition, there are no requirements for representatives to be lawyers or Saudi nationals.
Separately, Article 14 of the Arbitration Law reflects the same principle, allowing for the selection of arbitrators without restrictions based on gender, nationality or profession. However, it mandates that a sole arbitrator or the chair of an arbitral tribunal must hold a university degree in law or Shari’ah.
The Saudi Arbitration Law does not specifically outline the procedures for collecting and submitting evidence. Typically, parties present evidence to support their written submissions, and the relevant rules are those set out in the Saudi Evidence Law issued by Royal Decree No (M/43) dated 26/5/1443H (30 December 2021 AG) (the “Saudi Evidence Law”).
Arbitral tribunals have the authority to admit, assess and weigh evidence. They may conduct any evidentiary procedures they find appropriate, reverse previously ordered procedures, and grant or deny requests related to evidentiary matters without affecting the parties’ rights of defence. The types of evidence that can be admitted include:
Fact witnesses and technical experts may be examined and cross-examined during hearings, but witness testimony is not taken under oath.
It is common for tribunals to use the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, provided the parties agree to it and to the extent agreed upon.
However, concepts such as “discovery” and “legal privilege” are not recognised under Saudi Law. Some protection is acknowledged regarding clients’ documents and information, with certain exceptions.
Under the Saudi Evidence Law, document disclosure is regulated by specific provisions. In sum, Articles 34 to 37 outline the framework for requesting and producing documents as follows.
Article 34
Under this article, a litigant may request the court to order an opposing party to produce documents in any of the following instances:
The request must include:
Article 35
If the opposing party acknowledges possession or remains silent, or if the applicant adequately substantiates their request, the court will order production of the document.
If the opposing party abstains from producing the document after being granted one grace period, the document copy provided by the applicant will be considered a true copy. However, if the applicant did not have a copy, the court will accept the applicant’s words on the description and content of such document.
If the defending party denies that the document exists and the applicant fails to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim, the applicant may request the court to order the opposing party to take an oath regarding the document.
Article 36
In commercial lawsuits, a litigant may request document production if:
Article 37
The court can:
Unless the parties agree otherwise, the rules of evidence used in litigation will also apply to arbitration conducted in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Under Saudi law, arbitral tribunals lack the coercive and executive powers of courts. However, they can request the assistance of the courts. Article 22 of the Saudi Arbitration Law empowers courts to assist arbitrators with:
Arbitral tribunals can seek court assistance to compel the production of documents or the attendance of witnesses.
Arbitral proceedings are generally confidential in Saudi Arabia. Article 43(2) of the Saudi Arbitration Law specifies that arbitration awards cannot be published, in whole or in part, without the written consent of both parties.
In the Kingdom, there is an implied duty of confidentiality regarding pleadings and documents related to the arbitration. However, initiating arbitration-related court proceedings, such as requests for enforcement or nullity actions, may result in this information becoming part of the public domain.
In SCCA-administered arbitrations, Article 36(3) of the SCCA Rules permits the SCCA to publish awards in anonymised or redacted form unless a party objects before the conclusion of the arbitration. Parties requiring a higher degree of confidentiality should therefore expressly address this issue at the outset of the proceedings or incorporate appropriate confidentiality provisions into the arbitration agreement.
Article 39 of the Saudi Arbitration Law outlines the requirements for an arbitral award.
Article 42 of the Saudi Arbitration Law provides further requirements.
Article 40 addresses the time limits for delivering an arbitral award.
Articles 43 and 44 of the Saudi Arbitration Law outline the procedural requirements for handling and submitting the arbitration award.
These provisions ensure that arbitral awards in Saudi Arabia adhere to clear guidelines and are delivered within a specified timeframe, providing a structured process for dispute resolution.
Arbitral tribunals in Saudi Arabia have broad authority to grant various types of remedies, including declaratory relief, specific performance, and monetary compensation for actual damages proven and suffered. However, there are no specific limits on these remedies except those related to Shari’ah and public policy.
Arbitral tribunals cannot issue punitive damages, nor can they award interest, as these are strictly prohibited under Shari’ah.
Interest is strictly prohibited under Shari’ah law, so parties cannot recover interest through arbitration proceedings. If an arbitral tribunal awards interest, the Saudi courts may annul the award, either wholly or partially (depending on how the award is drafted).
Typically, costs are allocated based on the outcome of the case (ie, they follow the event), unless the parties agree otherwise. The arbitral tribunal may also order the losing party to compensate the winning party for incurred attorneys’ fees.
Under the SCCA framework, the arbitral tribunal can determine and allocate arbitration costs in its award. This includes the arbitrator’s fees and costs, the parties’ legal representation costs and fees as well as other related expenses. The arbitral tribunal can distribute these costs among the parties at its discretion based on what it considers reasonable, taking into account factors such as each party’s conduct and efforts to manage costs efficiently (Article 40(1) of the 2023 SCCA Rules).
Arbitral awards cannot be appealed before Saudi courts. Instead, they can only be contested by filing an action to nullify the award within 60 days from the date of its notification to the parties (Article 51(1) of the Saudi Arbitration Law). If a Saudi court issues a judgment annulling an arbitral award, this decision can be appealed to the Saudi Supreme Court within 30 days of notification, as per Article 51 of the Saudi Arbitration Law and Article 17 of its Implementing Regulations. Conversely, a judgment rejecting an annulment action is final and not subject to appeal.
The Saudi Arbitration Law provides an exhaustive list of grounds for annulling an arbitral award. Under Article 50 of the Saudi Arbitration Law, an award will only be annulled if:
Additionally, the competent court in the Kingdom hearing a case for annulment shall annul the award on its own initiative if it concludes either that:
The parties cannot alter the scope of challenge to an arbitral award, as Article 50 of the Saudi Arbitration Law provides an exhaustive list of grounds for annulment. However, they may waive their right to seek annulment after (but not before) the award has been issued (see Article 51(1) of the Saudi Arbitration Law and Article 18(1) of its Implementing Regulations).
Article 7 of the Saudi Arbitration Law states that if a party continues with the arbitration after becoming aware of a violation of the arbitration agreement or the Arbitration Law (in matters that can be agreed otherwise by the parties), and does not raise an objection before the tribunal within 30 days of discovering the violation (or within the agreed-upon period), that party is then deemed to have waived the right to make this objection later. Therefore, to use such violations as grounds for annulment before the Saudi courts, the party must have addressed them promptly during the arbitration process.
Under Saudi law, a Saudi court’s review of an award focuses solely on the legality of the arbitral award, not on its merits. An annulment action is not an appeal. Consequently, Saudi courts cannot re-evaluate the case de novo. This is clear from the text of Article 50(4) of the Saudi Arbitration Law, which expressly states that the competent court shall consider the action for nullification based on the grounds outlined in Article 50, “without inspecting the facts or subject matter of the dispute”.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a signatory to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. However, it has reserved the right to limit the Convention’s application to the recognition and enforcement of awards made in the territory of other contracting states, based on reciprocity. Additionally, Royal Decree No M/11 specifies that the Convention does not apply retroactively to disputes initiated before Saudi Arabia’s ratification.
The Saudi government is also a party to several bilateral investment treaties and international conventions, including, inter alia:
The Saudi Arbitration Law and the Enforcement Law outline the procedure for enforcing an arbitral award in the Kingdom. The following is a short summary of the process.
Enforcing a Domestic Arbitral Award
To enforce a domestic arbitral award, the party must first obtain an order declaring the award enforceable from the competent appeal court with original jurisdiction over the dispute. This involves applying to the court for this enforceability order.
To request a declaration order, as mandated by Article 53 of the Saudi Arbitration Law, the party must provide:
Enforcing a Foreign Arbitral Award
To enforce a foreign arbitral award in Saudi Arabia, the following conditions must be met.
Enforcement Procedure
Under the existing enforcement framework governed by the Enforcement Law, the enforcement procedure typically includes the following.
Once the New Enforcement Law enters into force, the enforcement process will generally proceed as follows.
Enforcement When Annulment Proceedings are Commenced
Article 54 of the Saudi Arbitration Law specifies that filing a request for annulment does not automatically suspend the execution of the arbitral award. However, the court can grant a stay of execution if requested by a party, provided the request is based on “sound grounds”. The court must make a decision on the stay within 15 days of receiving the petition and may require a bail or financial guarantee. If a stay is granted, the court will decide on the annulment action within 180 days from the date of the stay order.
Under Article 55 of the Saudi Arbitration Law, the following applies.
Foreign Awards and Annulment Proceedings Pending at the Seat
A foreign arbitral award that has been set aside in the jurisdiction where it was issued will usually not be enforced in Saudi Arabia as long as such award is not considered a final award as per the applicable law in the jurisdiction.
If annulment proceedings are ongoing at the seat (and the award is not deemed final in accordance with applicable law in the jurisdiction where it was issued), the Saudi Enforcement Court will reject enforcement as such award does not satisfy a condition for enforcement of foreign awards as per Article 11 of the Enforcement Law (and Article 9 of the New Enforcement Law).
Special Cases Against the Saudi State or a Saudi Governmental Entity
If the award pertains to a commercial transaction with the Saudi State or a Saudi governmental entity, enforcement proceedings must be commenced before the specific Administrative Courts (BoG) (see the Law of Enforcement before BoG issued pursuant to Royal Decree No M/15 dated 27/01/1443H (4 September 2021G)). The enforcement judge may not issue enforcement against publicly owned assets.
Saudi Arabian courts are generally pro-enforcement regarding arbitral awards. They strictly adhere to the specified grounds for annulment and typically interpret the public policy ground narrowly.
According to data released by the SCCA in 2022, in collaboration with the Saudi Ministry of Justice, for the period from January to September 2022 (the “Study Period”), Saudi enforcement courts enforced 522 domestic and foreign arbitral awards totalling SAR871 million (equivalent to USD232 million). Among these awards, 12 were foreign awards (representing 2% of the total awards and nearly 15% of their total value) issued in Lebanon, Morocco, South Korea, Switzerland, the UAE and the UK. Additionally, Saudi Arabia’s Deputy Minister for Enforcement confirmed that no court decisions during this period refused to enforce a foreign arbitral award on grounds of public policy violations, including breaches of Shari’ah principles.
More recently, according to the SCCA Country Report published in July 2026, 194 applications seeking the annulment of arbitral awards were filed between January 2023 and June 2025. Of these, 89.7% were dismissed, while only 1.55% resulted in annulment on the grounds of violations of Shari’ah principles or Saudi public policy.
These statistics underscore a growing trend since the enactment of the 2012 Arbitration Law, showcasing Saudi Arabia’s progression towards becoming an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.
For the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Saudi Arabia, one condition is that the award must not contradict Saudi Arabia’s public policy. According to Article 11/3 of the Enforcement Law Implementing Regulations issued by Ministerial Decision No 526 dated 20/09/1439H (corresponding to 5 June 2018 AG), public policy refers to Islamic Shari’ah principles as applicable in the Kingdom.
In practice, enforcement judges usually refuse to enforce foreign arbitral awards only if a significant Shari’ah violation is found (eg, awards involving interest payments), which is generally rare as shown in the statistics mentioned above.
The Saudi Arbitration Law does not address class action arbitration or group arbitration.
The Saudi Arbitration Law does not specify mandatory ethical codes or professional standards for counsel and arbitrators.
However, Saudi lawyers must adhere to the ethical rules set out in the Saudi Bar Association’s regulations, including the Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers, issued by the Minister of Justice Order No 3453 dated 24/02/1442 H (corresponding to 11 October 2020 AG). The Rules govern the ethical conduct and professional standards that all Saudi lawyers must adhere to. Arbitrators and counsel generally follow widely accepted professional standards unless specific standards from their own jurisdiction apply.
Additionally, the SCCA has established its own Code of Ethics, which governs the conduct of both counsel and arbitrators involved in SCCA proceedings.
The Saudi Arbitration Law does not explicitly address third-party funders. However, certain provisions indirectly impact them. For example, Article 16 of the Arbitration Law requires disclosure of any circumstances that might reasonably affect an arbitrator’s impartiality or independence. This is relevant because a relationship between an arbitrator and a third-party funder could raise concerns about impartiality or independence.
Moreover, the 2023 SCCA Arbitration Rules explicitly address third-party funding, indicating its recognition within the Saudi legal framework. Article 17(6) of the 2023 SCCA Rules states:
“Each party must promptly disclose to the Administrator, all the other parties, and the arbitrators the identity of any non-party who has an economic interest in the arbitration’s outcome, including any third-party funder.”
The Saudi Arbitration Law does not explicitly address the consolidation of separate arbitral proceedings. However, parties are free to agree on consolidation, either directly or by adopting institutional arbitration rules that permit it.
For example, the 2023 SCCA Arbitration Rules provide a framework for consolidation in Article 13, which essentially allows the SCCA Court to consolidate multiple arbitrations into a single proceeding if the parties agree, the claims arise from the same legal relationship, or the claims are under compatible agreements. Consolidation cannot occur if any tribunal is fully constituted unless all parties agree or all tribunal members are identical and request consolidation. The SCCA Court will consider factors such as applicable law and progress of the arbitrations, and will manage the appointment of arbitrators as necessary.
Under Saudi law, a third party can only join an arbitration if all existing parties and the third party agree to the third party’s participation (see Article 13 of the Implementing Regulations). For further details, please refer to 5.6 Jurisdiction Over Third Parties.
In multiparty arbitrations under the SCCA Rules, the provisions for handling joinder as specified in the 2023 SCCA Rules will apply.
17th Floor, Tower B
Olaya Tower
Olaya District
Riyadh
11321
Saudi Arabia
+966 11 461 8700
bd@khoshaim.com www.khoshaim.com
Saudi Arabia’s Arbitration Regime in Transition: From Procedural Reform to Enforcement-Driven Outcomes
Introduction
Saudi Arabia’s arbitration framework is undergoing a calibrated and consequential transformation that mirrors the Kingdom’s broader legal and economic evolution. This transformation is not driven by a single legislative intervention, but by the convergence of two distinct yet interdependent developments that together are poised to reshape both the conduct of arbitral proceedings and the execution of arbitral outcomes within the Kingdom.
On the procedural plane, the Draft Arbitration Law issued on Rabi’ al-Akhir 1447H (corresponding to October 2025 AD) (the “Draft Arbitration Law”), which remains in draft form and has not yet entered into force, signals a clear legislative intent to modernise the Saudi arbitration framework. It seeks to reduce procedural formalism, expand party autonomy, strengthen tribunal authority and align the Kingdom’s arbitration regime more closely with prevailing international best practices.
In parallel, the Enforcement Law of 2026 issued pursuant to Royal Decree No M/237 (the “2026 Enforcement Law”) introduces a fundamental reconfiguration of the execution landscape. Characterised by enhanced enforcement powers, increased institutional integration, and a more proactive approach to asset identification and recovery, the new regime reflects a significant departure from the creditor-driven mechanisms that historically characterised enforcement proceedings in the Kingdom.
These developments emerge against the backdrop of Saudi Arabia’s continuing economic transformation. The growth of foreign direct investment, the proliferation of public-private partnerships, the development of large-scale infrastructure and giga-projects, and the increasing sophistication of cross-border commercial activity have all contributed to a marked increase in the complexity and value of disputes arising within the Kingdom. As commercial activity evolves, so too do expectations regarding the efficiency, predictability and enforceability of dispute resolution mechanisms.
Viewed collectively, the Draft Arbitration Law and the 2026 Enforcement Law reveal a broader legislative evolution. Saudi Arabia is no longer focused solely on enhancing the procedural framework for arbitration; it is increasingly concerned with ensuring that arbitral awards can be enforced efficiently and translated into meaningful commercial outcomes. Together, these reforms reflect the emergence of a more integrated dispute resolution ecosystem in which procedural integrity, enforceability and practical effectiveness operate in tandem.
The 2012 Baseline: Modernisation of the Arbitration Framework With Structural Constraints
The enactment of the Saudi Arbitration Law in 2012 pursuant to Royal Decree No M/34, together with its Implementing Regulations (the “2012 Arbitration Framework”), marked a defining moment in the evolution of the Kingdom’s dispute resolution landscape. Drawing extensively on the UNCITRAL Model Law, the 2012 Arbitration Framework brought Saudi Arabia into closer alignment with leading international arbitration jurisdictions and established a modern legal framework governing arbitral proceedings and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.
The significance of the 2012 Arbitration Framework should not be understated. It represented a substantial shift in the Kingdom’s approach to dispute resolution and laid the foundations for the growth of arbitration as a preferred mechanism for resolving both domestic and international commercial disputes. By enhancing legal certainty, reducing judicial intervention, and strengthening the enforceability of arbitral awards, the reforms increased confidence among investors, businesses and commercial counterparties operating within the Kingdom.
The 2012 Arbitration Framework introduced several principles that remain central to Saudi arbitration today. It recognised the autonomy of the arbitral process through the doctrines of separability and kompetenz-kompetenz (competence-competence), strengthened the enforceability of arbitration agreements, and significantly curtailed judicial intervention by confining court involvement to defined supervisory functions. It also reinforced the finality and enforceability of arbitral awards through a structured annulment regime and a clearer allocation of authority between arbitral tribunals and Saudi national courts.
Collectively, these reforms enhanced the efficiency, predictability and credibility of arbitration and positioned Saudi Arabia as an increasingly attractive venue for dispute resolution.
Notwithstanding these advances, the 2012 Arbitration Framework retained certain structural characteristics reflective of a more cautious stage in the Kingdom’s arbitration development. While these features were not inconsistent with international standards, they introduced elements of rigidity that could affect procedural flexibility in complex disputes.
For example, Article 14 of the 2012 Arbitration Law requires that a sole arbitrator or the chairman of a three or more members’ tribunal possess qualifications in law or Shari’a. While intended to ensure an appropriate level of legal expertise and compatibility with the Kingdom’s legal framework, the requirement also constrained party autonomy and reduced flexibility in the constitution of tribunals, particularly in technically complex disputes where industry expertise may be of equal or greater importance than legal qualifications.
Similarly, Article 40 of the 2012 Arbitration Law embodied the legislature’s commitment to procedural efficiency by establishing, in the absence of party agreement, a default 12-month period for the issuance of the final award. Although that period could be extended by the tribunal and, where necessary, by agreement of the parties or order of the competent court, the provision nevertheless established a relatively structured procedural framework. While intended to encourage the timely resolution of disputes, such an approach did not always sit comfortably with the practical demands of complex, multiparty or high-value arbitrations where greater procedural flexibility may be required.
At the judicial level, certain procedural interfaces retained the potential to affect the momentum of arbitral proceedings. Applications concerning arbitrator appointments, challenges and jurisdictional objections could create parallel judicial processes that, while not necessarily suspending the arbitration, nonetheless introduced opportunities for delay and procedural complexity.
The enforcement regime (under the 2012 Enforcement Law enacted by Royal Decree No M/53 dated 3 July 2012) operating alongside the 2012 Arbitration Framework reflected a similar philosophy. While procedurally coherent and effective in many cases, enforcement remained largely creditor-driven. Courts possessed comparatively limited investigatory powers, and successful parties often bore the practical burden of identifying assets, initiating enforcement measures, and maintaining procedural momentum throughout the execution process. As a result, enforcement frequently depended as much upon creditor initiative as upon the strength of the underlying award.
Against this backdrop, the Draft Arbitration Law and the 2026 Enforcement Law should be viewed not as a rejection of the 2012 framework but as the next stage in its evolution. Their objective is not to replace the foundations established in 2012 but rather to refine, optimise and modernise them in light of the practical experience gained over more than a decade of implementation.
The Draft Arbitration Law: Evolution and Strategic Realignment
Status and legislative direction
The Draft Arbitration Law of October 2025 has not yet been formally issued and therefore does not alter the current legal framework governing arbitration in Saudi Arabia. Its significance lies instead in the insight it provides into the legislature’s policy objectives and the anticipated direction of future reform.
Rather than departing from the foundations established by the 2012 Arbitration Law, the Draft Arbitration Law seeks to refine and modernise the existing framework by addressing practical issues that have emerged through more than a decade of implementation. In doing so, it reflects the Kingdom’s continued commitment to maintaining a modern arbitration regime aligned with international best practices while responding to the evolving needs of increasingly sophisticated domestic and cross-border disputes.
A recurring theme throughout the Draft Arbitration Law is the enhancement of procedural flexibility and party autonomy. Many of the proposed amendments are directed towards reducing unnecessary procedural constraints, increasing the discretion afforded to arbitral tribunals and parties in the management of proceedings, and facilitating the efficient conduct of arbitrations without compromising due process or the enforceability of awards.
The Draft Arbitration Law also demonstrates a greater sensitivity to the realities of contemporary arbitration. Complex infrastructure projects, energy disputes, joint ventures, technology contracts and multiparty commercial arrangements increasingly require procedural frameworks capable of accommodating large evidentiary records, technical subject matter and multiple stakeholders. The Draft Arbitration Law reflects an appreciation of these realities and seeks to equip both parties and tribunals with greater procedural flexibility.
More broadly, the Draft Arbitration Law signals the continued maturation of Saudi Arabia’s arbitration framework. Whereas the 2012 Arbitration Law was principally concerned with establishing a modern legislative foundation and bringing the Kingdom into closer alignment with internationally recognised standards, the Draft Arbitration Law is focused on optimisation and refinement. It reflects a legislative shift from institution-building towards improving the efficiency, functionality and competitiveness of the arbitral process itself.
As of July 2026, the Draft Arbitration Law remains under legislative consideration and has not yet been issued. Although it was published for public consultation in September 2025, with the consultation period concluding in October 2025, it does not currently have legal effect. The Draft Arbitration Law will become effective only upon its formal enactment and publication in the Official Gazette. Just like the current Saudi Arbitration Law, the Draft Arbitration Law will likely be completed by an implementing regulation.
Reframing arbitration agreements: from formality to commercial reality
One of the most significant developments in the Draft Arbitration Law is its re-examination of the requirements governing the formation and validity of arbitration agreements.
While the 2012 Arbitration Law recognised modern methods of communication and adopted a relatively flexible approach to the writing requirement of the arbitration agreement, the Draft Arbitration Law takes a further step by broadening the circumstances in which an arbitration agreement will be regarded as valid and enforceable.
In particular, the Draft Arbitration Law expressly recognises that an arbitration agreement may be evidenced through a broad range of communications and contractual arrangements, including digital exchanges, incorporation by reference, and other records capable of demonstrating the parties’ agreement to arbitrate. More significantly, it recognises that an arbitration agreement may be deemed to exist where one party asserts its existence in pleadings and the opposing party fails to deny it.
These amendments reflect a broader legislative preference for substance over form. Rather than allowing technical deficiencies in documentation to undermine a genuine agreement to arbitrate, the Draft Arbitration Law places greater emphasis on objectively manifested consent and the parties’ conduct.
The practical implications are significant. The reforms are likely to reduce satellite disputes concerning the existence or validity of arbitration agreements, enhance legal certainty, and limit opportunities for parties to challenge jurisdiction on purely technical grounds. They also align Saudi arbitration practice more closely with international approaches that prioritise commercial reality over procedural formalism.
Judicial intervention: a supportive rather than supervisory role
The Draft Arbitration Law recalibrates the relationship between arbitral tribunals and national courts by reinforcing judicial support for arbitration while limiting opportunities for court proceedings to disrupt or delay the arbitral process.
Under the current 2012 regime, jurisdictional objections do not automatically derail the arbitration. The tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, and a rejected plea is generally revisited only in annulment proceedings. Arbitrator challenges are treated differently, as a disqualification petition before the tribunal suspends the proceedings, although a later court challenge to the tribunal’s rejection does not. Tribunals may continue with the arbitration and, where appropriate, proceed to the issuance of an award notwithstanding the existence of parallel court applications. On the other hand, under the Draft Arbitration Law, a disqualification petition before the tribunal does not suspend the proceedings and the tribunal may proceed with hearing the dispute and issuing an award even with the existence of a pending challenge.
This feature of the Draft Arbitration Law significantly reduces opportunities for tactical delay and procedural obstruction. In many jurisdictions, jurisdictional challenges and arbitrator challenges have historically been used as tools to increase costs and delay proceedings. By permitting arbitrations to continue while such issues are addressed, the Draft Arbitration Law reinforces the principle that judicial oversight should support rather than impede the arbitral process.
At the same time, judicial supervision is not eliminated. Courts retain important functions relating to tribunal constitution, interim measures, jurisdictional review and post-award remedies. The distinction is that these functions are increasingly structured to complement arbitration rather than compete with it.
The result is a more mature and arbitration-supportive framework in which courts act as facilitators of arbitration rather than alternative forums for re-litigating procedural disputes.
Procedural flexibility and party-controlled timetables
The Draft Arbitration Law marks a deliberate departure from the structured procedural timelines that characterised the 2012 regime. Most notably, it removes the statutory 12-month period for the issuance of awards and replaces it with a framework that affords significantly greater procedural autonomy to parties and tribunals.
Rather than imposing a uniform timetable irrespective of the complexity of the dispute, the Draft Arbitration Law recognises that arbitration is most effective when procedural deadlines can be adapted to the specific circumstances of each case. This reflects a broader international trend favouring active case management and procedural flexibility over rigid statutory constraints.
The reform also recalibrates the role of courts in relation to procedural timetables. While judicial intervention remains available where necessary, responsibility for managing the progress of proceedings is placed squarely in the hands of parties and tribunals.
From a practical perspective, this change is likely to prove particularly valuable in complex and high-value disputes where extensive factual records, technical evidence or multiple parties require a more tailored procedural approach. By allowing proceedings to develop according to their complexity, the Draft Arbitration Law enhances both procedural flexibility and the prospects of well-reasoned, enforceable awards.
Enforcement: From Procedural Formality to Effective Execution
The pre-2026 enforcement framework
The effectiveness of any dispute resolution system ultimately depends on its ability to translate legal rights into practical outcomes. In the context of arbitration, the value of an award is measured not merely by the quality of the arbitral process but by the successful party’s ability to realise the benefit of that award through enforcement.
Under the 2012 Enforcement Law, Saudi Arabia possessed a structured and generally effective enforcement framework. Nevertheless, the system remained largely creditor-driven. Courts possessed comparatively limited investigatory powers, while successful parties frequently bore the practical burden of identifying assets, initiating enforcement measures and maintaining procedural momentum throughout the execution process.
In many cases, enforcement depended on the creditor’s ability to locate assets, obtain relevant information and pursue available remedies proactively. Although the framework provided a clear legal pathway to recovery, its effectiveness was often influenced by the resources, sophistication and persistence of the enforcing party.
This approach was not unusual when viewed against the broader development of enforcement systems internationally. However, as commercial activity became increasingly complex and cross-border in nature, the limitations of a predominantly creditor-led model became more apparent. Modern commercial disputes frequently involve sophisticated corporate structures, multiple asset classes and increasingly complex financial arrangements. In such circumstances, enforcement effectiveness often depends as much on institutional capability as it does on creditor initiative. It is against this backdrop that the 2026 Enforcement Law should be understood.
A shift in enforcement philosophy
The 2026 Enforcement Law represents a significant evolution in the Kingdom’s approach to enforcement. Rather than treating enforcement as a largely reactive process dependent on creditor initiative, the new framework adopts a more proactive and institutionally integrated model. The emphasis is no longer limited to providing successful parties with legal mechanisms through which enforcement may be pursued. Instead, the law seeks to facilitate enforcement itself by strengthening the powers available to enforcement authorities and enhancing the effectiveness of execution procedures.
This shift reflects a broader policy objective. As Saudi Arabia continues to position itself as a leading destination for investment, infrastructure development and international commerce, the effectiveness of dispute resolution increasingly depends not only on the quality of judicial and arbitral processes but also on the practical certainty that successful parties will be able to recover what they are awarded.
In this respect, the 2026 Enforcement Law represents more than a procedural reform. It reflects an evolution in legislative thinking regarding the role of enforcement within the broader dispute resolution framework. The focus is no longer solely on ensuring that disputes can be resolved efficiently; it is also on ensuring that outcomes can be implemented effectively.
Information, transparency and asset discovery
One of the most significant practical obstacles to successful enforcement is often the identification of assets against which execution may be pursued.
The 2026 Enforcement Law seeks to address this challenge through enhanced disclosure obligations and expanded powers enabling enforcement courts to obtain information concerning a debtor’s assets and financial affairs. The law also strengthens co-ordination between enforcement courts and governmental, regulatory and financial institutions, facilitating more efficient access to relevant information.
These reforms are particularly significant because information asymmetry has historically been one of the principal barriers to effective enforcement. In many cases, the successful party possesses a valid judgment or arbitral award but lacks sufficient information concerning the debtor’s financial position to enforce it effectively.
By enhancing the ability of enforcement authorities to obtain, verify and act upon asset-related information, the new regime reduces opportunities for concealment and strengthens the prospects of meaningful recovery.
From a commercial perspective, these reforms may prove among the most consequential aspects of the new framework. Effective enforcement depends not only on legal powers but also on access to reliable information. By strengthening the informational foundations of enforcement, the law materially improves the ability of successful parties to convert legal victories into commercial recovery.
Automaticity, escalation and compliance
A further defining feature of the new framework is its movement towards a more structured and predictable enforcement process. Under the 2026 Enforcement Law, non-compliance with enforcement orders may trigger a range of escalating measures designed to encourage prompt compliance and reduce opportunities for delay. These include credit bureau notification, seizure of the debtor’s existing and future assets, garnishment of sums owed to the debtor, daily fines for continued non-compliance, and, where requested, travel bans. More serious conduct, such as asset concealment, obstruction of enforcement, false disclosure or dissipation of assets, may also expose the debtor or relevant persons to fines and imprisonment. This introduces a greater degree of procedural automaticity into the enforcement process and reduces reliance on repeated creditor applications.
The significance of this development lies in its impact on incentives. Effective enforcement systems do not rely solely on compulsory execution. They also create commercial and legal incentives encouraging voluntary compliance.
By increasing the practical consequences associated with non-compliance, the 2026 Enforcement Law seeks to encourage debtors to engage with enforcement proceedings at an earlier stage and reduce the need for prolonged execution efforts.
The resulting framework is therefore not merely coercive in nature; it is also preventative, designed to influence behaviour before enforcement becomes necessary.
Digitalisation and institutional integration
The 2026 Enforcement Law reflects the Kingdom’s broader commitment to digital transformation and institutional modernisation. Modern enforcement increasingly depends on the ability of courts, regulators, financial institutions and governmental bodies to exchange information rapidly and implement enforcement measures efficiently. The new regime embraces this reality by facilitating greater technological integration and co-ordination between relevant institutions. For example, the 2026 Enforcement Law recognises electronically registered bills of exchange and promissory notes as enforcement instruments, while also strengthening the role of banks, asset registries, credit-information providers and governmental entities in responding to enforcement orders. This enables the Enforcement Court to move more efficiently from the issuance of an enforcement order to practical measures such as asset tracing, account freezing, garnishment, credit bureau notification, and seizure of existing and future assets. The result is a more connected enforcement architecture, in which execution is less dependent on fragmented paper-based steps and more capable of producing swift, co-ordinated pressure on non-compliant debtors.
The practical benefits are considerable. Enhanced digitalisation can reduce administrative delays, improve transparency, accelerate asset identification and facilitate the implementation of enforcement orders. For users of the system, these developments contribute directly to predictability, efficiency and commercial certainty.
More fundamentally, the reforms demonstrate an appreciation that effective enforcement is not solely a legal issue; it is also an operational one. The effectiveness of a modern enforcement framework depends as much on institutional connectivity and technological capability as it does on the substantive powers granted by legislation.
From award to recovery: the interaction between arbitration reform and enforcement reform
The significance of the 2026 Enforcement Law becomes particularly apparent when considered alongside the Draft Arbitration Law. Historically, arbitration reform and enforcement reform have often been treated as distinct legislative exercises. The current reforms suggest a different approach. Viewed together, the Draft Arbitration Law and the 2026 Enforcement Law appear to form part of a broader strategy aimed at improving the effectiveness of the dispute resolution life cycle as a whole.
Many of the reforms introduced by the Draft Arbitration Law are directed towards reducing procedural friction and limiting opportunities for tactical delay. The expansion of tribunal powers, the non-suspensive treatment of certain judicial challenges, the clarification of annulment mechanisms, and the introduction of procedures enabling tribunals to cure remediable defects all seek to streamline the arbitral process and reinforce finality.
The 2026 Enforcement Law complements these objectives by strengthening the mechanisms available once an award reaches the execution stage.
Together, these reforms create a more coherent pathway from dispute commencement through to final recovery. The result is a framework in which arbitration and enforcement operate not as separate processes but as interconnected components of a broader dispute resolution ecosystem.
The commercial significance of enforcement reform
The cumulative effect of these reforms is a significant recalibration of the balance between creditors and debtors within the enforcement process. For businesses operating in Saudi Arabia, the implications extend beyond enforcement proceedings themselves. Enhanced enforcement mechanisms strengthen the value of contractual rights, improve confidence in commercial transactions, and reduce the risks associated with dispute resolution.
The reforms may also influence commercial behaviour before disputes arise. Effective enforcement increases incentives for compliance, strengthens settlement leverage, and enhances the credibility of contractual obligations. In doing so, it contributes to a more predictable commercial environment.
For arbitration users, the significance is particularly pronounced. Arbitration derives its value not solely from procedural fairness, neutrality or expertise but from the enforceability of its outcomes. A jurisdiction that combines a modern arbitration framework with an effective enforcement regime is likely to be viewed more favourably by investors, lenders, project sponsors and commercial counterparties.
The 2026 Enforcement Law therefore represents more than a reform of execution procedures. It forms part of a broader effort to strengthen Saudi Arabia’s attractiveness as a destination for investment and commerce by ensuring that legal rights can be vindicated effectively in practice.
Implications for Arbitration Users
Taken together, the Draft Arbitration Law and the 2026 Enforcement Law reveal a broader evolution in Saudi Arabia’s approach to dispute resolution. The reforms reflect increasing confidence in party autonomy, tribunal discretion, and arbitration as a mature and reliable dispute resolution mechanism. They also demonstrate a growing recognition that the effectiveness of arbitration cannot be assessed solely by reference to procedural fairness. Commercial users increasingly evaluate dispute resolution systems by reference to the certainty, predictability and practicality of outcomes.
For domestic and international businesses, the practical implications are significant. Greater flexibility in the formation of arbitration agreements, increased tribunal authority, strengthened interim relief mechanisms, reduced opportunities for procedural delay, and a more effective enforcement framework collectively enhance the attractiveness of arbitration as a means of resolving disputes arising within the Kingdom.
The reforms are particularly relevant to sectors that are central to Saudi Arabia’s economic transformation, including infrastructure, construction, energy, technology, logistics and public-private partnerships. These sectors frequently involve complex contractual relationships, high-value disputes and multiple stakeholders, all of which benefit from efficient and commercially effective dispute resolution mechanisms.
Perhaps most importantly, the reforms encourage parties and counsel to adopt a more integrated approach to dispute resolution strategy. Enforcement considerations can no longer be treated solely as post-award issues. Increasingly, decisions concerning arbitration agreements, procedural strategy, interim measures, settlement opportunities and enforcement planning form part of a single continuum.
As Saudi Arabia’s arbitration framework continues to evolve, successful parties are likely to be those who view dispute resolution not as a series of isolated procedural steps but as an integrated process extending from contract formation through to final recovery.
Conclusion
Saudi Arabia’s arbitration framework is undergoing a coherent and strategically aligned transformation driven by the interaction of procedural reform and enforcement effectiveness.
The Draft Arbitration Law signals a move towards greater flexibility, reduced formalism, enhanced party autonomy, stronger tribunal authority and closer alignment with international arbitration standards. The 2026 Enforcement Law, meanwhile, provides the institutional and legal infrastructure necessary to ensure that judgments and arbitral awards can be translated into practical and commercially meaningful outcomes.
Importantly, these reforms should not be viewed in isolation. Their significance lies in the manner in which they complement one another. The Draft Arbitration Law seeks to reduce procedural friction throughout the arbitral process, while the 2026 Enforcement Law strengthens the mechanisms available once an award reaches the execution stage. Together, they create a more integrated and effective dispute resolution framework.
Whether all aspects of the Draft Arbitration Law will ultimately be enacted in their current form remains to be seen. Nevertheless, the direction of travel is unmistakable. The Kingdom’s dispute resolution framework is increasingly characterised by confidence in arbitration, support for party autonomy, reduced procedural formalism and a growing emphasis on practical effectiveness rather than technical process.
Taken together, these developments position Saudi Arabia as an increasingly sophisticated arbitration jurisdiction – one in which arbitration is not merely a forum for resolving disputes but a mechanism capable of delivering tangible, enforceable commercial outcomes. In that respect, the most significant aspect of the current reforms may not be the procedural changes themselves, but the emergence of a legal framework designed to ensure that successful parties can realise the benefit of their rights efficiently, predictably and effectively.
17th Floor, Tower B
Olaya Tower
Olaya District
Riyadh
11321
Saudi Arabia
+966 11 461 8700
bd@khoshaim.com www.khoshaim.com