Abstract

Today we live in a world where international trade accounts for a significant proportion of the daily trade for an enormous number of companies and institutions. The number of international commercial deals that are made every day is countless. The sheer scale of international trade invariably results in an increase in the number of disputes between international partners. However, where there are problems, methods to resolve the disagreements will invariably appear. One of the main and mostly preferred methods is arbitration. Arbitration is preferred for it is convenient and cost-effective method to resolve disputes between business partners. Saudi Arabia has recently reformed its Arbitration Regulations through the implementation of new regulations in 2012. This replaces previous regulations dating from 1983 and the implementation rules of 1985. This thesis examines, analyses and criticises these regulations and compare them to the English and the Scottish arbitration laws. Throughout this study, the old Saudi regulations and implementation rules are examined in order to determine how the rule of arbitration worked in the country. Following this, the new regulations are presented to see what has changed and if there has been any improvement. This is subsequently followed by a discussion on the scale of the improvement and whether further improvements are required in Saudi Arabia. This thesis will also carry out a comparison with the English Act of 1996 and the Arbitration Scotland Act of 2010. The conclusion address and highlight the main differences between the regulations, when present and highlights what the Saudi legislator can benefit from the laws under consideration. One of the main aims of this study was to find if the Saudi Arbitration Regulations have improved and addressed the issues that concerned researchers and commentators in the past. The research finds that there are significant improvements in the Saudi regulations.