Arbitration as an Alternative Mechanism for the Enforcement of Rights in Civil and Commercial Disputes between Palestinians and Israelis

Written by Frihat Lawyers & Legal Consultants

Arbitration as an Alternative Mechanism for the Enforcement of Rights in Civil and Commercial Disputes between Palestinians and Israelis
A Analytical Study in Light of the Gaza–Jericho Agreement and the Palestinian and Israeli Arbitration Laws

Abstract
This study addresses the problem of enforcing rights in civil and commercial disputes between Palestinians and Israelis, in light of the structural complexity of the legal relationship between the two parties, the divergence of legislative and judicial systems, and the sensitivity of mutual judicial cooperation. Although the interim agreements, foremost among them the Gaza–Jericho Agreement of 1994, included provisions related to civil legal assistance and the enforcement of judicial judgments, these provisions have not, in practice, resulted in a stable and effective enforcement mechanism in all cases. This has negatively affected the stability of legal transactions, particularly in the commercial and investment fields.

In this context, the study proposes arbitration as an alternative legal mechanism capable of overcoming the problems associated with the enforcement of cross-jurisdictional judicial judgments. Arbitration is based on the voluntary agreement of the parties and leads to an arbitral award that may be granted enforceability by the court of the state of the losing party, without the need to engage in issues of mutual recognition of judicial judgments.

The study analyzes this alternative in light of both the Palestinian Arbitration Law No. (3) of 2000 and the Israeli Arbitration Law of 1968, focusing on the practical impact of contractual drafting of the arbitration clause in ensuring effective enforcement. It concludes with a set of findings and recommendations that contribute to strengthening the role of arbitration as a practical tool for protecting rights in Palestinian–Israeli disputes.

Introduction

Civil and commercial disputes between Palestinians and Israelis are among the most complex disputes in terms of their governing legal framework, not because of the nature of the dispute itself, but due to the overlap of multiple legal and sovereign elements that directly affect the post-adjudication stage, particularly the enforcement of rights.

Contractual relationships arising between individuals or companies from both sides are, in principle, subject to the rules of private law. However, these relationships quickly encounter fundamental problems once the dispute reaches the enforcement stage, due to differences in judicial systems, multiplicity of competent authorities, and the sensitivity of mutual judicial cooperation in a complex political context.

The interim agreements concluded in the 1990s, particularly the Gaza–Jericho Agreement, sought to regulate aspects of civil legal assistance, including the enforcement of judicial judgments. Nevertheless, practical experience has shown that these arrangements, despite their theoretical importance, have not always produced effective and stable enforcement solutions. This has led to legal uncertainty among litigants and affected their confidence in the effectiveness of resorting to national courts in cross-party disputes.

Against this background, there is a need to search for alternative legal mechanisms that are more flexible and enforceable, and that rely on the will of the parties rather than direct judicial cooperation between authorities with differing legal and sovereign jurisdictions.

Importance of the Study

The importance of this study arises from several interrelated considerations, most notably:

• Practical importance, due to its direct connection to the rights of litigants in civil and commercial disputes, particularly investors and business owners who are directly affected by ineffective enforcement.

• Scientific importance, as it contributes to filling a relative gap in Arabic studies addressing arbitration in the context of Palestinian–Israeli disputes from the perspective of enforcement of rights.

• Legislative importance, through analyzing the role of arbitration in overcoming deficiencies in the enforcement of cross-jurisdictional judicial judgments.

• Practical application, by providing a practical model of a comprehensive arbitration clause that may be used as guidance in civil and commercial contracts.

Methodology of the Study

This study adopts a multi-method approach, including:

• The analytical method to analyze relevant agreements and legal texts.

• The comparative method to compare the legislative regulation of arbitration in Palestinian and Israeli law.

• The inductive method to derive practical results from existing legal applications.

• The applied method through proposing contractual drafting and practical solutions.

Chapter One: The General Framework of Civil and Commercial Disputes between Palestinians and Israelis

Section One: The Concept of Cross-Jurisdictional Civil and Commercial Disputes

A cross-jurisdictional civil or commercial dispute refers to a dispute arising from a private legal relationship in which one of its elements is connected to more than one legal system, whether in terms of the nationality of the parties, the place of performance of the obligation, or the location of the disputed assets. This type of dispute is characterized by the overlap of rules governing judicial jurisdiction and applicable law, in addition to the complexities of the enforcement stage.

In Palestinian–Israeli disputes, this concept takes on an even more complex dimension, as it is not limited to differences in legal systems, but extends to the particular legal and political relationship between the two parties, and the practical constraints this imposes on judicial and enforcement cooperation.

The enforcement element in such disputes constitutes the weakest link in the legal protection system, as a judicial judgment may be issued in favor of one party without finding its way to effective enforcement, thereby depriving the right of its practical substance.

Section Two: The Specificity of Palestinian–Israeli Disputes and Its Impact on Enforcement

Civil and commercial disputes between Palestinians and Israelis are characterized by a specificity arising from a complex legal and political reality, where legal rules intersect with considerations of sovereignty and jurisdiction, directly affecting the enforcement stage.

This specificity is reflected in several aspects, most notably:

• Multiplicity of competent judicial authorities.

• Differences in procedural and enforcement rules.

• Difficulty in accessing the assets of the judgment debtor in certain cases.

• The influence of non-legal factors on judicial cooperation.

Collectively, these factors weaken the effectiveness of the traditional judicial path in achieving the ultimate goal of litigation, namely enabling the right holder to effectively obtain their right.

Chapter Two: Enforcement of Judicial Judgments in Palestinian–Israeli Disputes and the Limits of Practical Effectiveness

Introduction

The enforcement stage of judicial judgments represents the ultimate objective of any litigation process, as effective legal protection of a right is only achieved by transforming a judicial judgment into a tangible reality. However, in civil and commercial disputes between Palestinians and Israelis, this stage acquires a particularly problematic character, extending beyond ordinary procedural difficulties to structural complexities resulting from the nature of the legal and political relationship between the parties.

The interim agreements, particularly the Gaza–Jericho Agreement of 1994, attempted to address this issue by regulating aspects of civil legal assistance, including the enforcement of judicial judgments. Nevertheless, evaluating these provisions from a practical application perspective raises fundamental questions regarding their effectiveness in achieving their intended purpose.

Section One: The Conventional Framework for Enforcement of Judicial Judgments under the Gaza–Jericho Agreement

The Gaza–Jericho Agreement, within its provisions relating to legal affairs, regulated civil legal assistance between the two sides, including the enforcement of judicial judgments issued by the courts of each party within the territory of the other, according to specific enforcement arrangements. This regulation aimed to ensure the continuity of civil legal relations and provide a minimum level of legal security for individuals and entities engaged in cross-party contractual relations.

These provisions indicate that the agreement did not establish a unified judicial or enforcement system, but rather relied on the principle of enforcing judgments through the enforcement authorities of each party, subject to jurisdiction and public order considerations. Accordingly, enforcement remained linked to the judicial and executive authority of the party in whose territory enforcement was sought.

From a theoretical perspective, this approach aligns with general principles of private international law, which subject the enforcement of foreign judgments to the supervision of the state in which enforcement is sought. However, the specificity of the Palestinian–Israeli relationship renders this conventional model limited in effectiveness in certain practical applications.

Section Two: The Limits of Practical Effectiveness of the Judicial Enforcement System

Despite the existence of an agreement regulating civil legal assistance, practical reality has revealed several obstacles limiting the effectiveness of enforcing judicial judgments between Palestinians and Israelis, including:

First: Complexity of Jurisdiction and Multiplicity of Authorities
Determining the competent authority for enforcement raises jurisdictional issues, particularly where disputes have passed through multiple procedural stages or involve elements distributed across more than one legal territory.

Second: Indirect Impact of Political Considerations
Judicial and enforcement cooperation is inevitably affected, directly or indirectly, by the political and security context, which may influence the speed or feasibility of enforcement, regardless of the merits of the right or the validity of the judgment.

Third: Difficulty in Accessing the Judgment Debtor’s Assets
In many commercial disputes, the value of the judgment lies in the ability to seize the debtor’s assets or take effective enforcement measures. This may be hindered when assets fall under the jurisdiction of the other party or require complex enforcement procedures.

Fourth: Erosion of Confidence in the Traditional Judicial Path
These issues collectively undermine litigants’ confidence in the effectiveness of national courts in cross-party disputes, particularly when judicial judgments repeatedly fail to be enforced, rendering them devoid of practical value.

Section Three: Impact of Limited Judicial Enforcement on Civil and Commercial Transactions

The effects of weak enforcement of judicial judgments extend beyond the individual dispute to the broader legal and economic environment, resulting in:

• Reduced confidence in cross-party civil and commercial contracts.

• Reluctance of investors and business owners to enter into new contractual relationships.

• Increased reliance on informal or non-legal guarantees.

• Seeking alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that ensure enforceable outcomes.

In this context, arbitration emerges as a practical option, not merely as an alternative means of dispute resolution, but as a tool that provides access to a more stable and enforceable outcome within the state of the judgment debtor.

Conclusion of Chapter Two

The foregoing analysis demonstrates that the regulation of judicial enforcement under the Gaza–Jericho Agreement, despite its principled importance, has not effectively removed all obstacles to enforcement in Palestinian–Israeli disputes. This limitation necessitates the exploration of alternative legal mechanisms capable of achieving more effective and stable enforcement of rights.

Chapter Three: Arbitration as an Alternative Mechanism for the Enforcement of Rights in Palestinian–Israeli Disputes

Introduction

The limited effectiveness of enforcing judicial judgments in civil and commercial disputes between Palestinians and Israelis has led to the search for alternative legal mechanisms capable of overcoming problems related to jurisdiction, judicial cooperation, and cross-border enforcement. Arbitration stands at the forefront of these mechanisms, not merely as a procedural alternative to litigation, but as an independent legal mechanism of a special nature, based on the will of the parties and producing outcomes that are more stable and enforceable.

The role of arbitration in this context can only be understood by examining its concept and legal function, and by analyzing the characteristics that make it suitable for addressing this type of dispute.

Section One: The Concept of Arbitration and Its Legal Function

Arbitration is defined as an alternative legal means of dispute resolution whereby the parties, by mutual agreement, refer an existing or potential dispute to a person or tribunal of their choosing for resolution, instead of resorting to national courts. Arbitration derives its legitimacy from the arbitration agreement, which constitutes the cornerstone of the arbitral process.

Functionally, arbitration is not limited to resolving disputes, but also plays a broader role by:

• Reducing the burden on national courts.

• Providing a relatively flexible and speedy path to dispute resolution.

• Allowing parties to select arbitrators with specialized expertise.

• Enhancing trust and neutrality in sensitive disputes.

In Palestinian–Israeli disputes, this function acquires heightened importance due to the particular legal relationship between the parties and the challenges inherent in the traditional judicial process.

Section Two: The Contractual Basis of Arbitration and Its Role in Overcoming Enforcement Challenges

Arbitration differs from national litigation in that its jurisdiction does not stem from state sovereignty, but from the will of the parties. This fundamental distinction has a direct impact on the enforcement stage.

While enforcing a judicial judgment issued by the courts of one party in the territory of the other requires recognition procedures or judicial cooperation, an arbitral award is based on a private agreement voluntarily accepted by the parties. It is presented to the competent court in the state of the judgment debtor as a consequence of the arbitration agreement, rather than as a foreign judicial judgment.

Accordingly, the relationship between the award and the national judiciary shifts from one of “recognition of a judgment issued by another sovereign authority” to one of “granting enforceability to an arbitral award arising from a private agreement.” This shift has significant practical implications in cross-party disputes.

Section Three: The Difference Between Enforcement of Judicial Judgments and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

The fundamental distinction between judicial and arbitral enforcement can be highlighted as follows:

First: Legal Basis

• Judicial judgment: Based on the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the national judiciary and regarded as an act of public authority.

• Arbitral award: Based on a private agreement between the parties and treated by the court as the outcome of a legitimate contractual will.

Second: Relationship Between the Court and the Decision

• In enforcing a foreign judicial judgment, the court addresses issues of mutual recognition and sovereignty.

• In enforcing an arbitral award, the court’s role is limited to formal and procedural review and granting enforceability, without examining the merits of the dispute.

Third: Practical Enforceability
Practical experience demonstrates that an arbitral award, once it satisfies formal and procedural requirements, is generally more enforceable, particularly when enforcement is sought in the state of the judgment debtor, as it is not perceived as an expression of foreign judicial sovereignty.

Section Four: The Suitability of Arbitration for Palestinian–Israeli Disputes

The suitability of arbitration for this category of disputes is reflected in several legal and practical considerations, including:

• Procedural neutrality, through the selection of independent arbitrators who are not necessarily affiliated with the judiciary of either party.

• Procedural flexibility, allowing adaptation of arbitral procedures to the specific nature of the dispute.

• Reduction of political sensitivity, as the arbitral award is not viewed as a judicial victory of one party over another.

• Enhanced enforcement prospects, by linking the award to the arbitration agreement and its procedures.

Practical experience shows that parties in cross-party commercial disputes increasingly resort to arbitration as the risks associated with traditional judicial enforcement grow.

Conclusion of Chapter Three

This chapter confirms that arbitration is not merely an alternative means of resolving Palestinian–Israeli disputes, but a legal mechanism capable of addressing the core problem of enforcing rights. Due to its contractual nature, arbitration allows parties to bypass many of the constraints associated with judicial enforcement and establishes a more stable and realistic enforcement pathway.

This analysis paves the way for the next chapter, which examines the legislative regulation of arbitration under Palestinian and Israeli law, highlighting points of convergence and divergence and their impact on the effectiveness of arbitral awards.

Chapter Four: Legislative Regulation of Arbitration in Palestinian and Israeli Law

A Comparative Analytical Study

Introduction

The practical effectiveness of arbitration derives from the legislative framework governing it, through which the limits of party autonomy, the scope of judicial intervention, and the enforceability of arbitral awards are determined. In the context of civil and commercial disputes between Palestinians and Israelis, studying the legislative regulation of arbitration becomes particularly important due to differing legal references and their direct impact on the enforcement process.

Accordingly, this chapter examines the legislative regulation of arbitration under the Palestinian Arbitration Law No. (3) of 2000 and the Israeli Arbitration Law of 1968, as a prelude to a comparative analysis highlighting their suitability for addressing Palestinian–Israeli disputes.

Section One: Legislative Regulation of Arbitration under Palestinian Arbitration Law No. (3) of 2000

First: General Framework of the Palestinian Arbitration Law
The Palestinian Arbitration Law No. (3) of 2000 represented a qualitative shift in the regulation of arbitration in Palestine. It reflects modern principles of commercial arbitration and aligns structurally with contemporary international trends that prioritize party autonomy and limit judicial intervention in the substance of disputes.

The Palestinian legislator adopted a broad concept of arbitration, both in terms of arbitrable disputes and the forms of arbitration agreements, enhancing flexibility in resorting to arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.

Second: Arbitration Agreement and Its Independence
The Palestinian law provides a comprehensive definition of the arbitration agreement, whether in the form of an arbitration clause within the original contract or a separate submission agreement concluded after the dispute arises. It also affirms the principle of the separability of the arbitration clause from the main contract, such that the invalidity or termination of the contract does not affect the validity of the arbitration clause.

This principle is of particular importance in Palestinian–Israeli disputes, as it ensures the continuity of arbitral jurisdiction even where the underlying contract is contested.

Third: Arbitral Procedures and the Role of the Judiciary
The Palestinian law establishes a balanced framework for judicial intervention in arbitration, permitting court involvement in specific instances, such as:

• Appointment of arbitrators where parties fail to agree.

• Adjudication of applications to set aside arbitral awards.

• Granting enforceability to arbitral awards.

Conversely, judicial intervention is restricted from addressing the merits of the dispute, consistent with the nature of arbitration as an alternative to litigation.

Fourth: Arbitral Awards and Granting Enforceability
The Palestinian law provides that arbitral awards are binding upon the parties and may not be enforced unless granted enforceability by the competent court. The court’s role at this stage is limited to verifying formal and procedural compliance and ensuring that the award does not violate public order.

This framework is, in principle, suitable for cross-jurisdictional disputes, as it allows enforcement of arbitral awards within Palestine once legal requirements are satisfied.

Section Two: Legislative Regulation of Arbitration under the Israeli Arbitration Law of 1968

First: General Features of the Israeli Arbitration Law
The Israeli Arbitration Law of 1968 is relatively old; however, it has undergone several subsequent amendments that have enabled it to accommodate modern developments in arbitration. The law is characterized by detailed regulation of arbitral procedures and by granting courts a clearly defined role in supervising the arbitral process.

Second: Arbitration Agreement and the Powers of the Arbitrator
The Israeli law recognizes the arbitration agreement as the basis of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction and authorizes the court to intervene in appointing an arbitrator when the parties fail to reach an agreement. It also regulates the arbitrator’s powers in managing proceedings, hearing witnesses, and taking necessary measures to ensure the proper conduct of arbitration.

Notably, the Israeli law links, in certain cases, the content of the arbitration agreement to the scope of judicial review of the arbitral award, particularly where the parties require the arbitrator to decide in accordance with the law.

Third: Arbitral Awards and Their Confirmation
The Israeli law permits any party to apply to the court for confirmation of an arbitral award. Once confirmed, the award is treated as a judicial judgment in terms of binding force and enforcement. This provision is among the most significant features demonstrating the enforceability of arbitral awards within Israel as an outcome of a private agreement between the parties.

Conversely, the law limits the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award to specific cases, primarily related to procedural defects, excess of jurisdiction, violation of due process, or contravention of public policy. This reflects a legislative tendency toward supporting the stability of arbitral awards.

Fourth: Foreign Arbitral Awards
The Israeli law regulates the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, particularly those governed by international conventions to which Israel is a party, foremost among them the 1958 New York Convention. This regulatory framework is significant in disputes of an international or cross-border nature.

Section Three: A Comparative Analytical Study between Palestinian and Israeli Law

First: Points of Convergence
There is a noticeable degree of convergence between Palestinian and Israeli arbitration laws in several key areas, including:

• Recognition of the arbitration agreement as the basis of arbitral jurisdiction.

• Adoption of the principle of separability of the arbitration clause.

• Limitation of judicial intervention to specific stages of the arbitral process.

• Requirement that arbitral awards be granted enforceability prior to execution.

Second: Points of Divergence
In contrast, certain differences emerge, including:

• The greater procedural detail in the Israeli law compared to the Palestinian law.

• Variations in terminology used to describe the court’s role (confirmation versus granting enforceability).

• Differences in the regulation of foreign arbitral awards.

Third: Practical Impact of These Differences on Palestinian–Israeli Disputes
The comparative analysis demonstrates that both legal systems provide, in principle, a legal framework enabling enforcement of arbitral awards within the state of the judgment debtor. However, the practical effectiveness of this framework depends largely on careful drafting of the arbitration agreement and compliance with procedural requirements under each legal system.

Conclusion of Chapter Four

This chapter concludes that the legislative regulation of arbitration under both Palestinian and Israeli law provides an appropriate legal basis for adopting arbitration as an alternative mechanism for resolving civil and commercial disputes between Palestinians and Israelis. Nevertheless, achieving practical effectiveness remains contingent upon applied factors, foremost among them the careful contractual drafting of the arbitration clause, which will be addressed in the following chapter.

Chapter Five: Contractual Drafting of the Arbitration Clause and Its Impact on Ensuring Effective Enforcement

Introduction

While the legislative framework of arbitration in both Palestinian and Israeli law provides a general legal basis for adopting arbitration as an alternative mechanism, the contractual drafting of the arbitration clause constitutes the decisive factor in transforming this theoretical foundation into an effective and enforceable tool. Poor or ambiguous drafting may undermine the advantages of arbitration and expose the arbitral award to annulment or procedural challenges, thereby complicating the process of granting enforceability.

Accordingly, this chapter examines the essential elements of drafting an arbitration clause and the impact of each element on the enforcement stage, in light of the particular nature of Palestinian–Israeli disputes.

Section One: Legal Nature of the Arbitration Clause and Its Practical Importance

The arbitration clause is a contractual agreement of a special nature, creating a mutual obligation on the parties to refrain from resorting to national courts and to refer disputes to arbitration. At the same time, it forms the legal basis upon which the jurisdiction and authority of the arbitral tribunal are established.

The practical importance of the arbitration clause lies in its role in:

• Defining the scope of disputes subject to arbitration.

• Determining the procedural and legal framework of the arbitration.

• Directly affecting the enforceability of the arbitral award.

In Palestinian–Israeli disputes, this importance is heightened due to the sensitivity of the enforcement stage and the need to minimize judicial discretion that may delay or obstruct enforcement.

Section Two: Essential Elements of Drafting an Arbitration Clause

First: Determining the Scope of the Arbitration Clause
Clearly defining the scope of disputes subject to arbitration is one of the most important elements of drafting an effective arbitration clause. This requires specifying whether the clause covers all disputes arising out of the contract or only specific disputes. Broad and comprehensive wording enhances the effectiveness of arbitration and reduces the likelihood of disputes regarding jurisdiction.

In the context of Palestinian–Israeli disputes, ambiguity in defining the scope of the arbitration clause may lead national courts to restrict its application, thereby weakening the enforceability of the arbitral award.

Second: Determining the Applicable Law
Specifying the law applicable to the arbitration agreement and to the merits of the dispute is a crucial factor in ensuring legal certainty. Failure to determine the applicable law may result in conflicts of laws and expanded judicial intervention at the enforcement stage.

Choosing a neutral or clearly defined legal system contributes to enhancing the acceptability of the arbitral award before courts in both legal systems.

Third: Determining the Seat of Arbitration
The seat of arbitration determines the procedural law governing the arbitration and identifies the courts with supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral process. Selecting an appropriate seat plays a decisive role in limiting judicial intervention and in determining the enforceability of the arbitral award.

In Palestinian–Israeli disputes, choosing a neutral seat of arbitration outside the territory of either party may provide additional guarantees of impartiality and facilitate enforcement under international conventions.

Fourth: Determining the Language of Arbitration
Specifying the language of arbitration helps avoid procedural disputes and additional costs. It also contributes to ensuring the equality of the parties and the efficiency of the arbitral proceedings.

Given the linguistic diversity in Palestinian–Israeli disputes, failure to specify the language of arbitration may lead to practical and procedural complications that negatively affect the enforcement stage.

Fifth: Method of Appointing Arbitrators
The arbitration clause should clearly define the method of appointing arbitrators, including the number of arbitrators and the mechanism for their selection. Clear regulation of this matter reduces the likelihood of court intervention and enhances the legitimacy of the arbitral tribunal.

In disputes of a political or sensitive nature, careful selection of arbitrators with recognized neutrality and expertise is particularly important.

Section Three: The Impact of Drafting the Arbitration Clause on the Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

First: Relationship between the Arbitration Clause and Judicial Control
The manner in which the arbitration clause is drafted directly affects the extent of judicial control over the arbitral award. Precise drafting limits the grounds upon which courts may intervene, whereas vague drafting opens the door to challenges based on jurisdictional or procedural defects.

Second: Role of the Arbitration Clause in Avoiding Annulment of the Award
Many cases of annulment of arbitral awards result from deficiencies in the arbitration clause itself, such as uncertainty regarding the applicable law or the seat of arbitration. Proper drafting significantly reduces the risk of annulment and strengthens the stability of the arbitral award.

Third: Practical Challenges at the Enforcement Stage
Despite the existence of a valid arbitration clause, the enforcement stage may face practical challenges, particularly in Palestinian–Israeli disputes. These challenges include claims of violation of public policy or lack of reciprocity. However, careful drafting of the arbitration clause may mitigate these challenges by ensuring compliance with international standards of arbitration.

Conclusion of Chapter Five

This chapter demonstrates that the effectiveness of arbitration in Palestinian–Israeli disputes does not depend solely on legislative regulation, but rather on the quality of contractual drafting of the arbitration clause. A well-drafted clause serves as a preventive tool against procedural disputes and enhances the likelihood of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards before national courts.

Chapter Six: Challenges and Prospects of Enforcing Arbitral Awards in Palestinian–Israeli Disputes

Introduction

The enforcement of arbitral awards represents the final and most critical stage of the arbitration process. Despite the existence of legislative frameworks and international conventions governing arbitration, the enforcement of arbitral awards in Palestinian–Israeli disputes faces a number of legal and practical challenges. This chapter addresses these challenges and explores the future prospects for enhancing the effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms.

Section One: Legal Challenges to the Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

First: Public Policy Considerations
Public policy constitutes one of the most significant legal obstacles to the enforcement of arbitral awards. Courts in both Palestinian and Israeli legal systems retain broad discretionary power to refuse enforcement of an arbitral award if it is deemed to violate public policy.

In Palestinian–Israeli disputes, public policy is often interpreted expansively due to the political and legal sensitivity of the relationship between the parties, which increases the likelihood of refusing enforcement even where the arbitral award is procedurally sound.

Second: Lack of Mutual Recognition and Reciprocity
One of the primary challenges to enforcement lies in the absence of clear and effective mechanisms for mutual recognition of arbitral awards between Palestinian and Israeli judicial authorities. This lack of reciprocity creates legal uncertainty and undermines confidence in arbitration as a reliable dispute resolution mechanism.

Third: Judicial Intervention at the Enforcement Stage
Despite the principle of limited judicial intervention in arbitration, courts may expand their review at the enforcement stage under the pretext of verifying compliance with procedural guarantees. Such intervention may delay enforcement and diminish the finality of arbitral awards.

Section Two: Practical Challenges to Enforcement

First: Procedural and Administrative Obstacles
The enforcement of arbitral awards often encounters procedural and administrative barriers, including delays in judicial proceedings, difficulties in serving notices, and challenges related to the submission of translated or authenticated documents.

Second: Political and Security Constraints
Political conditions and security considerations play a significant role in affecting the enforcement of arbitral awards in Palestinian–Israeli disputes. Restrictions on movement, access to courts, and execution measures may render enforcement practically impossible, regardless of the legal validity of the arbitral award.

Third: Economic and Financial Factors
Economic instability and financial constraints may also hinder enforcement, particularly where the judgment debtor lacks assets within the jurisdiction where enforcement is sought.

Section Three: Prospects for Enhancing the Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

First: Strengthening Contractual Drafting
Improving the quality of drafting arbitration clauses, particularly with respect to determining the seat of arbitration, applicable law, and enforcement mechanisms, may significantly enhance the prospects of enforcement.

Second: Greater Reliance on International Arbitration
Resorting to international arbitration institutions and selecting neutral seats governed by internationally recognized arbitration rules may reduce the impact of domestic legal and political constraints.

Third: Harmonization with International Standards
Aligning national arbitration laws and judicial practices with international standards, particularly those embodied in the New York Convention, may contribute to strengthening confidence in arbitration as an effective dispute resolution mechanism.

Conclusion of Chapter Six

This chapter concludes that, despite the existence of legal frameworks regulating arbitration, the enforcement of arbitral awards in Palestinian–Israeli disputes remains subject to complex legal, political, and practical challenges. Overcoming these challenges requires a combination of careful contractual drafting, reliance on international arbitration mechanisms, and gradual harmonization of domestic legal systems with international arbitration standards.

General Conclusion

This study demonstrates that arbitration represents a viable and effective alternative mechanism for resolving civil and commercial disputes between Palestinians and Israelis. Legislative regulation in both Palestinian and Israeli law provides a foundational legal framework for arbitration; however, the practical effectiveness of this framework is largely dependent on the quality of arbitration agreements and the enforceability of arbitral awards.

The study further concludes that careful drafting of arbitration clauses constitutes the cornerstone for ensuring the success of arbitration, particularly at the enforcement stage. Additionally, reliance on international arbitration and neutral legal frameworks may mitigate many of the legal and political challenges associated with domestic enforcement.

Recommendations

1. Emphasizing the importance of precise and comprehensive drafting of arbitration clauses in Palestinian–Israeli contracts.

2. Encouraging the selection of neutral seats of arbitration governed by internationally recognized rules.

3. Promoting greater judicial adherence to the principle of limited intervention in arbitral proceedings.

4. Enhancing harmonization between national arbitration laws and international arbitration standards.

5. Supporting institutional cooperation in the field of arbitration to strengthen mutual confidence and facilitate enforcement.