Download

Inkless Justice? Enforcing E-Awards in GCC and MENA

Khushboo Shahdadpuri, Gayane Gulyan (Al Tamimi & Company)

December 31, 2025

The arbitration landscape in the Gulf Cooperation Council (“GCC”) and wider Middle East and North Africa (“MENA”) region has undergone a remarkable transformation in recent years. Among the changes implemented, the use of modern technology in arbitration has been particularly emphasised through the new rules allowing, among others, electronic signatures and electronic delivery of arbitral awards (“E-awards”). E-awards appeal to arbitration actors because they allow for faster, more efficient and greener arbitrations. Globally, in 2024 the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”) mandated its Working Group II: Dispute Settlement to work on the issue of recognition and enforcement of E-awards. Internationally, there is perceived legal uncertainty about the question, which is why majority of parties and institutions still favour paper awards.

Against this backdrop, the GCC and MENA regions stand out. 2025 has been particularly transformational there. This year included courts in Kuwait and Oman going fully digital for commercial cases, including arbitration-related matters, Jordan introducing an electronic filing system in their courts (though still in pilot); Iraq launching electronic signatures and a new arbitration law being underway in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (“Kingdom”) which expressly allows E-awards, amongst others. Countries in the region are recognising the growing need for reliable arbitration services in line with modern technology and have put noticeable effort and resources into developing these areas.

This post examines the emerging framework of E-Awards in MENA, exploring legislative trends, institutional practices, and practical takeaways to account for when arbitrating or enforcing there.

Legislative Frameworks Across GCC and MENA on the Enforcement of E-Awards ]

Most of the regional arbitration laws in MENA (except Kuwait) are largely based on or inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law”), which mandates in Article 31 that an award be in writing and signed by the arbitrators. Although it does not contain any specification on whether an E-award satisfies the requirements, UNCITRAL’s another instrument, i.e., the Model Law on Electronic Commerce, adopted by many GCC and MENA countries as part of their e-commerce laws, provides some guidance, broadly equating electronic documents and signatures to hand-written ones. Moreover, during the most recent UNCITRAL Working Group II session, an amendment was proposed to the Model Law to reflect the same understating regarding the E-awards specifically.

Most MENA countries (including United Arab Emirates “UAE”, the Kingdom, Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt, Oman, Kuwait, Jordan, Iraq and Morocco) are parties to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“NYC”). This instrument becomes relevant for the enforceability of E-awards across MENA when awards move cross-border.

Most national laws limit the grounds for refusal of enforcement to those set out in Article V of the NYC and require that the award creditor produces “the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof” as per Article IV (1) of the NYC.

Interestingly, the NYC’s Article VII “more favourable treatment” clause allows reliance on domestic laws that are more 'friendly' for the enforcement of domestic awards as opposed to the enforcement of foreign awards (e.g., if domestic E-awards are enforced, the same should apply to the foreign ones). This provision may help guide the uncertainty in those countries of the region where local enforcement laws are silent on the status of foreign E-awards or require more onerous verification requirements or additional ministerial approvals (e.g., in the Kingdom) as discussed below.

Laws That Allow E-Awards

United Arab Emirates ("UAE")

In the UAE, a dual judicial ecosystem with both civil law (onshore) and common law (offshore), E-Awards are looked at positively. The onshore UAE Arbitration Law No. 6 of 2018 expressly permits (in Article 41(6)) the issuance of E-awards; enforcement applications are filed online via the online court infrastructure, making wet‑ink inspection largely irrelevant in practice. The UAE onshore courts tend to be pro-arbitration, having recently moved away from formalistic award signature requirements on every page of an award seated in Dubai. In a recent decision, the UAE Federal–Local Judicial Principles Unification Authority held that it was sufficient for only the final page of the award to be signed. Additionally, the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation in Case No. 839, 885 of 2025, recognised that an “arbitration agreement [i]s deemed to have met the writing requirement if it […] was made by means of an electronic message in accordance with the rules in force in the State regarding electronic transactions”. By extension, the same logic may apply to the recognition and enforcement of E-Awards, although a clear precedent to that effect would be welcome by the UAE courts.

Offshore, the Abu Dhabi Global Market (“ADGM”) Arbitration Regulations 2015 expressly validate electronic signing of awards (at section 55). It is noteworthy, that this provision was adopted by ADGM some ten years ago (in 2015): quite early on, even for worldwide arbitration. By contrast, the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”) Arbitration Law No. 1 of 2008 retains the traditional “writing and signed” language with no express recognition of E-awards, the DIFC courts are generally arbitration-friendly.

Kingdom

The Kingdom operates under a unified arbitration regime governed by the Saudi Arbitration Law Royal Decree No. M/34 of 2012 ("2012 Saudi Arbitration Law") and its Implementing Regulations (2017). The law is heavily inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law, though with adaptations to align with Sharia principles. While the current statute does not explicitly reference E-awards, the new arbitration law draft of 2025 does so in Article 52(4). This removes the ambiguity that existed under the previous 2012 Saudi Arbitration Law and aligns it with other arbitration laws which expressly allow eletronic signatures.

Like the UAE, applications for enforcement are filed electronically in the Kingdom through the Ministry of Justice’s digital platform, meaning courts rarely, if ever, inspect physical signatures. According to the recent 2025 reports from the Kingdom’s official representatives in UNCITRAL, “awards with scanned handwritten signatures […] have been submitted and are accepted by the competent courts. Additionally, […] there are no legal obstacles preventing the competent courts from considering any form of electronic signature in the enforcement phase, provided it complies with relevant regulations”. As for the enforcement of foreign awards, official reports state that “all stamps and signatures on the award must be validated [...] Once approved and authenticated, the competent court should accept the enforcement of the award, regardless of whether the signature is electronic or physical”. This is largely due to the divergent technical standards currently existing on verification of electronic signatures across the region.

These clarifications are welcome and helpful in providing legal certainty for the enforcement of E-awards in the Kingdom.

Qatar

Like the UAE, Qatar is a dual jurisdiction ecosystem, operating the civil law system within the Qatar courts, while the Qatar Financial Centre (“QFC”) is operating in a common law system.

Qatar’s arbitration statutes, which include Qatar Law No.2 of 2017 on Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Matters and the QFC Arbitration Regulations 2005, are largely silent on the issuance of E-awards and therefore, the analogy for the enforceability of electronic signatures comes from the broader electronic transactions legislation. Overall, the courts infrastructure in Qatar and the QFC have recently undergone a significant digital transformation. In June 2025, new QFC Court Rules were introduced which require, amongst others, that all filings be made by the parties electronically, either by email or through the QFC Courts’ eCourt system. The Qatari onshore court system is following suit – although the infrastructure has not yet transformed into an exclusively digital one.

Qatari courts are increasingly arbitration‑friendly having moved towards a pro‑enforcement posture, confining review to NYC Article V grounds and shedding earlier formalistic hurdles (e.g., the historic debate about awards needing to be issued “in the name of the Emir”). The Judicial Enforcement Law No. 4 of 2024 consolidated enforcement procedures, streamlining practice and allowing direct enforcement without obtaining a prior court order recognising the award. Qatari courts, thus, are unlikely to oppose enforcement based solely on signature format where statutory prerequisites and NYC standards have been met.

Laws That Are Silent On E-Awards

Other jurisdictions in the region tread their trajectory towards digitalisation cautiously.

In Bahrain, judiciary implemented technology allow electronic processes to cover the full litigation process. Having spearheaded the UNCITRAL E-awards initiative, Bahrain reported there in 2025 that electronic signature of awards would not result in non-enforcement, despite the Bahraini Arbitration Law No. 9 of 2015 being silent on this.

Oman is moving fast towards E-Awards having established modernised e‑transactions law and introduced a new digital‑first Court of Investment and Commerce with mandatory exclusive e‑filing in 2025; although, caution is advised until more precedents emerge within the newly adopted e-based framework. Interestingly, until 2025, foreign awards in Oman were enforced under a separate law, but a recent landmark Supreme Court case clarified that under Article 3 of the NYC, foreign awards cannot be enforced using a stricter procedural framework than domestic awards.

Egypt is the clearest conservative outlier in the region: despite electronic signature legislation, paper‑based workflows and reported practice suggest courts may still expect authenticated wet‑ink awards.

Notably, while Morocco has expressly recognised E-awards in its Arbitration Law No. 95‑17 of 2022, Article 51), its courts remain paper‑submission only and an E-Award without any accompanying wet-ink original may not suffice to meet the NYC originality requirement.

As of mid-2025, Kuwait’s judiciary went fully digital in commercial matters, including arbitration-related cases: the Sahel app was introduced, and parties can now opt out for e-filings, although a hard copy would ordinarily be expected at enforcement.

Similarly, new laws were enacted in Jordan allowing lawyers to file and sign submissions electronically without appearing in person (though in pilot yet).

In Iraq, the recent Instructions No. 1 of 2025 officially launched electronic signatures, although their court infrastructure still requires physical documents.

Major Regional Institutional Rules on E-Awards

Enforceability goes hand in hand with the provisions of the applicable arbitral institutional rules. In the region, all of the key arbitral institutions contain provisions that support digitalisation:

Under the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”) 2022 Rules, an arbitral tribunal can issue E-awards after consulting the parties (Article 34(6)). The Abu Dhabi International Arbitration Centre (“arbitrateAD”) 2024 Rules, enable an arbitral tribunal to electronically sign awards, where appropriate, by the appropriate verification software (Article 41(4)).

The Saudi Centre for Commercial Arbitration (“SCCA”) 2023 Rules defaults to electronic signatures, unless agreed otherwise by the parties or the law provides otherwise (Article 36(1)).

Qatar International Centre for Conciliation and Arbitration (“QICCA”) 2024 Rules expressly mention E-awards but condition it on the approval by the QICCA or express agreement by the parties (Article 63.7).

Other major regional arbitration rules are silent on the issue of E-awards, although are generally technology receptive. These include Bahrain’s Chamber for Dispute Resolution 2022 Rules, the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration 2024 Rules, and the Oman Arbitration Centre 2020 Rules. This will implicate the NYC Article V(1)(d) arguments at enforcement if an arbitral tribunal issues an E‑Award without a clear procedural basis. However, as discussed above, these jurisdictions have adopted a modernisation course which may lead to these institutions eventually updating their rules to align with the regional leaders, like DIAC, SCCA, etc.

Practical Takeaways and Concluding Remarks

While most jurisdictions in the region are taking big strides towards digitalisation, enforcement of E-Awards can create stumbling blocks in other jurisdictions. The lack of uniformity that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, such as the infrastructure to verify signatures, timestamps, key management, hash checks, audit trails and the variance in the digital ecosystems amongst the various countries of the region does not help.

There is also a perceived lack of guidance on hybrid awards. There are no rules for handling awards partially signed electronically and partially in wet ink. Challenges on formal validity are thus possible in relation to such awards.

Overall, the region’s major arbitration hubs, like UAE, the Kingdom, and Qatar, have firmly established themselves as prominent global hubs for international arbitration being at the forefront of digitalisation of arbitral process, including by supporting E-awards.

Looking ahead, the selection of governing law, seat and arbitral rules in an arbitration will matter more than ever: choosing “digital‑ready” frameworks will result in the easing of the arbitration procedure and ensuring the chances of challenges based on mere technicalities are lessened, enhancing the efficiency of arbitration. This is particularly resonant in recent times when arbitration has been criticised for timeliness and costliness.