Aceris Law

International Arbitration Law Firm

International Arbitration in Qatar

by

Arbitration in Qatar has undergone substantial modernisation in recent years, helping to establish the country as a leading regional centre for commercial dispute resolution.

Qatar ArbitrationThis note explores the following aspects of Qatari arbitration: (1) its modern legal framework; (2) the main arbitration institutions based in Qatar; (3) recent arbitration-related case law from the Qatari courts; and (4) Qatar’s participation in investment arbitration, including a look at the bilateral investment treaties (“BITs”) to which it is a party.

1. Legal Framework of Qatari Arbitration

Within Qatar generally, arbitration is governed by Law No. 2 of 2017 Promulgating the Civil and Commercial Arbitration Law – Issuing the Law of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Matters (the “Qatari Arbitration Law”).[1] The Qatari Arbitration Law is drafted in Arabic and, though an English translation exists, the Arabic text controls. Prior to the adoption of this law, and still today for contracts entered into prior to 12 April 2017, arbitration in Qatar was governed by certain articles of the Qatar Civil Procedure Code.[2]

The Qatari Arbitration Law, like many other national arbitration laws, is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “UNCITRAL Model Law”), issued by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law to “assist States in reforming and modernizing their laws on arbitral procedure so as to take into account the particular features and needs of international commercial arbitration.”[3]

The Qatari Arbitration Law contains the following chapters:

  1. Definitions and General Provisions
  2. The Arbitration Agreement
  3. The Arbitral Tribunal
  4. Arbitral Proceedings
  5. Issuing of Arbitral Awards and Termination of Procedures
  6. Appealing the Arbitral Award
  7. Recognition and Enforcement of the Arbitral Awards
  8. Arbitration Centres and Arbitrators Approval

Certain notable differences exist between the Qatari Arbitration Law and the UNCITRAL Model Law:

  • Article 2(2) of the Qatari Arbitration Law provides that public entities cannot arbitrate disputes among themselves and that agreements to arbitrate in administrative contract disputes require the Prime Minister’s approval.[4] Thus, Qatari law imposes sovereign-interest controls absent from the UNCITRAL Model Law.
  • Article 4 of the Qatari Arbitration Law expands on the procedural detail of the UNCITRAL Model Law,[5] with regard to rules on service, timing, and effect of notices, including electronic notice rules.[6]
  • Under Article 11 of the Qatari Arbitration Law, arbitrators shall be selected from a Ministry-approved registry, unless they satisfy additional statutory conditions, including having full capacity, having never been convicted of a felony or misdemeanour involving moral turpitude or breach of public trust, and being of good conduct and reputation.[7] No such requirement is present in the UNCITRAL Model Law, which gives parties full autonomy to nominate an arbitrator.
  • Under Article 31(5) of the Qatari Arbitration Law, awards must be issued within the agreed time, or if none, within one month after proceedings close, extendable once for one month.[8] This provision is absent from the UNCITRAL Model Law.
  • The Qatari Arbitration Law imposes an award filing requirement in Article 31(11), which requires tribunals to send an electronic copy of awards “to the Ministry concerned with the Arbitration affairs” within two weeks.[9] This requirement does not exist within the UNCITRAL Model Law.
  • Article 33(4) of the Qatari Arbitration Law imposes a shorter deadline of one month for applications to annul an award, in contrast to the UNCITRAL Model Law’s three-month limit.[10]

Additionally, while the Qatari Arbitration Law contains provisions on enforcement, this has now been supplemented by Articles 17-20 of the recent Law No. 4 of 2024 (the “Qatari Enforcement Law”). These articles provide extra guidance with regard to issues such as refusing enforcement of an arbitration award, an arbitrability requirement, and appeals against orders rejecting the execution of an arbitration award.

Qatar Financial Centre Arbitration

A second legal jurisdiction, the Qatar Financial Centre (the “QFC”), also exists in Qatar. The QFC is an onshore business and financial centre located in Doha, Qatar, that has provided legal and regulatory services for local and international companies since 2005. In contrast to the main legal system of Qatar, which is grounded in the civil and Sharia legal traditions, the QFC’s legal system is based on English common law.[11]

Within the QFC, the Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre (the “QICDRC”) acts as the judicial system consisting of a Civil and Commercial Court and a Regulatory Tribunal.

The QFC Arbitration Regulations (Regulation No. 8 of 2005) (the “QFC Regulations”) govern arbitrations seated in the QFC.[12] The QFC Regulations, drafted in English, expressly exclude the application of Qatar’s national arbitration legislation within the QFC, and give the QFC courts exclusive jurisdiction over appointments, interim relief, enforcement, and set-aside proceedings.[13] They provide greater procedural flexibility: there is no statutory time limit for issuing awards,[14] and arbitrators need not be registered or meet state-imposed eligibility conditions.[15] They also add a unique ground for annulment, allowing QFC courts to set aside an award that is “not in the interest of the QFC”, underscoring its autonomy as a specialised commercial jurisdiction.[16] The QFC Regulations also contain their own provisions for the recognition and enforcement of non-QFC awards.[17]

It is thus noteworthy that Qatar accommodates two distinct legal systems within the same state: a civil law system grounded in Arabic language and legal tradition, and the Qatar Financial Centre, which operates on common law principles with English as its primary working language. This arrangement reflects Qatar’s practical approach to meeting both domestic legal needs and the expectations of international business, allowing different legal frameworks to function in parallel for different purposes.

2. Qatari Arbitration Institutions

The main arbitral institution in Qatar is the Qatar International Centre for Conciliation and Arbitration (the “QICCA”), which was established in 2006 by a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Qatar Chamber of Commerce and Industry “to create an efficient and swift mechanism to settle disputes between national commercial companies; and between national commercial companies and similar foreign companies.”[18]

Arbitrations administered by the QICCA are governed by the QICCA Arbitration Rules, which were most recently updated in 2024, taking effect on 1 January 2025.[19]

The QICCA Rules provide a clear framework for administering disputes, including structured procedures for commencing arbitration,[20] appointing and challenging arbitrators,[21] and managing the conduct of proceedings.[22] They also incorporate other features now widely found in modern institutional rules, such as provisions on joinder and consolidation,[23] expedited proceedings,[24] and an emergency arbitrator mechanism.[25] The inclusion of mandatory disclosure of third-party funding further reflects the trend among leading institutions towards greater transparency in arbitral proceedings.[26]

The institutional fees of the QICCA are calculated according to Table 1, attached to the Rules, while the arbitrators’ fees are determined according to Table 2. Table 3 sets out the institutional fees and expenses, as well as the fees of the arbitrator, for emergency proceedings.

3. Recent Developments in Arbitration-Related Case Law

Qatari courts

Certain cases have shed light on how Qatar has evolved in its recognition of arbitral awards.

In Qatar Court of Cassation No. 64 of 2012, Qatar’s Court of Cassation set aside an arbitral award rendered in a QICCA arbitration as against Qatari public policy because it was not rendered in the name of the Emir of Qatar.[27]

However, in Qatar Court of Cassation No. 164 of 2014, the Court of Cassation clarified that this requirement was domestic only and therefore not applicable to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, which were to be enforced according to the provisions of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, to which Qatar became a party in 2002.[28]

Following the entry into force of the Qatari Arbitration Law in 2017, the Qatari courts have since changed their position. In Qatar Court of Appeal No. 2186 of 2019, issued 6 July 2020, the Qatar Court of Appeal refused to set aside a Qatari arbitral award that was not issued in the name of the Emir, holding that an award could only be challenged on the limited grounds available in Article 33 of the Qatari Arbitration Law.

Thus, Qatar has transitioned to a more pro-enforcement jurisdiction, shifting its priorities from procedural formalities to the enforcement of arbitral awards.

QFC courts

The QFC courts have been active in recent years, establishing the QFC as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction, as demonstrated in the cases below:

  • A v B [2023] QIC (F) 16 – In this case, in an arbitration between two companies not established in the QFC under a contract governed by the Qatari Arbitration Law, one party applied to the QFC Civil and Commercial Court to appoint an arbitrator, arguing that based on a comma included in the English translation but not the original Arabic version of the Qatari Arbitration Law, Article 1 of the Qatari Arbitration Law provides that neither the Court of Appeal of the State of Qatar nor the QFC Court is the default competent court for arbitral appointments, leaving the choice up to the parties.[29] The court noted that the Arabic version of the law must prevail[30] and clarified that, as the final clause of the article, which states “based on the agreement of the parties”, applies only to the QFC Court, the Qatari State Courts are the default courts in Qatar.[31]
  • B v C [2024] QIC (F) 20 – In this case, the Civil and Commercial Court of the QFC issued its first-ever judgment on a request to set aside an arbitral award. The party applying to set aside the award relied heavily on Article 41(2)(B)(ii) of the QFC Regulations, which allows awards to be set aside if they are “not in the interest of the QFC.”[32] As there was no prior case law on the interpretation of this provision, the Court relied on international practice regarding Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, on which Article 41 of the QFC Regulations is based. The court considered that there is no material difference between the terms “interest”, as used in Article 41(2)(B)(ii) of the QFC Regulations, and “public policy” as used in the UNCITRAL Model Law.[33] It also found that while the QFC Regulations do make a distinction between the interests of the QFC, as opposed to the interests of Qatar, “this is a distinction that does not have any practical effect because it is difficult to think of a case where the interest of the QFC and that of the State of Qatar are not aligned or the same.”[34] Finally, it ultimately held that the arguments advanced by the party seeking the set-aside invoking the “interest of the QFC” were without merit, highlighting the pro-enforcement policy of the QFC Regulations: “The Arbitration Regulations, based on international arbitration principles observed across many jurisdictions, provide narrowly defined grounds for judicial intervention reflecting a pro-enforcement policy towards arbitration awards.”[35]
  • C v D [2025] QIC (F) 44 – A claimant filed an action before the Civil and Commercial Court of the QFC alleging failure by the defendant to perform under a contract between the parties.[36] The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the QFC Court on the basis that the parties had agreed in their contract to submit any disputes to arbitration.[37] The dispute resolution provision of the contract stated that disputes shall be referred to arbitration administered by the QICDRC in accordance with the QICDRC rules, with the seat being Qatar, and that the competent court of the arbitration shall be the Civil and Commercial Court of the QFC.[38] The claimant argued that the reference to the Civil and Commercial Court of the QFC designated it as the competent forum for both dispute resolution and enforcement, giving it jurisdiction to decide the dispute.[39] The court held that the parties expressly agreed that their dispute be resolved by arbitration and that the Civil and Commercial Court of the QFC administer that arbitration – a fact which does not mean that the court has jurisdiction to determine the substantive dispute.[40]

4. Investment Arbitration in Qatar

Qatar is a party to the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (“ICSID Convention”), thereby agreeing to allow certain international investment disputes between itself and foreign investors to be resolved under the rules and procedures of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”).[41]

Qatar is party to the following BITs currently in force: Armenia (2002), Azerbaijan (2007), Belarus (2001), the Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union (2007), Bosnia (1998), China (1999), Costa Rica (2010), Cyprus (2008), Egypt (1999), Finland (2001), France (1996), Gambia (2002), Germany (1996), Indonesia (2000), Iran (1999), Italy (2000), Jordan (2009), Moldova (2012), Montenegro (2009), Morocco (1999), Paraguay (2018), Portugal (2009), Romania (1996), the Russian Federation (2007), Senegal (1998), Serbia (2016), Singapore (2017), South Korea (1999), Switzerland (2001), Türkiye (2001), Ukraine (2018), and Vietnam (2009).[42] This means that investors in Qatar from these States may potentially bring claims against Qatar in case of unlawful expropriation, unfair treatment, etc.

According to Jus Mundi, Qatar has been the respondent in the following investor-State arbitrations, three of which were commenced within the last 5 years:[43]

  • Swifthold Foundation v. Qatar[44] (2025) – brought under the Panama-Qatar BIT, notice of intent sent by the claimant (interestingly, UN Trade and Development reports the Panama-Qatar BIT as being signed but not yet in force);[45]
  • Olayan Financing v. Qatar[46] (PCA Case No. 2023-78, 2022) – brought under the Agreement on Promotion, Protection and Guarantee of Investments amongst the Member States of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, pending;
  • Benabderrahmane v. State of Qatar[47] (ICSID Case No. ARB/22/23, 2022) – brought under the France-Qatar BIT, pending – a procedural order for document production was issued on 20 June 2025;
  • Telemedia v. Qatar[48] (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/38, 2018) – brought under the Jordan-Qatar BIT, discontinued in 2019;
  • Keppel Seghers v. Qatar (ICC Case No. 20997/ZF/AYZ, 2015) – brought under a contract, decided in favour of the investor, award partially annulled in 2020 for granting the claimant damages in an amount higher than the amount claimed.

Conclusion

Qatar has steadily developed a modern and increasingly arbitration-friendly environment, supported by an updated national arbitration law inspired by international standards, a distinct common-law framework within the QFC, and the continued evolution of institutions such as the QICCA. Recent case law from both the State courts and the QFC courts reflects a clearer, more consistent commitment to upholding arbitration agreements and enforcing awards, signalling greater judicial maturity in this area. Qatar’s broad network of investment treaties and its participation in investor–State arbitration further demonstrate its integration into the global arbitration system. Taken together, these developments indicate that Qatar is positioning itself as a reliable and sophisticated venue for resolving commercial and investment disputes in the region.

[1] S. Al-Ansari et al., Commercial Arbitration: Qatar, 2 June 2025, https://globalarbitrationreview.com/insight/know-how/commercial-arbitration/report/qatar (last accessed 11 December 2025).

[2] UNCTAD, Qatar, 12 April 2017 https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-policy-monitor/measures/3197/qatar-introduces-a-new-uncitral-model-law-based-arbitration-law  (last accessed 11 December 2025).

[3] UNCITRAL, UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), with amendments as adopted in 2006, https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/modellaw/commercial_arbitration (last accessed 11 December 2025).

[4] Qatari Arbitration Law, Article 2(2) (Definitions and General Provisions).

[5] UNCITRAL Model Law, Article 3 (Receipt of written communications).

[6] Qatari Arbitration Law, Article 4 (Definitions and General Provisions).

[7] Qatari Arbitration Law, Article 11(1) (The Arbitral Tribunal).

[8] Qatari Arbitration Law, Article 31(5) (Issuing of Arbitral Awards and Termination of Procedures).

[9] Qatari Arbitration Law, Article 31(11) (Issuing of Arbitral Awards and Termination of Procedures).

[10] UNCITRAL Model Law, Article 34(3) (Application for setting aside as exclusive recourse against arbitral award).

[11] Clifford Chance, Qatar corporate legal framework 2013, https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/briefings/2013/10/qatar-corporate-legal-framework.pdf (last accessed 11 December 2025).

[12] QFC Regulations, Article 2 (Application), Article 6 (Scope of Application of the Regulations).

[13] QFC Regulations, Article 2 (Application).

[14] QFC Regulations, Article 37 (Form and Contents of Award).

[15] QFC Regulations, Article 14 (Appointment of Arbitrators).

[16] QFC Regulations, Article 41(2)(B)(ii) (Application for Setting Aside as Exclusive Recourse Against Award).

[17] QFC Regulations, Articles 42 (Recognition and Enforcement of Non-QFC Awards) and 43 (Grounds for Refusing Recognition or Enforcement).

[18] 2024 QICCA Rules, Introduction.

[19] A. Durrani et al., The 2024 QICCA Rules: Modernizing Arbitration Practices in Qatar, 24 March 2025, https://qatarlaw.com/article/the-2024-qicca-rules-modernizing-arbitration-practices-in-qatar (last accessed 11 December 2025).

[20] 2024 QICCA Rules, Article 5 (Notice of Arbitration).

[21] 2024 QICCA Rules, Chapter II (Arbitral Tribunal).

[22] 2024 QICCA Rules, Chapter III (Arbitral Proceedings).

[23] 2024 QICCA Rules, Article 10 (Consolidation of Arbitrations), Article 21 (Joinder).

[24] 2024 QICCA Rules, Chapter IV (Expedited Arbitration Procedures).

[25] 2024 QICCA Rules, Chapter V (Emergency Arbitrator Procedures).

[26] 2024 QICCA Rules, Article 9 (Third Party Funding of Arbitration).

[27] M. Khatchadourian, Controversial Ruling of the Qatari Court of Cassation Regarding Arbitral Awards, 23 September 2013, https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/controversial-ruling-of-the-qatari-court-of-cassation-regarding-arbitral-awards/ (last accessed 11 December 2025).

[28] Contracting States, https://www.newyorkconvention.org/contracting-states (last accessed 11 December 2025).

[29] A v B [2023] QIC (F) 16, para. 5.

[30] A v B [2023] QIC (F) 16, para. 7.

[31] A v B [2023] QIC (F) 16, para. 8.

[32] A v B [2023] QIC (F) 16, paras. 22-27.

[33] B v C [2024] QIC (F) 20, para. 62.

[34] B v C [2024] QIC (F) 20, para. 66.

[35] B v C [2024] QIC (F) 20, para. 124.

[36] C v D [2025] QIC (F) 44, para. 2.

[37] C v D [2025] QIC (F) 44, para. 4.

[38] C v D [2025] QIC (F) 44, para. 6.

[39] C v D [2025] QIC (F) 44, paras.  7-11.

[40] C v D [2025] QIC (F) 44, para. 14.

[41] ICSID, Qatar, https://icsid.worldbank.org/about/member-states/database-of-member-states/member-state-details?state=ST175 (last accessed 11 December 2025).

[42] UNCTAD, Qatar, https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/countries/171/qatar (last accessed 11 December 2025).

[43] Jus Mundi, Qatar, https://jusmundi.com/en/d/profile/state/qa#list-of-cases (last accessed 11 December 2025).

[44] T. Jones, Qatar to face multibillion treaty claim over unpaid judgment, 20 May 2025, https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/qatar-face-multibillion-treaty-claim-over-unpaid-judgment (last accessed 11 December 2025).

[45] UNCTAD, Panama-Qatar BIT, https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/treaties/bilateral-investment-treaties/2733/panama—qatar-bit-2010- (last accessed 11 December 2025).

[46] J. Ballantyne, Saudi investor’s treaty claim against Qatar underway at PCA, 16 May 2024, https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/pca-hears-saudi-investors-claim-against-qatar (last accessed 11 December 2025).

[47] French-Algerian Consulting Investor Lodges ICSID Claim Against Qatar, 15 September 2022, https://www.iareporter.com/articles/french-algerian-consulting-investor-lodges-icsid-claim-against-qatar/ (last accessed 11 December 2025).

[48] TV producer drops ICSID claim against Qatar, 25 July 2019, https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/tv-producer-drops-icsid-claim-against-qatar (last accessed 11 December 2025).