Overriding Mandatory Rules in International Commercial Arbitration, a Comparative Study between France, Switzerland, England and Egypt
Written by: Ibrahim Shehata
Supervisors: Prof. Dr. Bas van Zelst and Prof. Dr. Marta Pertegás Sender
Keywords: Overriding Mandatory Rules, International Commercial Arbitration, Private International Law, Public Policy
International commercial arbitration often encounters “overriding mandatory rules” – national laws so important that a country insists on applying them no matter what law the parties choose. The thesis asks how arbitrators can navigate these rules effectively. Ignoring them can get an award overturned by courts, but following them too rigidly undermines the parties’ freedom to set their own terms.
The research blends theory, case studies, and a comparison of multiple legal systems to find a balanced approach. The research suggests arbitrators should apply crucial mandatory laws when needed (especially those of the contract’s chosen law or the country where arbitration is held) to ensure their decisions hold up in court. By balancing party autonomy with respect for vital laws, arbitration can remain an effective and trustworthy way to resolve international disputes.
Also read
-
Protecting children’s rights in non-existent states
What happens to the universal rights of a child when their home is a “de-facto” state—a political entity that has all the hallmarks of nationhood, yet is not officially recognised? And who bears legal and moral responsibility for these children when war breaks out? These issues lie at the heart of the... -
24-hour Organized Crime Online Conference #OC24
24-hour Conference on Global Organized Crime 2025
-
Andrés Caceres Solari on No room for Human Rights in Gaza and Ukraine: How the Law Legitimizes Urban Devastation
Pick Our Brains Session with Andres Caceres Solari