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
-
Ambassador François Alabrune on Current Challenges to International Justice
Ambassador Lecture Series with François Alabrune, Ambassador of France to the Kingdom of the Netherlands
-
William A. Schabas on the Genocide Convention before the International Court of Justice
The Maastricht Centre for Human Rights hosted the 2026 edition of the Theo van Boven Lecture with William A. Schabas
-
Mapping the Bitis Trade: Disentangling Value Constructions, Security Perceptions, and Practices in the Making of a Wildlife Economy
PhD thesis by Janine Heim