PhD defence Ibrahim Shehata
Supervisors: Prof. Dr. Bas van Zelst, Prof. Dr. Marta Pertegás Sender
Keywords: Overriding Mandatory Rules, International Commercial Arbitration, Private International Law, Public Policy
"Overriding Mandatory Rules in International Commercial Arbitration, a Comparative Study between France, Switzerland, England and Egypt"
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.
Click here for the live stream.
Also read
-
PhD defence Krishnamani Jayaraman
" Bridging the valley of death: a socio-legal theoretical exposition"PhD defence26 May -
PhD defence Meihe Xu
" One Size Fits None: Effectiveness and Acceptability of Personalized Transparency and Privacy Assistance in the United States, the European Union, and China"PhD defence17 Jun -
PhD defence Selman Aksünger
" Beyond Shifting Shores: Rethinking Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources in the Context of Sea-Level Rise"PhD defence24 Jun