A comparative legal analysis of the role of arbitration in maritime dispute resolution

Abstract

The need for a suitable harmonisation of the procedural rules in maritime arbitration between the conventional system and the Islamic law model is a matter of great concern in the face of global economic meltdown. This synchronization between the two jurisdictions can be achieved when major elements of successful arbitral proceedings like equity and amiable composition are closely considered. The growing disaffection of parties for arbitration in the international commercial arbitral landscape may have a dominant effect in commercial maritime arbitration. This dissertation examines the role of arbitration in commercial maritime dispute resolution with a comparative appraisal of the conventional practice and Islamic law. The methodology adopted in this research is multidimensional. It involves both library-based research and interviews from stakeholders. The research concludes that for a party-friendly and cost-effective maritime arbitration, there is need for an all-embracing model arbitration clause in form of stepped-clauses. This will afford the parties the opportunity to explore other dispute resolution processes within the overall parasol of arbitration. The Tahkīm proceedings introduced over 1,400 years ago is still relevant in the modern practice of arbitration. A well-coordinated harmonisation of the respective rules will promote international trade and secure ongoing business relationship.