A Feasibility Study of the Validity of Arbitration Clause in International Contracts Based on Islamic Jurisprudence

Abstract

One of the indisputable principles in Islamic international relations is Nafy-e-Sabil Rule (no domination over Muslims by Non-Muslims) according to which the basic rule is that any agreement in which Muslims or the Islamic State is somehow dominated by non-Muslims is not valid and its performance is not required. One of the issues in which non-Muslim domination over Muslims is controversial is non-Muslim arbitration in Muslim-non-Muslim or even Muslim-Muslim claims in Islamic states which is usually stipulated as a subordinate obligation in the contract that is called “arbitration clause”. According to the primary rule, the denial or Nafy-e-Sabil Rule rejects such obligations that require a Sabil, however, necessity, hardship (haraj), and expediency are among the topics that, if fulfilled, can be considered for a departure from the elementary rule. The present study is an attempt to explain the nature and validity of the arbitration clause in the contracts of Islamic states in the international arena which has been conducted by descriptive and analytical method. It has finally led to this conclusion that the arbitration clause and referral of the arbitrator to the infidel, although at the first is overcome by the rule of Nafy-e-Sabil and, as a consequence, is ineffective, but the secondary rule in the field of haraj and expediency governs it. This analysis justifies the accession of Islamic states to international conventions. Furthermore, some jurisprudential-legal solutions have been provided to get out of the rule of Nafy-e-Sabil Rule.

Keywords

• nafy-e-sabil rule
• arbitration clause
• arbitration in international contracts
• islamic law
• international conventions