The Assurance of Neutrality
Established by legislative decree in 2024, the Bahrain International Commercial Court (BICC) is a unique dispute resolution mechanism in the MENA region. There are only two such courts in the world, the other being the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) created 10 years earlier. (Other jurisdictions have courts specialized in international transactions but staffed entirely by of national judges, and thus are no more “international” than other specialized national courts, for example in the areas of taxation, insolvency, or intellectual property.)
These two unique Courts have been created to ensure neutrality in the resolution of international commercial disputes by its selection of eminent judges from a range of countries. The availability of such reliably neutral resolution of disputes justifies confidence in the security of international commercial transactions.
The qualities of chosen adjudicators is obviously of key importance. Serious parties look for analytical skill, wisdom, experience, and diligence. But the essential criterion is neutrality. Without it the other qualities are illusory. At one negative extreme are arbitrators or judges who favour one party because they have been appointed by that party or because they are influenced by national or regional interests or sympathies. Less objectionable (though still problematic) are those who consciously or unconsciously feel that they have a special duty to “understand” the conduct of one of the parties. Others may be thought – correctly or not – to be overly prone to uphold contracts irrespective of their legal deficiencies, or (at the other extreme) overly influenced by sympathy for parties who claim to be surprised by the consequences of what turns out to have been a poor bargain.
The roster of Judges of the BICC are identified in this link, selected with the assurance of the most rigorous neutrality.
An additional unique feature of the BICC is that parties dissatisfied with a judgment have a choice. They may either appeal to a different panel of BICC judges or else to seek appeal before SICC. This unique feature has been achieved by a formal treaty between the Kingdom of Bahrain and the Republic of Singapore.
Salient characteristics
Non-Bahraini lawyers may represent claimants in cases conducted either in Arabic or English without the need for translation.
Judgments that have been upheld on appeal (whether by BICC or SICC) cannot be reviewed by other courts of Bahrain.
Arbitral awards rendered in Bahrain may be challenged before BICC if the parties have so agreed at the outset. The grounds for such setting aside are set out in the Bahrain’s Arbitration Law which is modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law.
Arbitral awards rendered in Bahrain may be enforced within the Kingdom if the prevailing party so chooses.
But if they are only sought to be enforced elsewhere, awards rendered in Bahrain do not require judicial confirmation (sometimes referred to as exequatur). So-called double exequatur (rendered in the place of arbitration as well as in the place of enforcement) are a thing of the past due to the 1958 New York Convention. (In the event that one is nevertheless required in an atypical jurisdiction, it may be granted in Bahrain.)
Due to its access to fresh water in an otherwise arid region, Bahrain has been permanently inhabited for thousands of years, and was the seat of the Dilmun Empire. It became the administrative seat of Britain’s Gulf Residency which for 150 years until independence in 1971 acted as the Protectorate of what are now the States of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. Bahrain has a proportionally large indigenous population in which bilingualism is current. Of interest in relation to BICC is that since 2019, it follows the rule that even disputes under domestic contracts if drafted in English are dealt with by pleadings and judgments in English including at the Court of Cassation.
An instructive study by the law firm Reed Smith (“Analysis of Challenges to Arbitration Awards Report 2025”) covering the years 2018 to 2024 has revealed that no less than 92.37% of arbitral awards challenged before the Bahraini courts were dismissed. (The Arbitration Law of 2015 broadly reproduces the text of the UNCITRAL Model Law, a Bahraini delegation having participated actively in the numerous sessions in Vienna and New York near-decade which led to the Model Law’s adoption in 2019.)
Costs
International commercial disputes can be expensive.
Arbitrations are funded by its users. These costs are not limited to those incurred by the parties and the arbitrators; they also include the acquisition and upkeep of premises as well as the salaries of legal and other support staff.
Three decades ago, institutional reports estimated that the overall cost of arbitrations were roughly distributed as follows: around 2% being the fees of the institutions and some 17% the fees and expenses of arbitrators and their assistants. This meant that some 80% were costs incurred by the disputants.
Today the variety of institutions is greater than in the past, and generalisations may be unreliable. Still, users do complain of the rising costs of the seemingly ever larger teams of teams of lawyers and experts; it appears most unlikely that the 80% figure has diminished.
An international commercial court like BICC can hardly impose limits on what parties choose to spend to present their claims and expenses. But what experienced commercial judges can do is to ensure that cases are managed cost-efficiently, and avoid the costs created by inexperienced arbitrators – not to mention those who are appointed unilaterally and in some cases prone to excess in rehabilitating unmeritorious arguments.
A familiar choice with respect to the remuneration of adjudicators is between compensation for time spent and for the amount in dispute. The former may lead to inefficiency; the latter may seem to justify seemingly excessive charges for cases of that are of high value but relatively simple points of contention. BICC has chosen the former as unlikely to give rise to inefficiencies, especially given the experience of its judges and the fact that they are not appointed by individual parties. In addition, some judges are active on national benches where they receive a salary even when given leave to sit as BICC judges.