Ghazi Ayed Alghathian
College of Law, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Contemporary Issues in Arbitration Agreements: Sharia Public Order and Civil Law Perspectives Ghazi Ayed Alghathian; Mohammad Saleh Alqudah; Adel Salem Allouzi; Mashal Mufleh Jarrah
MILRev: Metro Islamic Law Review Vol. 5 No. 2 (2026): MilRev: Metro Islamic Law Review
Publisher : Faculty of Sharia, UIN Jurai Siwo Lampung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.32332/milrev.v5i2.13682

Abstract

This study examines contemporary issues concerning the law applicable to arbitration agreements in multinational corporate contracts and evaluates their compatibility with Sharia public order across five jurisdictions: France, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Against the backdrop of evolving international arbitration practice, the study employs a doctrinal comparative legal methodology, supplemented by an illustrative analysis of 50 arbitration clauses from multinational corporate contracts, to assess contemporary drafting practices. The research analyzes three core doctrines of international arbitration law: separability of the arbitration agreement, extension of arbitration clauses to non-signatory group companies, and party autonomy in the choice of applicable law. The findings demonstrate that the separability doctrine is generally compatible with Sharia under the maxim al-‘ibrah bi al-maqāṣid wa al-ma‘ānī lā bi al-alfāẓ wa al-mabānī (substance over form), except where the main contract is void ab initio for violating a definitive (qaṭ‘ī) prohibition such as ribā or maysir. The study further finds that extension of arbitration agreements to non-signatories is permissible only upon clear evidence of fraud, active participation, or explicit or implied consent, while mere economic unity is insufficient under Sharia principles of contractual privity. In relation to party autonomy, the study concludes that parties may freely choose the governing law of the arbitration agreement provided that the chosen law does not contravene definitive Sharia prohibitions. The article proposes a reconciled framework based on a cumulative method that preserves party autonomy while requiring compliance with definitive Sharia norms forming part of public order in certain Arab jurisdictions. The study's academic contribution lies in integrating the doctrines of separability, non-signatory extension, and applicable law within a contemporary Sharia-based comparative framework. The findings offer practical guidance for cross-border commercial arbitration.
Beyond Corporate Separateness: Parent Company Liability for Foreign Subsidiaries’ Employment Obligations under Conflict-of-Laws Rules Ghazi Ayed Alghathian; Ali Alhag Ali Mohammed; Mohammad Saleh Alqudah; Talal Alroud; Sami Mohammad Al-Kharabsheh
Nusantara: Journal of Law Studies Vol. 5 No. 2 (2026): Nusantara: Journal of Law Studies
Publisher : PT. Islamic Research Publiser

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.66325/nusantaralaw.v5i2.391

Abstract

The expansion of multinational corporations and the increasing cross-border mobility of workers have intensified legal uncertainty concerning employment obligations within corporate groups. A particularly complex issue arises when employees formally employed by foreign subsidiaries seek to hold parent companies liable for employment-related obligations, thereby challenging the traditional doctrine of separate corporate personality. This study examines the circumstances under which a parent company may be held liable for employment obligations arising from contracts concluded with foreign subsidiaries and how such liability should be determined under conflict-of-laws rules. The study employs descriptive, analytical, and comparative legal methods, examining legislation, judicial decisions, and scholarly literature from Jordan, Egypt, France, and the European Union, with particular reference to the Rome I Regulation. The analysis focuses on party autonomy, the employee’s habitual place of work, the place of business through which the employee was engaged, the closest connection, and the location of the parent company’s central administration as relevant connecting factors. It further examines effective control, legal subordination, corporate separateness, and the protective function of labour law in determining the actual employer and allocating responsibility within multinational corporate structures. The findings demonstrate that relying exclusively on the parent company’s central administration as the principal connecting factor may produce outcomes that privilege corporate interests while inadequately protecting employees’ legitimate expectations and the realities of their employment relationships. The study therefore proposes a protective conflict-of-laws framework for Jordan that combines limited party autonomy, the habitual place of work as the primary connecting factor, a closest-connection exception, overriding mandatory labour protections, and parent-company liability where effective control over material employment decisions can be established. The study contributes to comparative private international law by reconceptualizing parent-company liability beyond formal corporate separateness and developing a worker-oriented framework for resolving cross-border employment disputes within multinational corporate groups.