Differences between Saudi Arabia and Australia in Law - Assignment Example

Because of its increased popularity, it has attracted the attention of many governments and legislators that are interested in organizing laws. Analysis showed that the international foreign arbitral awards cases are normally related to large sums of money and this affects the economy of the country.

Handling these cases, therefore, needs to be effective. Legal Obstacles in the Enforcement or Recognition of an Arbitral Award Made In One Country within the Territory of another CountryEnforcement and recognition of an arbitral award are not characterized by legal obstacles. There is only a difference in legislation that creates the perception of legal obstacles. For the implementation of the provisions of foreign arbitral awards, there are rules and principles guiding the process. Under these rules and principles, the two countries have different formal requirements, definitions, the scope of some legislative limits (like public policy and arbitrability), and legislations guiding the courts.

These differences create the perception that there are legal obstacles. In Saudi Arabia for example, under the formal requirements for application of an arbitral award, there must be an authenticated original award or a certified copy, an official paper showing proof of notification of the award to all parties, an official paper to prove that the award is final, proof of proper announcement of liabilities if the judgment was in absentia, and translation of all the documents presented required for the implementation of the award into the official language, which is Arabic.

These compared to the Australian formal requirements may seem a lot more. In Australia, the formal requirements under the role of legislation are; a duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy, and a duly authenticated original from the arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy. These documents must have certified translations in English. There are three more formal requirements in the Saudi Arabian system which may seem an obstacle compared to the Australian that only has three.

The reason for setting these (an official paper showing proof of notification of the award to all parties, an official paper to prove that the award is final, and proof of proper announcement of liabilities if the judgment was in absentia) as formal requirements by the country is not known and investigations should focus on understanding the reason for the inclusion of such extra requirements. This does not mean that these conditions cannot be met. It is just a clear example of the difference in legislation between the countries in implementing foreign arbitral awards.

It does not make one country just and the other unfair.