Qatar developments strengthen its position as international arbitration hub

From significant court rulings to concerted efforts to improve the transparency and availability of arbitral services available, Qatar finds itself in a notably advanced position compared to 12 months ago.

With increased competition for potential seats of arbitration, both across the Middle East and Asia more broadly, the moves highlight how Qatar is taking its role seriously.

Reshaping Qatari arbitration rules

The second half of the year saw the country’s Ministry of Justice published two new draft laws for consultation aimed specifically at bolstering Qatar as a hub for arbitration for years to come.

• Read more: international arbitration developments and trends for 2025-26

First came the proposed launch of a mandatory electronic register for arbitrators. Those wishing to be registered would be required to fulfil strict criteria including the requirement to have a university degree, a track record of good conduct with no dishonesty convictions, and a minimum of 10 years experience in a relevant field, such as economics or law. They would also need to have participated in, or issued, a minimum of five arbitral awards: these must be provided to the Ministry of Justice, together with certified Arabic translations if applicable. Registration fees are QAR 2,000 (approx. US$550) for Qatari nationals and QAR 5,000 for non-nationals.

The register is a welcome tool for the judiciary in Qatar, when parties do not elect an arbitral institution and the courts are required to assist parties with the appointment of appropriately qualified arbitrators. The change emphasises the professionalism required of arbitrators in Qatar.

Successful registration would see confirmed arbitrators’ details published on the Ministry of Justice website, in line with a drive for transparency and professional standards.

Alongside this, plans were also revealed for a new licencing regime for international arbitration centres looking to operate from Qatar. To ensure high standards for those approved, centres would need to demonstrate their technical capacity and at least 15 consecutive years’ experience in arbitration elsewhere. Foreign centres looking to operate from the region would need to have permanent headquarters in Qatar, have significant professional indemnity insurance and operate a list of at least 30 arbitrators with various degrees of expertise.

The consultations, which closed in September 2025, are likely to play a major part in shaping Qatar’s approach to arbitration in 2026 and follow on from the introduction of new rules by the Qatar International Centre for Conciliation and Arbitration that came into effect at the start of 2025.

Legal factors

In June 2025, the Qatar Financial Centre (QFC) Court released new rules modernising procedures. From an arbitration perspective, particularly helpful changes include a new process to allow for default judgments; a streamlined appeals procedure; and recognition of electronic service.

These changes align the QFC Court with international best practices in arbitration.

Decisions by the QFC court in 2025 have also shone a spotlight on the state’s dual jurisdiction nature when it comes to arbitration. Qatar’s Arbitration Law of 2017 is the law governing arbitration in the state of Qatar while the QFC, which is independent of the state of Qatar in respect of legal, financial and administrative matters, has its own Arbitration Regulations, which were introduced in 2005 and amended in 2024.

The Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre (QICDRC) is an umbrella term referring to all of the services of the QFC Civil and Commercial Court and the QFC Regulatory Tribunal. These distinctions are important for parties to bear in mind when drafting arbitration agreements in Qatar.

This was the subject of analysis in August 2025 in a case known as D v E (13-page / 330KB PDF), where the QFC Civil and Commercial Court was asked to decide on its jurisdiction in relation to a contract which contained a dispute resolution clause in favour of “arbitration in Doha, Qatar, before one arbitrator. The arbitration shall be administered by the Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre (QICDRC) pursuant to its rules.”

The judgment helpfully provided guidance on the approach the court will take to interpreting ambiguous arbitration agreements.

It said: “The proper construction and interpretation of a commercial arbitration clause must give effect to the practical purpose it serves. Arbitration represents the parties’ chosen method for resolving disputes and that choice should be supported in a robust and commercially sensible way consistent with the language they have used. Fine distinctions of text, semantics or legalism should be eschewed if the words of commercial people are tolerably clear or bear a meaning which gives efficacy to their bargain. Where alternative interpretations are possible, the interpretation that sustains the parties’ agreement to arbitrate is to be preferred over one that undermines its effectiveness or casts doubt upon its enforceability.”

With this in mind, the court analysed several alternative possible meanings of the dispute resolution clause and concluded that the seat of the arbitration is Doha and the parties chose the QICDRC (i.e. the QFC Civil and Commercial Court) as the “Competent Court” in terms of the Qatar Arbitration Law. The court therefore held that it had the power to appoint an arbitrator.