Abstract This paper argues that Saudi Arabia urgently needs a doctrinally coherent and culturally legitimate framework for secondary liability in online copyright. The argument is that a coherent framework is a structural necessity, not a technical refinement. The recent jurisdictional role of commercial courts in copyright cases under Vision 2030 highlights the growing importance of Sharia law in the digital realm. This article highlights a doctrinal vacuum at the heart of Saudi copyright law. The paper identifies a significant gap in Saudi Copyright law, namely its need for provisions to regulate the secondary liability of online service providers. The current legal framework, combined with the stringent content removal policies of the Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property, creates an uncertain environment that potentially discourages online business investment in Saudi Arabia. The paper proposes a dual reform strategy to address these issues: integrating authorisation liability into Saudi law informed by UK precedents and developing Sharia tort law. These reforms aim to create a predictable legal environment, fostering technological innovation and economic development while respecting Saudi Arabia’s legal and cultural heritage. The originality of this contribution lies in proposing a dual reform strategy: (i) integrating a Sharia-based doctrine of secondary liability; and (ii) selectively adapting the UK’s authorisation liability.
In mid-2013, Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court found a statutory provision in force at the time of the decision to be in violation of the constitutional provision declaring the principles of Islamic sharia the chief source of legislation (Article 2). It was the second time since the provision was originally introduced in the Constitution in 1971 and later amended in 1980. It had only happened once before, in 2006. In the ruling considered here, the Court confirmed its conventional construction of Article 2, and declared that in the case at hand the legislator had simply overstepped its boundaries by restricting the exercise of the grandparents' visitation rights to the case of the absence of parents. In the eyes of the Court, the legislator was entitled to regulate grandparents' visitation rights, but in doing so it did not properly align its intervention with the overall objectives of sharia (maq & amacr;sid). The ruling was issued in a relatively peaceful phase that followed a fierce and prolonged confrontation between the Court and Islamists the previous year.
The purpose of this article is to analyse and make an initial assessment of the Saudi legislative framework regarding E-commerce and data protection throughout a set of rules imposed on Internet service providers ( ISP s) to ensure confidentiality, integrity of data and the safety of online transactions. Some efforts have been made in the Middle East and beyond and making an initial assessment may help us strengthen the existing legal instruments. The basic postulate is that we deal with cybercrimes and potential transnational offences. States should cooperate on a bilateral and multilateral basis in order to increase data protection and both security and predictability of E-commerce. The analysis of European law which opted very early for increased protection of personal data and strict regulation of cyberspace could allow us to put into perspective the evolution of Saudi law and possibly try to bridge or improve its approach to the matter.
This paper aims to discuss controversial issues encountered by arbitral tribunals assigned to decide a particular dispute under UAE law. These issues are mainly related to preserving principles of competence-competence and separability, which might adversely affect the validity of the procedures undertaken by arbitral tribunals or the validity of final awards rendered by an arbitral tribunal. The aforementioned problematic scenarios can be noted in the context of the formation of arbitral tribunal, ordering interim, arbitration costs and waiver of arbitration agreement. The study will deploy qualitative legal method, through which an analytical approach will be applied on the UAE Arbitration Law and Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) Rules in order to illuminate the gaps in both sets that may affect the evidential value of the procedures undertaken in the context of the abovementioned issues. This paper concluded with a set of suggestions aimed at filling the gaps observed in the UAE arbitration Law and DIAC Rules in terms of the aforementioned issues.
The United Arab Emirates ( UAE ) has created a unique, comprehensive, and flexible legal framework for regulating the ownership and governance of family companies. This article examines how Federal Decree-Law No. 37 of 2022 on family businesses (the Family Business Law) addresses the main challenges faced by these companies. The article begins with an overview of the various definitions of family businesses, followed by a description of the definition adopted by the Family Business Law. The article then explores how the new law helps family businesses navigate the complexities of growth while preserving family control and the family’s long-term vision. The article further discusses the challenges associated with business continuity and analyses how the Family Business Law establishes robust corporate governance measures to support their long-term continuity and facilitate their transfer across generations.
The Jordanian Trademarks Law, as it stands today, suffered from the influence of imperial powers. Namely, the influence of the USA and UK has resulted in the introduction of a classification of trademarks, which is: "Foreign Trademarks". This paper proves the said influence through the standard of well-known trademarks under the Jordanian Trademarks Law, in addition to the preferential treatment of the foreign trademarks in terms of invalidity and annulment. It is argued that the privileges given to foreign trademarks were to the detriment of national trademarks. This paper is a call for Jordan to put national interests first in this area of law, and advances an argument for a legislative reform, De lege ferenda, and the way Jordanian courts and the trademarks' registrar should deal with the law as it stands today, De lege lata, in order to mitigate the loss that `national' marks currently suffer from.
This article discusses the exclusion of evidence in the Qatari and US legal systems. It focuses on the legal basis on which the exclusion of evidence is established in these two systems. The Qatari legal system is a dual system between Islamic Sharia and Qatari legislation. It relies heavily on the rule of invalidity, which is a procedural penalty that is applied when the conditions stipulated by the law are violated in relation to the procedure that was conducted. Meanwhile, the US legal system relies on the exclusionary rule, as this rule has a judicial source. This research discusses the exceptions to the exclusion of criminal evidence in the Qatari and US legal systems to explore how effective are these exceptions in achieving a balance between the goal of protecting the rights and freedoms of individuals and the goal of punishing criminals to preserve the stability of society.
Foreign direct investment agreements between Western corporations and the countries of the Middle East and North Africa region (MENA) deserve attention. On one side, the MENA region is a developing region rich in natural resources and therefore a destination interesting to Western investors. On the other, the MENA region is perceived as a volatile and unstable investment environment. Therefore, international investment agreements in the said region often include stabilisation clauses that serve as contractual mechanisms protecting investors from any changes in the laws and acts of nationalisation and expropriation by the host states. As stabilisation clauses have serious adverse effects on the sovereignty of the host states and the development of human rights, this article will take a deeper view of the stabilisation practice and aim to reveal how this contractual mechanism might represent a Catch 22 with respect to the further development of the MENA region countries, especially with respect to human rights and internal governance.
This article examines the phenomenon of cyberbullying from a legal perspective, focusing on the United Arab Emirates (‘ UAE ’). The increased use of technology in daily life has led to a rise in cybercrime, including cyberbullying. Children are frequent users of the cyber-world, and cyberbullying has become a significant issue that can have severe physical and psychological impacts. This paper aims to explore cyberbullying in the UAE and analyse the relevant provisions of two laws: the Federal Decree Law No. 34 of 2021 on Combating Rumours and Cybercrime and the Federal Decree Law No. 3 of 2016 on Child Rights . Specifically, the paper addresses two questions: whether the concept of cyberbullying is distinct from that of physical bullying, and, more importantly, whether existing UAE laws are sufficient to address cyberbullying. The paper concludes by highlighting the urgent need for the UAE to revise some provisions to tackle cyberbullying and protect users, especially children.
On 16 December 2023, the new Saudi Civil Transactions Law entered into force. The law, for the first time, provides a comprehensive codification of contract, tort, and property law in Saudi Arabia, hereby replacing Shar & imacr;'ah principles that the courts relied on in the past. The law is a milestone in the modernization of Saudi economic law. First, the codification will enhance legal certainty, given that it was often difficult to predict how a Saudi court would apply Shar & imacr;'ah principles to a present-day commercial contract. Second, the legal enactment demonstrates that the Saudi legislature does not shy away from legislating core areas of law and replacing Shar & imacr;'ah rules that - in theory - continue to be the supreme law of the land. In substance, many provisions of the new law appear to be inspired by Egyptian law. The implementation in Saudi judicial practice remains to be seen.
This study examines the appropriateness of the current rules that govern arbitration as a business-to-consumer alternative dispute resolution under Saudi law. It analyses existing legislation to determine the main weaknesses and shortcomings as well as the changes and underlying policies that aim to empower consumers while not overtly compromising the interests of traders. This study found that arbitration includes both advantages and drawbacks for both contracting parties; in particular, the application of the rules regulating arbitration in the current legislation may create serious risks that harm the interests of the consumer. Although most of these challenges have been addressed by the 2022 Consumer Protection Bill, more needs to be done through legislative intervention.
The ultimate aim of this research is to conceptually present a new phenomenon of officializing a new Islamic legal methodology (uṣūl al-fiqh) utilized to deduce jurisprudential rulings pertaining to Islamic finance. With the existence of Islamic international bodies and Islamic financial infrastructure organizations, contemporary Islamic financial rulings do not necessarily depend on the legal methodology adopted by a particular jurisprudential school of thought. Rather, such international bodies include Sharīʿah jurisconsults in their Sharīʿah boards who depend on diverse classical Islamic legal methodologies when deducing rulings pertaining to Islamic financial practices. This research historically displays the beginnings of uṣūl al-fiqh during the 9–11 Century, and thereafter argues that since the codification of uṣūl al-fiqh is a developing science, the standardization effort by AAOIFI may officially be considered as a new approach to uṣūl al-fiqh (a form of unification). It includes an empirical enquiry, displaying that the concept of unified uṣūl is already in existence, in one form or another.
Abstract This article investigates jurisdictional and legal conflicts within the United Arab Emirates’ ( UAE ) federal family law system. As a federation of seven emirates, the UAE features overlapping jurisdictions and a pluralistic legal framework in which family law is applied based on factors such as nationality, religion, and domicile. Recent legislative reforms, both federally and in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, have added further complexity to this landscape. This article examines the substantive and jurisdictional scope of various family law codes, interpreting them through constitutional principles and relevant case law. It also highlights the recent, unexpected invocation of the doctrine of forum non conveniens , previously absent in UAE jurisprudence, in family law proceedings. Additionally, this piece addresses the challenges of managing parallel litigation across multiple legal forums. By unpacking these jurisdictional tensions, this article offers broader insights into federalism, legal pluralism, and the governance of family law in multi-jurisdictional states.
International petroleum agreements may be impacted in numerous ways depending on the interpretation of the various contract provisions contained within them dealing with unforeseen or supervening events, such as force majeure . Any unseen event that may occur after conclusion of the contract can have a striking impact on the performance of said contract and may make performance impossible, illegal, or completely different from what the parties envisioned at the outset. Force majeure is seen as a difficult principle to grapple with within the oil and gas industry due to the secretive nature of the business. It is hard to ascertain the true extent of the use of force majeure clauses due to the preference of alternative dispute resolution. However, due to current events, increased litigation is being triggered, pushing force majeure to the fore and making it a topic of huge but widely misunderstood import. This research examines the principle of force majeure vis-a-vis international petroleum agreements and contractual risk from its historic beginnings, its development, to its treatment in selected oil producing countries. This includes Arabian Gulf countries with the overarching influence of the Sharīʿah , and the North Sea, and the effects its corresponding clauses have on international petroleum agreements.
This article examines the influential yet discretionary role of administrative agencies in merger control within the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. These agencies recognize the potential effects of mergers on market structure and employ their discretionary powers to strike a balance in enforcement decisions. This task is particularly challenging in jurisdictions with emerging administrative agencies, such as those in the GCC, where economic priorities, informal economies, and limited awareness and advocacy shape decision-making. As companies merge, the markets they operate in undergo significant changes. Mergers may increase concentration, distort competition, and create barriers to entry; yet, they can also generate efficiencies, reduce costs, and enhance resource utilization. Against this backdrop, it becomes crucial to analyse the discretionary powers of administrative agencies in merger control. This research addresses that need, filling an important gap in the existing scholarly literature on the region.
After nearly a decade, Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court confirmed the constitutionality of Decree-Law No. 34 of 2014, issued by the interim President and former sCC President Adli Mansur. This law has been highly controversial due to its significant restrictions on judicial appeals concerning contracts made by the state or its affiliated entities. The law stands in opposition to the trend within Egyptian administrative courts, which had broadened the scope for accepting such appeals. These courts viewed judicial oversight of state contracts as a fundamental safeguard in the privatization process, particularly in light of irregularities in some of these agreements. The Egyptian administrative judiciary had grounded this expansive approach in several constitutional provisions, consistently reaffirmed in republican-era constitutions, which emphasized the people's ownership of public projects and their duty to protect them. To halt the series of rulings invalidating many state contracts, constitutional amendments were introduced, setting the stage for the enactment of Decree-Law No. 34 of 2014. Although the Supreme Constitutional Court offered several arguments to justify the law's constitutionality, these justifications are open to alternative interpretations. In practice, the ruling has lowered the judicial safeguards surrounding state contracts, which contrasts with the broader protective trends seen in comparative legal systems.
The theory of acts of sovereignty is a serious limitation on the scope of judicial review. This paper examines the recent applications of the theory by the Egyptian State Council and the Supreme Constitutional Court which aim to widen the scope of judicial review by limiting the applications of the theory of acts of sovereignty. The two cases studied were decided amid political tensions. These cases cannot be understood separately from the political environment in which they were decided and the status of guarantees made for the impartiality of judges within this context. This paper argues that although both cases are important steps forward, they fail to establish a lasting limitation on the theory.
The legislative texts that drew the framework of the BOT contract in Lebanon did not address the question of the qualification of said contract. It is therefore appropriate to turn to the qualification that has been given to them by the courts, as well as the comments that have been made by the doctrine about them. In this article I will analyse the decisions that have been rendered so far and which have opted as a whole for the qualification of these contracts as concession contracts before addressing the question of the legal nature of these contracts as envisaged by the doctrine. We will conclude with an analysis of the scope of the arguments criticizing the qualification of the BOT contract as a concession contract.
