Background The 2023 Rules of the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) mark a significant shift in Saudi Arabia’s approach to procedural innovation, introducing an Emergency Arbitrator (EA) mechanism and comprehensive provisions for virtual and hybrid hearings. While these developments enhance procedural efficiency and align Saudi practice with global arbitration norms, they raise important questions regarding due process, enforceability, and compatibility with Sharia-based procedural principles. Methods This article employs a doctrinal and comparative legal methodology, critically examining the legal foundations, procedural safeguards, and enforceability of the SCCA’s emergency and online arbitration provisions. The analysis draws on comparative institutional rules (ICC, SIAC, LCIA), Saudi arbitration and enforcement legislation, the New York Convention, and normative insights from Islamic jurisprudence. Results The 2023 SCCA Rules largely succeed in balancing procedural fairness with operational flexibility. The EA mechanism provides rapid interim relief consistent with global standards, and the framework for virtual hearings integrates cybersecurity protocols and evidentiary safeguards. However, gaps remain regarding the legal characterization of EA decisions under the Saudi Enforcement Law, guidance on tribunal discretion, digital evidence standards, and cross-border enforceability. Sharia-based principles of harm prevention, fairness, and truth-seeking are broadly consistent with SCCA innovations but impose additional requirements on implementation. Conclusions The article proposes a Hybrid Saudi Arbitration Model that integrates global best practices with Sharia-anchored notions of justice, accountability, and harm prevention. Strengthening due process protections, clarifying enforceability mechanisms, and standardizing virtual hearing protocols will be essential for positioning Saudi Arabia as a credible and competitive regional arbitration hub.
Alotaibi et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: