Prior Authorization to Resort to Arbitration in Administrative Contracts: A Comparative Study between Jordanian, Egyptian and French Legislation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35246/s6kgrs75Keywords:
Prior Authorization, Administrative Contracts, Arbitration ClauseAbstract
This research addresses the issue of “prior administrative authorization” as a condition for resorting to arbitration in administrative contract disputes. It examines this requirement as a point of delicate balance between party autonomy in contracts on the one hand, and the requirements of legality, protection of public funds, and ensuring the continuity of public service on the other. The study is based on a central question: Does this authorization constitute an objective restriction on the arbitrability of administrative contract disputes, or is it merely an internal procedural requirement governing the authority of the public official to conclude an arbitration agreement? It also examines the legal consequences of the absence of such authorization on the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement, both domestically and internationally. The study adopts a comparative and analytical methodology, focusing on Jordan, Egypt, and France. It examines the legal basis, nature, and limits of prior authorization, the competent authority to issue it, and its legal effects. In Egyptian legislation, prior authorization appears as an explicit requirement for concluding arbitration agreements in administrative contract disputes, linked to the approval of the competent minister or his authorized representative, while strictly limiting delegation of this power. This reflects a legislative approach aimed at regulating arbitration within the administration and reducing the risk of unjustified waiver of the jurisdiction of administrative courts. In the French legal system, the general principle is the prohibition of arbitration involving public persons, except where specific legislative provisions provide otherwise. Accordingly, authorization whether legislative or regulatory constitutes the gateway that transforms the prohibition into permissibility in limited and exceptional cases. In the Jordanian system, arbitration law generally allows public legal persons to resort to arbitration without requiring a condition equivalent to ministerial approval. This raises practical questions regarding the internal administrative controls necessary to safeguard legality and public funds when including arbitration clauses in administrative contracts.
The study concludes by developing a comparative framework that distinguishes between “prior authorization” as a limitation on the authority of the administrative representative to conclude an arbitration clause, and “arbitrability of the dispute” as a matter of public order and judicial competence. It further explains the practical implications of each characterization in terms of the legal consequence of missing authorization (invalidity, non-enforceability, or liability), the scope of judicial review, and its impact on contractual stability and investment attractiveness in administrative contracts.
Downloads
References
I. . al-Muḥtasib, Aḥmad Hānī Sulaymān. (2024). mashrūʻīyat al-lujūʼ ilá al-taḥkīm fī munāzaʻāt al-ʻuqūd al-Idārīyah fī ẓill Qānūn al-taḥkīm al-Urdunī. Majallat Jāmiʻat al-Ḥasan al-Awwal lil-Buḥūth wa-al-Dirāsāt al-ʻUlyā, 34 (2).
II. . maydānī, ʻA. (2017). Qānūn al-Sharākah bayna al-qiṭāʻayn al-ʻāmm wa-al-khāṣṣ fī Miṣr : tanẓīm al-taḥkīm fī al-ʻuqūd al-Idārīyah. al-Majallah al-Miṣrīyah lil-qānūn al-idārī, 23 (4), 56-70.
III. . Sylvie, b. (2019). al-taḥkīm fī al-ʻuqūd al-Idārīyah al-Faransīyah : Taṭawwur al-tashrīʻ wa-al-raqābah al-qaḍāʼīyah. Dār al-Nashr al-qānūnīyah al-Faransīyah.1
IV. Abd Allāh, Aḥmad Muḥammad. (2023). The Legal System for Arbitration in Partnership Contracts Between the Public and Private Sectors : A Comparative Analytical Study in Light of Legislative Developments. Jāmiʻat al-Zaytūnah al-Urdunīyah.
V. Abd Allāh, M. (2021). muwāfaqah al-Wazīr al-Mukhtaṣṣ fī al-taḥkīm : dawruhā fī al-taʼthīr ʻalá al-munāzaʻāt al-Idārīyah. Majallat al-Dirāsāt al-qānūnīyah wa-al-idārīyah, 49 (2), 112-126
VI. al-Hayʼah al-ʻĀmmah lil-taḥkīm, (2021). Qānūn al-taḥkīm al-Miṣrī : aḥkāmuhu wa-taṭbīqātuhu fī al-ʻuqūd al-Idārīyah. Manshūrāt al-Hayʼah al-ʻĀmmah lil-taḥkīm.
VII. al-Murrī, F. (2022). Dawr al-qaḍāʼ al-idārī fī Raqābat al-taḥkīm fī al-ʻuqūd al-Idārīyah : dirāsah fī ḍawʼ al-tashrīʻāt al-Faransīyah wa-al-Miṣrīyah. Dār al-Thaqāfah al-qānūnīyah.
VIII. al-Rīḥānī, S. (2018). Athar ghiyāb al-idhn almsbq ʻalá ḥukm al-taḥkīm fī al-ʻuqūd al-Idārīyah : dirāsah muqāranah. Majallat al-taḥkīm al-Dawlīyah, 16 (1), 89-102.
IX. al-Shurfāt, Fawzī Sulaymān Muḥammad, & alfāqyr, Ḥassān ʻAlī. (2023). al-taḥkīm fī munāzaʻāt al-ʻuqūd al-Idārīyah wafqa al-tashrīʻ al-Urdunī : dirāsah muqāranah. al-Majallah al-Dawlīyah lil-ʻUlūm al-Insānīyah wa-al-Ijtimāʻīyah, 13 (3). — dirāsah taḥlīlīyah ḥadīthah ʻan al-taḥkīm fī munāzaʻāt al-ʻuqūd al-Idārīyah wafqa al-tashrīʻ al-Urdunī, maʻa muqāranah fiqhīyah wa-qaḍāʼīyah.
X. Awwād, ʻA. (2020). al-taḥkīm fī al-ʻuqūd al-Idārīyah : dirāsah muqāranah bayna al-anẓimah al-qānūnīyah al-Urdunīyah wa-al-Miṣrīyah wa-al-Faransīyah. Dār al-Nashr al-qānūnīyah.
XI. Bantekas, I., & Paton, A. (2021). International Arbitration and Public Policy: The Role of Governmental Consent in Administrative Contracts. Oxford University Press.
XII. Daoud, N., & Bernard, F. (2021). L'arbitrage administratif et la protection des fonds publics : Un examen des mécanismes de consentement préalable. Presses Universitaires de France.
XIII. Dāwūd, Aḥmad Fāyiz Shiḥādah. (2025). The Authority of the Arbitration Ruling Issued in Administrative Contract Disputes Under the Palestinian Arbitration Law. Journal of Al-Quds Open University for Humanities and Social Studies, 7 (67).
XIV. Durand, C., & Lemoine, S. (2020). Le droit de l'arbitrage dans les contrats publics: Contrôle judiciaire et consentement préalable. Éditions Dalloz.
XV. Ḥasan, ʻA. (2021). al-idhn almsbq fī al-taḥkīm : al-qayd al-qānūnī wa-āthāruh ʻalá al-ʻuqūd al-Idārīyah fī al-tashrīʻ al-Miṣrī. Majallat al-qānūn al-Miṣrī, 45 (3), 231-245.
XVI. Jamāl, M. (2019). murājaʻat qānūnīyah li-mafhūm al-idhn almsbq fī ʻUqūd al-Sharākah bayna al-qiṭāʻayn al-ʻāmm wa-al-khāṣṣ. Majallat al-Ḥuqūq wa-al-ʻadālah, 38 (2), 157-173.
XVII. Jeandel, P., & Lambert, M. (2022). L’arbitrage dans les contrats administratifs: Théories et pratiques en droit français. LGDJ.
XVIII. Kinnear, D., & Sanders, L. (2020). The Public Sector and Arbitration: Challenges in Administrative Contracts and Dispute Resolution. Cambridge University Press.
XIX. Lefèvre, P., & Carpentier, H. (2022). Les enjeux de l’arbitrage dans les contrats publics: Problématique de l'accord préalable de l’administration. Revue de droit administratif, 19(4), 391-415.
XX. Lemoine, S. (2020). Arbitrage et souveraineté de l’État dans les contrats publics. Revue des contrats publics, 56(2), 78-94.
XXI. Marām ʻĀdil Muḥammad. (2019). al-taḥkīm fī al-ʻuqūd al-Idārīyah : al-shurūṭ al-qānūnīyah ljwāz al-lujūʼ ilayhi wa-atharuhā ʻalá al-ʻuqūd. Qāʻidat bayānāt māndwmā.
XXII. Redfern, A., & Hunter, M. (2022). Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration. Sweet & Maxwell.
XXIII. Sreenivasan, P. (2021). State Sovereignty and International Arbitration: Legal Boundaries in Public Sector Contracts. Routledge.
XXIV. Sulaymān, U. (2020). al-taḥkīm fī al-ʻuqūd al-Idārīyah : Mawqif al-qaḍāʼ al-Faransī min ghiyāb al-idhn almsbq. Dār al-Nashr al-Faransīyah lil-qānūn.
XXV. Yates, A., & Lloyd, E. (2020). Arbitration in Government Contracts: Regulatory Implications and Challenges. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 11(3), 245-267.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dr. Mohmmad Husien Almajali
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Licensing:
For all articles published in Journal of Legal Sciences, copyright is retained by the authors. Articles are licensed under an open access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, meaning that anyone may download and read the paper for free. In addition, the article may be reused and quoted provided that the original published version is cited. These conditions allow for maximum use and exposure of the work.
Reproducing Published Material from other Publishers: It is absolutely essential that authors obtain permission to reproduce any published material (figures, schemes, tables or any extract of a text) which does not fall into the public domain, or for which they do not hold the copyright. Permission should be requested by the authors from the copyrightholder (usually the Publisher, please refer to the imprint of the individual publications to identify the copyrightholder).
Permission is required for: Your own works published by other Publishers and for which you did not retain copyright.
Substantial extracts from anyones' works or a series of works.
Use of Tables, Graphs, Charts, Schemes and Artworks if they are unaltered or slightly modified.
Photographs for which you do not hold copyright.
Permission is not required for: Reconstruction of your own table with data already published elsewhere. Please notice that in this case you must cite the source of the data in the form of either "Data from..." or "Adapted from...".
Reasonably short quotes are considered fair use and therefore do not require permission.
Graphs, Charts, Schemes and Artworks that are completely redrawn by the authors and significantly changed beyond recognition do not require permission.
Obtaining Permission
In order to avoid unnecessary delays in the publication process, you should start obtaining permissions as early as possible. If in any doubt about the copyright, apply for permission. Journal of Legal Sciences cannot publish material from other publications without permission.
The copyright holder may give you instructions on the form of acknowledgement to be followed; otherwise follow the style: "Reproduced with permission from [author], [book/journal title]; published by [publisher], [year].' at the end of the caption of the Table, Figure or Scheme.
