Arbitrators' Jurisdiction to Decide the Merits of a Dispute in Accordance with the Applicable Rules of Law under Lebanese Law: A Comparative Analytical Study

Abstract

Background: This study analyzes arbitrators' jurisdiction to decide the merits of a dispute in accordance with the rules of law applicable to it under Lebanese law, while also highlighting key comparative approaches, particularly French law and international commercial practice. Specifically, it examines how an arbitral tribunal exercises jurisdiction over the substantive merits in both domestic and international arbitration frameworks.
Methods: The study adopts a doctrinal and analytical research methodology supported by comparative legal analysis, evaluating relevant provisions of the Lebanese Code of Civil Procedure and Code of Obligations and Contracts alongside Arabic and French legal scholarship, as well as key Lebanese, French, and international judicial precedents.
Results: The findings indicate that the arbitrator's jurisdiction over the substantive merits differs fundamentally between domestic and international arbitration. In domestic arbitration, ordinary arbitration at law binds the tribunal to strict statutory provisions and contractual terms, whereas an amiable compositeur possesses ex aequo et bono authority to adjust or soften rigid contractual provisions that fail to reflect the true spirit or equity of the agreement. In international arbitration, party autonomy governs the choice of substantive law, bounded by international public policy, while the absence of an explicit choice empowers the tribunal to apply appropriate legal rules while taking mandatory account of international trade usages.
Conclusion: These findings clarify and strengthen the legal framework governing commercial arbitration in Lebanon and comparative civil law jurisdictions.