Joinder of Third Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Between Theory and Practice

Abstract

Objectives: This study examines the legal framework governing the joinder of third parties in arbitration proceedings. It aims to identify the legal foundations, limitations, and compatibility of this process with the consensual nature of arbitration. The study also assesses the procedural implications, particularly in relation to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and the validity of arbitral awards.

Methods: The paper adopts a comparative analytical approach, focusing on national and international legislative texts, institutional arbitration rules, and relevant judicial and scholarly developments. Special emphasis is placed on Jordanian arbitration law compared to selected international arbitration regimes.

Results: The study concludes that the principle of consent is the primary constraint on the joinder of third parties in arbitration. It finds that the Jordanian legal framework lacks clear and comprehensive regulations regarding this mechanism, especially when compared to certain international rules that allow for more flexible approaches under strict procedural safeguards. Additionally, the absence of clear rules regarding the timing and effects of joinder, particularly after the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, may undermine due process and jeopardize the validity and enforceability of arbitral awards.

Conclusion: Joinder of third parties in arbitration represents a complex legal issue that necessitates a carefully balanced approach between maintaining party autonomy and ensuring procedural fairness and efficiency. Achieving this balance demands targeted legislative reform and the establishment of clear regulatory standards designed to enhance both the legitimacy and effectiveness of arbitration proceedings.