Executing a UAE arbitral award in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar or Oman
The GCC Convention for the Execution of Judgments, Delegations and Judicial Notifications is the fastest route out of the UAE into the Gulf. It is also, on its own text, the route with the widest refusal ground of any instrument available to a UAE award creditor. This page works through the Convention's own articles and explains when to use it and when to deliberately not.
In one paragraph. A UAE arbitral award is executable in the other five GCC states under Article 12 of the GCC Convention, which makes arbitrators' awards executable in any member state but expressly subjects them to Article 2 and Article 4. Article 2 permits refusal where execution would violate the provisions of the Islamic Shariah, the Constitution or the public order of the executing state — a materially wider ground than Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention — and also where the award is against the government of the executing state or its officials acting in the course of their duties. The executing court may not review the merits (Article 7), and must be given an attested copy of the award plus a certificate that it has become final (Article 9). Because Article VII(1) of the New York Convention preserves a creditor's right to rely on whichever instrument is more favourable, the choice between the two treaties is the creditor's to make, and it should be made before anything is filed.
On this page
- Article 12 — what the Convention does to an award
- Article 2 — the six refusal grounds
- Why the fast route is sometimes the wrong route
- Article 2(E) — awards against a Gulf government
- Article 9 — the documents, and who produces them
- Article 7 — no merits review, and partial execution
- Choosing between the GCC Convention and the New York Convention
- Primary sources
What the Convention actually does to an arbitral award
Most of the GCC Convention is about court judgments. Arbitral awards get one article, and it is short enough to set out in full:
“Subject to the provisions of Articles 2 and 4, awards issued by arbitrators shall be executed by any of the member states as provided hereunder, subject to the applicable rules in the state where the award is required to be executed.”
Three things follow, and each matters more than its brevity suggests.
First, awards are inside the Convention. A UAE-seated award is executable in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman under a treaty route that is procedurally lighter than the New York Convention and is understood by Gulf execution judges as a familiar regional instrument rather than an international one.
Second, Article 12 imports Article 2 wholesale. The refusal grounds written for judgments apply to awards. That is not a drafting accident you can argue around — it is the express opening words of the article. Everything in section 2 below is therefore live against an award, including the Shariah ground.
Third, Article 12 imports Article 4. Article 4 is the Convention's jurisdictional test, written for courts: the originating court is treated as having jurisdiction where the defendant was domiciled or resident in that state, or had an office or branch there and the dispute concerns that branch's activity, or where the contractual obligation was or should have been performed there, or where the defendant expressly accepted jurisdiction, or where the defendant defended on the merits without objecting to jurisdiction. Applied to an arbitration, it is an awkward fit, and how an executing court maps an arbitral tribunal onto a provision about the courts of a state is a question to take local advice on before choosing this route. We flag it rather than resolve it: the Convention does not say, and we will not invent an answer that a Riyadh or Kuwait City execution judge has not given.
Note also Article 3(A): a judgment is executable in another member state only if it is executable in the state of origin. Read across to an award by Article 12, that points at the same question this series keeps returning to — what, exactly, makes a UAE award executable in the UAE, and does the creditor need to establish it before leaving.
The six grounds on which execution may be refused
Article 2 permits refusal “in full or in part”. The six grounds, in the Convention's own order, with what each means for an award creditor:
| Article 2 | Ground | What it means for a UAE award |
|---|---|---|
| (A) | Violation of the provisions of the Islamic Shariah, the Constitution, or the public order of the executing state | The widest ground in any instrument open to you. It is three grounds in one, and Shariah is not a synonym for public policy. See section 3 |
| (B) | Issued in absence where the debtor was not properly notified of the suit or the judgment | The service record is the defence. Keep the institution's proof of transmission for every notice, not just the Request |
| (C) | Res judicata — a prior final judgment on the merits between the same parties on the same right, in the executing state or any other member state | Watch for a parallel debt claim the counterparty quietly ran in its home court. A final Gulf judgment anywhere in the bloc can block execution |
| (D) | Lis pendens — the same dispute is before a court of the executing state between the same parties, and that suit was filed first | Speed is substantive here. A debtor who sues first in its own courts creates a refusal ground the Convention hands it |
| (E) | Against the government of the executing state, or its officials for acts done in or by reason of their duties | Decisive for sovereign-linked counterparties. See section 4 |
| (F) | Execution conflicts with the international conventions and protocols applicable in the executing state | The interface provision. Every GCC state is also a New York Convention state, which is what makes the choice in section 7 a real one |
Compare the New York Convention. Article V(1) there requires the resisting party to furnish proof of the ground relied on, and the grounds are narrowly drawn and exhaustively listed. Article 2 of the GCC Convention contains no equivalent allocation of the burden on its face, and grounds (A), (C), (D) and (E) are matters an executing court may be expected to notice for itself. That is a structural difference and it cuts against the creditor.
Why the fast route is sometimes the wrong route
Article 2(A) is where UAE awards get into difficulty, and the problem is usually interest.
A UAE-seated award in a commercial dispute will very often carry an interest component. Onshore, commercial interest is capped at 9% per annum under Article 72 of Federal Decree-Law 50/2022. An award may also carry compound interest where the contract and the tribunal allowed it, and may carry post-award interest running to payment. None of that is remarkable in a UAE award.
Presented to an executing court in a GCC state whose Article 2(A) ground expressly names the provisions of the Islamic Shariah, an interest component is exposed in a way it is not under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention, where the question is confined to the public policy of the enforcing state. The two are not the same test and should not be pleaded as though they were.
We say this plainly because the instinct — the GCC Convention is regional, familiar and quick, so use it — is right about three things and silent about the fourth. Where the award is principal-only and the debtor is a private Gulf company, the GCC route is usually the correct answer. Where the award is interest-heavy, or the debtor is state-linked, it may be the route that loses you the recovery.
Awards against a Gulf government, or its officials
Article 2(E) permits refusal of execution where the judgment — and by Article 12, the award — is:
“issued against the Government of the state where the judgment is required to be executed or against one of its officials for acts done by such officials during or only due to the performance of the duties of their job.”
This is not sovereign immunity as an international lawyer would recognise it, and it is not a plea the debtor has to establish. It is a ground available on the face of the Convention wherever the award respondent is the government of the executing state.
The practical reach is wider than it first appears, and the wording repays attention. It speaks of “the Government” of the executing state rather than of state-owned enterprises, so an award against a commercially incorporated, state-owned company is not obviously inside it. Whether a particular sovereign wealth vehicle, national oil company or ministry-held entity is “the Government” for Article 2(E) purposes is a question of the executing state's own law and practice, and it is the first question to put to local counsel. Do not assume the answer either way.
Where Article 2(E) is in play, the New York Convention route is the alternative, because it contains no equivalent ground. Article VII(1) preserves your right to take it. That is the single clearest case in this whole series for choosing the international instrument over the regional one.
The documents — and which of them is our work
Article 9 requires the party applying to execute to provide:
- A true copy of the award with the signatures on it attested by the competent authority — Article 9(A).
- A certificate that it has become final, unless finality is stated in the award itself — Article 9(B).
- Where made in absence, proof of proper notification — a certified copy of the notification or any other document confirming the respondent was properly notified — Article 9(C).
Article 9(B) is the commercial heart of this page. A GCC execution court will not take your word that a UAE award is final, and a UAE arbitral award does not announce its own finality in terms that satisfy a foreign registry. What satisfies Article 9(B) is a certificate, and producing a defensible one is a question of UAE law: whether an annulment action has been brought under Article 53 of Federal Law 6 of 2018, whether the 30-day period in Article 54(2) has expired so that no such action is any longer admissible, whether any judgment has gone to cassation under Article 54(1), and what the Article 56 position is on stay.
That certificate is a UAE advocate's work and nobody else's. It is set out, with the statutory basis and what a foreign court needs it to say, on the UAE-side pack. Article 9(A) attestation and the onward legalisation chain through MOFAIC and the destination state's embassy in the UAE are covered there too.
What Article 9 does not require is worth noting: unlike Article IV(1)(b) of the New York Convention, it does not on its face call for the arbitration agreement. Produce it anyway. Article 2 grounds will be run, and an executing court asked about the validity of the reference will want the clause in front of it.
No merits review, and the right to execute in part
Article 7 confines the executing authority:
“The task of the judicial authority of the state where the judgment is required to be executed shall be limited to confirming whether the judgment fulfills the requirements as provided by this agreement, without discussing the subject matter. Such authority shall order to take the required procedures to render the judgment as effective as any judgment issued in the state itself. The application to order the execution of the judgment may cover all or any part of the pronouncement of the judgment, if divisible.”
Three points. The review is a compliance check, not a rehearing — the same “without discussing the subject matter” discipline a UAE court applies on an Article 55 ratification. Once the order is made, the award is to be as effective as a domestic judgment of the executing state, which is what puts the local execution machinery behind it. And the application may be made for part of the operative part where it is divisible, which is the severance point in section 3.
Article 8 adds that the effects of the execution order reach all parties to the suit residing in the territory of the state where the order was issued, or their assets. Article 3(B) confirms that the execution procedure itself is governed by the law of the executing state — so the treaty gets you recognition, and local procedure does the collecting.
Choosing between the GCC Convention and the New York Convention
Every GCC state is a party to both instruments, so for a UAE award going into the Gulf there are two routes, not one. The choice is governed by Article VII(1) of the New York Convention, which provides that the Convention shall not affect the validity of other multilateral or bilateral agreements on the recognition and enforcement of awards, nor:
“deprive any interested party of any right he may have to avail himself of an arbitral award in the manner and to the extent allowed by the law or the treaties of the country where such award is sought to be relied upon.”
That is the more-favourable-right rule, and it belongs to the creditor. You are not obliged to take the regional instrument because it exists, and Article 2(F) of the GCC Convention — refusal where execution conflicts with the international conventions applicable in the executing state — points the same way from the other side.
The New York Convention route, article by article as it applies to a UAE award, is on its own page. Whether to obtain UAE ratification first — and the reasons it can actively damage the foreign case — is on the UAE-side pack.
Primary sources
- GCC Convention for the Execution of Judgments, Delegations and Judicial Notifications — Articles 1 to 12 (execution of judgments and awards), Article 13 onward (judicial delegation and notification). Article 12 is the arbitral-award provision; Article 2 the refusal grounds; Article 7 the scope of review; Article 9 the documents. Article 26 provides for entry into force three months after approval of the Supreme Council.
- Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York, 1958 — Articles III to VII. In force for the UAE from 19 November 2006, without reservation under Article I(3).
- Federal Law 6 of 2018 on Arbitration, as amended by Federal Decree-Law 15 of 2023 — Articles 52 to 57, which govern what the Article 9(B) certificate can say.
- Federal Decree-Law 50 of 2022, Commercial Transactions Law, Article 72 — the 9% cap on commercial interest, in force from 2 January 2023.
Dates and provisions on this page were checked against the Convention text and the Federal Arbitration Law on 4 November 2026. The identification of the competent court in each GCC state, and that state's own execution procedure, are matters of local law on which we instruct correspondent counsel.
Holding a UAE award with a Gulf debtor?
Send us the award and the clause. We will tell you which of the two treaty routes fits the award you actually have, whether the operative part is severable if it needs to be, and what the finality certificate can honestly say — before anything is filed anywhere.