Arbitrability of government contracts disputes between state sovereignty and investors’ guarantees: A comparative study

This paper examines the balance between state sovereignty and the subordination of states to non-national jurisdictions. It explores jurisprudential and legal perspectives on arbitration in state contracts and highlights its implications for the legal framework governing such contracts (Alanzi, 2021a; Abbas, 2020). The analysis focuses on Egypt and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), assessing the legitimacy of arbitration in state contracts within both jurisdictions. A descriptive-analytical method is applied to investigate the debates among public law scholars regarding the admissibility of arbitration in disputes involving state contracts, as well as the arguments underpinning their positions. In parallel, a comparative analytical approach is used to examine the legal frameworks regulating arbitration, state contracts, and public–private partnership agreements in Egypt and the UAE. The findings reveal that the legitimacy of arbitration in both jurisdictions is conditional, subject to specific controls, and requires prior approval from the competent authorities, such as the Minister or the Council of Ministers.