This paper focuses on
how the broad and undefined interpretation of public policy by United Arab
Emirates (UAE) courts under Articles 53 and 54 of the UAE Arbitration Law
impedes the enforcement of arbitral awards rendered under the UNCITRAL
Arbitration Rules. Although the UAE has adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law and
ratified the New York Convention, the absence of a clear framework for
interpreting public policy enables inconsistent judicial intervention,
undermining legal certainty and party autonomy in international arbitration.
The study adopts a doctrinal legal research methodology, supported by
comparative qualitative and law case analysis, to systematically examine
relevant UAE court decisions and statutory provisions. The article’s original
contribution lies in its focused assessment of how judicial reasoning in public
policy cases directly affects the enforceability of UNCITRALbased awards. It
concludes by recommending legislative clarification and judicial guidelines to
narrow the scope of discretion, thereby enhancing the UAE’s reliability as an arbitrationfriendly
jurisdiction.