In reading the replies hereunder, it should first of all be borne in

mind that Israeli law is basically a common law system. Although some

codification has been introduced in recent years, nevertheless the spirit

remains that of the common law system and indeed when foreign

precedents are quoted in decisions, they are almost invariably from

common law countries and not from civil law countries.

 

The framework for arbitration proceedings is governed by the

Arbitration Law of 1968 as amended but the question of provisional

remedies brings other laws into play and in particular the Civil Procedure

Regulations of 1984 as amended. (These rules were adopted from the

procedure followed in English courts and anyone familiar with such rules

would find himself “at home” with the Israeli procedure.)

 

The Arbitration Law does not define “arbitration” but rather “an

arbitration agreement’ which is a written agreement to refer any dispute

between the parties to the agreement to the arbitration procedure. The

agreement does not have to name the arbitrator and no particular

formalities apart from that of writing—although not necessarily in one

complete document written acceptance of an oral offer has been

recognized as being sufficient—are necessary. The intention for an

arbitrator to be appointed, however, has to be clear. As in any other case

where an agreement is governed by the Israeli law of contracts, the basic

requirement is consensus ad idem. The same defenses may be made

against the enforcement of arbitration agreements as may be made to the

enforcement of any other contractual obligation such as

misrepresentation, fraud, undue influence etc.

 

If the parties have not appointed an arbitrator in the agreement and

are unable to come to agreement regarding his identity, then application

will have to be made to the relevant district court for appointment of an

arbitrator.