From ADCCAC to arbitrateAD: Abu Dhabi’s Shift Towards a Court-Supervised International Arbitration Framework

The replacement of the Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation and Arbitration Centre (ADCCAC) by the Abu Dhabi International Arbitration Centre (arbitrateAD) marks a decisive shift in the way arbitration is conceived, structured, and delivered in Abu Dhabi. This transition is not a matter of institutional housekeeping or rebranding. Rather, it reflects a deliberate policy choice to reposition Abu Dhabi as a credible and competitive seat for international arbitration, capable of meeting the expectations of global commercial parties.

Although ADCCAC introduced a significant overhaul of its arbitration rules in 2013, its role in practice remained largely domestic. Despite drawing on international sources such as the UNCITRAL Rules, ADCCAC struggled to achieve sustained traction among international users, who continued to gravitate towards more established regional or global arbitral institutions. Over time, this limited uptake exposed a broader structural issue: procedural updates alone were insufficient to overcome governance, institutional, and perception-based constraints.

The launch of arbitrateAD on February 1, 2024 therefore represents an institutional reset rather than an incremental reform. It signals a shift away from a locally oriented arbitration centre towards a modern, court-supervised arbitral institution designed to operate credibly within the international arbitration ecosystem. The changes introduced go to the core of how arbitrations are administered, supervised, and enforced, aligning Abu Dhabi more closely with the practices of leading arbitral hubs.

This article examines that transition through three interconnected lenses. First, it considers the institutional and governance reforms, including the move from an administratively driven model to an arbitration court with enhanced supervisory powers. Second, it analyses the procedural and rule-based developments that modernise the arbitral process and address long-standing gaps under the ADCCAC framework. Finally, it explores the practical and legal implications for contracting parties, particularly in relation to drafting arbitration clauses, managing legacy agreements, and assessing the impact of the new regime on strategy, cost, and enforceability.

Taken together, these developments illustrate a broader recalibration of Abu Dhabi’s arbitration landscape -- one that prioritises predictability, international confidence, and procedural sophistication over continuity with legacy structures.

Governance Structure

One of the most significant and consequential changes introduced by arbitrateAD lies in its governance architecture. This shift goes to the heart of how arbitrations are supervised, how key procedural decisions are made, and how institutional confidence is maintained.

Governance: From Administrative Oversight to Institutional Supervision

Under the ADCCAC framework, arbitrations were administered primarily through an internal committee and the centre’s administrative apparatus. While functional, this model offered limited transparency and consistency in the handling of critical procedural decisions, particularly in complex or high-value disputes. By contrast, arbitrateAD adopts a court-based governance model that is now widely regarded as international best practice.

Aspect	ADCCAC	ArbitrateAD
Supervisory body	Internal committee / centre administration	Independent Court of Arbitration
Arbitrator appointments	Centre-led	Court-led
Challenges to arbitrators	Limited procedural clarity	Determined by the Court
Review of awards	None	Mandatory scrutiny of draft awards

The establishment of an independent Court of Arbitration fundamentally alters the balance between administration and supervision. Rather than acting merely as a registry or facilitator, the institution now plays an active supervisory role throughout the life cycle of the arbitration. This includes appointing and replacing arbitrators, determining challenges, deciding applications for joinder and consolidation, and scrutinising draft awards prior to issuance.

This governance model places arbitrateAD alongside leading arbitral institutions such as the International Chamber of Commerce and the Dubai International Arbitration Centre. It signals a clear departure from a largely administrative approach towards institutionally supervised arbitration, where procedural integrity and consistency are actively safeguarded.

In practical terms, this enhances predictability for users, reduces the scope for procedural disputes, and strengthens confidence in the arbitral process -- particularly for international parties accustomed to court-supervised institutions.

Treatment of Existing and Future Arbitration Agreements

Existing Cases

A key concern in any institutional transition is the treatment of ongoing proceedings. ArbitrateAD addresses this directly. Any arbitration commenced before February 1, 2024 continues to be governed by the ADCCAC Rules and administered by ADCCAC.

This approach preserves party autonomy and procedural legitimacy. Parties who initiated arbitration under ADCCAC do not face a mid-stream change in rules or administering institution, thereby avoiding jurisdictional uncertainty or challenges based on procedural disruption. From a legal certainty perspective, this continuity is both prudent and necessary.

Agreements Referring to ADCCAC but Not Yet Commenced

More complex issues arise where contracts refer to ADCCAC arbitration but no proceedings had been initiated as of February 1, 2024. In such cases, the new framework provides that:

• the arbitrateAD Rules apply by default; and
• the emergency arbitrator and expedited procedure provisions do not apply unless expressly agreed by the parties.
  
  

This transitional arrangement ensures that arbitration clauses referring to an institution that no longer accepts new cases remain effective, while also recognising that parties did not originally bargain for certain enhanced procedural mechanisms. At the same time, it places a clear responsibility on parties to review and, where appropriate, update their dispute resolution clauses.

From a drafting and risk-management perspective, this underscores the importance of reviewing legacy arbitration agreements. Parties who fail to do so may find themselves subject to a procedural framework they did not fully anticipate, particularly in relation to institutional supervision, seat, and tribunal powers.

Emergency Arbitrator and Expedited Procedures

A further area in which the contrast between ADCCAC and arbitrateAD is particularly stark is the availability of fast-track procedural mechanisms. Under ADCCAC, parties had no access to emergency relief or a genuinely accelerated procedure. In urgent situations, this often forced parties to seek interim measures from national courts, undermining the efficiency and autonomy of the arbitral process.

ArbitrateAD addresses this deficiency by introducing both an emergency arbitrator mechanism and a structured expedited procedure.

Feature	ADCCAC	arbitrateAD
Emergency arbitrator	Not available	Expressly provided
Expedited procedure	Not available	Claims up to Dh9 million
Time to award	Six months (standard)	Four months (expedited)

The emergency arbitrator provisions allow parties to seek urgent interim relief before the constitution of the tribunal. This is a significant development for parties facing immediate risks, such as asset dissipation, breaches of exclusivity, or imminent termination of key contracts. By keeping such applications within the arbitral framework, arbitrateAD reduces reliance on court intervention and reinforces arbitration as a self-contained dispute resolution mechanism.

The expedited procedure is particularly noteworthy given its relatively high financial threshold. With claims of up to Dh9 million eligible, arbitrateAD positions itself as an attractive forum for mid-value commercial disputes where speed is often prioritised over procedural complexity. The four-month timeline for the final award -- typically involving a sole arbitrator and streamlined submissions -- reflects international best practice and responds directly to common commercial frustrations over protracted arbitral timelines.

Taken together, these mechanisms demonstrate a clear shift towards efficiency and proportionality, without compromising fairness or enforceability.

Seat of Arbitration: A Fundamental Shift

ADCCAC Position

Under the ADCCAC framework, the default seat of arbitration was Abu Dhabi unless otherwise agreed by the parties or determined by the tribunal. In practice, this generally meant an onshore seat, with supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the UAE onshore courts and procedural concepts rooted in the UAE Civil Procedure regime.

While familiar and workable for domestic users, this framework often raised concerns for international parties relating to language, judicial approach, and procedural predictability --particularly in complex or high-value disputes. As a result, parties frequently opted for offshore seats or alternative institutions to mitigate perceived risks.

ArbitrateAD Default Seat

 

ArbitrateAD introduces a deliberate departure from this approach. Where the parties have not agreed on a seat, the default seat of arbitration is now the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM).

This change is legally and practically significant. By anchoring the seat in ADGM, arbitrateAD situates arbitrations within a common law jurisdiction governed by the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015. Proceedings are supervised by an English-language judiciary with specialist expertise in international commercial disputes, and the regulatory framework closely mirrors the UNCITRAL Model Law.

For international users, this materially enhances confidence in the arbitral process by offering greater familiarity, procedural clarity, and consistency. It also strengthens Abu Dhabi’s positioning as a credible alternative to established offshore arbitration hubs in the region.

That said, the shift is not without complexity. The default use of an offshore seat may raise issues concerning the interaction between onshore and offshore courts, particularly at the enforcement stage. While the legal pathways for recognition and enforcement are well established, parties and counsel will need to navigate jurisdictional mechanics carefully.

Overall, the change in the default seat reflects the broader ambition underpinning arbitrateAD: a prioritisation of international credibility and procedural sophistication, even where this introduces additional structural
considerations.

Conclusion

The transition from ADCCAC to the Abu Dhabi International Arbitration Centre (arbitrateAD) represents a carefully structured evolution rather than a cosmetic reform. While the ADCCAC Rules 2013 marked an important step towards international alignment, they operated within an institutional framework that remained predominantly domestic in orientation. ArbitrateAD completes that evolution by embedding modern governance, contemporary procedural tools, and a clear judicial anchor.

The introduction of an independent Court of Arbitration, the availability of emergency and expedited procedures, and the default anchoring of arbitrations in the Abu Dhabi Global Market together signal a decisive shift in ambition. These are not incremental enhancements, but structural choices designed to meet the expectations of international commercial parties and their advisers.

In practical terms, Abu Dhabi has moved from hosting an arbitration centre to hosting a fully competitive international arbitral institution. Whether arbitrateAD ultimately achieves sustained regional prominence will depend on factors that only time can test, including case uptake, judicial support, and market confidence in its administration. What is already clear, however, is that the foundational architecture is firmly in place. The success of arbitrateAD will depend not on the adequacy of its rules or structure, but on how effectively those tools are deployed in practice.

 

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.