The Concept of Public Policy in the Framework of Arbitration

Abstract

The idea of public order is one of the basic ideas in the science of law in general, as the use of the term public order is associated with all its various branches in domestic la, speaking of peremptory legal rules that individuals may not agree to violate, the system is a restriction on the authority of the administration.

The Libyan legislator took public order as a criterion for distinguishing between peremptory rules and explanatory rules, but he did not set a definition for it, and perhaps left that to the jurisprudence of jurisprudence.

Perhaps the idea of internal public order refers to the set of principles and values that constitute its moral entity, and draw the image of the ideal human life in it, and its movement towards achieving its goals, whether political, social, economic, or moral. Thus, they are principles and values that impose themselves on the various types of legal transactions in the state, both in existence and in effect, and often in the form of peremptory legal rules that govern this relationship, and therefore every voluntary action or agreement that violates these rules is doomed to nullity.

Therefore, we find that the legislator has stipulated the inadmissibility of arbitration in what may not be disposed of, and the inadmissibility of arbitration in what may not be conciliated, and all issues related to public order in accordance with Article (740 pleadings).

In application of this, the Supreme Court ruled that: “The judgment of this court was based on the fact that the agreement on arbitration is a matter related to the interest of the litigants, and has nothing to do with public order, and the dispute does not fall outside the jurisdiction of the courts, provided that the matter is not related to public order, otherwise their will is annulled and it must be subjected to the system.”