If you are holding an arbitral award and your counterparty has assets in Israel, Israel modernized its rules in your favor. This matters whether you are a private individual, an Israeli business, or a company or investor based abroad with an Israeli connection. The International Commercial Arbitration Law 5784-2024 came into force on 14 February 2024, adopting the principles of the UNCITRAL Model Law as amended in 2006. Where the arbitration was commenced on or after that date, recognition and enforcement of a foreign award runs through the New York Convention's narrow, closed list of grounds on which a court may refuse it. Where the arbitration began earlier, section 29A of the Arbitration Law 5728-1968 and the regulations made under it still apply, and they give effect to the same Convention grounds. So guidance written before 2024 is outdated for a newly commenced arbitration, but it is not automatically irrelevant to an older file. The commencement date decides, and it is the first thing to establish.
What changed in February 2024
For decades, international arbitration in Israel sat inside the same statute that governed a domestic dispute between two Israeli parties, the Arbitration Law 5728-1968. That framework was workable, but it was not built around the international standard that cross-border parties expect.
The International Commercial Arbitration Law 5784-2024 changed that. It brings Israel into line with the UNCITRAL Model Law, the template that a large share of arbitration-friendly jurisdictions have adopted, including the 2006 amendments to that Model Law. For an investor, a fund, or a company choosing a seat or weighing where to enforce, this is a material consideration. It signals that Israel now speaks the same procedural language as the major international seats, which tends to reduce the friction and the surprises that used to come with enforcing here.
The new law is not retroactive to your contract, it is keyed to when the arbitration began
One point that frequently confuses parties is timing. The new law applies to an international commercial arbitration commenced on or after 14 February 2024, regardless of when the underlying arbitration agreement was signed. So the question is not whether your contract predates the law. The question is when the arbitration itself was commenced, and the statute answers it directly, the date the respondent received the claimant's request to refer the dispute to arbitration, unless the parties agreed otherwise. A dispute under a contract signed years ago can still fall under the new regime if the arbitration was started after that date. The firm reviews the commencement date early, because it determines which set of rules governs everything that follows.
The New York Convention has applied in Israel since 1959
Although the new law is the more visible change, the backbone of foreign-award enforcement in Israel is older than that. Israel ratified the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which entered into force for Israel on 7 June 1959. Israel later incorporated the Convention into its domestic arbitration framework through a 1974 amendment, which added section 29A to the Arbitration Law, and the New York Convention (Foreign Arbitration) Regulations 5738-1978 were made under it.
The new law subordinates the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award to the Convention's framework, and the practical heart of that framework is its closed list of refusal grounds.
What a closed list of refusal grounds means in practice
This is the part that changes a creditor's position. Under the Convention, a court asked to recognize and enforce a foreign award is not free to re-open the merits and decide the case again. It may refuse enforcement only on a defined, limited set of grounds. The list is closed, meaning the resisting party has to fit its objection into one of the recognized categories, and it cannot simply argue that the arbitrators got the facts or the law wrong.
The refusal grounds are set out in section 45 of the International Commercial Arbitration Law, and they track article V of the New York Convention, which is also the source that governs an arbitration commenced before the Law. They are these.
The strategic implication is that a debtor cannot relitigate the dispute in Israel. That is exactly what makes a Convention award a strong asset. At the same time, these grounds are real defenses, and a well-advised debtor will probe procedural fairness, scope, and public policy, so the integrity of how the arbitration was run often matters as much as the result.
Two regimes now run in parallel
An important practical consequence of the new law is that Israel now operates two arbitration regimes side by side. The International Commercial Arbitration Law 5784-2024 governs international commercial arbitration. The Arbitration Law 5728-1968 continues to govern arbitration that is not international commercial arbitration as section 3(c) of the new Law defines it. Note that the test is not the nationality of the parties, and two Israeli companies can find themselves in an international commercial arbitration where the main place of performance, or the place most closely connected to the dispute, lies outside Israel. The two regimes are not interchangeable, and the first analytical step in any matter is deciding which one applies.
For a client enforcing a foreign award, the applicable regime is almost always the international one, whether that client is an Israeli resident, an Israeli business, or a party based abroad. Because the line between domestic and international can occasionally be argued, confirming the characterization at the outset protects the whole strategy.
Why this is good news for award creditors with an Israeli connection
Taken together, these changes point in a clear direction. Israel was already a New York Convention country, and the 2024 law layered a modern, internationally recognized procedural standard on top of that. For a creditor who has already won an international arbitration, the combination generally means a more predictable enforcement path, a court that is asked to recognize rather than to retry, and a closed set of defenses to which the debtor is confined.
That predictability is itself a negotiating tool. A counterparty who understands that an Israeli court will not reopen the merits, and that its objections are confined to a short list, often has more reason to settle or to satisfy the award voluntarily. The firm uses that reality in pre-enforcement correspondence before any motion is filed.
A foreign arbitral award is not the only route to enforcement against assets in Israel. Where you hold a foreign court judgment rather than an arbitral award, a different set of rules applies, which the firm sets out separately in its note on enforcing a foreign judgment in Israel. And where the dispute concerns an Israeli company and the road to enforcement runs through minority oppression, see the discussion of a section 191 claim and a share purchase order.
A short checklist before you move to enforce in Israel
How Maya Ziv Law handles these matters
The firm acts for clients enforcing arbitral awards and judgments with an Israeli nexus, private individuals and businesses alike, based in Israel or abroad. The approach is to characterize the regime first, pressure-test the award against the Convention's closed grounds before filing, and combine recognition with asset tracing so enforcement is not a two-step delay. Where the underlying dispute is a shareholder fight rather than a contract claim, the same enforcement mindset carries into a Section 191 oppression buyout, and where the asset to collect against is a court judgment the firm applies the parallel framework for recognizing a foreign judgment in Israel. Because elements of the surrounding procedure continue to develop after the 2024 reform, the firm confirms the live position rather than relying on pre-2024 material, and tells clients plainly where a point is settled and where it is still moving.
This article is general information about Israeli law and is not legal advice, and it does not create a lawyer-client relationship. For advice on a specific award or dispute, speak with a qualified Israeli lawyer.
Last reviewed July 2026.
Frequently asked questions
Does the new Israeli law apply to my old arbitration agreement
The Law applies to an international commercial arbitration commenced on or after 14 February 2024, regardless of when the arbitration agreement was signed. The deciding factor is when the arbitration was commenced, not the date of your contract. A dispute under an older agreement can still fall under the new regime if the arbitration itself began on or after that date. An arbitration commenced earlier falls outside the new Law, and an application to confirm or set aside the award it produces is heard under section 29A of the Arbitration Law 5728-1968, which routes the matter to the international convention that applies to it and subjects the hearing to that convention.
Can an Israeli court reject my foreign arbitral award
Only on a limited, closed list of grounds drawn from the New York Convention, such as improper notice, an award that exceeds the scope of the arbitration, a defect in how the tribunal was composed, or a conflict with public policy. An Israeli court is not permitted to re-examine the merits and decide the underlying dispute again, which is what makes a Convention award a strong asset.
Has Israel been part of the New York Convention for long
Yes. The New York Convention entered into force for Israel on 7 June 1959, and Israel incorporated it through a 1974 amendment to its arbitration framework. The new law builds on that foundation and subordinates foreign-award enforcement to the Convention's grounds.
What is the difference between domestic and international arbitration in Israel now
Two regimes run in parallel. International commercial arbitration is governed by the International Commercial Arbitration Law 5784-2024, which follows the UNCITRAL Model Law. Arbitration that is not international commercial arbitration remains under the Arbitration Law 5728-1968. The first step in any matter is identifying which regime applies, because the rules differ.
Should I still rely on guidance written before 2024
For international matters, pre-2024 commentary built on the 1968 Arbitration Law is generally outdated, and the firm treats the procedural specifics with caution and confirms them against the current rules. The substantive enforcement backbone, the New York Convention, has been in place since 1959, but the 2024 reform changed the framework around it, so older material should be checked before you act on it.
Adv. Maya Ziv advises private individuals and businesses on real estate, estate, and commercial matters, serving clients based in Israel and abroad. Before practicing law she trained in finance, holding a degree from Baruch College and working at Citi and at Vornado Realty Trust. She is admitted to the Israel Bar.
Sources
The primary sources underlying this article.