The Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan (“LJCP”) on 20th July 2026 recommended an amendment to the Constitution at the 49th LJCP meeting. The proposed amendment introduced establishment of International Commercial Court of Pakistan (“ICCP”). The ICCP is proposed as an Independent Federal Superior Court through introduction of 212A in the constitution and is envisioned to deliver rapid resolution of international commercial disputes, fortify enforcement of arbitral awards, build investors’ trust and align with the best international practices[i].
The proposal came against an institutional backdrop that complicates its stated aim. In the broader context the proposed amendment is envisaged to build investors’ trust and align with the international standards on one hand whereas on the other it has been proposed right after the 27th Amendment which international legal bodies criticized as undermining judicial independence[ii]. The same also drew criticism from International Commission of Jurists which labeled 27th Amendment asa flagrant attack on the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law[iii]. Similarly, questions arise about independence of the ICCP because confidence in any commercial court ultimately depends on confidence in the judiciary in its entirety. Furthermore, in the specific context of commercial law, the Arbitration Act of 2024 (“Draft Act”) which aimed to replace the colonial Arbitration Act of 1940 with a regime based on the UNCITRAL Model Law and to align Pakistan’s arbitration law with international standards is still pending in the National Assembly[iv]; this raises the question that whether the ICCP would also be just another proposed solution without actual implementation.
This proposal to set up ICCP led to mixed reactions from the legal fraternity. The critics argued that firstly, the proposal lacks details about jurisdiction, composition, appellate structure, appointment of judges and procedural law which paints a half picture of the ICCP[v]. Secondly, the current lack of stability and trust in the judicial system risks prejudicing the new institution and consequently ICCP could fail to build investors’ trust, which is one of the primary purposes of the proposal. Thirdly, creating another exceptional court like Anti-Terrorism courts and Banking courts etc. would not fix underlying issue with Pakistan’s judicial system. In addition to this, the timing of the proposed amendment has also been criticized stating that while the country faces a human rights crisis the development reflects a new language of rights centered on technology, digitization and commerce. Conversely, supporters have welcomed the proposal declaring this as a landmark judicial and constitutional reform which will ultimately strengthen commercial justice system by providing specialist judges, swift procedures and predictable outcomes[vi].
Assessing these positions requires testing them against comparable institutions elsewhere. The defence mentioned above relied on a few comparators like Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”), the Dubai International Financial Cente (“DIFC”) Courts and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (“ADGM”) Courts[vii].
The SICC acts as a division of the Singapore High Court and a part of the Supreme Court meaning thereby that it is connected to a judicial system that was already internationally trusted and known for its efficiency, competence and integrity. Furthermore, the judges of the SICC comprise both international and local judges who are experienced specialist commercial judges[viii].
Conversely, the DIFC and ADGM are independent of the domestic judicial system[ix]. DIFC has common-law jurisdiction with its own laws/regulations and English law applies only as a last resort where DIFC law is silent. Moreover, the judges comprise of a mixture of UAE trained and common law jurisdiction judges (England, Australia, Singapore). DIFC has its own Arbitration Law but no default rules. Hence, the parties must elect rules or Dubai International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”) Rules apply by default. ADGM serves the same purpose as DIFC but is different in a few other ways as it adopts 50 England and Wales statutes plus general common law principles and its jurisdiction is limited to disputes connected with the ADGM. Additionally, the judiciary here is drawn exclusively from common law jurisdictions (England, Australia, New Zealand). ADGM as opposed to DIFC lacks arbitration rules of its own and hosts an ICC Court representative office with bespoke non-binding Guidelines and its own Arbitration Regulations governing ADGM seated arbitrations[x].
The comparators provide a checklist of choices the LJCP’s announcement has so far left open: jurisdiction, composition, appellate structure, procedural framework and relationship with arbitration as highlighted by the critics. However, ICCP can adopt a few features from these comparators that would help achieve its purpose.
Firstly, resolve jurisdiction as opt-in which is DIFC’s most consequential design choice extending jurisdiction by party agreement even to parties who lack any territorial connection to the free zone.
Secondly, build a judicial composition that breaks from the domestic pool under public question. The credibility problem could partly be solved through those who sit on the bench e.g. ADGM judges are drawn exclusively from common-law jurisdictions whereas DIFC has mixed panel of UAE trained and foreign common law judges. This will provide an external credibility mechanism for what the domestic judiciary cannot currently provide.
Thirdly, the 2024 Draft Act should be passed to solve the enforcement issues of domestic awards alongside the 2011 Act which addresses enforcement of foreign awards. With this the enforcement laws will be in place and the real question then would be which court does it and how consistently. A designated ICCP jurisdiction over enforcement of awards could help fix the problems highlighted by A.M. Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Taisei Corporation[xi] and SpaceCom International LLC v. Wateen Telecom Limited[xii]. In both cases the problem pertained to inconsistent treatment of seat determination where Taisei took 12 years, two conflicting provincial High Courts and Supreme Court to get resolved and in SpaceCom, the Lahore High Court opened a seat question already settled by both the tribunal and a foreign court[xiii].
In essence, the critics and the supporters both are correct because they are answering different questions. No new court on its own can outrun the older problems it’s being asked to solve. Judicial independence must be ensured with regards to the ICCP, and the Draft Arbitration Act 2024 must pass before a new court can deliver on what’s being promised of it. However, the underlying need is real, and the supporters are right that a specialized forum could meaningfully help meet it. Which of these turns out to matter more depends on details the LJCP has yet to disclose e.g. jurisdiction, composition, procedural law, appellate structure and the ICCP’s relationship to arbitration. Until they are, the picture remains half painted with the missing half being exactly what will decide the ICCP’s fate.
[i] establishment of international commercial court – Pakistan – DAWN.COM; see also; Judiciary proposes Commercial Court; LJCP proposes international commercial court – Pakistan Today, LJCP proposes establishment of ICCP through constitutional amendment – Pakistan – Business Recorder
[ii] IBAHRI condemns Pakistan’s 27th Constitutional Amendment as flagrant attack on judicial independence and the rule of law | International Bar Association; see also; Amnesty warns Pakistan’s 27th constitutional amendment threatens judicial independence – The Tribune
[iii] Pakistan – Dismantling Justice: A Full-Frontal Assault on the Rule of Law | ICJ
[iv] Pakistan’s Arbitration Reform: What Cross-Border Users Should Watch in 2026 – Daily Jus by Jus Mundi
[vi] Debate grows over Pakistan commercial court proposal – Pakistan Today; see also; ICCP: cosmetic step or landmark reform; Pakistan proposes International Commercial Court | SAMAA TV
[vii] ICCP: cosmetic step or landmark reform
[viii] Singapore International Commercial Court
[ix] FALQs: The Rise of International Commercial Courts in the Gulf Cooperation Council | In Custodia Legis
[x] WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE – ADGM VS DIFC?
[xi] AMC v. Teisei, Judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan 2024 SCMR 640, 28 Feb 2024
[xii] SpaceCom International v. Wateen Telecom, Judgment of the High Court of Lahore, 6 Nov 2024
[xiii] Seated but Unsettled: Which Law Governs an International Arbitration Seated in Pakistan? – American Review of International Arbitration
