Purpose On two different occasions, the Jordanian Constitutional Court has ruled that Articles 51 and 54 of the Jordanian Arbitration Act no. 31 of the year 2001 are unconstitutional and null. In view of this, this paper aims to attempt to give the reader a brief preview of the Jordanian Arbitration Act, the Jordanian Constitution and the Jordanian Constitutional Court. It also highlights and critically analyzes the Jordanian Constitutional Court two decisions pertaining to the Arbitration Act and its special implications in this regard from the perspective of arbitration law and the distinct characteristics embedded in it. Design/methodology/approach To examine how effective is the approach followed by the Constitutional Court in ruling the unconstitutionality of the aforementioned Articles, this work makes use of the primary and secondary data available in this regard as the main method to complete such an examination. By critically analyzing and comparing the various data contained in these sources, this work identifies the problems associated with such decisions. Findings This work submits that while the Constitutional Court has rested its rulings largely on constitutional principles, concerns arising from the Arbitration Act perspective have not been dealt with adequately by the Court. Furthermore, it argues that while the principles of the constitution shall be respected, the distinct characteristics of the arbitration law warrant a more careful approach than actually followed by the Court. Originality/value Taking into consideration the importance of arbitration as an alternative mean for dispute resolution, the Jordanian legislator has addressed the application of arbitration as early as the year 1953. However, while the Constitutional Court’s questionable approach to the aforementioned articles would necessarily hinder the use of arbitration, no comprehensive scholarly work has either examined such approach or addressed its implications. Accordingly, this work derives its originality and value from being the first of its kind to examine and address such a matter.

中文翻译：

---

《约旦仲裁法》第51和54条

目的在两个不同的场合，约旦宪法法院裁定，第1号《约旦仲裁法》第51和54条。2001年的31年是违反宪法的，并且为空。有鉴于此，本文旨在为读者简要介绍《约旦仲裁法》，《约旦宪法》和《约旦宪法法院》。它还从仲裁法及其内在特点的角度突出并批判性地分析了约旦宪法法院的两项与《仲裁法》有关的裁决及其在这方面的特殊含义。设计/方法/方法要研究宪法法院在裁定上述条款的违宪性方面采取的措施是否有效，这项工作利用这方面的主要和次要数据作为完成此类检查的主要方法。通过严格分析和比较这些来源中包含的各种数据，这项工作可以确定与此类决策相关的问题。结论这项工作认为，尽管宪法法院的裁决主要是基于宪法原则，但法院没有充分处理《仲裁法》观点引起的关注。此外，它认为，虽然应尊重宪法原则，但仲裁法的独特特征值得比法院实际采取的审慎态度。独创性/价值考虑到仲裁作为解决争端的另一种手段的重要性，约旦的立法者早在1953年就已经解决了仲裁的问题。但是，尽管宪法法院对上述条款的可疑方法必然会妨碍仲裁的使用，但是没有任何综合的学术著作对这种方法或它的含义进行过研究。因此，这项工作是研究和解决此类问题的开创者，因此具有独创性和价值。