The Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan on July 20, 2026, recommended a constitutional amendment to establish an International Commercial Court of Pakistan, or ICCP. The proposal envisions the ICCP as an independent federal superior court designed to resolve international disputes quickly, enforce arbitral awards, and align with global standards. This move comes at a time when the country faces a complex legal environment, including recent criticism regarding judicial independence from international bodies like the International Commission of Jurists.
Related: How an Expert in Accident Reconstruction Could Benefit Your Claim
Supporters of the new court argue that a specialized forum with swift procedures and specialist judges could meaningfully improve the commercial justice system. They point to international examples, such as the Singapore International Commercial Court and the courts in the Dubai International Financial Centre and Abu Dhabi Global Market. In these jurisdictions, judges often include both local and international experts, or operate under common law principles distinct from the domestic system. The Singapore court functions as a division of the national high court, while DIFC and ADGM operate with their own legal frameworks and arbitration laws.
These international models offer a checklist of features that the ICCP proposal has yet to fully detail. Critics have noted that the current plan lacks specifics on jurisdiction, composition, appellate structure, and procedural law. There is also the practical question of whether a new court can operate effectively without the necessary supporting legislation, such as the pending Arbitration Act of 2024. This draft act aims to replace the colonial-era Arbitration Act of 1940 and align domestic rules with UNCITRAL standards. Without it, the new court may face significant hurdles in enforcing awards.
Related: Extradition in Colorado: What You Need to Know Before Being Transferred
Confidence in any commercial court ultimately depends on confidence in the broader judiciary. The ICCP faces an uphill battle against a history of inconsistent rulings in domestic courts. 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
