The Determination of Arbitrability and an Analysis of its Scope in Ghana from Comparative Perspectives

This article critically examines the Ghanaian approach to arbitrability in international arbitration, situating it within a comparative framework. It argues that the effectiveness of any approach to arbitrability is measured by its capacity to enhance or restrict the recognition of arbitration agreements and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. The analysis begins with Ghana's approach to determining arbitrability and an analysis of its scope, before extending to comparative jurisdictions: Switzerland and Tunisia (legislative approaches), England and Wales and the United States of America (judicial approaches), and Singapore (hybrid approach). Through this comparative lens, discernible trends emerge regarding the determination and scope of arbitrability in international arbitration. The article concludes by recommending that Ghana adopt a hybrid approach combining legislative clarity with judicial flexibility to strengthen its arbitration regime and align with evolving international standards.