Quick Answer: A foreign company can arbitrate against the Israeli government and public bodies — Israeli law does not categorically bar the State from agreeing to arbitration. But a valid arbitration agreement against a government entity requires specific internal authorization, and Israeli courts retain supervisory jurisdiction over the resulting award. Without the right approvals in place before you sign, your arbitration clause against a government body may not survive a challenge. This guide explains who can consent, what approvals are required, how courts oversee state arbitration, and what to do when bilateral investment treaty rights exist.

Foreign companies that work with Israel's government often include arbitration clauses in their contracts as a matter of course — technology vendors, infrastructure contractors, defense suppliers. In most commercial deals, that is routine. Against a private Israeli counterparty, an arbitration clause works exactly as expected. Against a government ministry, a state-owned enterprise, or a local authority, the picture is meaningfully different.

The Israeli legal system accepts that the State can arbitrate. It does not accept that every official who signs a contract can commit the State to arbitration without oversight. Get the authorization wrong and you may spend years and significant legal fees only to have an Israeli court tell you that the arbitration clause was never valid, and the case must begin again in court. The rules are worth knowing before you sign anything.

1. Can You Arbitrate Against the State of Israel?

Yes, in principle. The State of Israel is a legal person capable of entering contracts, and the Arbitration Law 1968 (*חוק הבוררות, התשכ"ח-1968*) places no blanket prohibition on the State submitting disputes to arbitration. Israeli courts have enforced arbitral awards against government ministries, state-owned companies, and local authorities when the procedural and authorization requirements were met.

The principle, however, comes with an important qualifier: the State operates under public law constraints that a private company does not face. A government official who agrees to arbitration does not have the same unfettered contractual freedom as a private director. Their authority is bounded by statute, by internal government regulations, and by the oversight of the Attorney General's office. An arbitration clause signed by an official who lacked the authority to commit the State is not a valid arbitration clause — the underlying contract may survive, but the dispute-resolution mechanism does not.

This matters enormously in practice. If your contract with a government entity goes wrong and you invoke arbitration, the first thing the State's lawyers will check is whether the official who signed the contract had authorization to include an arbitration clause. If they did not, the State will file an immediate objection to jurisdiction, and you will be fighting about that question (rather than the merits of your claim) for the first year of the proceeding.

2. Who Counts as a Public Body Under Israeli Law?

Israeli law treats a wide range of entities as "public bodies" subject to public law constraints, and the rules differ across the spectrum. The main categories a foreign party is likely to encounter:

Government ministries — the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Finance, and others — are the State itself. Contracts with ministries are governed by the most stringent rules. The Accountant General within the Ministry of Finance sets binding procurement procedures, and the Attorney General's guidelines apply directly.

Government companies (*חברות ממשלתיות*) are incorporated entities owned wholly or partly by the State, governed by the Government Companies Law 5735-1975 (*חוק החברות הממשלתיות, התשל"ה-1975*). This category includes major players like the Israel Electric Corporation, Mekorot (national water utility), the Israel Lands Authority, and dozens of others. Government companies have slightly more contractual flexibility than ministries, but remain subject to government oversight and the Companies Authority.

Local authorities — municipalities (*עיריות*), regional councils (*מועצות אזוריות*), and local councils (*מועצות מקומיות*) — are governed by the Local Authorities Law and their own procurement regulations. A municipality that signs an arbitration clause also requires proper internal authorization, typically from the municipal legal adviser and subject to approval by the Ministry of Interior (*Misrad HaPnim*).

Statutory bodies and public agencies — the National Insurance Institute (Bituach Leumi), the Israel Innovation Authority, the Ports Authority — each operate under their own enabling legislation and have their own rules about dispute resolution. Check the specific statute before assuming an arbitration clause will work.

3. Authorization Requirements: Who Must Approve?

The central question in any state arbitration is whether the right person (with the right delegated authority) approved the arbitration clause. This is not a formality. Israeli courts have set aside arbitral awards years into proceedings because they found that the authorization chain was incomplete.

For government ministries, the governing instrument is the Attorney General's Guideline on Government Disputes (*Hanhayat Hayoetz HaMishpati HaMemshala*). The guideline establishes a strong presumption in favor of litigation in the Israeli court system. Arbitration is a departure from that default, and to authorize a departure, the ministry's legal adviser (*Yoetz Mishpati*) must approve the arbitration clause in writing before the contract is signed. For contracts above certain financial thresholds or involving sensitive subject matter, the approval must come from the Attorney General's office itself.

For government companies, the relevant authority is the board of directors (*Direktorion*), acting in accordance with the company's articles of association and the Government Companies Law. A CEO or operational manager who includes an arbitration clause without board authorization is acting outside their authority. The board resolution authorizing arbitration should ideally be obtained before the contract is finalized.

For local authorities, approval requirements derive from the Local Authorities (Business Licenses) Law and the municipality's own internal regulations. The municipality's legal adviser must approve, and in some cases the Ministry of Interior must also consent, particularly if the contract is large or if the arbitration clause deviates from standard municipal contract terms.

In Practice: When contracting with a government ministry, request written confirmation — before signing — that the ministry's legal adviser (*Yoetz Mishpati*) has approved the arbitration clause in accordance with the Attorney General's Guidelines on Government Disputes. For contracts exceeding approximately NIS 5 million, clearance from the Ministry of Justice's civil division is typically required. At the government company level, ask for a certified extract of the relevant board resolution (*hachlatatDirectorion*) authorizing dispute resolution by arbitration. Obtaining these documents before signing typically adds 2–4 weeks to contract negotiations — time well spent compared to a jurisdictional battle at the outset of proceedings.

4. Government Procurement Contracts and Arbitration

A substantial proportion of foreign company dealings with the Israeli government arise from the public procurement process — competitive tenders for IT services, infrastructure, defense equipment, pharmaceuticals, consulting, and professional services. Procurement contracts are governed by the Mandatory Tenders Regulations 5753-1993 (*תקנות חובת המכרזים, התשנ"ג-1993*), which impose a detailed approval framework on every term of the contract, including the dispute-resolution clause.

Standard government tender documents typically contain a prescribed dispute-resolution clause drafted by the Accountant General's office. That clause usually provides for litigation in Israeli courts, not arbitration. A foreign bidder who wants to substitute an arbitration clause must negotiate that change before submitting the bid or during the contract negotiation phase — not after award. Post-award changes to fundamental contract terms, including dispute resolution, require fresh approval through the tendering authority's legal chain.

In practice, government procurement teams are cautious about departing from standard terms. A request to replace court litigation with arbitration will typically be escalated to the ministry's legal adviser and may require Accountant General sign-off. If you are bidding on a large government contract and want arbitration as your dispute-resolution mechanism, raise it at the pre-tender stage. Use the formal questions process (*she'elot tav*) to ask whether the tendering authority will accept an arbitration clause. Getting a written answer — even a negative one — at that stage is far better than fighting over it at the claim stage.

One procurement context where arbitration is more readily accepted: contracts governed by international conventions or funded by multilateral institutions such as the World Bank or the European Investment Bank. These funders often require UNCITRAL or ICSID arbitration clauses as a condition of financing, and Israeli government counterparties have accepted such clauses in that context.

In Practice: Government procurement disputes that do not have an arbitration clause are typically resolved through two parallel tracks: an administrative complaint to the Ombudsman for Government Procurement (*Netziv Tikhunim*) for procedural violations, and litigation before the District Court or Administrative Court (*Beit Mishpat Mekhozi*) for contract and damages claims. The Ombudsman track is faster — initial determinations typically take 30–90 days — but its remedies are limited to procedural corrections, not monetary compensation. A substantive damages claim against a ministry will almost always end up in court, with a typical timeline of 3–5 years to judgment in the Tel Aviv District Court for commercial disputes of significant value.
Advertisement

5. Government Companies vs. Ministries: Different Rules in Practice

Government companies (*chevrot memshaltiot*) occupy a middle position between a private company and the State itself. They have corporate personality, issue equity (wholly owned by the State), and operate commercial businesses — electricity, water, ports, railways, telecommunications. Because they act commercially, they are often more willing — and better equipped — to include arbitration clauses in their contracts than a traditional ministry.

The legal framework for government companies comes from the Government Companies Law 5735-1975. Key rules:

  • The company's board of directors must authorize significant contract terms, including dispute-resolution mechanisms that depart from standard practice.
  • The Government Companies Authority (*Reshut Chevrot HaMemshala*) oversees governance and can invalidate board decisions that exceed the company's mandate.
  • For contracts above a value threshold set by each company's charter, additional approval from the relevant ministry (for example, the Ministry of Energy for the Israel Electric Corporation) may be required.
  • Government companies that are listed on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange also face securities-law disclosure requirements if a significant arbitration is initiated.

Practically, this means that arbitration clauses in contracts with government companies — especially major ones — are negotiable but require board-level approval. In the author's experience, government companies involved in large technology, construction, or energy projects are generally willing to accept arbitration under ICCA rules or ICC rules for significant contracts, provided the clause is approved at the right internal level. The same companies will resist arbitration clauses slipped into standard service agreements by operational departments without board knowledge.

Municipalities are a further step removed. Their governing law — the Local Authorities Law, the Cities Ordinance — places strict limits on what the mayor and municipal council can agree to without a full council vote (*hafazat hamoatza*). A contract signed by the city engineer that includes an arbitration clause, without council approval, will not bind the municipality. This is a trap foreign companies fall into repeatedly, particularly in real estate, infrastructure, and service contracts with local authorities.

6. Court Oversight of Awards Against State Entities

Even when you win an arbitration against a government body, you are not done. Israeli courts retain supervisory jurisdiction over arbitral awards, and they apply heightened scrutiny to awards that affect public bodies.

Under Section 24 of the Arbitration Law 1968, an arbitral award can be set aside if it contradicts public policy (*takanat hatzibbur*) or if the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. Where the respondent is a public body, both grounds become more potent. Israeli courts have held that an award requiring a government body to act contrary to its statutory powers is unenforceable on public policy grounds, even if the government official who signed the contract made promises that the arbitral tribunal held were binding.

The High Court of Justice (*Beit Mishpat Gavoha LeTzedek* — commonly called the Bagatz) retains constitutional oversight of government action even when that action is also the subject of an arbitral award. If your dispute with a government body involves a licensing decision, a planning authority determination, or any other exercise of statutory power, you should expect the Bagatz to remain in the picture regardless of what the arbitral tribunal decides. The arbitral tribunal can award you damages for breach of contract; it cannot compel the government to reverse an administrative decision. That power stays with the Bagatz.

This dual oversight structure is one reason experienced practitioners often recommend against pure arbitration for government contract disputes and in favor of a hybrid clause: arbitration for quantifiable contract claims, with an express carve-out preserving the right to seek judicial review of administrative decisions in parallel.

In Practice: A challenge to an arbitral award against a government entity is filed in the competent District Court (*Beit Mishpat Mekhozi*) under Section 24 of the Arbitration Law 1968. The filing fee is approximately NIS 1,500–3,000 depending on the claim value, calculated on the scale set by the Court Fees Regulations 5767-2007. The State Attorney's Office (*Petzchanit HaMedina*) typically represents ministries in such proceedings; government company disputes are handled by the company's own legal department. Allow 6–18 months for a Section 24 challenge to be resolved at the District Court level; Supreme Court appeals add a further 12–24 months. Appeals are of right where the award value exceeds approximately NIS 2.5 million; below that threshold, leave to appeal is required.

7. Investment Treaty Arbitration: A Separate Track for Foreign Investors

For a foreign investor whose dispute with an Israeli government body involves the treatment of a qualifying investment, bilateral investment treaties (BITs) offer a separate and powerful route. Israel has concluded BITs with over 40 countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada, and most EU member states. Each treaty contains different provisions, but the standard structure gives foreign investors the right to arbitrate directly against the State of Israel for treaty breaches — without needing an arbitration clause in any individual contract.

Treaty arbitration is available for state conduct that amounts to expropriation (direct or indirect), violation of the fair and equitable treatment standard, denial of justice, or breach of specific investment protections. Examples that have arisen in practice: revocation of a business license; discriminatory tax enforcement; failure to protect an investment against actions of a state entity; or breach of a stabilization commitment made in a government contract.

The available arbitration forums under most Israeli BITs include the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), ad hoc arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, and in some treaties the ICC or Stockholm Chamber of Commerce. ICSID is generally preferred for sovereign disputes because the ICSID Convention provides its own enforcement mechanism, bypassing the need to rely on national courts in the respondent state.

Treaty arbitration is expensive and slow (three to seven years from notice to final award is typical), but it bypasses many of the authorization and court-oversight limitations that complicate contract arbitration against Israeli public bodies. If the dispute involves conduct by the State itself (as opposed to a contractual obligation of a government company), the treaty route deserves serious consideration.

In Practice: To invoke a BIT against Israel, a foreign investor typically submits a Notice of Dispute to the Ministry of Finance (International Department) and waits the cooling-off period specified in the treaty — usually 6 months — before filing the formal arbitration request. The Israel Investment Promotion Center (*Mashabim*) under the Ministry of Economy keeps a list of Israel's active BITs. ICSID arbitrations are filed at icsid.worldbank.org; the initial registration fee is USD 25,000. Israel has been a respondent in several ICSID and UNCITRAL investment arbitrations; the State Attorney's Office and an appointed team of private international arbitration counsel typically handle the State's defense. Claimants should expect to budget at least USD 1–3 million in legal fees for a full treaty arbitration, with that figure rising significantly in complex cases.

8. Practical Steps for Foreign Parties Contracting with Israeli Government Bodies

A checklist for foreign companies entering contracts with Israeli government entities:

Before signing:

  • Identify the exact entity and its governing statute. A government ministry, a government company under the Government Companies Law 5735-1975, and a local authority each require a different authorization chain for arbitration.
  • Get written confirmation from the entity's legal adviser that the arbitration clause has internal approval. Verbal assurances are not enough.
  • For large contracts, ask to see the relevant board resolution (government companies) or the Attorney General's written approval (ministries).
  • Think about whether a hybrid clause works better: arbitration for contract damages, with court jurisdiction preserved for any administrative claims that might arise.

In the arbitration clause:

  • Name a seat. Tel Aviv is standard for Israel-seated proceedings; London, Zurich, or Singapore for international disputes.
  • Name an institution (ICCA for domestic, ICC or LCIA for international) rather than relying on ad hoc arbitration.
  • Designate English as the language of proceedings in plain terms.
  • Check whether your home country's BIT with Israel covers the investment, and whether ICSID or UNCITRAL treaty arbitration gives you an additional avenue.

If a dispute arises:

  • Before filing anything, have your Israeli counsel verify the authorization chain: signature pages, the signatory's actual authority, and any post-signing correspondence that might complicate the picture.
  • If the authorization looks defective, decide early whether to challenge jurisdiction in arbitration or go straight to the District Court or Administrative Court.
  • Where treaty protections apply, send the Notice of Dispute to the Ministry of Finance right away. The cooling-off period starts from the notice date, not from when the problem first became obvious.
In Practice: Filing a request for arbitration against a government body with the Israel Centre for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA) requires payment of the standard registration fee — approximately NIS 2,500–3,500 (including VAT) — together with the request for arbitration and a copy of the contract containing the arbitration clause. ICCA typically confirms receipt and begins constituting the tribunal within 14 days. For government respondents, the State Attorney's Office (*Petzchanit HaMedina*) must be served separately by registered mail to its Jerusalem offices at Salah al-Din Street 29, Jerusalem. Failure to serve the State Attorney correctly — even when the ministry itself has been served — is a common procedural error that delays the appointment of the tribunal.