Abstract
Using a case study method, we examine how practitioners, including judges, arbitrators and community mediators, view dispute resolution in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). The goal of this study is to assess whether traditional approaches to dispute resolution coexist with or are discarded for imported modes. Participants were selected through convenience sampling. Structured interviews involved (a) participants' general theoretical foundations, (b) key principles that govern their professional role, (c) their views of different roles, and (d) the extent to which traditional moth operandi persist. The results highlight the dominance of principles and practices of Sharia law over common law. Although the use of formal Western procedures was reported in commercial disputes and rarely in family and tribal matters, implementation was undeniably shaped by religious and kin-based social habits and values.