We aim through this study to know the authority of arbitration panels in the temporary matters and orders through answering the following questions: 1- The extent to which the arbitrator enjoys the authority to issue temporary and precautionary decisions. 2- The extent to which the arbitrator enjoys the authority to issue final orders. 3- The position of legislation, jurisprudence and judiciary towards the authority of the arbitrator to conduct jurisdiction works. 4- What is the time scale during which the arbitrator has the authority to conduct a jurisdiction work? 5. Does the judiciary of the state abstain or engage with the arbitration in the authority of conducting a jurisdiction work in case that the litigants agree on authorizing the arbitrator the authority to conduct the jurisdiction work? 6. Who has the jurisprudence to consider amending or cancelling the urgent decision issued by the arbitration panel and accompanied by the writ of execution? To answer these questions, I divided this study into three chapters preceded by an introduction. In the introduction, I addressed the nature of jurisdiction. As for Chapter one, I addressed the jurisdiction authority of the arbitrator and its scope, whereas I addressed in chapter two the authority of the arbitrator to issue orders in the Omani law. In chapter three, I addressed the contestation against the judiciary decisions of the arbitrator and its execution. The most significant conclusions I reached through this study are: 1- The modern legislations have acknowledged the jurisdiction of the arbitration panel to take urgent decisions and temporary orders. 2- The judiciary authority has an inherent jurisdiction to review the urgent and temporary requests. 3- The Omani legislator adopted and chose the international approach as he allowed referring to the judiciary of the state to request taking temporary or precautionary procedures. 4- The parties who agree on the arbitration could authorize the possibility of extending the authority of the arbitration panel and not limiting it to deciding over the subject matter so as to enable the panel taking the temporary and precautionary measures it deems necessary as requested by the nature of dispute. 5- The existence of an arbitration agreement does not result in preventing the judiciary from enjoying the authority of issuing temporary and precautionary orders. The role of the chief justice is limited to issuing the writ of execution. He does not review the integrity or correctness of the order issued by the arbitration panel.