فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق خصوصی
پیاپی 22 (بهار 1397)

The Legislator does not provide any specific structure and definition for awards in the context of domestic arbitration. However, Article 482 of Code of Civil Procedure emphasizes on the requirements of reasoning and justifiability in relation to arbitral awards. Therefore, from the wording of this article, it is implied that this issue is a basic element of arbitration award, and arbitrators have the same obligation as judges in this respect. Having said that, there is no specific rule defining what a reasoned and justifiable award means. Moreover, no sanction has been provided in the event of failing to meet these requirements. For this reason, doctrine and judicial cases are ambiguous. Some lawyers believe that the lack of these requirements would lead the award to be voidable. However, by making reference to article 489, others state that this matter is not a cause for voidability of award. Itseems that the lack of reasoned and justifiable contents may cause invalidity and voidability of award.

The relationship between TRIPS Agreement and Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is part of a broader relationship, that is, the correlation between Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) together with the World Trade Organization (WTO).In spite of growing attention to biodiversity and its importance for human survival, there is a conflict between TRIPS Agreement and CBD. The environmental patents, such as biological and microbiological processes, micro-organisms in the framework of TRIPS, the possibility of environmental patentsand ignoring the rights of countries, which are the origin of genetic resources, are the most conflicting issues. TRIPS, without observing the objectives of the CBD, has authorized patent to inventions using genetic resources. In addition, the registration of some areas, such as biotechnology inventions, is allowed without considering the adverse effects on biodiversity. The continuity of this situation threatsthe world’s biodiversity. In addition to comparingthe controversial matters in these two documents, this article examines the current approach and presentssome solutions by focusing on TRIPS.

Many arguments have been raised to support or reject the idea of unification of law in relation to civil liability. Amongst others, it is claimed that it is impossible to establishment binding principles across different countries. However, in relation to some aspects of tort, the need for unification is necessary due to the process of globalization. Within the European Union, arguments for supporting a unified European civil liability law relate to the emergence of the European Union and an increasingly globalized economy. This issue envisaged in the Treaty of the Union, and the harmonization of tort law is the process of creating common standards across the internal market in relation to tort elements. It is a part of the unified Europe project and a reduction in the significance of national borders. Diversities in national laws may create problem of efficacy in the ever more globalized economy. This article analyzes the importance of harmonization of tort law in the EU, and examines barrier to the harmonization. It concludes that even if this process is of crucial importance, the aim is not to achieve it in all aspects of tort law.

In the current system of global arbitration, the complete independence envisaged for the arbitration. Nevertheless, it does not mean that the arbitration is completely needless of the court. Misunderstanding of the ‘basis’ and ‘limits’ of the court’s intervention or assistance in the arbitral process will be the most substantial threatening factor in the formation of an independent and efficient arbitration system in Iran. In practice, one factor behind the role of the courts, as supportive or interventionist, is the issue of assigning an arbitrator by the court. The current study shows that the relevant statutes and the judicial cases to the court’s intervention in the process of appointing a judge is imperfect. This article seeks to present an efficient pattern depicting the court’s intervention in the arbitral process based on the division of arbitral process and its various stages. In this regard, arbitration process can be divided into two parts: First, the court’s intervention in the formation and continuation of arbitration tribunal. Second, the court’s intervention in dealing with substantive issues. In the former, the principle is an interventionist role, and the latter is based on non-interventionist role. This is quite contrary to what is deemed as appropriate.

Based on Articles 232 and 246 of Iranian Civil Code, issues relating to contract terms and conditions in the Code are provided in accordance with dependent terms. Based on the famous theory, in the event of void contract, its contract terms are also void, since the creation and validity of contract terms depend on the underlying contract. While separating contract terms into independent and dependent terms shows the consistency of the famous theory with dependent terms, it is possible to consider different rules and legal consequences for independent terms due to its nature, even if the contract is regarded as a void contract. In other words, there are cases in which the underlying contract is void, but its independent term(s) is valid and enforceable. This approach accords with the class file 9109981810200850, confirming the initial judgment, and it was accepted by the Supreme Court based on the Principle of 161 of the Constitution. This issue is analysed in this article.

The role of courts in international arbitration can scarcely be denied. Courts play a crucial role in different stages in international arbitration. Having said that, the extent of court's intervention in international arbitration has been subject to controversy. National arbitration laws have taken different views in this regard. In some countries, courts have a supportive role; however, others have interventionist approach. In Iran, a Comprehensive Draft Bill on Arbitration was recently adopted in order to be presented to the parliament for ratification. It applies to both domestic and international arbitration as a result of making a distinction between international and national arbitration. This article aims to conduct a critical assessment on the Draft Bill by considering modern arbitration rules. It concludes that the Draft Bill is based more on an interventionist approach than the supportive one.