جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « داوری تجاری بین المللی » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

Even though asymmetric arbitration clauses seem to be used frequently in dispute resolution clauses for various industries especially, finance industry, there is no statutory guidance with regard to the validity of such clauses. Ultimately, the validity and use of asymmetric arbitration clauses depend on the circumstances in a specific jurisdiction. On the one hand, recognition of the parties’ autonomy in the incorporation of the agreed terms, and on the other hand, the injustice caused by misusing these clauses and inequality of the parties are among issues examined in this article. Under the arbitration section of Iran’s civil procedure law, arbitration is considered an exceptional dispute resolution mechanism, and it recognizes arbitration when the parties have agreed to refer their disputes to arbitration. This arbitration section has no specific regulation when only one of the parties has the right to refer the dispute to arbitration. This article studies the validity of asymmetric arbitration clauses under the laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Also, this paper by way of comparative analysis, seeks to explore the background of one of the imperative principles, i.e., equal treatment. This article finds that unless in exceptional circumstances, there is no obstacle to recognition of the validity of asymmetric arbitration clauses under Iran’s law. But, the validity of these clauses faces with serious challenges when there is a significant difference between the parties bargaining power in disputes involving consumer rights.

Arbitration has become the most prominent and common method for resolving disputes in international trade. Most contracts in this field contain an arbitration clause. The theory of denationalization in international commercial arbitration argues that arbitrators, acting as private judges, should apply transnational rules and avoid interference from national courts during the arbitration process, regardless of the procedural and substantive rules of the seat of arbitration. This theory rests on the assumption that international trade arbitration is inherently international and non-governmental, and therefore, shouldn't be influenced by the local laws of any one country. Unlike the theory of localization, which emphasizes the territoriality principle and the law of the seat of arbitration, the denationalization theory respects the transnational character of arbitration. It considers intervention by national courts, especially those of the seat, to be contrary to the nature of arbitration in international trade. Consequently, this theory suggests that an arbitration award can still be recognized and enforced in another country, even if it's annulled by the courts of the seat. Denationalization theory reflects the emergence of a new legal order for international trade arbitration. This order has evolved independently from domestic legal systems, driven by globalization and the needs of the international business community. Numerous cases in international commercial arbitration demonstrate this trend. Arbitrators, acting as private judges, have increasingly applied rules rooted in this new legal system. In various cases, the administration of the arbitration process hasn't followed the law of the country hosting the arbitration, despite being located within its territory. Considering this growing trend and its significance for international commercial arbitration, this research will examine various aspects of denationalization theory. The key question will be: How does this theory address the needs of the arbitration institution in international trade? Furthermore, what specific principles of international commercial arbitration underpin this theory, and why is it more compatible with the nature of arbitration in this context? By analyzing arguments and foundations related to the importance of denationalization theory for maintaining efficiency in international commercial arbitration, this research aims to show that the denationalization approach, influenced by the globalization of trade and international commerce, signifies a new order at the transnational level. This "new legal order of arbitration" possesses its own distinctive and independent features. It advocates for the suitability of the denationalization approach and rejects intervention by national courts, particularly the court of the seat of arbitration, as incompatible with the transnational nature of foreign trade arbitration. Choosing arbitration to resolve disputes in international trade implicitly indicates the parties' desire to avoid relying on the domestic laws of any specific country. Instead, they prefer to manage their contract based on transnational arbitration rules rather than the formal or substantive rules of the seat country. Therefore, this research hypothesizes that international arbitration has a transnational character and shouldn't be bound by national rules or limitations imposed by national laws, such as the law of the seat of arbitration. These limitations can undermine the usefulness and non-governmental character of arbitration, which are its core advantages over litigation in national courts. To support this hypothesis, we will employ a descriptive-analytical method to examine various aspects of the theory of denationalization and compare it with its opposing theory, localization. We will also demonstrate how denationalization aligns with the contractual and international nature of arbitration in foreign trade. We will explore how it responds to the realities and demands of the international business community, including features like self-regulation, the inadequacy of domestic laws, and inefficiencies caused by national court interference. These factors have all contributed to the development of this theory. Our argument will be that the denationalization approach is essential for the continued growth and development of the arbitration institution in foreign trade. The recognition of a new legal system for international trade arbitration is not solely derived from common practice. Today, national legal systems, such as those of France and the United States, acknowledge the international personality of arbitral awards in foreign trade through various national court decisions. The non-governmental nature of arbitration also necessitates such an approach. The transnational perspective on the arbitration institution in foreign trade preserves its advantages over national courts in several ways. Compared to the nationalization approach, which emphasizes control through the court of the seat of arbitration, denationalization is more compatible with the presumed will of contracting parties in foreign trade who choose arbitration to avoid being governed by national laws.

referring to non-Muslim arbitration faces limitations from a jurisprudential point of view. Based on this, the purpose of this article is to examine Iran's international commercial arbitration law from the point of view of jurisprudence.

This article is descriptive and analytical and library Tool is used.

Ethical Considerations: 

In this article, the originality of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness are respected.

The existence of some rules in jurisprudence, such as the rule of negation of mustaches and hadiths that forbid the referral of arbitration to non-Muslims, creates the impression that it is not permissible to refer to international arbitration, which the law of international commercial arbitration was created in line with.. However, by resorting to other jurisprudential rules such as the harmless rule, the emergency rule, and the distinction between important and important, referring to international arbitration in order to defend the rights of Muslims is permissible and desirable.

All relations with non-Muslims, including referrals to arbitration in non-Muslim arbitration authorities, should not be considered as subject to the rule of negation of mustache or prohibition of interference with al-Taghut and should be completely cut off from them, but should be limited only to those relations that lead to The supremacy and domination of the infidels over the Muslims.

Today, international arbitration is considered as one of the most efficient methods of resolving disputes in foreign trade, which is considered a more efficient option for managing foreign trade disputes in many ways compared to national courts. In relation to the investigation of the nature of international commercial arbitration, several theories have been proposed, one of the most important and certainly the most challenging of them is the theory of arbitration independence. In this research, we will examine many aspects of this theory and how it works in foreign trade. Different arbitral legal theories have different views on the autonomy of arbitration, with which they usually refer to its independence from national legal orders. Based on autonomous theory, the arbitrator is not forced to consider specific parochial requirements of each State’s public policy, but he only must consider the main rules which are arising out of the international community. Arbitration is actually an institution whose main purpose is to serve the community of international businessmen, for this reason, it should not be used to promote the interests or fairness of the national governments related to arbitration, regardless of the country of the seat of arbitration or the country where the arbitration award is executed. Based on this point of view, any intervention of national courts that is against the assumed will of the contracting parties will actually reduce the efficiency of the arbitration institution in foreign trade, because practically, by choosing an arbitration institution, individuals want to free themselves from the constraints of national laws and not be under the rule of any specific national legal system. Proponents of autonomous theory, believe that the involvement of courts and national laws in the process of international commercial arbitration reduces the usefulness of the arbitration institution, because on the one hand, national laws do not have the ability to properly manage disputes in international trade and on the other hand, the intervention of the national court can make the arbitration process slow and complicated and therefore ineffective and finally, it will reduce the usefulness of the arbitration institution for the merchants. According to this view which has been approved by some national legal systems such as French law, basically international arbitration has a transnational nature and for this reason, the arbitration award issued in a case is not related to any national legal order and in fact has an international character. According to this view today, we are witnessing a new arbitration system in the international arbitration community which shows a new private order, above any national legal system that instead of relying on customs and national norms it is evolving based on the transnational principles and rules of international arbitration. In the view of supporters of independence theory, this is the new approach that will only help to ensure the efficiency of arbitration in foreign trade. Because this approach is completely based on the principle of independence and sovereignty of the contracting party's will in international commercial arbitration which emphasizes the spontaneous and non-governmental nature of arbitration in accordance with transnational conditions of international business in foreign trade, on the basis of which the origin of arbitration rules and regulations is independent of all national legal systems, and in fact, it is the arbitration agreement that is of primary importance in the arbitration process, not the law of the seat of arbitration. The material presented in this research shows that, not only theoretically but also practically, national courts in different countries in line with the common practice in foreign trade tend to acknowledge the independent nature of international commercial arbitration. For this reason, today, along with the national legal systems, we are witnessing a new legal system called the legal system of arbitration, whose principles and rules are based on the principles and procedure of international arbitration beyond referring to any specific legal system of a country. This new legal order with its self-regulation feature emphasizes the non-national nature of arbitration in foreign trade and as it will be analyzed in this research, it brings important results which in practice cause the arbitration institution to be more efficient for the international business community and it will also cause the maintenance and promotion of the advantages of arbitration as an effective dispute resolution method for businessmen as private actors in cross-border trade.

With the establishment and development of special economic zones, the appearance of international trade disputes has increased and focusing on the legal methods of resolving the mentioned disputes has been part of the strategy of the relevant governments. International commercial arbitration is a common and accepted way of resolving disputes in special economic zones. However, some governments have established international commercial courts in these regions in the last two decades due to practical needs. Some features of international commercial courts that are modeled on the rules and methods of international arbitration are: more flexibility in proceedings, the possibility of appointing judges of foreign nationality, allowing the presence of foreign lawyers in court, allowing the parties to agree on conducting private proceedings and expanding the ability to enforce judgments. Also, some gaps in international commercial arbitration, which have been adjusted to some extent in international commercial courts, are: the possibility of a third party entervention, increasing the speed of proceedings, and the independence and impartiality of the investigating authority. In practical terms, also we see a two-way interactive relationship between these two institutions; Because on the one hand, international commercial arbitration has played an important role in the establishment of international commercial courts both in Europe and in Asia, and on the other hand, international commercial courts also play an increasing role in arbitration proceedings and they provide judicial assistance for carrying out and developing the arbitration process or guaranteeing the implementation of arbitration decisions. According to the performance perspective of international commercial courts, their comparative study seems to be a necessary step in order to provide a favorable model that fits the requirements of each country.

Without entering into the subject of standard of proof, National rules and statutes around the international commercial arbitrations prescribe the principle of freedom to determine the value of affirmative evidence and proof of facts for arbitral tribunals. The practice of arbitral tribunals has previously stemmed from intellectual backgrounds of its members and their respective legal systems. Due to the role of common law and civil law lawyers in establishment of arbitration practices and under their influences, two different criteria have been applied in standards of proof. In unification process of practices in arbitrations, the arbitral tribunals had attempted to apply a unique standard of proof and evaluation of evidence. Despite of evaluation of evidence, which has three psychological, logical, and legal aspect, the standard of proof is part of judicial epistemology and it has merely psychological and logical aspect and does not have legal element. It seems that to reach a definite standard of proof is difficult, but conviction threshold definitely has recognizable criteria. In this research, while we examine currently used standards of proof in international commercial arbitrations and analyzing the epistemological aspect to evaluate evidence, we try to determine a reasonable standard to evaluate evidence and examine how to apply and implement it in evaluation of evidence.

Consent and party autonomy, along with the neutrality of arbitral tribunal, are the most featured distinction of arbitration vis a vis other dispute resolution methods. These fundamental features, however, might be affected by the application of unilateral economic sanctions of regional organizations (i.e. European Union) which is indeed for protecting their foreign security policy frameworks and fundamental interests. In one hand, the arbitral tribunals have to respect the parties’ choices, namely the applicable law (which might be against the sanctions), and in the other hand, the courts are obliged to recognized the European Union sanctions as public policy and overriding mandatory provisions and accordingly, set aside or annul the arbitral awards contrary to these provisions. Therefore, the main aim of this research project is to study of the effect of European Union economic sanctions on commercial arbitration disputes, as well as the approach of pertinent courts. The key result is that arbitral tribunals in confrontation with such sanctions as jus cogens, rely on their authorities particularly in term of applicable law, recognition and enforcement of the arbitration award.

Following the expansion of trade oversight intensified in recent years by the United States and the European Union; Private settlement of cross-border trade disputes has faced new problems and challenges. One of these measures is the imposition of international sanctions, which have been used repeatedly in our country. The existence of these sanctions, of course, overshadows the contracts and agreements between the sanctioned parties and other individuals, and in many cases makes their implementation difficult or even impossible. In the present article, according to the arbitration rules of international commercial arbitration institutions, including; The Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, the Arbitration Court of London, as well as related international conventions, in particular the Convention on the International Sale of Goods, will answer the question of what kinds of effects do sanctions impose on international commercial arbitration. The conclusion of the present study is that sanctions affect international commercial arbitration in five ways: the effect on arbitrators, international arbitration centers, implementation of international arbitral awards, contract law, and contractual parties. Sanctioning states have also generally invoked unilateral sanctions as a rule of "public order" in international commercial arbitrations in order to legally justify sanctions.

Public policy and mandatory rules play an important role in international commercial arbitration to the extent that the non-observance and application of public policy and mandatory rules by arbitrators, as the case may be, challenge the invalidity or non-enforcement. These two legal establishments narrow the scope of the free will of individuals and prevent the arbitrability of some issues. In addition to these similarities, there are also differences between public policy and mandatory rules, such as the mechanism of impediment to arbitration; In this way, mandatory rules appear as a primary obstacle and are aggressive, while public order is a secondary obstacle and is defensive. Public policy and mandatory rules are also important because they can be used as a legal tool and basis for the invalidation of unfair terms in arbitration agreements. However, it seems that public policy rules do not work in all cases to invalidate unfair terms, and that special legal provisions should be drafted to provide an appropriate solution to the challenge of unfair terms in arbitration contracts. A similar move can be seen by the French legislature. Utilizing a two-layer government control system to provide an opportunity to renegotiate and adjust the contract is a good way to deal with and overcome the challenge of unfair terms in arbitration contracts.

The arbitration institution, as an institution that can solve commercial disputes along with other institutions despite the regulations, has been receiving the attention of the governments and legal systems of the world for a long time and is progressing and being completed over time. In Iran's judicial system, the topic of domestic arbitration is explained in the seventh chapter of the civil procedure law, articles 454 to 501, very briefly and without entering into a specific regulation, and based on these laws and the applicability of the arbitration mechanism in domestic law. , many global approaches have been directed towards it, not only in Iran, but all over the world, and comprehensive regulations have been applied to them, regardless of possible differences in the form and nature of the arbitration mechanism. Considering the speed and expansion of international trade exchanges and the need to resolve possible disputes between economic players in this field, international commercial arbitration is an important part of international trade law with the approach of saving time and money. dedicated. In this research, while analyzing the role of international commercial arbitration in terms of advantages or disadvantages, the dos and don'ts of arbitration in international commercial claims will be analyzed by analyzing the regulations governing it and analyzing Iran's international commercial arbitration law.analyzing the regulations governing it and analyzing Iran's international commercial arbitration law.

Arbitration is the most common method of dispute resolution in the field of international trade and it consists of resolving the dispute between the litigants by handing it over to the arbitration of the persons chosen by the litigants by agreement, and it includes two stages of handling the dispute and recognizing and enforcing the decision. . But this goal becomes more complete when the decision is valid and enforceable. For this purpose, the decision issued by the international commercial arbitration authority needs to be recognized and enforced by the executing authority. In the meantime, there are obstacles on the way to the implementation of the decision, of which the criterion of public order is the most general and the most prominent, because usually the condemned against the arbitration decision is tried with the help of public order and by resorting to reasons and obstacles that are supported by the legislator and international documents and conventions. to refuse to recognize and implement the vote. International public order represents a set of organizations and legal rules that are inextricably linked with the foundations and principles of civilization of a country and inevitably take precedence over foreign laws. This order is not a common order among all countries, but it is a point of balance between the interests and general order of a country with the general order and interests of other nations and the needs of international trade. What is the position of public order in the implementation of international commercial arbitration rulings? There is a conflict between preventing the violation of domestic values ​​and laws and the desire to respect the certainty of international arbitration rulings, and the most suitable solution to resolve this conflict is to apply the narrow concept of public order in this field. Of course, the court where the judgment is executed must apply the international public order in any case in relation to the execution of international judgments, and even the same seat of international arbitration as the executive court cannot be a good reason to apply the internal public order of the executive court in this field. Nevertheless, despite the importance of public order in the implementation of international commercial arbitration awards, all considerations related to the public order of countries cannot be applied in the implementation of international commercial arbitration awards, and only the international public order of the relevant country is applied with a narrow interpretation.

Arbitration litigation is not always without its drawbacks, so the legislature has considered ways to invalidate arbitral awards, one of which is through retrial. Of course, this issue is controversial among jurists, because some do not consider the retrial as part of the arbitral awards and consider it possible only through the authority and the court that determines the arbitration, but others have foreseen the retrial in the arbitral awards.          

This is a qualitative and applied research in terms of purpose and in terms of collecting information by documentary method and studying international documents, sources related to the subject and the obtained information has been analyzed descriptively-analytically.   

An important issue is the determination of the competent court to consider the annulment of the arbitral award. There are differences of opinion on this issue as well, as national legal systems may also claim jurisdiction over the annulment of arbitration. Therefore, only the national courts can hear the request for annulment of the verdict, which according to the criteria accepted in the relevant legal system of the court, the verdict of the petition for annulment is considered internal to that country. Therefore, in this study, ambiguities and conflicts in the field of retrial and competent court to cancel the arbitral award were resolved.

The development of international commercial contracts and the growth of the isolation of domestic laws from religious roots from one side and jus cogens or ius cogens (compelling law) written in the religious texts on transactions from the other side has established this problem that parties of agreement can deviate from domestic (national) rules which are enacted by states to choose the religious law as governing rules in an agreement. Does the tribunal itself without the consent of the parties in the claim exercise the religious law as the non-state legal rules? Sometimes parties of the commercial agreement for reasons such as religious interests tend to exercise the religious law as the governing rules over the agreement. Sometimes, the tribunal in spite of the silence of the parties in the claim will enforce a non-state law over the subject matter of the arbitration. Although the reality of the commercial world makes it possible to be chosen and enforced the religious principles by parties and the arbitral tribunal in the international commercial contracts but the practical procedure and the regulations of the arbitration in the different legal systems indicating impossibility of enforcement of the religious law by the arbitrators in the supposition of the silence of parties in claim (parties of claim or dispute).

In international arbitration, three objecting techniques to the arbitral awards are distinguished as appeal, adjuration, and annulment. Although no particular definitions of the above-mentioned terms have been expressed through terminology, they have the profound distinctions and differences and it was unknown to the court as well as to the protesting party.

The reviewing authority is the same court which issued the verdict. Likewise, an appeal is based on both the legitimacy review of the decision-making process and a review of judgment merits which will be disposed in a higher court.Conflict of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest in the proposed study.

International commercial arbitration imposes heavy costs to the parties involved. In this regard, one of the new phenomena in international commercial arbitration is "financing of court costs by a third party investor. There are several reasons for the emergence of a third party investor: 1- involved parties may not have the resources to pay for the costs of arbitration or they may be reluctant to use their funds to finance the litigation: 2. the uncertainty of receiving compensation as a result of paying the arbitration fees might encourage the parties to transfer this risk to a third party; 3. having its own advantages and disadvantages. Since the funder holds the power of the purse, TPF entails the risk of the control of the claim being transferred to the third party funder. We might ask whether international arbitration tribunals should examine the extent of the investor's influence in determining the allocation of costs or not. In addition, is it essential to disclose the third parties contracts confidential? Overall, it is concluded that those mentioned Tribunals should allocate and guarantee the arbitration cost and agree on disclosing of third parties fund contracts under urgent conditions by international arbitration tribunal.

Determining the currency of contracts is one of the most important issues in international trade agreements which can be a guarantee for the enforcement of obligations between the parties. The determination of currency in international relations is affected by several relations, such as legal, political, economic and etc., so having sufficient knowledge in each of these areas is essential to determine the currency of the contract. In this research, an attempt has been made to examine the legal aspects in order to determine the law governing the contract currency more than other aspects and In the meantime, the question that may arise is that in case of non-determination of the currency of the contract, what will be the criterion for determining the law governing determination of the currency in litigation in international commercial arbitration, including the issue of compensation? Therefore, in this study, an attempt has been made to examine the various dimensions of determining the currency, the conditions for not determining it, the current arbitration awards and related issues and finally, a solution has been proposed.

Nowadays, party autonomy in determination of arbitration procedural law becomes a guiding principle in international commercial arbitration. The principle is recognized not only by national laws, but also by international institutions’ rules and provisions. In fact, when the parties choose the arbitration mechanism as a dispute resolution method, they enjoy wide freedom to determine the procedural law which is followed by arbitrators. But absolute freedom for parties will breach the due process of arbitration and will also violate public policy. So they are not completely free to eliminate a system of law or certain elements of a system of law. Actually their freedom is limited to observing mandatory rules of the seat of arbitration and the place of enforcing of arbitral award. Also, parties have to adhere to the principles of natural justice to protect the public policy. Additionally, after beginning of arbitration, party autonomy has some limitations which bound parties to get arbitrators consent for change of arbitral procedure. Besides, arbitral tribunal has the discretion to change what the parties have agreed about arbitration procedural law.