جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « Foreign court » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

Anti-suit injunction is a traditional common law instrument that aims to restrain one of the disputing parties from instituting or continuing proceedings in a foreign court. Although an anti‐suit injunction is directed against the plaintiff, not against the foreign court, civil law countries hold a skeptical view towards anti-suit injunctions as such injunctions intervene in another state’s sovereignty and breach the international comity. This study aims to examine the possibility of issuing anti-suit injunction in the EU, Chinese, and Iranian law. The study contends that under the EU law, the courts of EU member states are prohibited from issuing anti-suit injunctions against a plaintiff in the courts of another EU member state. On the other hand, the EU law does not prevent the courts of EU member states from issuing anti-suit injunctions against a plaintiff in the courts of a third country when they have the power to do so under their national laws. In China, the Chinese courts do not have the power to grant anti-suit injunctions. However, recently, some Chinese courts have issued anti-suit injunctions against plaintiffs in foreign fora. In Iran, the Iranian courts can also issue an anti-suit injunction against a plaintiff in a foreign forum under some circumstances.

In some cases, to discover the facts, foreign arbitral tribunals need to obtain evidence from third parties located outside the arbitral tribunal's seat and in another country's territory. Sometimes due to the lack of general jurisdiction and authority, they have to use the judicial assistance of the national courts of foreign countries. In many advanced legal systems, including the American legal system, this authority is provided for the courts to assist the international arbitral tribunals in providing evidence to foreign arbitral tribunals to obtain evidence, including testimony and submission of documents, judicial assistance and acceptance of representation. The present study aims to answer these questions with a descriptive-analytical method, judicial assistance of national courts in acquiring evidence for foreign arbitration courts and accepting judicial representation based on which legal rules are possible. Moreover, based on international commercial arbitration law, do the national courts of Iran have the possibility of providing judicial assistance and accepting judicial representation in acquiring evidence from arbitration courts whose headquarters are outside the country's territorial territory? Since in most countries, the discourse of arbitration involves two distinct systems consisting of domestic and international arbitration, in this study, only the International Commercial Arbitration Law was approved in 1376, and the international arbitration rules of some countries have been discussed. The provisions of domestic arbitration, except for a cursory glance, are ignored in the second part so that the field of research stays in the international arbitration system.

While principal private international actions are pending before a court, there is a possibility for arising related actions. However, if the court doesn’t have jurisdiction over related actions, two important questions may arise; the first one is if the Iranian or Egyptian courts have jurisdiction to decide the principal dispute, can they take the jurisdiction to decide the related actions? Also, if the foreign court has jurisdiction over the principal action, is the Iranian or Egyptian court required to dismiss jurisdiction in favor of the foreign court?  The article with the descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach examines the approach of Iranian and Egyptian laws in this area. The article shows that where the Iranian or Egyptian court has jurisdiction over the principal action, it can take jurisdiction to decide the related actions. Nevertheless, if the Iranian court has jurisdiction to decide the related actions, the jurisdiction of the foreign court over the principal action does not prevent the Iranian court to exercise the jurisdiction over related actions. However, on this question, there are contradicted views in Egyptian law.

The development of global communications, legal relations between the parties in the international arena is also expanding. This has led to the emergence of the problems is that in addition to the domestic legal to take an international dimension. This becomes more important when, as a historical necessity and an Islamic order seeking to expand relations with the Islamic countries and the international alliance with them, too.So should consider whether to accept the judgments that courts in different countries, especially Islamic countries exported there jurisprudence? It has a double importance on personal status.So you can say yes to the above question is an important step towards the realization of close and effective relations with Islamic countries and strengthening relations is removed.In this article we shall see that the laws of Jurisprudence, regarding personal status, acceptance of orders is quite possible other countries....But on the other, although problems such as lack of sentencing by Judge Vote fully qualified for admission but there are rules such as no requirement, as well as Shrvthm Almvmnvn bed capacity state law opens the door to acceptance of non-Islamic courts and Islamic countries.