Scope of validity of the final judicial decision in out-of-court dispute resolution processesBy comparative study in the legal systems of common law and Iran

The validity of the judicial seal as a universal principle to prevent the resumption of litigation and to maintain public order in relation to the judicial order is common in legal systems. In contrast, out-of-court dispute resolution processes such as arbitration, mediation, conciliation and negotiation are not based on the same rule, and the question is whether these processes extend to the scope of validity of the adjudicated case or not?

The method of writing this article is descriptive-analytical.

In addition to being low-cost, the dispute resolution processes described in the customary system have a wide range of examples. In contrast, the first step in resolving a dispute in Iranian law is to file a lawsuit in court, and the use of these methods is seldom and sometimes considered as leverage for pressure from the other party.

Despite many differences, arbitration, along with the court ruling, has entered the scope of validity of the final judicial case, while other processes due to the lack of effectiveness of the accepted principles of the validity of the adjudicated case, such as certainty and finality in terms of enforcement. They do not have the power to enter into this credibility, and their only advantage in the Kamnala system is to end disputes by relying on these processes and avoiding imposing costs on the judiciary.