Soheila Dibafar; Morteza Shahbazinia; Fereidoon Nahreini
Abstract
One of the essential objectives of international arbitration is to obtain fair and neutral procedures without being bound by the formalities and technicalities of procedural rules applicable in national courts. This aim is affirmed by articles 18 and 19 of Iran International Commercial Arbitration Act, ...
Read More
One of the essential objectives of international arbitration is to obtain fair and neutral procedures without being bound by the formalities and technicalities of procedural rules applicable in national courts. This aim is affirmed by articles 18 and 19 of Iran International Commercial Arbitration Act, approved in 1376, and sections 33 and 34 of England Arbitration 1996 Act. In such a private dispute resolution mechanism, the parties’ autonomy is significantly accepted in the law governing the rules of arbitral proceedings. Furthermore, by considering the two basic principles (parties’ rights must be heard and treated equally), arbitrators have a wide range of initiative in determining the rules of proceedings. Therefore, the idea of neutrality of the arbitral seat is considerable and acceptable in the arbitral proceedings. Yet, the question that arises is to what extent the neutrality of the arbitral seat is acceptable in evidence. According to the international arbitration acts reviewed in this essay, the procedural flexibility, namely, the neutrality of the seat of arbitration is allowed to the extent that it does not contradict with the fundamental requirements of evidence.
