laya joneydi; Ayyoub Mansouri Razi
Abstract
Abstract:Usage of Multi-tiered dispute resolutions clauses in commercial contracts , in particular long-term contracts is very common. Theses clauses comprise different stages of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) with Arbitration or litigation. Agreement or decision made in these pre-arbitral or pre-litigation ...
Read More
Abstract:Usage of Multi-tiered dispute resolutions clauses in commercial contracts , in particular long-term contracts is very common. Theses clauses comprise different stages of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) with Arbitration or litigation. Agreement or decision made in these pre-arbitral or pre-litigation stages such as the mediator`s opinion are not binding upon the parties. So the issue is if it is mandatory for parties to follow all steps contemplated in these clauses or not? And what makes these pre-arbitral or pre-litigation steps binding? In this article different relevant opinions will be illustrated. Through comparative studying the case law of ICC, English courts and other countries requirements for pre-arbitral or pre-litigation steps will be illustrated. It is concluded that parties agreement has a binding nature and arrangement must be followed as provided in these clauses and requirements that make different tiers of these clauses as enforceable are clarified. Findings show that if relevant requirements including Usage of binding words,exact drawing of each step and parties` good faith are met, judicial and arbitral authorities take agreed steps in these clauses as binding. In authors` opinions this practice which is in consistent with the principle of freedom of Contracts is correct.
Hamid Bagherzadeh; Ayyoub Mansouri Razi
Volume 8, Issue 30 , June 2020, , Pages 39-67
Abstract
< p >< p >< p >< p >< p >New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards is one of the most globally accepted treaties which offers a pro-enforcement policy. Basically, the precedent echoes the pro-enforcement policy of the Convention. The Convention ...
Read More
< p >< p >< p >< p >< p >New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards is one of the most globally accepted treaties which offers a pro-enforcement policy. Basically, the precedent echoes the pro-enforcement policy of the Convention. The Convention gives the authority to the domestic Courts to restrict the grounds of refusal aiming to enforce more arbitral awards. The refusal grounds, Under the Convention. And public policy and arbitrability; private agreements between the parties and awards annulled in the seat of the arbitration. This article aims to study the pro-enforcement policy of the Courts in various jurisdictions such as Iran. The gathered information indicates that the Courts in many countries limit the refusal grounds relying on the most favourable regime rule under article 7 of the Convention. They construe the subject of public policy and arbitrability for foreign awards in a different way from domestic ones. Moreover, they apply the private set-ups of the parties only if they have been addressed duly in the determination period. Further, they give similar effect to the awards annulled if the grounds of invalidation have the same consequence in the enforcing country.
