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.
Mohammed Mejd Kabry; Azam Ansari
Abstract
Determining the grounds of exclusive jurisdiction in private international disputes is extremely important. However, there is no international uniform criterion for determining the grounds of exclusive jurisdiction. Thus, different legal systems have adopted various approaches to determine their courts' ...
Read More
Determining the grounds of exclusive jurisdiction in private international disputes is extremely important. However, there is no international uniform criterion for determining the grounds of exclusive jurisdiction. Thus, different legal systems have adopted various approaches to determine their courts' exclusive jurisdiction. While a few legal systems have explicitly specified the subject matters falling within their courts' exclusive jurisdiction, the other legal systems such as the Iranian legal system have not determined the grounds of exclusive jurisdiction. So an important question arises about the approach of the last legal systems; in such legal systems, what criteria can be used to guide the judges to determine the grounds of exclusive jurisdiction? This article examines the approach of some legal systems and evaluates some suggested criteria. Finally, the article demonstrates that in the absence of the international uniform concept of exclusive jurisdiction, the judges have to determine the exclusive jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis. They also have to consider the state sovereignty, the subject matter of the dispute, the disputing parties, and the purpose of the lawmaker in providing a particular jurisdiction rule.
Heshmatollah Shahbazi; Ebrahim Taghizaadeh; Morteza Shahbazinia
Abstract
The influence of human rights in private law or in other word constitutionalization of private law is relatively a new debate in legal reasoning that constitute the subject of this research. Applying human rights in private law depends on context, legislator and judge, and reasoning method. The reaction ...
Read More
The influence of human rights in private law or in other word constitutionalization of private law is relatively a new debate in legal reasoning that constitute the subject of this research. Applying human rights in private law depends on context, legislator and judge, and reasoning method. The reaction of different legal systems in this matter is not the same. Direct application, indirect application, judicial application, and non-application is brief of these reactions. Legal system of Iran is capable for direct application of human rights in private law. Although the courts do not use this capacity. Due to distributive justice and for modification of freedom of contract principle, we can apply the human rights and fundamental rights capacity. The human dignity is the concept that enforceable in evaluation of contractual terms and unwaivable [S1] rights so that infringe of human right can be regarded as opposite of public policy. In this research the methods and contexts of constitutionalization of private law has been examined. [S1]این کلمه کلا در فرهنگ لغت وجود ندارد. اگر کلمه تخصصی است که حفظ شود و گرنه با معادلی بهتر جایگزین گردد.
