Comparative Study of Arbitral Awards and Settlement Agreements Refusal Grounds of Relief in Iranian Law and International Provisions

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor of Private Law Department, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

2 Phd Student of Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

Abstract

Considering the great success of the New York Convention in encouraging business activists to use arbitration as a dispute resolution method, the United Nations drafted Singapore Convention on International Commercial Settlement Agreements, of which Iran is a signatory country. One of the most important issues in determining the level of executive support of the said conventions for the settlement agreements and arbitral awards is the examination of grounds for refusing to grant relief of the said treaties' documents, which in fact deprives some arbitral awards and settlement agreements from the executive support of these treaties. This article examines the grounds for refusing to grant relief to the implementation of the New York and Singapore Conventions in the following analytical subjects: "Specific Refusal Grounds of the New York Convention for Supporting the Arbitration Agreement", "Specific Refusal Grounds of the New York Convention Due to the Importance of the Seat in Arbitration", "Refusal Grounds Related to Terms and Conditions of Settlement Agreements in Singapore Convention " and "Refusal Grounds Related to Features and Behavior of Mediator in Singapore Convention". Finally, this article concludes that some refusal grounds of the New York Convention that are not covered by the Singapore Convention are originated from differences between arbitration and conciliation and the Singapore Convention's approach to delocalization and not mentioning rules about agreement to mediate. It also found that many of these grounds were unnecessary and would disorder the implementation of the Singapore Convention and the development of the conciliation in the future. Of course, the approach of the Convention is due to the conciliation's lack of reputation between several countries, and the drafters of the Singapore Convention considered it necessary to mention these provisions in the text of the Convention in order to achieve the consensus of the countries.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. فارسی

    کتاب

    1. الماسی، نجادعلی (1370)، تعارض قوانین، چاپ دوم، مرکز نشر دانشگاهی، تهران.
    2. جنیدی، لعیا (1392)، اجرای رای داوری بازرگانی خارجی، چاپ سوم، موسسه مطالعات و پژوهش‌های حقوقی شهر دانش، تهران.
    3. شیروی، عبدالحسین (1393)، داوری تجاری بین‌المللی، چاپ سوم، انتشارات سمت، تهران.
    4. نصیری، محمد (1377)، حقوق بین‌الملل خصوصی، چاپ پنجم، انتشارات آگاه، تهران.

    مقاله

    1. بوذرجمهری، سرمه؛ امینی، عیسی (1395).«بررسی اعمال یکنواخت کنوانسیون نیویورک 1958 در پرتوی رویه قضایی»، فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی، شماره 75، ص 145-174.
    2. تقی پور، بهرام (1392)، «مسئولیت داور در حقوق ایران و برخی کشورها»، مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، دوره 5، شماره 1، صص 57-85.
    3. جنیدی، لعیا (1390)، «کنوانسیون نیویورک و رژیم اجرایی آن»، مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، دوره 2، شماره 1، صص 52-87.
    4. جنیدی، لعیا؛ مسعودی، رضا (1395). «مطالعۀ تطبیقی وضعیت شرط مکتوب بودن در توافقنامه‌های الکترونیکی داوری»، مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، دوره 7، شماره 1، صص 77-95.
    5. خدری، صالح (1394)، «دادرسی منصفانه در داوری تجاری بین المللی»، مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، دوره 6، شماره 2، صص 519-540.
    6. معبودی، رضا؛ رضائی، سیدعلیرضا (1399)، « رویکرد کنوانسیون سنگاپور 2019 و نظام حقوقی ایران در مورد چالش های سازش نامه های حاصل از میانجی گری تجاری بین المللی»، پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی، شماره 2، صص ۱۱۳-۱۳۸.
    7. معبودی، رضا؛ رضائی، سیدعلیرضا (1399)، « قلمرو سازش‌نامه‌های مشمول کنوانسیون سنگاپور 2019 با مطالعه تطبیقی در حقوق ایران»، فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق خصوصی، دوره 50، شماره 4، صص 783-801.
    8. معبودی، رضا؛ رضائی، سیدعلیرضا (1399)، «تحلیل دعاوی مستثنی‌شده از قلمرو کنوانسیون سنگاپور 2019 با مطالعۀ تطبیقی در حقوق ایران و فقه امامیه»، مطالعات حقوقی معاصر، دوره 11، شماره 20، صص 169-194.
    9. واحد، شقایق؛ معبودی، رضا (1394)، «استقلال و بی طرفی داور؛ ترادف یا تمایز؟ (مطالعه تطبیقی در داوری تجاری بین‌المللی»، مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی ، دوره 6، شماره 1، صص 393-412.

    انگلیسی

    Books

    1. Doak Bishop, (2011), Ethics in International Arbitration, Arbitration Advocacy in Changing Times, “International Council for Commercial Arbitration Congress Series, Hague: Kluwer Law International.
    2. Redfern Alan ;Hunter Martin, (2009). The Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration , London: Oxford University Press.
    3. Tirdao, Joe; Maravall, Elisa Vicente, (2019). Codes of Conduct for Commercial and Investment Mediators: Striving for Consistency and a Common Global Approach, “Mediation in International Commercial and Investment Disputes”, London: Oxford University Press.

    Articles

    1. Alexander, Nadja, (2019). “Ten Trends In International Mediation”, Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 31, p405-447.
    2. Alexander, Nadja; Chong, Shou, (2019) "The new UN Convention on mediation (aka the ‘Singapore Convention’) – Why it’s important for Hong Kong", Hong Kong Lawyer Research Collection School Of Law, pp1-8.
    3. Alexander, Nadja; Chong, Shou, (2019)(A). "The new UN Convention on mediation (aka the ‘Singapore Convention’) – Why it’s important for Hong Kong", Hong Kong Lawyer Research Collection School Of Law, p1-8.
    4. Alexander, Nadja; Chong, Shou, (2019)(B), "Singapore convention series: Why is there no ‘seat’ of mediation?", Hong Kong Lawyer Research Collection School Of Law, p1-8.
    5. Busch, Marc (2007); "Overlapping Institutions, Forum Shopping, and Dispute Settlement in International Trade", International Organization, Vol 61.
    6. CHONG, Shou Yu and STEFFEK Felix (2019). “Enforcement of international settlement agreements resulting from mediation under the Singapore convention Private international law issues in perspective”, Singapore Academy of Law Journal Research Collection School Of Law, 31, p1-39.
    7. Claxton, James M.,“The Singapore Convention for Mediation: From Promotion to Workable Standards by Way of New York”, 2020, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3612380, Last Accessed at 2020/11/01.
    8. Herisi, Ahdieh Alipour; Wendy Trachte-Huber, (2019). "Aftermath of the Singapore Convention: A Comparative Analysis between the Singapore Convention and the New York Convention", American Journal of Mediation, 12, p 154-173.
    9. Morris-Sharma, Natalie, (2019), “Constructing The Convention On Mediation The Chairperson’s Perspective”, Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 31, 2019, p 487-519.
    10. Rogers, Catherine A. (2002), “Fit and Functional in Legal Ethics: Developing a Code of Conduct for International Arbitration”, 23 Michigan journal international law, 23, p 341-423.
    11. Schnabel, Timothy, (2019), "The singapore convention on mediation: framework for the cross-border recognition and enforcement of mediated settlements", Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 19, pp 1-60.
    12. Senties, Hector Flores. (2019). "Grounds to Refuse the Enforcement of Settlement Agreements under the Singapore Convention on Mediation: Purpose, Scope, and Their Importance for the Success of the Convention." Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 20, 4, p. 1235-1258.
    13. Silvestri, Elisabetta, (2019).“The Singapore Convention On Mediated Settlement Agreements: A New String To The Bow Of International Mediation?”, Access To Justice In Eastern Europe Journal, 4, p5-12.
    14. UNCITRAL, “Working Group HI (Arbitration and Conciliation)”, 63rd Session, 2015(B), Available at: https://uncitral.un.org/en/working_groups/2/arbitration Last Accessed at 2020/11/01.
    15. UNCITRAL, “Working Group HI (Arbitration and Conciliation)”, 62nd session, 2015(A), Available at: https://uncitral.un.org/en/working_groups/2/arbitration, Last Accessed at 2020/11/01.
    16. UNCITRAL, “Working Group HI (Arbitration and Conciliation)”, 48th session, 2015(C), Available at: https://uncitral.un.org/en/working_groups/2/arbitration, Last Accessed at 2020/11/01.
    17. UNCITRAL, “Working Group HI (Dispute Settlement)”, 65th Session, 2016(A), Available at: https://uncitral.un.org/en/working_groups/2/arbitration, Last Accessed at 2020/11/01.
    18. UNCITRAL, “Working Group HI (Dispute Settlement)”, 64th Session, 2016(B), Available at: https://uncitral.un.org/en/working_groups/2/arbitration, Last Accessed at 2020/11/01.
    19. UNCITRAL, “Working Group HI (Dispute Settlement)”, 67th Session, 2017, Available at: https://uncitral.un.org/en/working_groups/2/arbitration, Last Accessed at 2020/11/01.
    20. UNCITRAL, “Working Group HI (Dispute Settlement)”, 68th Session, 2018, Available at: https://uncitral.un.org/en/working_groups/2/arbitration, Last Accessed at 2020/11/01.

     

Journal of Comparative Law
Volume 5, Issue 1 - Serial Number 7
April 2021
Pages 173-192

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 03 September 2020
  • Revise Date: 21 November 2020
  • Accept Date: 27 December 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics