تحلیل تطبیقی مرجع صالح در رسیدگی به ایرادات در حقوق داوری ایران و چین با تأکید بر مقررات سیتک

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده علوم انسانی و حقوق، واحد اصفهان (خوراسگان)، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، اصفهان، ایران

2 دانشیار گروه حقوق، دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصاد، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.

3 استادیار گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده علوم انسانی و حقوق، واحد اصفهان (خوراسگان)، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، اصفهان، ایران

4 استادیار گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده علوم انسانی و حقوق، واحد اصفهان (خوراسگان)، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، اصفهان، ایران.

چکیده

با شروع داوری، طرفین ممکن است ایراداتی را نسبت به اعتبار قرارداد اصلی، وجود یا اعتبار قرارداد داوری و یا صلاحیت داور مطرح نمایند. در چنین شرایطی این سؤال مطرح است که کدام مرجع، صالح به رسیدگی می‌باشد؟ در پاسخ به این سؤال قوانین مختلف برحسب توجه یا عدم توجه به اصول «استقلال شرط داوری» و «صلاحیت در تعیین صلاحیت» موضع‌گیری‌های متفاوتی دارند، بعضی مراجع قضایی، بعضی داور یا دیوان‌ داوری و بعضی رئیس‌ نهاد داوری را صالح به رسیدگی می‌دانند. این پژوهش به روش توصیفی قصد دارد مرجع صالح بر رسیدگی به ایرادات فوق را در قوانین داوری ایران و چین به‌طور تطبیقی بررسی نماید. قوانین نوین حاکم بر داوری مرجع صالح را داور یا دیوان داوری می‌داند. بررسی قوانین داوری ایران و چین گویای آن است که در داوری‌های داخلی ایران به‌موجب ماده ۴۶1 قانون‌آیین‌دادرسی‌مدنی ظاهراً، مراجع قضایی صالح به رسیدگی می‌باشند. هرچند، براساس بعضی تفاسیر، این ماده در مقام تعیین مراجع قضایی به عنوان مرجع صالح بر رسیدگی به ایرادات فوق‌الذکر نبوده است. قانون ‌داوری‌ تجاری ‌بین‌المللی ‌ایران صراحتاً رسیدگی به ایرادات فوق‌الذکر را در صلاحیت داور قرارداده‌است. قوانین داوری چین و مقررات کمیسیون‌ داوری ‌تجاری‌ و ‌اقتصادی ‌‌بین‌المللی‌ چین_سیتک به عنوان یکی از مهم‌ترین نهادهای داوری در چین مرجع رسیدگی به ایرادات مذکور را بر حسب شرایط و موضوع ایراد رئیس سازمان داوری، دادگاه‌های مردمی و دیوان داوری می‌داند. در نتیجه به لحاظ مواضع متفاوت قوانین داوری ایران و چین در تعیین مرجع صالح، لازم است طرفین قبل از طرح هر ایرادی، براساس قانون و مقررات حاکم بر داوری مرجع صالح را شناسایی و سپس اقدام به طرح ایراد نمایند، تا از اطاله رسیدگی ناشی از انتخاب مرجع فاقد صلاحیت جلوگیری شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparative analysis of competent authority in dealing with defects in arbitration law Iran and China with Emphasis on CITEC Regulations

نویسندگان [English]

  • Sima Alavi Hejazi 1
  • Mahmoud Jalali 2
  • Maryam Ghorbanifar 3
  • Ali Radan Jebeli 4
1 PhD student in Private Law, Faculty of Humanities and Law, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Humanities and Law, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
4 Assistant Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Humanities and Law, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.
چکیده [English]

In arbitration, the parties may raise objections regarding the validity of the original contract, the existence or validity of arbitration agreement, or the competence of arbitrator. In such a situation, the question arises as to which authority is competent to deal with it? In response different laws have different positions depending on whether or not they pay attention to the principles of "independence of the arbitration clause" and "competence de la competence". This research, using a descriptive method, intends to compare the competent authority on the handling of the above objections in arbitration laws of Iran and China. The new laws governing arbitration consider the competent authority to be an arbitrator or an arbitration court. This examination shows that, according to Article 461 of the Civil Procedure Law, judicial authorities are competent to handle Iranian domestic arbitrations. However, according to some interpretations, this article was not in the position of determining the judicial authorities as the competent authority to deal with the above-mentioned objections. Iran's international commercial arbitration law has explicitly assigned the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to deal with aforementioned objections. China's arbitration laws and the regulations of the China International Commercial and Economic Arbitration Commission-CITEC, consider the head of the arbitration organization, people's courts and the arbitration court to be the authority for dealing with aforementioned objections according to the conditions and the subject matter of the objection. As a result, in terms of the different positions of the arbitration laws of Iran and China in determining the competent authority, it is necessary for the parties to identify the competent authority based on the law and regulations governing the arbitration before raising any objection, and then proceed to raise the objection, in order to avoid delaying the proceedings caused by The selection of unqualified authority should be avoided.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Arbitration Clause
  • Arbitration
  • CITEC
  • Main Contract
  • Jurisdiction

مراجع

Abedi, M. (2006). Competence Jurisdiction et Competence Arbitration Interntional Law Review, 35, 89-146 [ In Persian].
Annual, Report on International Commercial Arbitration in China, 2017              (http://www.cietac.org/index.php?m=Article&a=show&id=16427&l=en).
Bahrami, B. (2000). Procedure Civil. Tehran. Behnami
Cao, L. (2008). Rule of Law in China: Chinese Law and Business CIETAC as a                        Forum for Resolving Business Dispute, The Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford, www.fljs.org.
Carbonneau, T.E. (2010). Carbonneau On Arbitration: Collected Essas, USA. Jures
China National Technical Import and Export Corp. v. Swiss Industrial Resources Co. Inc. [1988] Hu Zhong Jing Zi No. 30, 11 October 1988, reported in SPC Cases Reports, Issue 1, 1989
Civil Judgment (8809970301200750) Dated 2009/10/17 Issued by The General Court of Law Yazd [ In Persian].  
Civil Judgment (8809970302501059) Issued by Apeal Court of Law Yazd. [ In Persian].
Civil Judgment (9009975110200772) Dated 2011/9/29 Issued by The General Court of Law Mashhad. [ In Persian]
Civil Judgment (J04 MT [2017] No. 21) issued by Beijing Municipal No. 4 Intermediate People’s Court on 24 October, 2017. (Annual Report   on International Commercial Arbitration in China, 2017). 
Emami, H. (1996). Civil Law. Vol: 6. Press: 7. Tehran, Eslamei. [ In Persian].
Eskini, H. (2004). Commercial Law Generalities, Commercial Acts, Merchants and Organization of Commercial Activity. Tehran. Samt. [ In Persian].
Farshchian, M., & Deputy of Judiciary Education & Darvishzadeh, M. (2009).  Collection of Judicial Sessions (24).  Publisher Qaza. [ In Persian].
http://www.Cietac.org.cn/english/rules/rules.htm. . 
http://www.cietac.org/index.php?m=Article&a=show&id=16427en.
http://www.cietac.org/index.php?m=Article&a=show&id=2399&l=n
Jafarian, M. (1994). Reflection on Interntional Arbitration (1). Majlis and Pashoohesh. 13. 109-142 [ In Persian].
Jacobs, M s. (1994)." The Separability of The Arbitration Clause", The Australian Law Journal, 68, 618-639
jahanian M., & Shahbazinia M. (2019).  Application of the competence-competence principle in arbitrability of claims, comparative analysis of Iranian and American law. Comparative Law Researches. 23 (2). 33-56 [ In Persian].
Joneydi, L. (1997). Applicable Law in International Commercial Arbitration. Tehran Dadgostar Publication [ In Persian].
Joneydi, L. (1999). A Critical and Comparative Study of Commercial Arbitration Act (of Iran). Tehran. University Tehran [ In Persian].
Katouzian, N. (1997). Iranian Civil Law General Principles of Contracts. Vol:1. Tehran. Bahman Borna Publishing [ In Persian]
Katouzian, N. (2004). Elementary Courses of Iranian Civil Law. Vol:1. Tehran. Bahman Borna Publishing [ In Persian].
Khodabakhshi, A. (2020). Arbitration Rights and Related Claims in Judicial Procedure. Press7. Tehran. Publishing Company. [ In Persian].
King, H. T. & Wood Mallesons. (2012). “Dispute Resolution Group. King HT, Wood Mallesons” Dispute Resolution Group. The Validity of Arbitration Agreements under Chinese Law. available at (https://www.chinalawinsight.com).
Kronke, H. & Nacimiento, P. & Otto, D. & Christine Port, N. (2010). Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Award: Aglobal Commentary on the New York Convention. Netherland: Kluwer Law International.
Kun, F. (2008). “Arbitration in China: Practic, Legal Obstacles and Reforms”, Icc International Court of Arbitration Blletin.19(2), 25-40
Li, H. China Insights. (http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/04/12/interviews-with-our-editors-china-insights-from-dr-li-hu-of-cietac/ )
Lin, M. (2007). "Beijing Court upholds CIETAC Award in favour of Foreign Party", Asian Dispute Review. 9(4), 137–138
Mafi, H., (2018). A Commentary on Interntional Commercial Arbitration Act of Iran. Press2. Tehran. University of Judicial Sciencees and Admminstrative Services. [ In Persian].
Mafi, H., & Eshaghi, M. (2023). Obstacles to Recognition and Enforcement of New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) and International Commercial Arbitration Act of Iran (1995). Comparative Law Quarterly. 7(1). 151 - 168. https://doi.org/10.22080/lps.2022.24482.1418 [ In Persian].
Miller, J. (2013). "International Commercial Arbitration in China: Locating the Development of CIETAC in the Context of International and Domestic Factors", Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies. 22. 76-100
Nikbakht, H. (2019). Interntional Commercial on Arbitration “Arbitration Procedure”. Press3. Tehran. The Institute for Trad Studies & Reserch. [ In Persian]
Kostrzewa, B. (2006)."China International Economic Trade Arbitration Commission in 2006: New Rules, Same Results". Washington International Law Journal Washington International Law Journal. 15(2). 518-541
Pisacane, G., & Murphy, L., & Zhang, C. (2016). Arbitration in China (Rules Perspectives), 1th edn, Springe.
Safai. S.H. (1998). A Few Words About  The Innovations and Shortcomings of The International Commercial Arbitration Law.  Law and Political Science. 40. 5-39 [ In Persian]
Sarvi, A. (2019). Practical Approach to The Issue of Arbitration in Iranian Law. Press1. Publisher Fekrsazan. [ In Persian]
 Shams. A. (2003). Arbitration Agreement and Court Jurisdiction. Law Reserch Magazine. 37. 9-44 [ In Persian]
Susler, O Zlem (2009).” the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Tribunal: A Transational Analysis of the Negative Effect of Competenc”, Macyuaric Journal of Busines Law, 6. 119-145
Wallace, I. N. D. (1990), "Control by the Courts: A Plea for More, Not Less", Arbitration International.6 (3). 253-267
www.cietac.org.
Yu, J., & Cao, L. (2020). A Guide to the CIETAC Arbitration Rules. Oxford University DOI:10.1093/law/9780199671717.001.0001.                 
Zeraat, A. (2007). The Provision of The Civil Procedure Law. Press:3. Tehran. Qoqnoos. [ In Persian]
Zeynali, T. (2019). Law Suits For Annulment of Arbitration Award in Court. Tehran. Cheragh Danesh. [ In Persian]
Zhang, X. (1999). "Arbitration in China: A Legal Over view", Murdoch university Electronic Journal of law. 6(3) Available at (http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurdochUeJlLaw/1999/23.html
      
       
 
پژوهشنامه حقوق تطبیقی
دوره 9، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 17
در حال صفحه آرایی و بارگزاری فایل های PDF
فروردین 1404

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 0-287 فروردین 782
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 0-180 فروردین 782
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 0-119 فروردین 782

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار