Arbitration

In international construction contracts, in which huge financial, technical and human resources are needed, it is vital to solve all disputes at the site of project immediately. Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) of the International Federation of Consulting Engineers or FIDIC which has been in use for a long time, particularly in the US, has remarkable success in avoiding prolonged arbitration or litigation. Board members are nominated by consensus at the time when the parties to the contract are focused on the agreement. They are independent with particular technical expertise appropriate to the contract. DAB is completely different from FIDIC’S old model construction contracts. DAB is close to arbitration and the enforcement of their decisions is almost similar. This is why legal evaluation of DAB’s decisions seems to be very important. There is no international convention for the enforcement of DAB decisions yet. However, finding ways to enforce them can accelerate the development of DAB in international contracts. Here the 1958 New York Convention as the most applicable and famous in the field of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards can assist us in the procedure of evaluation and enforceability of those decisions. This article aims to study the development of DAB in one introduction, three main parts and a conclusion. Part One will show what a DAB is and discusses different kinds of DAB. Enforcement of DAB decisions will be looked at in Part Two. Finally, Part Three will review the possibility of applying the 1958 New York Convention to DAB decision. The Conclusion will follow with concluding remarks.

Introduction : The issue of developing arbitration on persons other than parties to the arbitration is one of the issues that are disputed by legal scholars. In the arbitration agreement, no person, except the parties to the agreement, is bound to arbitration and has no right to invoke it. Prohibiting the extension of the effects of the arbitration agreement to persons outside the contract is accepted, but it should be noted that the persons who sign a contract are not always its real parties. Therefore, the current study was formed with the aim of investigating the role of ethics in the development of arbitration clauses towards third parties in Iran. Material and Methods : In order to achieve the goal of the research, in addition to legal books in this field, articles related to the research keywords from 2011 to 2021 were examined from the databases of Magiran, Civilica, Sid, and Ensani. Conclusion : A creditable nature is not limited to external signs such as correspondence or names included in the contract, but it is a creditable fact that may prove that the works of the contract belong to a person who was not present when the contract was concluded and his name has not even been mentioned. The real original theory, which has found a special place in contract law today, is the result of the challenge faced by lawyers in this field. In fact, the ethical basis requires that every person accepts the obligation or action that is related to the rights and obligations of the arbitration parties and does not shy away from responsibility. On the other hand, no one should be held responsible for the obligations of others, and the development of the arbitration clause should not cause losses to third parties. Therefore, the development of the arbitration clause must be done within the bounds of the obligations.

With the acceptance of international trade and its expansion in the 20th century, the need to prepare a suitable mechanism to resolve disputes, especially in non-international dimensions, became one of the important concerns to maintain commercial relations and contracts. And this caused that, despite the global skepticism towards arbitration, in a short time arbitration and mediation were considered as a way to resolve conflicts, especially regarding international commercial disputes. On June 26, 2018, the Singapore Convention was approved by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) regarding international agreements resulting from mediation. And the plan of UNCITRAL was modified in the field of international commercial mediation and international settlement agreements resulting from mediation. The purpose of ratifying this convention is to establish a binding legal system and an efficient framework and legal platform for the implementation of international agreements resulting from mediation. Previously, the adoption of the New York Convention by expanding the use of the arbitration method as a way to settle disputes was considered one of the most successful international treaties in this field. In total, the present research, with an analytical and argumentative method, seeks to respond to the main philosophy of concluding and the scope of application of each of the two New York and Singapore Conventions, by examining the weak and strong points of each, it explains the position of these two treaties in resolving conflicts and disputes and discusses the similarities and differences between the New York Convention and the Singapore Convention on Mediation.

Notwithstanding the explicit provision for interpretive awards under Article 32 of Iran’s Law on International Commercial Arbitration, their application in domestic arbitration remains contentious. However, their existence may be inferred from instruments such as Article 9 of the 2022 Arbitration Fee Regulations. The absence of a comprehensive definition for interpretive awards has perpetuated conceptual confusion and facilitated their misuse as substitutes for revision procedures—a problematic tendency that, when considered alongside the significant benefits of properly utilized interpretive awards, underscores the critical importance of precisely understanding this legal mechanism. Interpretive awards must be conceptualized within established legal frameworks including res judicata and functus officio. Crucially, such awards address only those ambiguities arising from either drafting deficiencies or divergent party interpretations, rendering them fundamentally distinct from supplementary or corrective awards. In international law, interpretive awards appear in various instruments including the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules (which govern the Iran-U.S. arbitration agreement). International practice demonstrates that valid interpretation requests must satisfy specific criteria: (1) demonstration of genuine ambiguity; (2) pursuit of clarification rather than substantive modification; (3) direct relevance to the award’s scope; and (4) grounding in established factual circumstances. Proper requests should additionally include: (a) the ambiguous text; (b) explanation of the ambiguity; and (c) the parties’ conflicting interpretations. The jurisprudence of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal confirms that failure to meet these requirements has resulted in uniform rejection of interpretation requests.

The resignation of an arbitrator constitutes one of the grounds for the termination of an arbitrator’s mandate, as provided for in most national arbitration laws and institutional arbitration rules. However, the legal dimensions and implications of such resignation- including its effects on the parties’ rights and the arbitral proceedings- may vary depending on the arbitrator’s motives for resigning and the justifiability (or lack thereof) of those motives. For instance, the acceptance of a resignation, the method of appointing a substitute arbitrator, the possibility of continuing proceedings before a truncated tribunal (i.e., without replacing the resigning arbitrator), and even the arbitrator’s potential civil liability may be subject to differing legal determinations based on whether the resignation is deemed justified. Domestic and international arbitration laws and rules have addressed arbitrator resignations through divergent approaches, often focusing solely on the replacement of the arbitrator while neglecting broader legal and ethical challenges. These challenges include the permissibility of resignation, its acceptance, its impact on the continuation of proceedings, and the prevention of its abuse. The unique characteristics of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal have rendered the issue of arbitrator resignation particularly significant within its framework. Notable in this regard are the Tribunal’s jurisprudence and its modifications to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules- aimed at mitigating procedural delays arising from resignations. One of the most consequential procedural rules derived from the Tribunal’s experience is the addition of Paragraph 5 to Article 13 of the UNCITRAL Rules, which imposes an obligation on the resigning arbitrator to continue participating in proceedings (post-resignation) in cases where they have already taken part in the merits hearing. This provision, known as the Mosk Rule, has introduced a distinctive mechanism to safeguard procedural integrity. This article examines the rationale behind the Mosk Rule, its legal effects in light of general principles governing arbitrator resignation and replacement, its implications on the parties’ rights, the imperative of ensuring fair and equitable proceedings, and the preservation of arbitration’s legitimacy and credibility. Furthermore, the study proposes measures to deter unjustified resignations and mitigate their adverse impact on arbitral proceedings.

The principle of res judicata serves as a fundamental pillar of adjudication within legal frameworks, prohibiting a judicial body from re-adjudicating a dispute that has already been resolved and for which a judicial decision has been rendered. This paper explores the jurisprudence of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, critically analyzing the Tribunal’s reasoning and approach to res judicata. A descriptive-analytical analysis, alongside a meticulous examination of the Tribunal’s rulings, reveal inconsistencies in its application of res judicata. At times, the Tribunal has raised the threshold for its application compared to similar courts and Tribunals, whereas at other instances, it has broadened its scope. Over time, the Tribunal has not remained consistent with its prior findings regarding res judicata, occasionally excluding certain disputes from its ambit based on insufficiently robust arguments. Furthermore, when applying this principle, the Tribunal has expanded its scope and asserted authority over all aspects of the ruling articulated in the operative part of the judgment. Consequently, a notable inconsistency exists within the Tribunal’s rulings regarding the application of pertaining to the principle of res judicata.

Iran’s Law on International Commercial Arbitration (LICA), inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Arbitration, was enacted in 1997 with the aim of modernizing the country’s approach to international commercial disputes. Employing a descriptive- analytical methodology, this paper analyzes LICA’s strengths and weaknesses with a focus on the Iranian Constitution which- as the country’s Supreme Law - has seemingly eclipsed the arbitration process. Specifically, this research zeroes in on the potential conflict between Article 139 of the Constitution, which mandates parliamentary approval for foreign disputes involving state assets, and the inherently expeditious nature of arbitration. This study argues that these constitutional formalities - while safeguarding national interests - should be reduced as they may hamper the efficiency and expeditiousness typically associated with arbitration. The author proposes that - as arbitration is intertwined with less formality - the Guardian Council can invoke its constitutional powers to curtail these formalities and create an environment conducive to a standard arbitration process. This analysis maintains that the Iranian Constitution does not necessarily supersede arbitration provisions, and proposes that the Council has the authority to streamline arbitral procedures within the legal framework of the Islamic Republic of Iran.