تحلیلی بر آثار توصیف تصمیم دادگاه در تعیین داور (مطالعه تطبیقی نظام حقوقی ایران و کامن لا) | ||
| فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی | ||
| مقاله 12، دوره 28، شماره 3، شهریور 1404، صفحه 179-194 اصل مقاله (650.07 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.48308/jlr.2024.235417.2716 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| عادل ابراهیم پور اسنجان* 1؛ مهرداد اعتماد قراملکی2 | ||
| 1استادیار، دانشکده حقوق و علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران (نویسنده مسئول) ebrahimpooradel@gmail.com | ||
| 2دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه تهران: دانشکدگان فارابی، قم، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| امروزه نهاد داوری بهعنوان یکی از کارآمدترین روشهای حلوفصل اختلافات مدنی و تجاری محسوب میشود. با درج شرط داوری در قرارداد یا توافق بر رسیدگی به اختلافات بهطریق نهاد داوری، صلاحیت محاکم قضایی تخصیص میخورد؛ بنابراین در چنین مواردی مداخله دادگاهها در فرایند داوری محدود و بهصورت حداقلی است. اما در برخی از اختلافات ازجمله انتخاب داور، طرفین دعوا ناگزیر به محاکم رجوع میکنند. تعیین داور توسط دادگاه موضوع مهم و کاربردی است که باید ماهیت این تصمیم مورد بررسی قرار گیرد که آیا این تصمیم از ماهیت اداری برخوردار است یا واجد وصف قضایی است؟ بدیهی است، هنگامی که انتخاب داور مستلزم رسیدگی قضایی نباشد، ماهیت تصمیم دادگاه اداری است و در مواقعی که دادگاهها وجود قرارداد یا شرط داوری و اعتبار آن را احراز میکنند، بهصورت قضایی رسیدگی میکند و درنتیجه ماهیت تصمیم دادگاه در انتخاب داور قضایی است | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| انتخاب داور؛ داوری؛ توصیف اداری؛ توصیف قضایی؛ مداخله دادگاهها در رسیدگی داوری | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Analysis of the Effects of Describing the Court's Decision in Appointing Arbitrator:A Comparative Study of Iran's Legal System and Common Law | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| adel ebrahimpoor asanjan1؛ Mehrdad Etemad2 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law & Social Sciences, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran Corresponding Author Email: ebrahimpooradel@gmail.com | ||
| 2. L.L.M Student, Faculty of Law, University of Tehran: College of Farabi, Qom, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Over the past few decades, arbitration has established itself as one of the most effective and efficient mechanisms in various legal systems for alternative dispute resolution, particularly in civil and commercial legal contexts. In light of recent developments and the growing trend toward privatized dispute resolution mechanisms, the inclusion of arbitration clauses in contracts results in the exclusion of judicial authorities’ jurisdiction and the allocation of disputes to arbitral tribunals. Nonetheless, the scope and manner of court intervention in the arbitration process remain central concerns. This issue has long attracted scholarly attention from both the viewpoint of protecting the independence of arbitration institution and the need to ensure fair and effective enforcement of arbitration. Although minimal judicial interference is the prevailing principle, courts inevitably play a decisive role at certain pivotal stages, especially in selection and appointment of arbitrators. This intervention, although limited, serves a complementary function in guaranteeing the efficiency of arbitration, particularly where the parties’ agreement is incomplete, ambiguous, or unenforceable, or when one party refuses to fulfill its obligations regarding the appointment of arbitrators.The appointment of an arbitrator by the court constitutes a fundamental and practical issue, the analysis of which necessitates a thorough examination of the legal nature of the court’s decision in this process, whether it is administrative or judicial. This examination is crucial because each attributes entails distinct and conflicting legal consequences particularly regarding the possibility of objection, appeal, and other procedural remedies. In Iranian legal system, the legislator has remained silent on court’s decision description when appointing an arbitrator. This lacuna has led to divergent views within legal doctrine and judicial practice, resulting in varied interpretations and inconsistent case law in similar cases. This study adopts a comparative approach to examine and analyze the issue within both the Iranian legal system and common law jurisdictions. The primary objective is to explore and determine the legal nature of the court’s decision in appointing arbitrators and to elucidate the legal effects and implications associated with its characterization as either administrative or judicial. Some legal scholars and judicial authorities believe that court’s decision regarding the appointment of an arbitrator possesses a judicial nature. This perspective is grounded in the premise that, before reaching such a decision, the court is compelled to ascertain certain substantive and procedural conditions, including the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement, the parties’ competence, the arbitrability of the subject matter, and compliance with mandatory rules related to public order. These considerations necessitate a form of substantive and quasi-adversarial examination by the court, going beyond the mere performance of administrative or formal duties. Accordingly, the court’s decision in this process is not merely confirmatory or procedural but entails a judicial review of the parties’ legal status and their arbitration agreement. Furthermore some distinctions have been made among the various cases of appointing an arbitrator. For instance, when the court appoints an arbitrator on behalf of a party due to that party’s refusal or default, given the existence of a dispute and the necessity to address the claims, the court’s decision is considered judicial in nature and is therefore subject to appeal and review by higher authorities. From this perspective, the judicial description of these types of decisions is based on the adversarial nature of the process and the role of the arbitrator as a substitute for the judge in resolving the dispute. Cosequently, the court's decision in this matter has legal effects similar to judicial rullings and is subject to the same rules governing court decisions with respect to the right of appeal, appellate review, and the principles of fair trial. In contrast to the judicial perspective, another group of scholars argue that the court’s decision regarding the appointment of an arbitrator is administrative rather than judicial in nature. Accordingly, the court’s intervention in the arbitrator appointment process does not stem from the initiation of an adversarial lawsuit. First, the request for arbitrator appointment is inherently not a claim, unlike judicial proceedings, does not require adherence to all formalities of filing a lawsuit. Second, this decision can be delegated by the courts; this is a matter that faces serious limitations in judicial decisions and is considered to be non-judicial in nature.Third, the court’s role in this process is primarily limited to verifying the existence or absence of an arbitration agreement, without the need to hold hearings, examine evidence, or make adversarial determinations on the merits of the dispute. From this standpoint, the court refrains from delving into the substantive issues of the arbitration matter or contract details. Fourth, recognizing the administrative nature of this decision better aligns with the fundamental philosophy of arbitration, which is founded on the principles of independence and limited court intervention. Within the framework of this analysis, even in cases where a preliminary examination of certain conditions (such as the existence of a valid arbitration agreement or the competence of the parties) is necessary, this examination is not considered a judicial proceeding, but is carried out solely in order to fulfill the formal conditions and begin the work of the arbitral authority. This viewpoint, by distinguishing between the two stages of “establishing the arbitration grounds” and “appointing the arbitrator,” holds that although the first stage may be quasi-judicial in nature to some extent, the second stage, namely issuing the final decision to appoint the arbitrator, is of an administrative nature that differs from judicial decisions in terms of structure, purpose, and consequences. Therefore, considering the conceptual analysis and the practical implications of each possible characterization, interpreting the court’s decision appointing an arbitrator as an administrative act appears more convincing. This interpretation not only aligns with the fundamental principles aimed at minimizing court interference in arbitration but also functionally facilitates and expedites the arbitration process while preserving the independence of the arbitral institution. Even in cases where preliminary examinations are conducted, such procedures should not be construed as indicative of the judicial nature of the final decision, because the principle of the administrative nature of arbitrator appointment process remains, and the court's interventions are made solely to ensure the validity and enforceability of the arbitration. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Appointing arbitrator, Arbitration, Administrative description, Judicial description, Court Intervention in Arbitration Proceedings | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
منابع کتاب
مقاله
آراء دادگاهها
References Books
Articles
Case Laws
Websites
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 753 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 343 |
||