رضا مشیری

Disputes arising in the context of letters of credit, similar to other international commercial contracts, are unavoidable. This internationally used instrument involves partners that are located in several nations. Hence, it is important to ascertain the appropriate jurisdictional competence to adjudicate these conflicts, as it might significantly influence the final resolution of the issue. International businessmen and merchants often incorporate a provision in their agreements to choose a certain court, with the aim of enhancing predictability, minimizing litigation expenses, and expediting the resolution of their disputes. The stance of many nations on the issue of determining jurisdiction for the court is diverse. In Iranian law, it is noteworthy that the explicit statement of this particular subject by the legislator is absent, despite the evident business exigencies that warrant the inclusion of such criteria. In the realm of European Union (EU) law, as opposed to Iranian law, the Recast Brussels Regulations of 2012 included a provision that enabled parties to confer jurisdiction to the court for the resolution of disputes, subject to certain circumstances being met. Within the legal framework of the United States of America, it is observed that various states possess distinct mechanisms for the authentication of those conditions. However, it is generally acknowledged that these conditions hold validity in the majority of instances. In the event that the contract does not include provisions about jurisdiction, the determination of which court has jurisdiction should be made by referring to the applicable national laws. This article undertakes a comparative analysis of the approaches used by Iran, the European Union, and the United States of America with respect to forum selection and jurisdiction determination in cases involving documentary credit claims in situations when no specific condition is present.