کنوانسیون نیویورک

Paragraf 1 of Article 8 of the UNCITRAL Model Law and Paragraf 3 of Article 2 of the New York Convention express the duty of the court in referring the matter to arbitration. The mentioned articles oblige the court to refer the matter to arbitration if requested by one of the litigants, unless it finds that the arbitration agreement is not valid. Researches show that the consideration of judges in this assumption can be done in two ways: A) Breif Review, B) Substantive Review. The important difference between these two methods is that the announcement of the court's result in the brief review is not considered a verdict according to most legal systems; But when the court conducts a substantive review in relation to the arbitration agreement, it will lead to the issuance of a decision. Proponents of the brief review theory believe that respecting the principle of jurisdiction over jurisdiction requires that judges be the first judges of their jurisdiction, but the authors in this research have argued that in the draft paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, it is proposed to insert a phrase that defines the concept of brief review It evokes that it was given, but it was not accepted by the members of the UNCITRAL working group, as well as the absolute acceptance of the negative effect of the principle of jurisdiction over jurisdiction, contrary to the decreasing trend of courts' involvement in arbitration and the establishment and development of the arbitration institution as an independent authority will lead to theoretical conflicts and have the opposite result. The judicial opinions in this field are completely mixed, but it seems that the approach of the opinions that accepted the middle opinion by accepting the elements of both theories is more correct.

Arbitration is considered one of the most important and widely used methods for resolving international commercial disputes. Despite the enactment of the International Commercial Arbitration Act in Iran, numerous obstacles still hinder the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. These obstacles may arise from legal gaps and ambiguities, inconsistent judicial practices, broad interpretation of the concept of public order, as well as political and economic constraints. This study examines the legal foundations and regulatory framework governing foreign arbitration in Iran, identifies and analyzes the key challenges and obstacles. Additionally, through a comparative study of leading legal systems and international standards, solutions and reform proposals are presented to address the existing deficiencies. These solutions include amending domestic laws, establishing specialized courts for international arbitration disputes, providing a more precise definition of public order, and enhancing international cooperation through accession to or more rigorous implementation of global conventions. Ultimately, the study concludes that overcoming legal and practical barriers in Iran will facilitate foreign trade and investment and significantly strengthen global confidence in the Iranian legal system.

Peaceful settlement of disputes is one of the great achievements of human civilization and we are the heirs of this precious and valuable heritage. The New York Convention with the main and fundamental issue of recognition and enforcement of agreements and foreign arbitration awards is the result of the aforementioned legacy, which has remained popular for 60 years and its fundamental mission is to standardize the laws and procedures of recognition and Sees the implementation of arbitration decisions and agreements. According to paragraphs a and b of paragraph 2 of article 5 of this convention, respectively, arbitrability and public order are among the obstacles to the recognition and implementation of issued decisions, which the courts can refer to. These predicted criteria, whose mission is to support and protect the basic principles and standards of the rights and values of each country, and which are considered to be among the judicial supervision of the country that recognizes and enforces the decision, are closely related to each other, and it is assumed that each Multiple arbitrability and the impossibility of referring some specific cases to arbitration have been formed based on the general order of the countries, although they have common roots, they are distinct from each other and they are different from each other. The effort of this article will be to focus on explaining this importance and specifying the limits and boundaries of these criteria and obstacles to identifying and implementing foreign arbitration awards.

Mediation and conciliation, as one of the oldest dispute resolution methods, have never found a similar place compared with arbitration or litigation. The numerous advantages of this method for both the disputing parties and the judicial system have led to special emphasis on this dispute resolution method in the Judicial Evolution Document and also have resulted in the signing of the Singapore Convention by Iran as an international mechanism for the enforcement of the settlement agreements. The recent approaches show the desire of Iranian legislators to develop conciliation over other dispute-resolution methods. But considering the current lack of executive support for most settlement agreements, the aforementioned goal is hard. The most important reason for the reluctance of individuals and businesses to mediate is the lack of enforceability for the settlement agreements as a dispute-resolution document resulting from the mediation process. The use of mediation has no logical or legal justification, because due to the lack of enforceability of the settlement agreements, the parties must refer to the competent judicial authority for the enforcement of the settlement agreements, and it is more logical that instead of spending money and time in mediation, they firstly refer to the aforementioned judicial authority to resolve their dispute.This comparative study based on an analytical-descriptive method tries to examine the current status of executive support of settlement agreements, as the most important factor in the development of mediation.The question of the research is whether the executive support of the result of the mediation process is necessary, and if the answer is positive, what approach should be adopted by domestic and international regulations to achieve the goal? This article hypothesizes that the use of the legal system from the benefits of mediation depends on the executive support of the settlement agreements, the accession to the Singapore Convention from the international point of view, and the application of the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law 2018 from the domestic point of view. Finally, the article concludes that executive support of the settlement agreements is the most important reason for the success of the mediation and the benefit of this old method of dispute resolution in the commercial activists and the judicial system of any country. In the international arena, with the approval of the Singapore Convention, an effective step has been taken to eliminate the aforementioned weakness and develop mediation. In Iranian law, there is a positive attitude towards mediation, and this issue is evident in the signing of the Singapore Convention, but unfortunately, the regulations of the Iranian legal system have given very limited executive support to the settlement agreements. Due to the lack of sufficient enforceability for domestic and international settlement agreements in Iranian Law (except in special cases), the Iranian Legislator should enact a special statute inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law 2018 to support the domestic settlement agreements and complete the process acceding to the Singapore Convention as soon as possible to enforce international settlement Agreements.

The purpose of this paper is to explain the position and role of public policy in international commercial arbitration and to find the answer to the question of what is the relationship between public policy and mandatory rules? This study indicates that despite the existence of a series of similarities between public policy and mandatory rules, these two concepts are different from each other. Thus, public policy is not only an obstacle to the implementation of arbitration awards, but also mandatory rules can become a serious obstacle to the implementation of arbitration awards. In addition, the quality of performance and mechanism of these two legal entities with international commercial awards are also different when faced with international commercial arbitration awards Public policy is one of the most fundamental and well-established concepts in the history of law. Regardless of the differences in the definition of public policy, it can be considered as the most important obstacle to the implementation of arbitration awards.

The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) is the most successful multilateral document in the field of international trade law, designed to increase the efficiency of the arbitral institution. This document, as one of the most important transnational documents on which the main framework of the international arbitration regime is based, has been created with the aim of facilitating the implementation and effectiveness of arbitration as much as possible. However, Article 5 of the New York Convention has been provided for a condition that, if fulfilled, the non-enforcement of the judgment would be arbitrated. Some of these cases, according to Article (1) 5, require citation and proof by the defendant of the arbitral award in the country where the request is made and are limited to the territory of the court that recognizes or enforces the award. Others, according to Article (2) 5, prevent the implementation of the needs required by the court of the country of identification and implementation, and cases such as public order, and the applicability of the dispute. This article examines the reasons for refusing to recognize and enforce arbitral awards to address the principle of narrow interpretation in favor of enforcement and the exclusion of the grounds for non-recognition and enforcement set forth in Article 5 of the Convention. The New York Convention and International Commercial Arbitration Act of Iran are reviewed in comparison to each other.

Conciliation, as one of the oldest dispute resolution methods, has not always been favored by individuals and business actors due to the lack of enforceability for the settlement agreement as a result of the mediation process.  One of the most important issues regarding the enforcement of dispute resolution documents in all relevant treaties is the principle of recognition and how to recognize the settlement agreement.  Therefore, recognition of settlement agreements as one of the most important issues of the Singapore Convention will be examined in a comparative study of Iranian law as follows: "Recognition of settlement agreement as its' prevention effect against new litigation", "Recognition of settlement agreement as comparing its' provisions with law of the enforcing courts" and "Recognition of settlement agreement as its' approval in the seat courts". Finally, the article concludes that the Singapore Convention's approach to the requirement for recognition of settlement agreement as its' approval by enforcing courts can be criticized in some respects, but the provisions of the Convention on the possibility of using the settlement agreement to prevent re-litigation and un-necessity of its' approval in seat courts is logical. The current state of the Iranian legal system regarding the recognition of the settlement agreement is not justifiable because in addition to the involvement of various courts in the process of settlement agreement's enforcement, the agreement cannot prevent re-litigation of the dispute.

Mediation, as one of the well-known and old methods of dispute resolution, unlike arbitration and litigation, does not have enforceable results in international cases. Notwithstanding of the ratification of the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, due to its young age and a small number of members, it has not yet been able to overcome the important shortcoming of Mediation, namely the lack of compulsory enforceability. So one way to give enforceability to a settlement is to insert it into an arbitration award so that the executive support of the New York Convention can be exploited. On the other hand, due to the consensual nature of the mediation and the adversarial nature of the arbitration, there are questions and problems with the possibility of applying the New York Convention to the conciliations reflected in the arbitration award. These problems are mentioned in these clauses in the present article: "possibility of the non-existence of arbitration agreement", "lack of dispute between the parties", "possibility of violation of the defense rights of the parties ", and "exceeding the limits of the arbitrators' authority", "lack of seat for an arbitral award", "lack of some arbitration standards, including reasoning". Finally, this article concludes that it is certainly not possible to guarantee the enforcement of an arbitration award that reflects conciliation between the parties under the New York Convention, but it is possible to increase the chance of enforcement of such an arbitration award by applying some considerations in the proceedings.

The increasing development of e-commerce and greater access to technological facilities have made online dispute resolution as one of the most important global legal topics. One of the most important aspects of any dispute resolution method is how the outcome of the dispute should be enforced, and traditionally the final dispute resolution documents are enforced by the national courts through the coercion of the loosing party. The possibility of enforcement of final documents resulting from online dispute resolution methods is questionable because all or part of the relationships between the parties and the dispute resolution authority is established online, and in many cases, current international and national regulations do not provide efficient rules for enforcement of said documents. For this reason, e-commerce legal activists have envisioned new ways to enforcement of final documents resulting from online dispute resolution methods. In this article, the enforcement of final documents resulting from online dispute resolution methods has been studied in two main topics: "Compulsory enforcement of final documents resulting from online dispute resolution methods" and "Voluntary enforcement of final documents resulting from online dispute resolution methods". Finally, the present study has concluded that the compulsory enforcement of final documents resulting from online dispute resolution methods through the intervention of national courts, even if there is a legal possibility, is not commensurate with the characteristics and requirements of online dispute resolution methods and the use of voluntary methods if the necessary related rules are established, can significant increase the overall validity of online dispute resolution methods by notably increasing the possibility of enforcement of final documents resulting from said methods and encourage parties and business activists to use these dispute resolution methods.

The arbitration tendency is expanding due to the increasing development of national and international relations as well as the disputes specialization among individuals. Because of the parallel activities conducted by both arbitrator and the court in some cases as well as the close relationship between both mentioned authorities, resolving the scope of court’s arbitration involvement seems to be an essential and problematic issue. Arbitration, as a legal and quasi-judicial technique with the aim of resolving legal disputes, due to some advantages as better justice and efficiency, protection of the parties’ interests and peaceful settlement of disputes, arbitration confidentiality, speed in resolving disputes, will lead to better and faster sentence execution. The exclusion of court’s jurisdiction does not mean that courts do not interfere in arbitral proceedings. Arbitration cannot be survived without any court’s intervention. However, this interference should be delimited and limited; otherwise it may turn into an expression to avoid referring sentence purpose to arbitration. In this regard, the court’s minimum intervention in execution of arbitral award and when the losing party refuses to execute voluntarily, it becomes essential. The courts’ involvement in arbitration can be before this, during arbitration or even after the arbitral award. At any stage, this interference, as supervisory or assisting, articulates a significant section of courts’ proceedings in arbitration process. In most legal systems, it has been considered by enactment of independent laws and articles enactment related to the courts’ intervention in its process.

The Convention of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral, New York 1958, is a comprehensive instrument which facilitates the enforcement of decisions of arbitration body. In accordance to Article 1, the convention can be applied on a State other than the State where the recognition and enforcement of such awards are sought, or can be applied to arbitral awards not considered as domestic awards. Therefore, to a large extent the scope of the application of this convention depends on the notion of "arbitrator's award", because just these two notions can determine the awards which should be executed under the rules of the convention and gain its benefits. Additionally, the concept of foreign award is relatively depend upon recognition of court that wants to enforce it. However, the convention gives no clear definition of foreign arbitrator's award. So in this paper, clarification of the above mentioned concept is one of convention's requirements terms of executive scope.

Arbitration is one of the ways to resolve disputes between individuals that is considered by many businessmen today, especially in business and contracts, and has many applications in the season of hostility. In this article, we aim to identify and enforce commercial arbitration awards in Iran and in the 1958 New York Convention.

The findings indicate that considering that this type of proceedings, firstly: due to the specialized aspect, secondly due to the elimination of many bureaucracies and special court procedures, thirdly due to the low cost and fifthly due to the short process of proceedings Based on the International Commercial Arbitration Law and the New York Convention, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Iran is prescribed. Ethical considerations: In all stages of writing the article, the principles of honesty and trustworthiness have been observed.

Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is an integral part of the enforcement of foreign court rulings and many considerations and principles regarding the enforcement of foreign judgments in the executive court are taken into account when requesting the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The procedure for enforcing foreign arbitral awards under the International Commercial Arbitration Act and the New York Convention is different from the manner in which civil judgments are enforced.

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.

Mediation is considered as a special way of dispute resolution, due to its reliance on parties' agreement and the fact that its outcome is satisfactory to all the disputing parties. Singapore Convention was drafted by the United Nations to promote the mediation and to overcome the lack of compulsory enforceability of settlement agreements. In Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Singapore Convention, settlement agreements which have been recorded as arbitral awards and are enforceable shall be excluded from the scope of application of the said Convention. There are several legal ambiguities regarding this regulation. Has the purpose of this regulation been achieved to eliminate the overlap of the Singapore and New York conventions? What does the Convention mean by a "recorded" and "enforceable" award? Can an arbitration award containing a settlement agreement be regarded as an "award" in the exact concept? And in what circumstances the arbitration award containing the settlement agreement can be regarded out of the scope of both Singapore and New York Conventions? The current article has analyzed the above questions and concludes that the wording of the Singapore Convention, in addition to causing legal ambiguities, has made some arbitration awards containing settlement agreements out of both conventions' support. Article suggests that arbitrators and disputants' attorneys should try to ensure that at least the provisions of the New York Convention are applicable to settlement agreements reflected in the arbitration awards, albeit the Singapore Convention has now completely blocked any support for the settlement agreements.

The New York convention about recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards yet accepted by 156 countries and prepared the huge network all around world for enforcement of arbitration awards. Nevertheless, the unique status of it in sphere of international commercial awards, the convention simultaneously with technologies development don’t updated and how utilization of it for enforcement of online arbitration awards caused the legal challenges. however, in national level, the most countries, take validation to electronic documents and recognize the arbitration according to electronic transactions but ulterior to it in international sphere and when the debate of enforcement of such arbitration poses in other countries base on New York convention, the matter has no clear legal status. The present article we study the mentioned matter that enforcement of electronic arbitration awards in framework of New York convention encountered with legal challenges. With study the trend of New York convention and other codes of countries namely. The code of commercial electronic, this article come to this result that notwithstanding to immense challenges, with some facilities, there is the possibility of recognition and enforcement of electronic arbitration awards in framework of New York convention.

At various stages of the arbitration process of a dispute, obstacles and objections may arise, particularly from the loser party. Defenses such as encounte an agreement or arbitration clause with public order or basically not being arbiratable under the governing laws are used as the ways to escape being defeated. Given the ambiguity of the concepts of public order and arbitrability, especially in intellectual property law, and the differing views of different countries on these issues, we sought to examine what is the relationship between the concept of public order and arbitrability in the intellectual property disputes referred to arbitration. The result was that there was a split. Some have supported the theory of conformity of public order and inarbitrability. In contrast, other writers have arguments about the fundamental difference between the two.Keywords: Arbitrability, Exclusive Jurisdiction, Intellectual Property Disputes, New York Convention, Public Policy. Keywords: Arbitrability, Exclusive Jurisdiction, Intellectual Property Disputes, New York Convention, Public Policy.

New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards is one of the most globally accepted treaties which offers a pro-enforcement policy. Basically, the precedent echoes the pro-enforcement policy of the Convention. The Convention gives the authority to the domestic Courts to restrict the grounds of refusal aiming to enforce more arbitral awards. The refusal grounds, Under the Convention. And public policy and arbitrability; private agreements between the parties and awards annulled in the seat of the arbitration. This article aims to study the pro-enforcement policy of the Courts in various jurisdictions such as Iran. The gathered information indicates that the Courts in many countries limit the refusal grounds relying on the most favourable regime rule under article 7 of the Convention. They construe the subject of public policy and arbitrability for foreign awards in a different way from domestic ones. Moreover, they apply the private set-ups of the parties only if they have been addressed duly in the determination period. Further, they give similar effect to the awards annulled if the grounds of invalidation have the same consequence in the enforcing country.

More favorable law Right Provision and compability provision are contemplated in New York convention. When a country implement New York Convention, the arisen question is that if someone can invoke more favorable provisions of both convention and domestic laws for enforcement and recognition of an arbitral award. To deal with this question conventional award and in particular non-domestic ones must be clarified. Then by choosing legal regime of a country , the convention provisions should be compared with those of that country.  In Belgium rules applicable on recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards are amended in accordance with UNCITRAL model law in 2013. Thus Belgian legal regime is selected. Findings show that if there is a foreign factor in parties` relationship . issued award in the country of origin is viewed as non-domestic. In the process of recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award the more favorable rules of both convention and domestic laws can be invoked.