Comparison of the effects of objecting to arbitration in Iranian private law and international conventions

Review:In this study, by comparing Iran's private law and international conventions, the issue of the effects of protesting against arbitration was examined. The main issue of the research was how international conventions approach the discussion of the effects of objections to arbitration in order to give originality to the arbitration award and its inviolability to prolong the trial and realize the rights of the parties. The investigation hypothesis was based on arbitration in the country of origin and obtaining a guarantee in appropriate cases by the court for retrial.The method of this descriptive-analytical research and the results of the research showed that in Iranian law, it is in accordance with some provisions of the New York Convention on Deposit Guarantee, appropriate to the vote for retrial, based on the court's decision. However, in the case of objections to arbitration, which in the New York Convention emphasizes "mandatory", this distinction is not taken into account in Iranian law. Also in Iranian law on the procedure of the New York Convention, which allows arbitral awards issued in one of the member states of the Convention to be enforced in other member states of the Convention without regard to its annulment; It is not specified.