عنوان مقاله [English]
AbstractAccording to the existing traditional and dominant view, clauses are dependent on contract. They are subordinate and peripheral and that is why clauses would be also dissolved with the invalidity of the contract. Depends on the arbitration choice, the compromise of the parties can be achieved in two ways. In one hypothesis, parties can refer their dispute, as a separate contract, to the tribunal. In the other one, according to the stipulation, parties can refer their current or future disputes to the arbitration. In the last case, the party who intends to hold up and object to the competence of the tribunal, may claim unreliability of the arbitration clause so that the tribunal is not formed. One of the common ways to achieve this, could be the claim that the major contract that the arbitration clause is implied in, is void or dissolved. And so, the party claims that the arbitration clause of such contract is invalid due to invalidity of the major contract. To obviate this, the principle of the independence of arbitration clause has been accepted in the rights of many countries and its primary purpose is to nullify the invalidity of the major contract on the stipulation arbitration clause. So it`s determined that the acceptance or rejection of the aforementioned theory has great impacts. The aforementioned principle was considered by the rights of many countries as well as the international important documents. In the rights of international commercial arbitration, legislator explicitly has referred to the independence arbitration clause.
Keywords: Arbitration agreement, competence-to-competence, Independent clauses, Separability of arbitration clause