عنوان مقاله [English]
In the Latin word, res means “subject matter” and judicata means “adjudged” or “decided”, and together it means “a matter adjudged”. By the Roman rule “res judicata pro veritate accipitur” is meant a matter adjudged is taken as truth. The res judicata doctrine which had been recognized for centuries by Roman jurists and ancient Indian texts, due to its importance, was introduced to the common law and, meanwhile, became an integral part of the law of civil law countries. Res judicata, which is generally based upon a public as well as a private interest, promotes fairness and prevents the law from being abused and, at the same time, avoids lengthy and wasteful proceedings.
In order to assure the public order and interest, there must be an end to litigations. This aim, as well as avoidance of issuing inconsistent judgements or awards, can be achieved through res judicata doctrine, under which parties cannot sue each other again after the final judgment. The doctrine is based upon three principles: no person should be disputed twice for the same reason; there should be an end to litigation and; a judicial decision must be accepted as a correct and valid decision.
Since the purpose of judicial and arbitration proceedings is the decision taken to be definite and enforceable, a judge or arbitrator, by realizing the hidden truth in the case, provides a quick settlement of dispute till respect for judgments or arbitral awards would prevent the plurality of the decisions taken as well as the conflict between them. Although the rendered judgment or award will have the effect of res judicata, as soon as they would become final, the nature of this rule varies in various legal systems.
The Iranian lawyers have considered the doctrine, in relation to judgments and arbitral awards, as circumstantial fact or substantive rule which, at the same time, is based upon social considerations and is related to the public order. In some Iranian legal books, the rule res judicata has been discussed in the section relevant to circumstantial facts, under the general topic of the civil law of evidence, as an absolute circumstantial fact adverse effect of which is not provable. In the Islamic jurisprudence also the rule is based upon legal circumstantial fact.
On the other hand, some Iranian legal writers consider res judicata as a substantive rule which is envisaged on the basis of special social considerations and which, without having any indication of fact or reality, show no established rule. As a result, in spite of the possibility of inconsistency of the judgement or award with reality, re-litigation of the decided case is not possible. It can be said, for the purpose of securing legal, social and economic security, of providing for fair proceedings, of keeping respect for judgements and awards given and bringing about their validity and credibility, of vindication of rights, of settlement of disputes and of preventing from prolonged and time – wasting proceedings, the rule of res judicata, as a social necessity, plays an important role.
In civil law countries, res judicata is also firmly established and the nature of the rule is known as irrefutable legal circumstantial fact. As for the requirements relating to res judicata ,article 1351 of French civil code provides that judgment qualifies as such where the parties, cause of action and claim are identical in both proceeding(triple identity test). In this system, the doctrine, having preclusive and conclusive effects, normally refers to claim rather than issue. The preclusive or negative effect bans the parties from re-litigation of the claim which has been decided in the prior proceedings, while the positive or conclusive effect binds the court by prior decision.in Switzerland the doctrine of res judicata is part of procedural public policy and courts must consider res judicata issues ex officio, while in France the res judicata is not part of public policy. The prevailing view is to separate res judicata from any fact-finding power.
In common law countries, res judicata is considered as part of estoppel, which may cover both claim and issue preclusion. While the cause of action or claim estoppel prevents to sue all claims which arise from the same event, the plea of issue estoppel prevents re-litigation of a particular issue which the prior decision has established on that conclusion. In order to this rule can be established, the earlier judgment must be final, valid, binding and conclusive decision on the merit. Therefore, this decision should be taken in a fair hearing and, according to the doctrine; only the parties to the proceedings can benefit or be bound by it, in subsequent proceedings. In fact, not only the parties to the claim must be the same, but also the subject matter of the claim and cause must be identity.
In both legal systems of England and the United States the nature of the doctrine is similar and is considered as an absolute rule of the law of evidence which may, sometimes, find works similar to that of the rules of substantive law. In this system, the doctrine of res judicata carries a fact-finding value and restricts either party to “move the clock back “during the proceedings. The scope of this rule has been widened with the passage of time and, in fact, the U. S. Supreme Court, in its judgements, has expanded the areas of applicability of the rule.
38.Brekoulakis,Stavros (2005) “The effect of an Arbitral Award and Third Parties in International Arbitration”, Resjudicata Revisited ,London:Queen mary,university,LL.B(Hons) Athens, LL.M.
43, Curzon, L. B. (2002), Dictionary of Law, 6th edn, London: Edinburg, Pearson, Education limited.
50.HovaGuimian,Pilippe (2017), “TheResjudicata Effect,of Foreign Judgement in Post-Award Proceeding :to bind or not bind?” Netherland, journal of International Arbitration 34, No.1.
و) منابع اینترنتی