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.
Arfazadeh, Homayoon (2001). Arbitrability under the New York Convention. the Lex Fori Revisited. Arbitration International, Vol. 17, Issue 1.
Bockstiegel Karl, Heinz (2008). Public policy as a Limit to Arbitration and its Enforcement. IBA Journal of Dispute resolution, Special Issue.
B, Born (2012). International Arbitration: Law and Practice; Kluwer International. the Netherlands.
Gaillard Emmanuel & Savage John (1999). Fouchard, Gaillard , Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration. Kluwer Law International.
Ge, y (2012). Insolvency Proceedings and Their Effect on International Commercial Arbitration. LLM Thesis, University of Ghent.
Grantham, William (1996). The Arbitrability of International Intellectual Property Disputes. 14 Berkeley J. Int'l Law, 173.
Halket T. (2009). Choice of Law in International Intellectual Property Arbitrations. A Three-Dimensional Chess Game? in Rovin A. (eds.), Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 24
Kirry A. (1996). Arbitrability: Current Trends in Europe, Arbitration International, Vol. 12, (4), 14
Kreindler, Richard (1997). Particularities of International Financial Arbitration in the Contex of Challenges to Arbitral Awards. Yearbook of International Financial and Economic Law.
Kroll Stefan M. (2006). Arbitration and Insolvency Proceedings- Selected Problems in Pervasive Problems in International Arbitration. Kluwer Law International.
Lehmann, Matthias (2004). A Plea for a Transnational Approach to Arbitrability in Arbitral Practice. 42 Colum. J. Transnat l, 234.
Lu, May (2006). The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Analysis of the Sevn Defence to oppose Enforcement in the Unites States and England; 23 Ariz . J. Int L & Comp, 34.
Okekeifere Andrew (1999). Public Policy and Arbitrability under the UNCITRAL Model Law, International Arbitration Law Review.
Redfern, Alan & Hunter, Martin (2004). Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration. Sweet and Maxwell, London.
Ware,s.j. (2010). similarities between arbitration and bankruptcy litigation.
Aziziyani, M. (2023). The effect of public order on the ability to refer to arbitration in Iranian law and the New York Convention. Comparative Law Review, 14(1), 369-388. doi: 10.22059/jcl.2023.347381.634409
MLA
Majid Aziziyani. "The effect of public order on the ability to refer to arbitration in Iranian law and the New York Convention", Comparative Law Review, 14, 1, 2023, 369-388. doi: 10.22059/jcl.2023.347381.634409
HARVARD
Aziziyani, M. (2023). 'The effect of public order on the ability to refer to arbitration in Iranian law and the New York Convention', Comparative Law Review, 14(1), pp. 369-388. doi: 10.22059/jcl.2023.347381.634409
VANCOUVER
Aziziyani, M. The effect of public order on the ability to refer to arbitration in Iranian law and the New York Convention. Comparative Law Review, 2023; 14(1): 369-388. doi: 10.22059/jcl.2023.347381.634409
)