نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
2 گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
3 گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Due to the relation between arbitration and adjudication, arbitrator’s actions could cause responsibility for them because it may exceed the limits of law and justice. In American law, on the base of equity, if the arbitrator’s acts blemish the path of fair result, regardless of the provisions in law and precedent, in addition to incurring him responsibility it may cause his award to be annulled. Also in Chinese law, as it will come later, the arbitrator and his judgment can face the same fate. However, it seems in Iran according to article 489 of civil procedure law and principle of finality of the arbitrator’s award, we should limit ourselves to the provisions of law and the timeline that it entails. But this apparent argument is against the principle of fair trial, because firstly it’s not right to dismiss the actions of a responsible arbitrator (either disciplinary, criminal or civil responsibility) that can cause uncertainty to fairness of his award and second, it’s possible e.g., receiving a bribe by him get stablished years later and it’s not just to stick to the provisions of article 489 and its timelines and declare his award correct. So, in this article, comparatively, we are trying to analyze the American and Chinese approach to this matter so in this way with comparing and assessment of existing legal capacities in Iran, we could find a resolution for this legal gap and present an alternative. This will be done in a descriptive and analytical method.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)