Differences in the Bases of Arbitrability in the Laws of Iran, Germany, England and France

Abstract

Arbitrability means the ability to refer an issue to arbitration with the principles that are stated in the Iranian law in the international commercial arbitration law. In the Civil Procedure Law of Iran, there is no discussion about the basics of arbitrability, but according to Article 34 of the International Commercial Arbitration Law, public order, good morals and rules of procedure can be considered as the main basics of arbitrability. This research examines the different aspects of arbitrability in Iranian law and compares it with the laws of three European countries: Germany, England, and France. The findings of the research show that both in Iranian law and in the law of three European countries, the principle of arbitrability of claims is. In Iranian law, if there are issues that are in conflict with these principles, they cannot be referred to arbitration. In English law, the arbitration law of 1996 does not discuss the principles of arbitrability. According to the judicial practice of this country, public order is the most important basis for arbitrability. In English law, public order does not prevent the referral of issues to arbitration. But the arbitrator's opinion should not be against the principles of arbitrability. French law is similar to Iranian law in terms of fundamentals, and according to Article 20 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, public order and good morals and rules of procedure are considered to be the main bases of arbitrability. The country is arbitrable in relation to Iran's rights. In German law, public order and moral rules of conduct and public security are considered as the bases of arbitrability. In the laws of these three European countries, in addition to the internal bases of arbitrability, international public order and European Union laws should also be considered in the issues.