Titolo della tesi: Comparative Analysis of Grounds of Challenge of an Arbitral Award Under International Commercial Arbitration in Iran and English Legal Systems
The grounds of the challenge of an arbitral award cover instances in which the award debtor seeks to challenge an arbitral award under specified circumstances. It usually appears when a party invoke to exclusive list to establish that there is injustice. Generally, arbitration aims to secure justice, and when circumstances arise that it is at risk, there is court discretion to interfere and reconsider the issue. Under the English legal system, The court's approach over the challenge of an arbitral award is based on the pro-enforcement approach, meaning that the interference of state court is limited to specific circumstances. In Iran's legal system, there is wide authorization to interfere in the proceeding to reconsider the issue. Under analytical library-based and case studies, it could be found the grounds assumed to give a right to the party to challenge an arbitral award are constituted narrowly under the English legal system, which is reversed under Iran's legal system. The more prevalent example is the construction of public policy. While the English legal system is more restrictive, the broad notion applies to Iran's legal system. Under the English legal system, there is a distinction between substantive challenge and serious irregularities, which is limited to injustice. There is no such distinction under Iran's legal system, and if a party could prove the mere existence of factors, it would entitle a party to challenge.
Keywords
Challenge of Arbitral award, Arbitrator, The arbitration agreement, arbitral proceeding, Formal requirements, Public policy, arbitrability, English legal system, Iran law.