Search

Mediation is one of the well-known dispute resolution methods, and due to the increase in the use of the Internet by individuals, the transfer of most businesses to cyberspace and the conclusion of many transactions by electronic means, in many lawsuits, parties tend to use online mediation to resolve their dispute. The present study examines the challenges of online mediation and the approach of international regulations and Iranian law towards them in the following topics, so that individuals and business actors can figure out the suitability of online mediation to resolve their disputes by taking into account the above considerations: "Lack of face-to-face communication in online mediation", "challenge of confidentiality in online mediation", "general reluctance of using online mediation in some cases", "weak control of meditator over online mediation", and "the difficulty of enforcement of online mediation". Finally, this article concludes that in case of insistence of parties on face-to-face communication, due to the lack of trust in the mediator, lack of access to the required communication technologies or inability to use them, as well as the lack of confidence in the confidentiality preservation of the other party and the mediator, the parties will face serious challenges to use online mediation. According to existing international regulations. Because of the need to a specific law on mediation in Iranian law, the present article suggests the Iranian legislature to enact a comprehensive law on mediation, including the special requirements of online mediation, so that individuals can benefit from the advantages of this dispute resolution method.

One way of dealing with parallel litigation for the courts of common law countries is ‎to issue an anti-suit injunction preventing one of the disputing parties from initiating or ‎continuing proceedings in the courts of another country. Civil law countries believe that ‎this remedy interferes with the proceedings in their courts and violates their national ‎sovereignty. This study aims to examine the attitude of the EU, French, and Iranian law ‎towards the enforcement of anti-suit injunctions. The study contends that in the EU, an ‎anti-suit injunction rendered by a third country is enforceable in an EU member state as ‎long as it accepts the enforcement of such an injunction under its national law and its ‎jurisdiction is not based on EU regulations. In French law, anti-suit injunctions are ‎traditionally unenforceable. However, when parties agree to grant jurisdiction to a ‎foreign court, the French courts enforce such injunctions and dismiss the proceedings in ‎favor of the foreign-selected court. On the other hand, when the French courts assert ‎exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute, they may react to an anti-suit injunction by ‎issuing an anti-anti-suit injunction. In Iranian law, an anti-suit injunction cannot be ‎enforced under Article 169 of the Enforcement of Civil Judgments Code. As a result, ‎there is no mechanism for the enforcement of anti-suit injunctions in Iran. However, ‎due to the advantages of enforcing anti-suit injunctions, the study contends that the lack ‎of a mechanism should not be an obstacle to the enforcement of anti-suit injunctions in ‎Iran.‎

diation, despite its historical antiquity and significant benefits for parties, has been less successful than other methods of dispute resolution such as arbitration and litigation. According to scientific and practical researches, the reason for the mentioned situation was the lack of enforcement support of the settlement agreements as a result of the mediation process. To cover this weakness and to promote mediation, the United Nations ratified the Singapore Convention. The convention has recently entered into force and signed by Iran, although it has not yet been ratified by the Iranian legislature. In the present study, various rules and aspects of cross-border implementation of international trade settlement agreements have been analyzed, so that the Iranian legislature, legal researchers and business activists can have a correct understanding of the provisions of the Convention. Finally, this article concludes that the Singapore Convention has taken an important step towards the development of mediation in order to provide enforcement support to the settlement agreements and to grant the status of Res Judicata to said document. Of course, there are ambiguities and rules that can be criticized in the treaty, the inclusion of which is due to the need for consensus of the countries and certainly the Singapore Convention, by providing the setting and development of mediation, can result in ratification of more comprehensive mediation treaty. The Iranian legislature is advised to accede to the Treaty, and to harmonize the legal approach to domestic and international mediation, to enact a national mediation law inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law so that the Iranian dispute resolution system takes an important step in promoting this method of dispute resolution.

One of the most important benefits of arbitration as a dispute resolution method is the preservation of confidential information of the disputing parties. Apart from the theoretical issues regarding the principle of confidentiality, its obligors and guaranteeing the implementation of the said principle, practical solutions for maintaining confidential information in arbitration should be considered because of the different demands and desires of parties, different arbitration institutions and arbitrators, variable trust of parties in the arbitrator, the different legal positions and the specific circumstances of each case, require that the various ways of enforcing the principle of confidentiality be identified for the parties and the arbitrators, and that practical solutions be offered to them in a flexible manner. In this article, an attempt has been made to study the existing solutions in this regard by analyzing the rules and procedures in arbitrations. There are several main strategies to protect confidential information in arbitration: "Strategies to restrict access to confidential information", "Strategies to prevent the disclosure of confidential information in the arbitration process" and "Strategies to prevent the disclosure of confidential information in arbitral award". Certainly, the conclusion of this article is not to prefer any of these strategies in the field of confidentiality in arbitration over another, and even the use of a combination of such methods can further meet the needs of the parties to the arbitration in terms of maintaining confidentiality. Finally, the present article concludes that limiting the access of arbitrator to the confidential information should not impede issuing fair award, and in this regard, it is suggested that important confidential information can be available to arbitrators or only the presiding arbitrator. Not mentioning evidence based on confidential information in the arbitral award is logical only to the extent that it does not make troubles in the stage of challenge, recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award. Restricting access to confidential information should not violate the right of the parties to the fair trial, and third-party intervention to prevent disclosure of information is possible only in exceptional cases, because the arbitrator himself/herself is generally considered an impartial and expert third party. The fundamental solution is that legislators and regulators of arbitration rules should seriously and in detail include practical solutions for the protection of confidential information in the mentioned regulations. At present, and before these changes are implemented, what is proposed is that these solutions can be preferably mentioned in the initial arbitration agreement or the terms of reference.

The increasing development of e-commerce and greater access to technological facilities have made online dispute resolution as one of the most important global legal topics. One of the most important aspects of any dispute resolution method is how the outcome of the dispute should be enforced, and traditionally the final dispute resolution documents are enforced by the national courts through the coercion of the loosing party. The possibility of enforcement of final documents resulting from online dispute resolution methods is questionable because all or part of the relationships between the parties and the dispute resolution authority is established online, and in many cases, current international and national regulations do not provide efficient rules for enforcement of said documents. For this reason, e-commerce legal activists have envisioned new ways to enforcement of final documents resulting from online dispute resolution methods. In this article, the enforcement of final documents resulting from online dispute resolution methods has been studied in two main topics: "Compulsory enforcement of final documents resulting from online dispute resolution methods" and "Voluntary enforcement of final documents resulting from online dispute resolution methods". Finally, the present study has concluded that the compulsory enforcement of final documents resulting from online dispute resolution methods through the intervention of national courts, even if there is a legal possibility, is not commensurate with the characteristics and requirements of online dispute resolution methods and the use of voluntary methods if the necessary related rules are established, can significant increase the overall validity of online dispute resolution methods by notably increasing the possibility of enforcement of final documents resulting from said methods and encourage parties and business activists to use these dispute resolution methods.

One of the most important developments in dispute resolution law is the emergence of online dispute resolution methods. There are ambiguities and legal issues regarding said methods due to their specific characteristics and occurrence in cyberspace. One of the challenges of these methods is how to enforce the results because the ordinary or traditional methods of enforcing final dispute resolution documents are not helpful in this field. Due to the high importance of the enforcement of final documents in the validity and acceptability of each dispute resolution method, the legal doctrine and e-commerce activists: predicted and implemented solutions about automatic enforcement of results of online dispute resolution methods without the need for the recourse to courts or other authorities. The present study has examined the strategies of automatic enforcement of ODR final documents in the following topics: "Monetary Enforcement Mechanisms", "Domain Name Resolution Enforcement Strategies", and "Automatic Enforcement Based on Blockchain Technology". The present article concludes that supporting and promoting online dispute resolution methods and strategies for automatic enforcement of ODR final documents is the most critical and fundamental step in reducing the workload of the courts and other legal authorities. At the same time, such a goal is not achievable without the legislature's support and the approval of the corresponding laws. In this regard, the Iranian Legislature is advised to draft and enact integrated and comprehensive rules in the area.

Considering the great success of the New York Convention in encouraging business activists to use arbitration as a dispute resolution method, the United Nations drafted Singapore Convention on International Commercial Settlement Agreements, of which Iran is a signatory country. One of the most important issues in determining the level of executive support of the said conventions for the settlement agreements and arbitral awards is the examination of grounds for refusing to grant relief of the said treaties' documents, which in fact deprives some arbitral awards and settlement agreements from the executive support of these treaties. This article examines the grounds for refusing to grant relief to the implementation of the New York and Singapore Conventions in the following analytical subjects: "Specific Refusal Grounds of the New York Convention for Supporting the Arbitration Agreement", "Specific Refusal Grounds of the New York Convention Due to the Importance of the Seat in Arbitration", "Refusal Grounds Related to Terms and Conditions of Settlement Agreements in Singapore Convention " and "Refusal Grounds Related to Features and Behavior of Mediator in Singapore Convention". Finally, this article concludes that some refusal grounds of the New York Convention that are not covered by the Singapore Convention are originated from differences between arbitration and conciliation and the Singapore Convention's approach to delocalization and not mentioning rules about agreement to mediate. It also found that many of these grounds were unnecessary and would disorder the implementation of the Singapore Convention and the development of the conciliation in the future. Of course, the approach of the Convention is due to the conciliation's lack of reputation between several countries, and the drafters of the Singapore Convention considered it necessary to mention these provisions in the text of the Convention in order to achieve the consensus of the countries.

The propagation of utilization of arbitration as a method of dispute resolution depends on the public confidence in the method. In this regard, the independence of arbitrators and their impartiality are necessary conditions for the realization of such confidence. Independence and impartiality of arbitrators ensure a fair trial in arbitration and the lack of aforementioned features makes it impossible to trust the fairness of the dispute settlement process and its result. The importance of confidence in the health of the dispute settlement system is to the extent that many international instruments have frequently emphasised on the necessity of the two above-mentioned features. In the recent decade, contemporaneous with the incredible development of arbitration, the debate over independence and impartiality of arbitrator has become important and controversial because neither national laws nor international provisions provide a clear difinition of the said concepts. This article set out to explain the exact point that the independence and impartiality are distinct concepts and are not interchangeable with each other; Independence is concerned with the relationships between the arbitrator and disputing parties, while impartiality considers the arbitrator's conduct over the equal treatment with the parties. The aforesaid distinction includes such a legal effect that each of these two concepts shall be considered as an autonomous and separate cause for challenging arbitrators.