جستاری بر دستور موقت در داوری ایران با رویکردی بر جوامع بین الملل
محورهای موضوعی : حقوق مدنیاحمد پورابراهیم 1 , محمد حقیقی ازگمی 2
1 - استادیار حقوق جزا و جرم شناسی، گروه حقوق، دانشکده علوم نسانی، واحد رشت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، رشت، ایران.
2 - دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی،گروه حقوق، دانشکده علوم انسانی، واحد رشت ،دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی،رشت، ایران.
کلید واژه: داوري, دستور موقت , پيش دسـتور, شـناسايي, اجـرا ,
چکیده مقاله :
من باب ((دســـتور موقت)) در قـانون نمونه آنســـيترال ((اصـــلاحي ))٢٠٠٦، قـواعد داوري آنـسـيترال (( اصلاحی 2010))، در قانون داوري تجاري بين المللي ١٣٧٦ ايران آمده که قانون آيين دادرســي مدني در اين باره مسکوت بوده و میان دکترین حقوقی و قضات، اختلاف نظرسلیقه ای وجود دارد. اختلافاتی که مطرح می شود؛ همانند آثار دستور موقت در ارتباط با طرفين ، مرجع داوري و دادگاه ؛ اجرا و ضــمانت آن ؛ تفاوت ((دســتور موقت)) با نهادهاي ديگر ؛ برخي از اين مسـائل در قواعد داوري آنسيترال و قوانين ملي بازتاب داشته و دکترين حقوقی نیز در این مورد بحث داشته اند . قانون نمونه آنســيترال ، مرجع پيش دســتور را پيش بيني کرده است . اهم موضوع ارتباط با دستور موقت ، جستار راجه به آن به عنوان اقدام داور و اجراي آن درگستره بين المللي و داخلی اسـت . شناخت اصـلي و تبعي آن از ديگر مسـائل قابل توجه بوده که با توجه به قواعد عمومي ((دستور موقت)) و نيز با نگرش واقعبینانه به اهداف آن ؛ امکان اجرا و شــناســايي ((دســتور موقت)) وجود خواهد داشت هرچند که پاره اي از ضــمانت های اجرا مـســتقيم و غـيرمســتقيم همچون مراجعه به دادگاه براي دستور موقت وجود دارد . موضوع این پژوهش ضمن اشاره به برخي از ويژگي هاي دســتور موقت ، بحث در منظر شــناســايي و اجـراي اين دسـتورات را در پی خواهد داشت.
Regarding “interim measures” in the UNCITRAL Model Law (amended 2006), the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (amended 2010), and the Iranian Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1997), it is noted that the Civil Procedure Code remains silent on this matter, leading to differences of opinion and discretionary interpretations among legal scholars and judges. The disputes that arise concern issues such as: • The effects of interim measures on the parties, the arbitral tribunal, and the courts • Their enforcement and guarantees • The distinction between interim measures and other legal institutions Some of these matters are reflected in the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and national laws, and have also been discussed in legal doctrine. The UNCITRAL Model Law provides for a pre-award authority regarding interim measures.The main subject of relevance is the consideration of interim measures as an arbitral act and their enforcement in both international and domestic contexts. The distinction between primary and ancillary recognition of interim measures is also significant. Based on general rules governing interim measures and a realistic view of their objectives, the possibility of enforcement and recognition of such measures exists, although certain direct and indirect enforcement guarantees—such as recourse to courts for interim measures—remain available.This research, while highlighting some features of interim measures, aims to explore their recognition and enforcement.
1. Audzevičius, R., & Daujotas, R. (2013). Lithuania. In G. T. Wegen & S. Wilske (Eds.), Arbitration in jurisdictions worldwide. Law Business Research Ltd.
2. Ban, C., et al. (2013). Hungary. In G. T. Wegen & S. Wilske (Eds.), Arbitration in jurisdictions worldwide. Law Business Research Ltd.
3. Barakat, A., et al. (2013). Kuwait. In G. T. Wegen & S. Wilske (Eds.), Arbitration in jurisdictions worldwide. Law Business Research Ltd.
4. Barrington, L. (2012). Emergency arbitrators: Can they be useful to the construction industry? Construction Law International, 7(2). Retrieved February 9, 2015, from www.ibanet.org
5. Be˘lohlavek, A. (2013). Czech Republic. In G. T. Wegen & S. Wilske (Eds.), Arbitration in jurisdictions worldwide. Law Business Research Ltd.
6. Billiet, J., et al. (2013). Belgium. In G. T. Wegen & S. Wilske (Eds.), Arbitration in jurisdictions worldwide. Law Business Research Ltd.
7. Bockstiegel, S., Kroll, P., & Nacimiento, P. (2009). Arbitration in Germany: Law and practice. Kluwer Law International.
8. Bohm, E., & Proksch, P. (2013). Austria. In G. T. Wegen & S. Wilske (Eds.), Arbitration in jurisdictions worldwide. Law Business Research Ltd.
9. Born, G. (2001). International commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International.
10. Born, G., & Lee, S. (2013). The emergency arbitrator procedures under the new HKIAC Rules. Arbitration & ADR in Asia. Retrieved from https://www.wilmerhale.com
11. Bricker, R. B., Beemer, M., & Wills, A. D. (2008). Creative drafting of arbitration clauses: Resurrecting arbitration’s benefits by moving beyond the boilerplate. Bloomberg Finance L.P. Retrieved February 2015 from jenner.com
12. Chen, H. H., & Shen, K. F. (2013). Taiwan. In G. T. Wegen & S. Wilske (Eds.), Arbitration in jurisdictions worldwide. Law Business Research Ltd.
13. Chunhakasikarn, K., King Tilleke, J., & Gibbins, T. (2013). Thailand. In G. T. Wegen & S. Wilske (Eds.), Arbitration in jurisdictions worldwide. Law Business Research Ltd.
14. Dai, W., & Bergman, L. (2011). Comparison between SCC arbitration and CIETAC arbitration. Retrieved February 2015 from www.biicl.org
15. David, R. (1984). Arbitration in international trade. Kluwer Law and Taxation.
16. Derains, Y., & Schwartz, E. A. (1998). A guide to the new ICC Rules of Arbitration. Kluwer Law International.
17. El Ahdab, J., & Eid, M. (2013). Saudi Arabia. In G. T. Wegen & S. Wilske (Eds.), Arbitration in jurisdictions worldwide. Law Business Research Ltd.
18. El Ahdab, J., et al. (2013). Qatar. In G. T. Wegen & S. Wilske (Eds.), Arbitration in jurisdictions worldwide. Law Business Research Ltd.
19. El Meouchi, C., et al. (2013). Lebanon. In G. T. Wegen & S. Wilske (Eds.), Arbitration in jurisdictions worldwide (p. 45). Law Business Research Ltd.
20. Engström, D., & Marian, C. (2011). Sweden: Pre-arbitral proceedings in practice. Global Arbitration Review Journal, 6. Retrieved February 2015 from http://globalarbitrationreview.com
21. Fouchard, F., Gaillard, E., & Goldman, B. (1996). Traité de l’arbitrage commercial international. Paris.
22. Garner, B. A. (2004). Black’s law dictionary (8th ed.). Thomson West.
23. Horning, R. A. (n.d.). Interim measures of protection. In Guide to WIPO arbitration. WIPO.
24. International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). (1998). ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 23(2).
25. Kashani, J., & Sheikhiani, M. (2011). Issuance of interim measures before the formation of the arbitral tribunal by the emergency arbitrator under the new ICC Arbitration Rules and the Swiss International Arbitration Law. International Legal Journal, 46. Center for International Legal Affairs of the Presidency. [In Persian]
26. Lukash, R. M. (2005). The institution of arbitration in calculated international contracts (M. Alsan & M. Manouchehri, Trans.). Legal Journal of Arbitration, 1. Biannual Journal of Law Students, Shahid Beheshti University.
27. Nguyen Manh, D., et al. (2013). Vietnam. In G. T. Wegen & S. Wilske (Eds.), Arbitration in jurisdictions worldwide. Law Business Research Ltd.
28. Sammartano, M. R. (1992). International arbitration law and practice (2nd ed.). Kluwer Law International.
29. UNCITRAL Secretariat. (1985). Analytical commentary on draft text of a model law on commercial arbitration (UN Doc A/CN.9/264). In Holtzmann & Neuhaus, Model Law.
30. Zarkalam, S. (2004, Winter). Distinction between quasi-arbitration institutions and arbitration institutions in international construction contracts. Modarres Quarterly of Humanities, Special Issue on Law. [In Persian]
