Document Type : Research/Original/Regular Article
Authors
1 Professor, Department of Private and Islamic Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 PhD Student in Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Obstacles and objections are likely to arise at different stages of the arbitration process of disputes, particularly from the loser party. Defenses such as “encounter an agreement or arbitration clause with public order” or “basically not being arbitrable under the governing laws” are used as the ways to escape from being defeated. Given the ambiguity of the concepts of public order and arbitrability, especially in intellectual property law, and the differing views of other countries on these issues, we sought to examine what is the relationship between the concept of public order and arbitrability in the intellectual property disputes referred to arbitration. The result was that there was a split. Some have supported the theory of conformity of public order and inarbitrability. In contrast, other writers have arguments about the fundamental difference between the two.
Keywords
- Arbitrability
- Exclusive jurisdiction
- Intellectual property disputes
- New York Convention
- Public policy
Main Subjects
فارسی
- اسکینی، ربیعا و دیگران (1398)، «قرارداد داور»، مجلۀ حقوقی دادگستری، دورۀ 83، شمارۀ 108.
- باقری، محمود (1387)، «قابلیت داوری اختلافات ناشی از حقوق اقتصادی: ناکامی قراردادی در رجوع به داوری در دعاوی حقوق رقابت و حقوق بازار بورس»، مجلۀ تحقیقات حقوقی، شمارۀ 48.
- بهمئی، محمد علی و حسنی شیخ عطار (1397)، «داوری پذیری دعاوی حقوق مالکیت فکری نیازمند ثبت»، مجلۀ حقوقی بین‌المللی، شمارۀ 58.
- بهمئی، محمدعلی و حسنی شیخ عطار (1397)، «قانون حاکم بر داوری‌پذیری دعاوی»، مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، دورۀ 9، شمارۀ 2.
- جنیدی، لعیا (1391)، «تبیین مفهوم نظم عمومی ملی در روابط بین‌المللی با تاکید بر قواعد امری حقوق عمومی»، ارج نامه دکتر نجادعلی الماسی، تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.
- جنیدی، لعیا و نسترن غیاثوند قزوینی (1396)، «داوری پذیری در نظام حقوقی ایران با تأکید بر رویۀ قضایی»، حقوق تطبیقی، دورۀ 108، شمارۀ 2.
- رضایی، علی (1395)، «مطالعه تطبیقی داوری‌پذیری اختلافات راجع به مالکیت فکری»، تعالی حقوق، سال هشتم، شمارۀ 17.
- شیخ عطار، حسنی (1390)، «داوری در حوزۀ مالکیت فکری»، پایان نامه برای دریافت درجه کارشناسی ارشد، تهران: دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
- شیروی، عبدالحسین و محمدجواد کاظمی (1397)، بررسی شرط مذاکره در حل و فصل اختلافات تجاری با توجه به رویۀ قضایی بین‌المللی، مجلۀ حقوقی دادگستری، شمارۀ 104.
- مدنیان، غلامرضا و همکاران (1390)، «امکان یا امتناع تبیین مفهوم نظم عمومی در حقوق»، فصلنامه پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی، دورۀ 73، شمارۀ 3.
انگلیسی
- Arfazadeh, Homayoon, (2001),” Arbitrability under the New York Convention: the Lex Fori Revisited”, Arbitration International, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 73-87.
- Anusornsena, Veena, (2012), “Arbitrability and Public Policy in Regard to the Recognitionand Enforcement of Arbitral Award in International Arbitration”, Golden Gate University School of Law, Dissertation.
- Baron, Patrick M & Liniger, Stefan, (2003), “A Second Look at Arbitrability in the United States, Switzerland and Germany”, Arbitration International, Volume 19, pp 27-54.
- Belohlavek, Alexander J, (2013), “The Law Applicable to the Arbitration Agreement and the Arbitrability of a Dispute”, Yearbook of International Arbitration, M. Roth and M. Giestlinger (eds.), Intersentia, pp 27-57.
- Betancourt, Alba & Georgina, Ana, (2014), "Cross-Border Conflicts of Patents and Designs: a Study of Multijurisdictional Litigation and Arbitration Procedure",Queen Mary University of London, Theses [2851].
- Brekoulakis, Stavros, (2009), “On Arbitrability: Persisting Misconceptions and New Areas of Concern”, Queen Mary Legal Studies Research Paper No. 20, pp 19-45.
- Camille, Juras, (2006), “International Intellectual Property Disputes and Arbitration: A Comparative Analysis”, UMI Dissertation Services.
- Convention on The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York. 1958).
- Cromar, Scott A, (2011), “Copyright and Moral Rights in the U.S. and France”, SSRN Electronic Journal, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1898326, (last visited on 18/10/2018).
- Gerdau de Borja, Ana, (2004), “Intellectual Property Mandatory Rules and Arbitrability in U.S. and Brazil”, Available At https://seer.ufrgs.br › ppgdir › article, Last visited on 24/1/2019).
- Final report on Intellectual Property Disputes and Arbitration, Report of the ICC Commission on International Arbitration, (1998), ICC International Arbitration Bulletin.
- Fortunet, Edouard, (2010), “Arbitrability of Intellectual Property Disputes in France”, Arbitration International, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 281-300.
- French, Robert, (2014), “A Public Law Perspective on Intellectual Property”, The Journal of World Intellectual Property, Volume 17, Issue 3–4.
- Grantham, William, (1996), “The Arbitrability of International Intellectual Property Disputes”, 14 Berkeley J, Int'l Law, pp 173-221.
- Halket, Thomas D., (2012), “Arbitration of International Intellectual Property Disputes”, Juris Publishing, Inc.
- Kirry, Antoine, (1996), “Arbitrability: Current Trends in Europe, Arbitration International”, Arbitration International, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 373-390.
- Kozubovska, Beata, (2014), “Trends in Arbitrability”, 1:2 IALS Student Law Review, pp 22-29.
- Mante, Joseph, (2017), “Arbitrability and Public Policy: An African perspective”, Arbitration International, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 275-294.
- Michelle, Paul, (2003), "Arbitrability of Copyright Disputes", Canadian Business Law Journal, Volume 38.
- Mistelis, Loukas A, & Brekoulakis, Stavros L., (2009), “Arbitrability, International & Comparative Perspectives”, Kluwer Law International B.V.
- Park, William W., (2007), “Determining the Arbitrator’s Jurisdiction: Timing and Finality in American Law”, Nevada Law Journal, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 135-168.
Vincente, Dário Moura, (2015), “Arbitrability Of Intellectual Property Disputes: A Comparative Survey”, Arbitration International, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 163-170.
)