نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه پیامنور، تهران، ایران
2 استادیار، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران
3 استادیار، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه پیامنور، تهران، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
While the words of the arbitrator's decision at the time of issuance could be quite expressive and unequivocal, they may become vague at the time of its execution or even afterwards. Admittedly, there is no overall consensus amongst the jurists in determining the authority for interpreting the arbitrations. Nonetheless, the courts in accordance with the obligation imposed upon them by Article 149 of the Constitution are—at least in cases of the arbitrator’s death or occurrence of their incapacity thereof as well as in the case of secondary judicial supervision over their decision— compelled to interpret the arbitrator’s decision and decide whether to endorse or rebut the application for enforcement and execution. In addition to the aforementioned decisions, the arbitrations issued by an external arbitrator may need to be interpreted to clarify the arbitrator's intent. In this regard, the nature and effects of the courts’ verdicts as the interpreters of the arbitrations are the focus of this study. Although unlike rectification it is highly likely to witness alterations in the nature of the verdict during the interpretation of the arbitrator's decision, the nature of the court’s verdict as the interpreter of the arbitrator’s verdict is not transparent. In case this decision is made in a form other than court’s verdict, the involved parties will be bereft of the right to protest, thereby incurring injustice and violation of the rights. The present article is aimed at explicating the nature of the courts’ verdicts as the authoritative agency in interpreting the arbitrator’s decision.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)