Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Islamic Azad University, Naragh, Markazi, Iran
2
PhD Candidate in Private Law, Al-Mustafa International University, Qom, Iran
10.22034/ils.2025.19326.1120
Abstract
Arbitration, as one of the most important methods of resolving disputes outside the courtroom, plays a significant role in conflict resolution. The most crucial stage in arbitration is understanding its true nature, because without a clear grasp of its essence, one cannot fully comprehend the conditions, effects, and functions of arbitration. There is no consensus on the nature of arbitration, and various theories have been proposed. This paper examines the nature of arbitration from the perspectives of Imami and Hanafi jurisprudence using a descriptive-analytical method and library sources.
In Imami jurisprudence, arbitration has a judicial nature, and the authority of the state supersedes the consent of the parties involved. Arbitration is executed and supervised only within the judicial framework of a country, based on its laws. This view provides a solid basis for the state’s involvement in arbitration matters. However, the primary foundation of arbitration is the agreement between the parties in conflict. Therefore, different opinions regarding the nature of arbitration have emerged in legal studies.
The findings of this research indicate that a single, uniform definition of arbitration’s nature cannot be applied in all cases. In some instances, justice is a prerequisite, indicating a judicial nature, while in other cases, no condition is specified for the arbitrator, which suggests that arbitration does not solely have a judicial nature. Instead, it involves both judicial and contractual elements, and the rulings and consequences of both natures apply to arbitration. According to theories of judicial and contractual nature, arbitration can be understood as a combination of both.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)