Balancing Party Autonomy, Mandatory Rules, and Public Policy in Arbitration: A Comparative Study of Iranian and English Law
Keywords:
Party Autonomy, Mandatory Rules, Public Policy, International Commercial Arbitration, Iranian Arbitration Law, English Arbitration Act 1996, , New York Convention, UNCITRAL Model LawAbstract
International commercial arbitration is founded on the principle of party autonomy, which grants parties the freedom to choose the procedural and substantive law governing their dispute resolution (Born, 2021). However, this autonomy is not absolute; it is constrained by mandatory rules and public policy considerations that reflect the sovereign interests of states (Mistelis, 2022). This article offers a comparative analysis of how Iranian and English law balance these competing forces. In English law, the Arbitration Act 1996, underpinned by the New York Convention, adopts a minimal-intervention, pro-enforcement stance, limiting judicial interference and restricting public policy objections to cases involving fundamental injustice or fraud (Merkin, 2023). In contrast, Iranian arbitration law, influenced by Islamic legal principles and the UNCITRAL Model Law, imposes broader limitations on arbitrability—particularly regarding disputes involving immovable property, public policy, and certain contractual categories—while also demonstrating a growing inclination toward international harmonization (Salehi, 2022; Amini, 2021). The comparative findings indicate that, despite distinct doctrinal foundations, both systems are gradually converging toward restricting judicial interference and embracing the notion of "transnational public policy" to enhance predictability and enforceability of arbitral awards (Gaillard & Savage, 2023). The article concludes by proposing a balanced framework that respects party autonomy while safeguarding essential state interests.
References
1. Arbitration Act 1996 (UK). (1996).
2. Asadzadeh, M., & Eftekhar Jahromi, G. (2019). Public order as a source of limitation for the award of an arbitration agreement: An investigation into Iran's judicial process. Private Law Research, 7(27).
3. Asadzadeh, M. (2023). The effect of public order on the ability to refer to arbitration in Iranian law and the New York Convention. Journal of Comparative Law Studies, University of Tehran.
4. Comparative Civil Procedure. (2026). Comparative analysis of the approach of Iranian and English courts to the application of the public policy exception. Comparative Civil Procedure Journal.
5. Farshbaf Khoshnazar, M. (2022). Comparative Analysis of Grounds of Challenge of an Arbitral Award Under International Commercial Arbitration in Iran and English Legal Systems [Doctoral dissertation, Sapienza University of Rome].
6. Fatayri. (2024). Enforcement of arbitral awards under the Iranian Arbitration Act. Interdisciplinary Studies in Society, Law, and Politics.
7. Gaillard, E., & Savage, J. (2023). Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration. Kluwer Law International.
8. Merkin, R. (2023). Merkin on Arbitration Law. Sweet & Maxwell.
9. Mishra, M., & Vajpeyi, A. (2022). Mandatory and directory provisions under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. SCC Online.
10. Mobaraki, B. (2024). Comparative analysis of international commercial arbitration laws in Iran and the UNCITRAL Model Law. Interdisciplinary Studies in Society, Law, and Politics, 3(5), 93-105.
11. Nabi, B. (2006). The Iranian Arbitration Act of 1997. Journal of International Arbitration.
12. New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. (1958).
13. Smith, A., & Hughes, J. (2022). Global vantage: Law Commission announces review of the Arbitration Act 1996 – What can we expect? Beale & Co.
14. Zulker Nayeen, M. S. (2022). Principles of party autonomy and limited judicial intervention in contrast: Does the English Arbitration Act strike a fair balance? The City Law Review, IV, 93-103.
