Abstract:
Arbitration is an alternative method of dispute resolution outside of judicial courts, in which an impartial and mutually acceptable arbitrator seeks to resolve referred disputes outside of the court's premises. During arbitration, the arbitrator is the main actor. It is they who ultimately make the decision regarding the dispute; accordingly, upon the acceptance by the arbitrator, a contract is concluded between the arbitrator and the contracting parties. Therefore, all legal systems have confirmed the existence of a contract and the judicial duty of the arbitrator; also, one of the fundamental characteristics of law is having enforcement mechanisms. If followers of the law imagine themselves free and without punishment in implementing legal rules, how can the goal of law, which is regulating personal relations and establishing order in society, be achieved? Therefore, whenever the rights of individuals are violated, the reaction against the transgressor must be provided and guaranteed by the state. Rules and principles of due process, as part of legal rules, have also been supported by the legislator and judicial precedent with their own specific enforcement mechanisms. In the present article, we will examine whether arbitrators will have disciplinary, criminal, and civil liability towards the parties of a dispute? Therefore, we will first examine the principle of accountability of government organs to the people, and then examine the forms of arbitrators' liability from disciplinary, criminal, and civil perspectives in the Iranian legal system. Keywords:
Machine summary:
Based on this, in addition to legal systems that, with the aim of determining the powers of the state as a powerful institution 160 managing society, overseeing it, and being accountable as a remedy; Islamic sources also place great emphasis on the necessity of government accountability, considering accountability to be the duty of the government and questioning to be the right and obligation of the people, and they have emphasized the implementation of this matter in various forms.
The civil procedure law, for certain interests, has allowed individuals to determine their own adjudicator by specific agreement and to accept arbitration instead of referring to the court; therefore, an arbitrator is someone to whom the law temporarily and in a specific case entrusts the function of adjudication, and while performing their duties, they are a state official (Katouzian, ibid: 130).
Various issues arising from international commercial arbitration, such as the validity of the arbitration agreement, procedural law, the choice of arbitrator, the scope of arbitrable subjects, and the enforceability of the arbitrator's award, must be determined in compliance with the mandatory rules and public order of the place of arbitration.
One of the effects of the jurisdictional nature of the arbitration institution can be observed in the famous El Drago case, according to which an arbitration award is not considered self-executing like a court judgment; meaning that if the parties do not voluntarily enforce the award, it must inevitably be submitted to the courts; therefore, the judicial character of the award at the enforcement stage is determined by the support and backing of state courts (Pournouri, 2004: 58).
(
, 
, 
)
