چکیده:
Although arbitration is as old as the history of mankind, much of what we know today as arbitrator in Islamic texts is the result of ijtehad of Islamic jurists that established this institution in the periods of jurisprudence. Despite the similarities and differences, the relation between this institution in Islamic jurisprudence and the institution of arbitration in the present case law must be regarded as a continuation of the old law in the new law. Because the outstanding features and elements of today's arbitration including the mutual consent of the parties to the arbitration as well as the issuance of verdict on the basis of fairness and justice, has also existed in arbitration in the past. However, there are essential differences between the issue of jurisdiction over arbitration in the past with that in the present, the most obvious reason for which is the absence of the phenomenon of modern government and the modern judicatory system which considers one of its duties to oversee the process of arbitration in the positive and negative manner.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Despite similarities and differences, the relationship between this institution in Islamic jurisprudence and the institution of arbitration in current positive law should be considered a continuation of the old in the new, because the characteristics and prominent elements of modern arbitration, such as the consent of the parties to resort to arbitration and the issuance of a judgment based on the principles of fairness and justice, also existed in arbitral judgment.
According to some writers, despite the lack of a definition of arbitration in the Law of Civil Procedure of General and Revolutionary Courts, the characteristics and features of arbitration can be extracted from Article 454 of this law, according to which arbitration is a private judicial authority that is case-specific and based on the will of the parties to a specific dispute (Yousefzadeh, 1393: 25).
1. Validity of the ruling of the conciliator and arbitrator in jurisprudence Some jurists believe that acting on the ruling of the conciliator is obligatory and his ruling is as effective as the ruling of an appointed judge, and many jurists such as Sheikh Tusi, Allameh, Shahid Awwal, Mohaqqiq Ardabili, and other jurists have explicitly stated this (Amandad & Panjehpoor & Esdi Kuhbad, 1394: 28).
2. Validity of the ruling of the conciliator and arbitrator in positive law Article 459 of the Civil Procedure Code states that “the arbitrator’s opinion is only valid regarding the parties to the dispute and those who participated in appointing the arbitrator and their legal successors, and it will not have any effect on other persons.
(
, 
, 
)
