چکیده:
One of the important and challenging topics in international commercial arbitrations is the category of seat and venue of arbitration, which in turn is effective in the field of applying the law for resolving disputes by the arbitrator. Therefore, knowing the above concepts, the existing differences, and the binding scope of each is of great importance. In this regard, it is stated that the seat of arbitration, unlike the venue, which is merely a geographical location for holding sessions, carries legal weight and binding force regarding the application of the relevant law; in other words, it is also called the legal domicile of arbitration. However, unfortunately, due to the similarity of the aforementioned terms in the English language, the necessary ground for confusion of concepts has been created even in the legal field and practical procedures. On the other hand, with the absence of an independent law regarding electronic arbitrations in Iranian law and its dependence on existing laws, the need for proper interpretation of these two fields to respond to modern needs in the field of applying the law is increasingly felt. Therefore, to better understand the above matters and their challenges, an investigation has been conducted with a look at the Iranian International Commercial Arbitration Law and other rules, laws, and practical procedures at the international level.
خلاصه ماشینی:
" Accordingly, some researchers, by citing this article and paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the International Commercial Arbitration Law, have concluded that the hearing of the dispute and the issuance of the award must definitely be conducted at the arbitral seat, but other sessions 111 may be held in a location other than the arbitral seat, unless the parties have agreed otherwise (Shiravi, 1391, p.
Ultimately, given the different logic of choosing the seat versus the venue of arbitration sessions and the clarity of certain international instruments, if the circumstances or interests of the parties require it, there is no prohibition against conducting the entire arbitration process outside the seat, unless the law governing the procedure or the agreement of the parties prevents this (Sedighi and Naeimi, previously cited, p.
268) and the most important arguments presented include the cumbersome nature of complying with all the regulations of a local procedure and the possibility of it being disproportionate to modern needs, the incorrect comparison of the arbitrator to a judge in the localization theory, the possibility of the parties' intention in choosing a country as the arbitral seat solely for geographical and economic convenience and the lack of justification for the mandatory enforcement of local procedural rules, and the enforcement of the New York Convention regarding all foreign awards regardless of their locality (Jenaidi, previously cited, pp.
Iran, upon joining this convention, has also stipulated in Article 27 of the International Commercial Arbitration Law regarding the application of the governing law: "1- The arbitrator shall make decisions based on the legal rules chosen by the parties regarding the nature of the dispute.
(
, 
, 
)
