The System of Challenging Arbitral Awards and Grounds for Annulment with Emphasis on Judicial Supervision in Iranian Law and English Case Law

Abstract

Arbitration, as one of the most significant mechanisms for dispute resolution, has consistently faced the challenge of balancing the principle of arbitral autonomy with the necessity of judicial supervision. The objective of this study is to examine the system for challenging arbitral awards and the grounds for their annulment, with particular emphasis on the scope and nature of judicial supervision in Iranian law, and to compare it with English case law in order to identify similarities and differences and propose a more efficient supervisory model. The research adopts a descriptive–analytical method, utilizing library resources, statutory laws, judicial decisions, and authoritative domestic and international documents, while employing a comparative approach between Iranian law and the English legal system. The findings indicate that in Iranian law, the grounds for annulment of arbitral awards are exhaustively enumerated and predominantly procedural in nature, and the role of courts is primarily limited to ensuring compliance with legal standards and public policy. In contrast, although the principle of minimal judicial intervention prevails in English law, judicial practice, through a more flexible interpretation, allows for more effective court supervision in exceptional circumstances. Strengthening the transparency of judicial supervision criteria and providing a more precise articulation of the grounds for annulment of arbitral awards in Iranian law, drawing on the experience of England, can preserve arbitral autonomy while enhancing public trust in this institution and preventing the issuance of awards that conflict with fundamental legal principles.