Iranian Review for UN Studies

Iranian Review for UN Studies

Ambiguity in Arbitrability and Its Role in Refusing Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Iranian Law: A Comparative Study with English Law and Selected International Approaches

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
1 Private Law, Faculty of Law, Non-Profit University of Justice, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law, Edalat University
10.22034/iruns.2026.581516.1222
Abstract
Abstract



Ambiguity in arbitrability may become one of the most significant grounds for resisting the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, particularly where it is conflated with public policy, the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement, gateway jurisdictional issues, and ambiguity in the award itself. In Iranian law, the absence of a clear definition of arbitrability and its overlap with public policy and jurisdictional objections have reduced the predictability of the enforcement of arbitral awards. By contrast, English law and pro-arbitration legal systems manage such ambiguity through the separability of the arbitration agreement, the principle of competence-competence, restrictive interpretation of the grounds for refusing enforcement, limited judicial review, and mechanisms for correcting and interpreting arbitral awards. This article argues that Iranian law should enhance the effectiveness and predictability of the enforcement of arbitral awards by distinguishing among three levels of ambiguity: ambiguity in the arbitration agreement and gateway issues, ambiguity in arbitrability and public policy, and ambiguity in the arbitral award itself, as well as by adopting a pro-enforcement policy.



Keywords: Arbitrability; Public Policy; Enforcement of Arbitral Awards; New York Convention; Competence-Competence; Separability; Iranian Law; English Law.
Keywords


Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 02 August 2026