Comparative Study of Possibility of Punitive Damage Verdict issuance by Arbitration Institutions in the United States and Iranian Law

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor of the Department of Law, Ardebil Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ardebil, Iran

2 PhD Student of Private Law, Department of Law, Ardebil Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ardebil, Iran

Abstract

The main purpose of issuing punitive damage verdict is to make compensation for the loss inflicted on the plaintiff and to restore the plaintiff to the status quo ante. In Iranian law, the basic principle is to recover the damage and restore the plaintiff to the status quo ante, but the punitive damage is completely different. In other countries, including England and the US, in which punitive damage is accepted in a broad sense, the punitive damage is defined aside from any compensatory damages or nominal damages which are considered in issuing the verdict due to extreme misconduct of the defendant. As in the members of Romano-Germanic Legal System, in Iranian law punitive damage is not applied in private lawsuits. Despite this situation, and regarding international aspect, and in response to some measures taken by countries - the US, in particular - in sentencing Iran to punitive damage, the lawmaker, eventually, recognized punitive damage in considering civil lawsuits against foreign governments in 2011. A question, however, arises here is that  it is possible for arbitration institutions in common-law obedient countries to issue punitive damage verdict. In this paper, we discuss this issue and also possibility or non-possibility of execution by national courts of the punitive damage verdicts issued by arbitration institutions.

Keywords

References

1. اسماعیلی، محسن (1386). نظریة خسارت، تهران، امیرکبیر.
2. امامی، سید حسن (1370). حقوق مدنی، تهران، اسلامیه.
3. بادینی، حسن (1383). «هدف مسئولیت مدنی»، مجلة دانشکدة حقوق و علوم سیاسی، ش 66، صص 55ـ 114.
4. بهرامی احمدی، حمید (1377). سوء‌استفاده از حق، تهران، اطلاعات.
5. تقی‌زاده، ابراهیم؛ علی خسروی فارسانی؛ میثم موسی‌پور (1391). «ماهیت و آثار خسارت تنبیهی در حقوق کامن لا (با مطالعة تطبیقی)»، دانش حقوق مدنی، س 1، ش 1، صص 66ـ 82.
6. جعفری لنگرودی، محمدجعفر (1380). مبسوط در ترمینولوژی حقوق، تهران، گنج دانش.
7. داراب‌پور، مهراب؛ سعید سلطانی احمدآباد (1394). «فلسفة حقوقی و ماهیت خسارت تنبیهی»، مجلة حقوقی بین‌المللی، س 32، ش 52، صص 34ـ 52.
8. عـبد‌اللهی‌، محسن‌ (1386). «خسارت تنبیهی در‌ حقوق‌ بین‌الملل»، مجلة حقوقی بین‌المللی، ش 30، صص 45ـ 64.
9. عرفانی، محمود (1389). حقوق تجارت بین‌المللی، تهران، جنگل، ج 5.
10. قانون اجرای احکام مدنی مصوب 01/08/1356.
11. قانون صلاحیت دادگستری جمهوری اسلامی ایران برای رسیدگی به دعاوی مدنی علیه دولت‌های خارجی مصوب 18/08/1378 با اصلاحات بعدی.
12. قانون مدنی مصوب 18 اردیبهشت‌ماه 1307 با اصلاحات بعدی.
13. کنوانسیون شناسایی و اجرای احکام داوری خارجی تنظیم‌شده در نیویورک به تاریخ ژوئن 1958میلادی برابر با 03/04/1337 هجری شمسی.
14. معین، محمد (1380). فرهنگ مـعین، تـهران، امیرکبیر، ج 1.
15. Abdollahi, M. (2007). Punitive Damage in International Law. Journal of International Law. 30, pp. 45-64. (in Persian)
16. Act of Iranian Justice Competency for Addressing Civil Actions Against Foreign Administrations (1999). Tehran. (in Persian)
17. Aust, A. (2010). Handbook of International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
18. Badini, H. (2004). The Objective of Civic Responsibility. Journal of Faculty Law and Political Science, 66, pp. 55-114. (in Persian)
19. Bahrami, H. (1998). Abuse of Rights. Tehran: Etelaat Publication. (in Persian)
20. Blanke, G. & Landolt, P. (2011). EU and US Antitrust Arbitration: A Handbook for Practitioners, Volume 1, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, Hague.
21. Boyd, J. & Ingberman, D. (1995). Do Panitive Damages Delerrence? ,Business Law & Eccrmics Center Of wishingtne Unrvesity PAR, Working Paper No. HLF. pp. 95-08.
22. Bray, D. & Bray, H. (2013). Post-Hearing Issues In International Arbitration, Juris Publishing, Inc., New York.
23. Brower, C. & Brueschke, J. (1998). The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Hague.
24. Brunet, E.; Brunet J.; Speidel, R.; Sternlight, J.; Ware, H.; Ware, J. (2006). Arbitration Law in America: A Critical Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
25. Garner, B. (2011). Black's Law Dictionary, 9 Ed, West Publishing Co, USA.
26. Carbonneau, E. (2010). Carbonneau on Arbitration: Collected Essays, Juris Publishing, Inc., Huntington.
27. ---------------------------- (2014). Law and Practice of Arbitration, Fifth Edition, Juris Publishing, Inc., Huntington.
28. Civil Act with later amends (1928). Tehran. (in Persian)
29. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. (1958). New York. (in Persian)
30. Cyglakow, K. (2016). Punitive Damages. Conditions, Limits, Proportionality, GRIN Verlag, Augsburg.
31. Darabpoor, M. & Soltani A., S. (2015). Philosophy of Law and Nature of Punitive Damage. Journal of International Law, 32 (52), pp. 34-52. (in Persian)
32. Owen, D. (1994). A Punitive Damages Overview : Functions, Problems and Reform, 39 Vill. L. Rev. 363.
33. Zubrod, D. (1991). Punitive and RICO Damages in American Maritime Arbitration, 8 J. Int’l Arb. 17.
34. Farnsworth, E. (1990–1991). Punitive Damages in Arbitration, 20 Stetson L. Rev. 395, 398.
35. Dorsey, E. (1982). Fairnesa and Effielency in the Law of Punilive Dimiages, Southern California Law Review. Vol. 56.
36. Emami, S. H. (1998). Civil Rights, Vol. 1. Tehran: Eslamiyeh Publication. (in Persian)
37. Enforcement of Civil Judgments Act. (1977). Tehran. (in Persian)
38. Erfani, M. (2010). International Trade Law, Vol. 5. Tehran: Jangal Publication. (in Persian)
39. Esmaeeli, M. (2007). Theory of Damage. Tehran: Amirkabir Publication. (in Persian)
40. Fa Lo, C.; Nigel N. T. Li; Lin, T. (2016). Legal Thoughts between the East and the West in the Multilevel Legal Order, Springer, Singapore.
41. Frey, M. A. (2002). Alternative Methods of Dispute Resolution, Cengage Learning, Tulsa.
42. Guzman, M.; Ocampo, J.; Stiglitz, J. (2016). Too Little, Too Late: The Quest to Resolve Sovereign Debt Crises, Columbia University Press, New York.
43. Koziol, H. (2009). Punitive Damages: common Law and civil Law perspectives, pringer Wien newyork.
44. Langaroodi, M. J. (2001). Mabsoot in Law Terminology. Tehran: Ganj-e-Danesh Publication. (in Persian)
45. Jia Fei, J. (2003). AWARDS OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES, Juris Publishing, Inc. Reprinted with Permission.
46. Gotanda, J. (2003). Punitive Damages: A Comparative Analysis, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 42.
47. Kelsen, H. (2003). Principles of International Law, The Law Book Exchange LTD, New Jersey.
48. Kimball, J.; Kenny, J.; Baker, A. (2014). Time Charters, CRC Press, Milton park.
49. Koziol, H. & Wilcox, V. (2011). Punitive Damages: Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives.
50. Curzon, L. (2002). Dictionary of Law, 6 Ed, Pearson Education Limited Co, England.
51. Moeen, M. (2001). Moeen Dictionary, Vol. 1. Tehran: Amirkabir Publication. (in Persian)
52. New York State Bar Association (1989). (Commercial and Federal Litigation Section), Report on Punitive Damagesin Commercial Arbitration.
53. Newbold, S., Rosenbloom, H. (2017). The Constitutional School of American Public Administration, Taylor & Francis, New York.
54. Bishop, D. (2010). ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRAL AWARDS UNDER THE NEW YORK CONVENTION: Outline of Cases Refusing to Enforce Arbitral Awards. King & Spalding, Texas.
55. Mulheron, R. (2000). THE AVAILABILITY OF EXEMPLARY DAMAGES IN NEGLIGENCE, MacarthurLawRw 3; 4 Macarthur Law Review 61.
56. Redfern, A. & Hunter, M. (2004). Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, Sweet & Maxwell, London.
57. Rounds Jr. & Rounds III, E. (2019). Loring and Rounds: A Trustee's Handbook, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, USA.
58. Ruys, T.; Angelet, N.; Ferro, L. (2019). The Cambridge Handbook of Immunities and International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
59. SIRIVIRIYAKUL, S. (2012). THE IMPOSITION OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS, Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of the Science of Law in Law in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
60. HAMZA, S. (2010). Punitive damages as a contentious issue of Intellectual Property Rights, in the name of the Egyptian Group Report Q186.
61. Strachman, D. & Steck, J. (2008). Cases and Materials on Civil Terrorism Law, Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company, Rhode Island.
62. Taghizadeh, E.; Khosravi Farsani, A.; Moosavipoor, M. (2012). Nature and Effects of Punitive Damage in Common-Law (with Comparative Study). Journal of Civil Rights Knowledge, 1(1), pp. 66-68. (in Persian)
63. Trenor, J. (2018). Guide to Damages in International Arbitration, Law Business Research Ltd, London.
64. Vanleenhove, C. (2016). Punitive Damages in Private International Law: Lessons for the European Union, Intersentia, London.
65. Volume 25 of Tort and Insurance Law, Springer, Vienna.
66. Wagner, D.; Chandler, J.; Bancroft D.; Putzel, H.; Lind, H. (2008). United States Reports: Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court at, Volume 557, U.S Government Printing Office, Washington.
Private Law
Volume 16, Issue 2
October 2019
Pages 345-367

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics