A Comparative Study of Compromise in the Transnational Civil Procedure Law and the Iranian Law

Abstract

Compromise has long been considered as one of the most effective procedures of settling disputes in the laws of different countries. In this regard, the Transnational Civil Procedure Code has entered the field of existence with the aims of explaining the basic concepts of the justice vital elements in various legal systems of the world and ultimately providing a codified law, especially in the field of international commercial litigation which can be extended to other civil law disputes. It has also paid special attention to resolving disputes through peace and reconciliation. If the proposed compromise of the mentioned law is not accepted without a justifiable excuse, it will be accompanied by a legal sanction, which is clearly in conflict with the philosophy of compromise. The Iranian legislature has paid attention to resolving disputes through compromise in various laws, and has even enacted a special law called the Law on Dispute Settlement Councils to revive and spread the culture of peace and compromise. Considering the several benefits of settling disputes through compromise, the present article seeks to make a comparative study of compromise in the Transnational Civil Procedure Code and the Iranian law using a descriptive-analytical method and library studies to express the compliance of the mentioned laws and determine the differences between them.

Keywords

• transnational civil procedure
• national
• alternative dispute resolution methods
• peace and reconciliation
• iranian law