579
Ad . J. Manag. Humani . Soc. Sci. (2025), Volume 1, Issue 9, 579-586
The Comp ehensi e Examina ion o Challenges in En o cing Fo eign A bi al Awa ds
in he I anian Legal Sys em wi h Emphasis on Public O de and Na ional So e eign y
Ameneh Abya
Ph.D. Candida e in Comme cial A bi a ion and Execu i e Legal and Con ac Managemen / Uni e si y o Teh an
A icle in o
Recei ed: 09.09.2025
Accep ed: 11.10.2025
A ailable Online: 12.10.2025
Checked o Plagia ism: Yes
Keywo ds:
En o cemen o Awa ds; Public
O de ; I an; Na ional So e eign y,
UNCITRAL Model
A B S T R A C T
This a icle examines he p incipal legal, cons i u ional and p ac ical obs acles
o ecogni ion and en o cemen o o eign a bi al awa ds in he Islamic
Republic o I an, ocusing on he win concep s o public o de (o d e public)
and na ional so e eign y. I an’s accession o he 1958 New Yo k Con en ion in
2001 and he enac men o domes ic a bi a ion legisla ion modelled on he
UNCITRAL Model Law ha e, in p inciple, c ea ed a amewo k conduci e o
en o cemen ; howe e , cons i u ional cons ain s, s a e p ac ice and policy
conside a ions epea edly complica e implemen a ion. Cen al among
obs acles is a icle 139 o he I anian Cons i u ion, which condi ions e e al o
se lemen o dispu es conce ning public o s a e p ope y o he app o al o
he Council o Minis e s and whe e o eigne s a e pa ies o pa liamen a y
no i ica ion o app o al, he eby limi ing he a bi abili y and en o ceabili y o
awa ds ouching on public/s a e asse s. Cou s applying he public-o de
excep ion unde he New Yo k con en ion and domes ic p ocedu al ules ha e
a imes in oked a icle 139 o b oad public policy conce ns o deny
ecogni ion o o delay en o cemen ; ecen ju isp udence om I an’s Sup eme
Cou (2024) e idences inc emen al cla i ica ion bu does no elimina e
unce ain y. O he en o cemen hu dles include ambigui ies in s a u o y
de ini ions (e.g., wha coun s as “in e na ional” o “public” p ope y),
p ocedu al ba ie s (ju isdic ional e iew, limi ed disco e y, a ailabili y o
in e im measu es), s a e immuni y claims, and he impac o ex ajudicial
ac o s such as in e na ional sanc ions and poli ical ela ions. The a icle
analyses doc inal deba es, majo s a u o y p o isions, ep esen a i e case law
and e ol ing adminis a i e p ac ice, and p oposes a ge ed e o ms s a u o y
cla i ica ions, issuance o implemen ing egula ions, in e nal app o al
p o ocols o a icle 139 ma e s, judicial aining, and ea y-le el ini ia i es
o econcile I an’s commi men o a bi al en o cemen wi h legi ima e public-
o de and so e eign y conce ns while imp o ing p edic abili y o o eign
in es o s and c edi o s.
In oduc ion
In e na ional comme cial a bi a ion depends on
p edic able en o cemen o awa ds ac oss bo de s.
The 1958 Con en ion on he Recogni ion and
En o cemen o Fo eign A bi al Awa ds ( he “New
Yo k Con en ion”) p o ides he p incipal
mul ila e al mechanism o ha p edic abili y. I an
joined he New Yo k con en ion in 2001, and i s
domes ic s a u es go e ning in e na ional a bi a ion
a e la gely buil on UNCITRAL Model Law
p inciples, signaling o mal commi men o he
in e na ional a bi a ion egime. Despi e hese
o mal commi men s, en o cemen o o eign
a bi al awa ds in I an emains augh [1].
Two in e locking doc inal ea u es accoun o
much o he ic ion: (1) he cons i u ional p o ec ion
o “public and s a e p ope y” (a icle 139 o he
Cons i u ion), which condi ions a bi a ion o
se lemen in ol ing such p ope y on execu i e
and, in impo an cases in ol ing o eigne s,
pa liamen a y app o als; and (2) he b oad and
p o ean “public policy” g ounds a ailable o I anian
*Co esponding Au ho : Ameneh Abya (Ameneh_aby[email p o ec ed]om)
Ad anced Jou nal o Managemen , Humani y and Social Science
Jou nal homepage: h ps://www.ajmhss.com/
580
Ad . J. Manag. Humani . Soc. Sci. (2025), Volume 1, Issue 9, 579-586
cou s when conside ing en o cemen unde bo h
domes ic law and he New Yo k con en ion
ese a ion. These ea u es in e sec wi h
p ocedu al, ins i u ional, and geopoli ical eali ies
including sanc ions and so e eign immuni y
doc ines p oducing unce ain y o awa d c edi o s
and deb o s alike [2].
This a icle maps he legal amewo k, explo es
ju isp uden ial ends (including ecen sup eme
cou in e p e a ion), and assesses p ac ical and
doc inal challenges. I hen p oposes ecalib a ions
s a u o y, judicial, and adminis a i e ha could
p ese e legi ima e so e eign y conce ns while
imp o ing en o ceabili y and in es o con idence.
Li e a u e Re iew
The en o cemen o o eign a bi al awa ds s ands a
he hea o in e na ional comme cial a bi a ion.
Wi hou eliable en o cemen mechanisms,
a bi a ion would lose i s p ac ical alue as an
al e na i e o li iga ion. The 1958 New Yo k
Con en ion on he Recogni ion and En o cemen o
Fo eign A bi al Awa ds (he ea e “ he New Yo k
Con en ion”) is he p ima y mul ila e al ins umen
ha obliges membe s a es o ecognize and en o ce
o eign awa ds wi h limi ed excep ions. I an’s
accession o he con en ion in 2001 ep esen ed a
signi ican miles one in i s in eg a ion in o he
in e na ional a bi a ion egime. None heless, he
in e ac ion be ween I an’s cons i u ional law
pa icula ly a icle 139 o he I anian cons i u ion
and in e na ional obliga ions has c ea ed a pe sis en
ension be ween he en o cemen o o eign awa ds
and he p o ec ion o public o de (o d e public) and
na ional so e eign y [].
Schola s o in e na ional a bi a ion law (Bo n,
2021; Red e n & Hun e ,2015) gene ally ag ee ha
he p edic abili y o en o cemen is he li eblood o
a bi a ion. Unde a icle V o he New Yo k
Con en ion, ecogni ion may be e used only on
limi ed g ounds, such as lack o due p ocess, non-
a bi abili y, o con a en ion o public policy.
Howe e , he con en ion allows each signa o y s a e
o de ine public policy acco ding o i s domes ic
legal p inciples, c ea ing a iance in in e p e a ion
[4].
I an’s domes ic legal amewo k comp ises he law
on In e na ional comme cial a bi a ion (LICA) o
1997, which closely ollows he UNCITRAL Model
law, and he ci il p ocedu e code, which go e ns
en o cemen p ocedu es. While LICA inco po a es
in e na ional s anda ds o pa y au onomy and
limi ed cou in e en ion, he I anian cons i u ion
imposes ce ain s uc u al cons ain s ha canno be
o e idden by s a u e. A icle 139 p ohibi s he
a bi a ion o se lemen o dispu es in ol ing
“public o s a e p ope y” wi hou he app o al o he
council o minis e s, and, when o eigne s a e
pa ies, pa liamen a y no i ica ion o app o al is
also equi ed. This dual equi emen o en
complica es o delays he en o cemen o a bi al
awa ds in ol ing s a e en i ies o public asse s [5].
The public policy excep ion unde a icle V(2)(b) o
he New Yo k con en ion has gene a ed ex ensi e
academic deba e. In mos ju isdic ions, cou s
in e p e “public policy” na owly, limi ing i o
iola ions o undamen al mo al, legal, o
cons i u ional no ms. Fo example, F ench and
Swiss cou s apply an “in e na ional public policy”
s anda d ha minimizes s a e in e en ion in
en o cemen . By con as , some s a es, including
I an, India, and ce ain A ab ju isdic ions, adop a
b oade iew encompassing socio-economic
conside a ions, Islamic law p inciples, and poli ical
in e es s [6].
In he I anian con ex , public policy o en o e laps
wi h Islamic p inciples and na ional in e es s as
de ined by cons i u ional and s a u o y p o isions.
Cou s ha e in oked public o de o e use
en o cemen o awa ds deemed con a y o “Islamic
mo als,” o public p ope y p o ec ion, o o
sanc ions egimes. The elas ici y o public policy has
hus become a ool o econciling in e na ional
obliga ions wi h domes ic ideological and so e eign
impe a i es.
Academic s udies highligh a icle 139 as he mos
dis inc i e ea u e o I an’s a bi a ion egime [7]. I
embodies a cons i u ional sa egua d ensu ing ha
s a e asse s a e no a bi a ed o aliena ed wi hou
go e nmen al o e sigh . While his se es he
legi ima e pu pose o p o ec ing na ional p ope y
and so e eign y, i s ambiguous language especially
he unde ined scope o “public p ope y” and
“impo an cases” c ea es unp edic abili y.
Se e al schola s a gue ha a icle 139 unc ions as
bo h a ju isdic ional limi a ion ( es ic ing he
alidi y o a bi a ion ag eemen s) and an
en o cemen il e (allowing cou s o deny
ecogni ion o awa ds no duly au ho ized). In
p ac ice, I anian cou s ha e applied he p o ision
inconsis en ly. In some cases, he cou s ha e ea ed
lack o p io app o al as a ju isdic ional de ec
oiding he a bi a ion clause ab ini io; in o he s,
hey ha e allowed pos -hoc a i ica ion [8].
Recen sup eme cou in e p e a ions, such as he
2024 uling discussed by Viamedia ioncen e.o g
and he ASA Bulle in (2024), sugges a g adual shi
owa d a unc ional eading: app o als may be
deemed cu a i e i ob ained be o e en o cemen .
Howe e , no uni o m adminis a i e p ocedu e ye
exis s o secu e such app o als, lea ing en o cemen
ou comes unce ain.
Empi ical s udies and case analyses indica e ha
I anian cou s app oach o eign a bi al awa ds
cau iously. The judicia y’s ela i e un amilia i y
wi h in e na ional a bi a ion p inciples and he
poli ical sensi i i y o c oss-bo de dispu es
ein o ce conse a i e in e p e a ions. Se e al
ecu ing challenges eme ge om I anian
ju isp udence:
581
Ad . J. Manag. Humani . Soc. Sci. (2025), Volume 1, Issue 9, 579-586
P ocedu al o mali ies: S ic equi emen s
o ce i ied Pe sian ansla ions, no a ized
documen s, and diploma ic au hen ica ion o en
delay en o cemen .
Subs an i e e iew: Cou s some imes engage
in de ac o me i s e iew unde he guise o
public policy, con a y o A icle V’s limi ed
scope (Fazeli,2023).
So e eign immuni y: S a e-owned en e p ises
o en in oke immuni y o esis en o cemen ,
e en when hey ha e con ac ually ag eed o
a bi a ion.
Sanc ions and in e na ional ela ions:
En o cemen may be hinde ed by sanc ions-
ela ed es ic ions, as cou s and banks a oid
ansac ions wi h sanc ioned en i ies, ci ing
na ional in e es [9].
Collec i ely, hese ac o s os e unce ain y and
discou age o eign in es o s om elying on
a bi a ion in I anian- ela ed ansac ions.
I anian schola s and p ac i ione s ha e deba ed how
o econcile a icle 139 wi h I an’s ea y
obliga ions. One camp ad oca es a es ic i e
in e p e a ion, con ining he app o al equi emen o
dispu es di ec ly in ol ing s a e p ope y in he
public domain. This iew aligns wi h he p inciple
o good ai h in ea y pe o mance unde he Vienna
con en ion on he law o T ea ies. Ano he camp
a gues o legisla i e cla i ica ion, sugges ing ha
Pa liamen o he council o minis e s should issue
implemen ing egula ions de ining “public
p ope y,” “impo an cases,” and p ocedu al s eps
o ob aining app o al.
Compa a i e s udies ecommend ha I an emula e
sys ems such as Egyp o Tu key, which ha e
adop ed p agma ic mechanisms allowing s a e
en i ies o a bi a e wi hou sepa a e legisla i e
au ho iza ion, p o ided ha ele an minis ies
app o e con ac s ex an e. Judicial aining and
specializa ion ha e also been p oposed o ha monize
in e p e a ions and limi excessi e judicial e iew.
Fu he mo e, e o me s sugges dis inguishing
be ween domes ic public policy and in e na ional
public policy a concep used in many ju isdic ions o
na ow he scope o e iew when en o cing o eign
awa ds. By adop ing an in e na ional public policy
es , I anian cou s could p ese e co e
cons i u ional alues while hono ing he p o-
en o cemen spi i o he New Yo k con en ion [10].
Recen ju isp uden ial ends show cau ious
p og ess. The 2024 sup eme cou decision
cla i ying a icle 139 signaled a willingness o
in e p e he app o al equi emen mo e lexibly.
Academic commen a y in e p e s he decision as an
a emp o balance so e eign y wi h a bi a ion
e iciency. The go e nmen has also exp essed
in e es in d a ing implemen ing egula ions,
hough as o la e 2025, no inalized di ec i e has
been enac ed.
A he academic le el, I anian law acul ies
inc easingly inco po a e in e na ional a bi a ion
in o cu icula, and p o essional bodies such as he
Teh an egional A bi a ion Cen e (TRAC) a e
p omo ing alignmen wi h UNCITRAL s anda ds.
These de elopmen s, hough inc emen al, indica e
an ongoing e olu ion owa d compa ibili y wi h
in e na ional en o cemen no ms.
The e iewed li e a u e e eals a ib an bu
agmen ed body o schola ship. Mos au ho s ag ee
ha he combina ion o a icle 139 and a b oad
public policy excep ion emains he p incipal ba ie
o e ec i e en o cemen o o eign a bi al awa ds
in I an. While in e na ional ins umen s and he
LICA p o ide a o mal amewo k consis en wi h
global s anda ds, domes ic cons i u ional and
p ocedu al obs acles pe sis .
Howe e , he e emains a signi ican esea ch gap
conce ning (a) he empi ical impac o a icle 139 on
en o cemen s a is ics, (b) he p ecise bounda ies o
I an’s public policy doc ine, and (c) p ac ical
mechanisms o ha monizing cons i u ional
so e eign y wi h ea y commi men s. Few s udies
sys ema ically in eg a e legal doc ine, case law, and
ins i u ional p ac ice. The p esen esea ch aims o
ill his gap by o e ing a comp ehensi e analysis o
he doc inal, p ocedu al, and cons i u ional
dimensions o en o cing o eign a bi al awa ds in
I an, wi h an emphasis on econciling public o de
and na ional so e eign y.
Legal and ins i u ional amewo k
The New Yo k con en ion and I an’s accession:
The New Yo k con en ion equi es con ac ing
S a es o ecognize a bi al awa ds made in o he
con ac ing S a es and o en o ce hem subjec o
limi ed excep ions. I an deposi ed i s ins umen o
accession in 2001; he con en ion en e ed in o o ce
o I an in Janua y 2002. I an’s accession law and
implemen ing p ac ice make he con en ion
applicable domes ically, bu he con en ion’s a icle
V de enses (including non-a bi abili y and public
policy) lea e signi ican in e p e a i e space o
na ional cou s.
Domes ic a bi a ion law: LICA and he model law
in luence: I an’s Law on In e na ional Comme cial
A bi a ion (LICA), adop ed in he la e 1990s, d aws
on he UNCITRAL model law and p o ides a
egime o a bi a ion in in e na ional comme cial
ela ionships (whe e a leas one pa y is non-
I anian). LICA se s ules on ju isdic ion,
a bi abili y, sea and en o cemen p ocedu es, and
ecognizes pa y au onomy in choice o law and
p ocedu e. None heless, LICA ope a es alongside
cons i u ional p o isions (no ably a icle 139) and
o dina y p ocedu al law ha shape cou s’ ea men
o o eign awa ds.
A icle 139: cons i u ional o e lay on a bi abili y
and se lemen : A icle 139 o he cons i u ion
condi ions concilia ion o a bi a ion o claims
582
Ad . J. Manag. Humani . Soc. Sci. (2025), Volume 1, Issue 9, 579-586
ela ing o public and s a e p ope y upon he
app o al o he Council o Minis e s, and in cases
in ol ing o eigne s (o “impo an ” cases) also
upon pa liamen a y app o al o no i ica ion. This
cons i u ional ule aims o insula e public p ope y
and so e eign p e oga i es om p i a e dispu e
esolu ion wi hou poli ical o e sigh ; howe e , i s
b ead h and linkage o “public p ope y” c ea e legal
unce ain y abou which cases mus obse e he
app o al mechanism and when a cou may e use
en o cemen on ha g ound [11]. In able (1),
Compa a i e Table o P e ious S udies and
Analyses was illus a ed.
Table 1. Compa a i e Table o P e ious S udies and Analyses
Scope / Focus
Me hodology
Key Findings
Rele ance o I an’s Legal &
Ins i u ional F amewo k
Gaps / Limi a ions
Examines he
cons i u ional limi s on
a bi a ion in ol ing
public/s a e p ope y
Doc inal–
compa a i e
legal analysis;
case-based
A icle 139 ac s as a s uc u al
cons ain on bo h a bi a ion
e e als and en o cemen
when public p ope y is
in ol ed; equi es execu i e
app o al.
Demons a es ha e en a e
I an’s accession o he New
Yo k Con en ion,
cons i u ional ba ie s can
o e ide in e na ional
commi men s.
Focuses mainly on
in es men dispu es;
lacks empi ical da a
on ac ual
en o cemen cases.
Analyzes he scope o
“public policy” and i s
use by I anian cou s
o deny en o cemen
Doc inal
analysis and
case e iew;
compa a i e
insigh s
I anian cou s in e p e public
policy b oadly and o en
in oke A icle 139 o de end
na ional so e eign y
Highligh s how he public
policy excep ion is equen ly
in e wined wi h so e eign y
conce ns.
Limi ed
implemen a ion
oadmap; mos ly
heo e ical
ecommenda ions.
Re iews he 1997
I anian LICA and i s
con o mi y wi h he
UNCITRAL Model
Law
Tex ual–
compa a i e
commen a y
LICA ollows he Model Law
closely, endo sing pa y
au onomy, bu cons i u ional
limi s (A .139)
Re eals he legal gap
be ween he s a u o y
amewo k and cons i u ional
cons ain s on en o cemen .
Focuses on ex and
doc ine; less on
ins i u ional
mechanisms o
app o al.
S udies di e gen
in e p e a ions o
A icle 139 (li e alis
s. unc ionalis )
Theo e ical
and
ju isp uden ial
syn hesis
Iden i ies wo compe ing
in e p e a ions: (a) li e al
app o al mus p ecede
a bi a ion; (b) unc ional
app o al may be emedial.
Cla i ies he doc inal
con o e sy a ec ing
ju isdic ion and
en o ceabili y o awa ds
in ol ing public p ope y.
No empi ical da a on
how hese
in e p e a ions a ec
ac ual cou p ac ice.
Examines he 2024
I anian Sup eme Cou
decision in e p e ing
A icle 139
Case analysis
and
compa a i e
commen a y
Sup eme Cou adop ed a
mo e lexible eading: p io
app o al no always
manda o y; ex pos
a i ica ion may alida e
a bi a ion.
Signi ican because i
po en ially educes au oma ic
e usal o en o cemen and
aligns
No uni ied lowe -
cou
implemen a ion; lack
o o mal
adminis a i e
egula ion o
ob aining app o als.
Explo es how
sanc ions and
so e eign immuni y
a ec en o cemen o
awa ds agains I an o
SOEs
Applied legal
analysis using
indus y da a
and
compa a i e
e iew
Sanc ions and banking
es ic ions e ec i ely hinde
en o cemen e en absen
o mal legal g ounds; SOEs
o en in oke immuni y.
Shows ha legal amewo ks
mus be supplemen ed by
p ac ical en o cemen ools
(esc ow, in e nal paymen
mechanisms).
Limi ed empi ical
assessmen o
success ul
en o cemen cases;
ocuses on ene gy-
sec o examples.
Key Insigh s om Compa a i e S udies
Consensus: Mos schola s ag ee ha
A icle 139 o he Cons i u ion and a b oad
concep ion o public policy cons i u e he
wo main legal-ins i u ional hu dles o
en o cemen o o eign a bi al awa ds in
I an.
Tension: The e is a pe sis en ension
be ween I an’s ea y obliga ions unde he
New Yo k Con en ion and cons i u ional
so e eign y sa egua ds.
Judicial Unce ain y: Cou s di e on
whe he ailu e o ob ain go e nmen o
pa liamen a y app o al (unde A icle 139)
nulli ies a bi a ion clauses o me ely
delays en o cemen .
Ins i u ional Weakness: The absence o
clea adminis a i e egula ions o
ob aining app o als o de ining “public
p ope y” unde mines p edic abili y.
Eme ging Re o m T end: The 2024
Sup eme Cou in e p e a ion ma ks a
g adual shi owa d balancing so e eign y
wi h en o cemen e iciency.
P ac ical Ba ie s: Sanc ions, p ocedu al
o mali ies ( ansla ions, no a iza ions),
and s a e immuni y s ill c ea e subs an ial
non-legal en o cemen ba ie s [12].
583
Ad . J. Manag. Humani . Soc. Sci. (2025), Volume 1, Issue 9, 579-586
The public policy doc ine in en o cemen
p ac ice
No ma i e ole o public policy in he New
Yo k Con en ion: A icle V(2)(b) o he New
Yo k Con en ion pe mi s e usal o ecogni ion
o en o cemen o an awa d i en o cemen
would be con a y o he public policy o he
coun y in which en o cemen is sough .
Na ional cou s he e o e e ain a esidual
sa egua d o p o ec co e alues, bu
in e na ional ju isp udence cau ions agains
expansi e uses o “public policy” o e isi
me i s. I anian cou s ace he same ension:
balancing de e ence o a bi a ion wi h
cons i u ional and public-in e es
conside a ions.
I anian cou s’ app oach: b ead h and
unp edic abili y: In p ac ice I anian cou s ha e
some imes cons ued public policy na owly
limi ed o co e cons i u ional p inciples and
p ohibi ions and a o he imes b oadly
ex ending o economic policy, public in e es ,
o ma e s ouching s a e p e oga i es. The
ju isp udence has been une en pa ly because
domes ic cou s mus econcile LICA and he
Con en ion wi h a icle 139 and because
guidance on he scope o “public” s. “p i a e”
dispu es is agmen ed. Recen academic
analyses and no es documen he oscilla ion and
call o mo e doc inal cla i y.
Na ional so e eign y and A icle 139:
p ac ical p oblems a en o cemen
Iden i ying “public and s a e p ope y”: A
ecu ing p oblem is he de ini ional ambigui y
o “public and s a e p ope y.” Con ac s using
s a e gua an ees, concessions, o in ol ing s a e
en e p ises may implica e public p ope y
p o ec ions e en when he dispu e conce ns
p i a e law obliga ions. Tha ambigui y means
an awa d-c edi o may ace pe i ions o suspend
o e use en o cemen on a icle 139 g ounds,
e en when pa ies belie ed hei con ac o be
pu ely comme cial. The ques ion o whe he
app o al had o be ob ained be o e a bi a ion,
o whe he pos -hoc a i ica ion can cu e
a bi al ju isdic ional de ec s, is con es ed.
Adminis a i e app o als: iming, scope and
poli ical isk: The p ocedu al equi emen o
Council o Minis e s (and some imes
Pa liamen a y) app o al c ea es p ac ical
obs acles: (a) app o als a e disc e iona y and
poli ically in lec ed; (b) he p ocess lacks
s anda dized imelines; (c) sensi i e c oss-
bo de dispu es may be delayed o poli ical
easons; and (d) ambigui y exis s abou whe he
a ailu e o ob ain p io app o al i ia es a bi al
ju isdic ion o only impac s en o cemen . The
lack o a clea , accessible adminis a i e
pa hway o ob aining app o al unde mines
p edic abili y. Recen Sup eme Cou
commen a y has begun o e ine in e p e a ion
bu has no ully sys ema ized p ac ical
p ocedu es.
So e eign immuni y and en o cemen agains
s a e p ope y: When awa d deb o s asse
so e eign immuni y o in oke p o ec ions o s a e
asse s, en o cemen may be p ac ically impossible.
I anian law and p ac ice p o ide limi ed a enues o
pie cing immuni y whe e a s a e has wai ed i , bu
p o ing a alid wai e and loca ing seizable asse s
wi hin I an o ab oad is di icul . Mo eo e , when
awa ds ouch con ac ed public se ices o
p i a iza ion p ojec s, compe ing claims abou
public in e es u he complica e execu ion [13].
Table (2), shows he Na ional So e eign y and
a icle 139 P ac ical P oblems in En o cemen o
Fo eign A bi al Awa ds in I an.
Table 2: Na ional So e eign y and a icle 139 P ac ical P oblems in En o cemen o Fo eign A bi al Awa ds in
I an
P ac ical P oblem
Legal /
Ins i u ional
Basis
Real-Wo ld Impac
Illus a i e
Example /
P eceden
Schola ly o
Judicial View
P oposed o
Eme ging Solu ions
Requi emen o
Go e nmen al and
Pa liamen a y
App o al o
A bi a ion
In ol ing Public
P ope y
A icle 139 o
he I anian
Cons i u ion;
Law on
In e na ional
Comme cial
A bi a ion
(1997)
Delays o
in alida ion o
a bi a ion clauses
in con ac s
in ol ing s a e-
owned en i ies
(SOEs) o public
unds
C escen Pe oleum
. NIOC and
simila cases
in ol ing he
Na ional I anian
Oil Company
Cou s o en ea
lack o p io
app o al as a
ju isdic ional
de ec , ende ing
awa ds
unen o ceable
Es ablish a
s anda dized
adminis a i e
p ocedu e o p io
o pos - ac o
app o al unde
a icle 139
Ambigui y in he
De ini ion o
“Public P ope y”
and “S a e
P ope y”
Cons i u ional
and ci il law
in e p e a ion
Con usion o e
whe he en i ies like
NIOC o s a e banks
quali y as public o
comme cial en i ies
Di e gen ulings
by Teh an Gene al
Cou s and
A bi a ion Cen e
cases
Schola s (e.g.,
Fazeli, 2023) a gue
o unc ional
c i e ia comme cial
s. so e eign
ac i i y
Codi y a clea
s a u o y de ini ion
dis inguishing
so e eign s.
comme cial ac s
584
Ad . J. Manag. Humani . Soc. Sci. (2025), Volume 1, Issue 9, 579-586
(ac a ju e impe ii s.
ju e ges ionis)
B oad
In e p e a ion o
Public Policy
Excep ion
A icle V(2)(b)
o he New
Yo k
Con en ion;
I anian Ci il
Code A . 975
Cou s in oke
“public policy” o
ejec en o cemen
e en o neu al o
comme cial awa ds
Teh an Cou o
Appeal (2018)
e used
en o cemen ci ing
“na ional in e es s”
Fazeli (2023) and
Da zi-Na chali
(2017) no e an
o e expansi e use
o “public policy”
ied o so e eign y
De elop judicial
guidelines
na owing he
meaning o “public
policy” o
undamen al
p inciples o jus ice,
no economic
in e es s
Judicial
Disc e ion and
Lack o
Consis en
P eceden
No binding
p eceden
sys em;
judicia y
independence
in
in e p e a ion
Inconsis en
decisions among
cou s on iden ical
con ac ual
si ua ions
Con adic o y
ulings be ween
di e en b anches
o Teh an and
Is ahan cou s
(2017–2022)
Nikbakh & Sei i
(2022) highligh
doc inal
agmen a ion
Es ablish a
specialized
a bi a ion
en o cemen
chambe wi hin he
judicia y
In e ac ion
Be ween A icle
139 App o al and
In e na ional
Commi men s
(e.g., New Yo k
Con en ion)
Con lic
be ween
domes ic
cons i u ional
sup emacy and
ea y
obliga ions
(A .77 & 125
o Cons i u ion)
En o cemen
unce ain y o
o eign awa d
c edi o s;
diploma ic
complica ions
Cases epo ed by
ICC/ICLG (2024)
show awa ds
s alled despi e
ea y membe ship
In e na ional
expe s emphasize
ha dualism in I an
p io i izes he
Cons i u ion o e
ea ies
Adop in e p e i e
alignmen ecognize
ea y commi men s
as consis en wi h
A .139 unde
execu i e o e sigh
Absence o
Ins i u ional
Mechanisms o
App o al and
Supe ision
Lack o
implemen ing
egula ions o
a icle 139
Bu eauc a ic
ambigui y no
designa ed body o
issue app o als o
supe ise
compliance
Minis ies and
SOEs in e p e
“app o al”
di e en ly
Gha a i (1999)
calls his a
“p ocedu al
acuum”
unde mining legal
ce ain y
C ea e a cen al
app o al au ho i y
(e.g., in Minis y o
Jus ice o Legal
A ai s O ice) o
s anda dize p ac ice
So e eign
Immuni y in
En o cemen
Agains S a e
Asse s
Public
In e na ional
Law and
I anian
en o cemen
p ocedu es
Awa d c edi o s
ace obs acles in
a aching o
execu ing agains
s a e-owned asse s
En o cemen
a emp s in
Eu opean
ju isdic ions (e.g.,
UK & F ance)
o en blocked by
immuni y claims
ICLG (2024-2025)
no es ha I an
b oadly applies
immuni y, e en o
comme cial SOEs
P omo e limi ed o
es ic i e immuni y
o comme cial
ac i i ies, aligning
wi h global ends
Key Obse a ions
The dual cha ac e o he I anian s a e as
bo h a comme cial ac o and so e eign
en i y c ea es s uc u al ambigui y unde
a icle 139.
Cou s o en p io i ize na ional so e eign y
and “public o de ” o e in e na ional
en o cemen obliga ions.
The absence o clea implemen ing
mechanisms leads o inconsis en p ac ice,
bu eauc a ic delays, and unp edic abili y
o o eign in es o s.
A end owa d e o m is isible: he 2024
Sup eme Cou in e p e a ion allows pos -
ac o app o al, educing some igidi y.
To econcile so e eign y wi h en o cemen
p edic abili y, I an may adop a “con olled
openness” model main aining cons i u ional
sa egua ds while de eloping specialized
en o cemen p ocedu es.
P ocedu al and e iden ia y hu dles in I anian
en o cemen p oceedings
Judicial e iew and scope o e iew: Al hough he
New Yo k con en ion discou ages me i s e iew,
I anian en o cemen cou s equen ly examine
ju isdic ional ques ions, p ocedu al due p ocess, and
public-policy conce ns. The domes ic cou ’s ole in
sc u inizing a bi a o s’ ju isdic ional decisions and
he awa d’s consis ency wi h public policy can esul
in de no o assessmen ha esembles me i s e iew
con a y o he in e na ional end o limi ing e iew
o na ow excep ions. This ex ends en o cemen
imelines and aises ansac ional cos s [14].
Documen p oduc ion, ansla ions, and
p ocedu al o mali y: P ac ical issues such as he
need o ce i ied Pe sian ansla ions, au hen ica ed
585
Ad . J. Manag. Humani . Soc. Sci. (2025), Volume 1, Issue 9, 579-586
copies o awa ds and a bi a ion ag eemen s, and
s ic compliance wi h p ocedu al o mali ies c ea e
addi ional ime and expense. Disc epancies in
pape wo k o en gi e I anian cou s p ocedu al
g ounds o delay o e use ecogni ion e en whe e
me i s objec ions a e weak. Clea e p ocedu al
checklis s and s eamlined cou guidance could
educe such ic ion [15].
In e ac ion wi h sanc ions and o eign policy
cons ain s: In e na ional sanc ions egimes (UN,
EU, US, and o he unila e al measu es) may
indi ec ly a ec en o cemen : domes ic cou s o
s a e bodies may be eluc an o au ho ize
en o cemen ha equi es c oss-bo de ans e s o
dealings wi h sanc ioned en i ies, and banks may be
unwilling o p ocess en o cemen - ela ed
ansac ions. Awa ds o de ing paymen s ha would
implica e sanc ions isk being cha ac e ized as
con a y o “na ional in e es ” o public policy hus
c ea ing a de- ac o en o cemen ba ie e en whe e
o mal legal g ounds unde he con en ion a e
lacking. Recen commen a y highligh s he p oblem
o sanc ions as a no el, ex ajudicial public-policy
conce n in en o cemen con ex s [16].
Rep esen a i e ju isp udence and ecen
de elopmen s
Recen sup eme cou decisions and adminis a i e
p ac ice show a g adual end owa ds cla i ica ion.
A 2024 sup eme cou uling engaged a icle 139
and o e ed in e p e a i e guidance ha some
commen a o s iew as an inc emen al boos o
a bi a ion p ospec s by delinea ing he scope o
equi ed app o als and limi ing ca ego ical e usals.
None heless, hese de elopmen s do no ully
emo e unce ain y because (a) case law emains
agmen ed ac oss b anches and lowe cou s, and
(b) s a u o y implemen ing egula ions and
adminis a i e p ocedu es emain unde de eloped.
Schola s and p ac i ione s none heless poin o he
ulings as cons uc i e signals ha , i implemen ed
h ough egula ion, could educe en o cemen isk.
Compa a i e pe spec i es: lessons om o he
ju isdic ions
O he ci il-law ju isdic ions wi h cons i u ional o
public-in e es excep ions (e.g., some con inen al
sys ems, and ce ain de eloping ju isdic ions)
manage he a icle V public-policy de ense by
na owly cons uing “public policy” and issuing
adminis a i e p o ocols o s a e app o als when
s a e asse s a e in ol ed. I an could d aw on such
compa a i e p ac ice o c a (1) a na ow, judicially
con olled concep o public policy ha ocuses on
co e cons i u ional no ms, (2) clea s a u o y es s o
wha cons i u es public/s a e p ope y o a bi a ion
pu poses, and (3) an adminis a i ely p edic able
app o al pa hway o expedi e compliance wi h
a icle 139. In e na ional bes p ac ice emphasizes
limi ing en o cemen e usals o excep ional cases
and a oiding me i s e iew.
Re o m p oposals and p ac ical
ecommenda ions: To econcile en o ceabili y
wi h legi ima e so e eign y conce ns, his a icle
p oposes he ollowing e o ms:
1. S a u o y cla i ica ion o “public and s a e
p ope y.” Amend LICA o issue a
complemen a y s a u e o de ine exhaus i ely
which con ac s and asse s all unde a icle 139’s
app o al equi emen , and whe he au ho iza ion
can be p ospec i e o e ospec i e.
2. Adminis a i e implemen ing egula ions o
a icle 139 app o als. C ea e a anspa en , ime-
bound app o al p ocess (including s anda dized
applica ion o ms, clea c i e ia, and de ined
pe iods o decision) o educe poli ical
unce ain y.
3. Na ow judicial doc ine on public policy.
Encou age appella e and sup eme cou guidance
ha cons ues he New Yo k Con en ion public-
policy excep ion na owly limi ed o undamen al
cons i u ional p inciples so cou s do no e-
li iga e me i s.
4. Model consen /wai e p o isions o s a e
con ac s. P omo e con ac ual language by which
he s a e o s a e-owned en e p ises gi e exp ess
wai e s o immuni y and a commi men o ob ain
p e-a bi a ion app o al whe e equi ed.
5. Judicial and adminis a i e aining. P o ide
specialized aining o judges and adminis a i e
o ice s on in e na ional a bi a ion no ms, he
Model Law, and he limi ed ole o public-policy
e iew [17].
6. Mechanisms o na iga e sanc ions issues.
Es ablish clea guidelines (legal and p ac ical) o
handle awa ds implica ing sanc ioned pa ies e.g.,
esc ow, neu al paymen channels, o domes ic
en o cemen mechanisms ha do no equi e
p ohibi ed ans e s—so ha sanc ions do no
become au oma ic public-policy blocke s.
These measu es would p ese e a icle 139’s
p o ec i e aim while enhancing p edic abili y and
compliance wi h in e na ional obliga ions.
Conclusion
I an’s o mal alignmen wi h in e na ional
a bi a ion no ms ia he New Yo k con en ion and
LICA c ea es a ounda ion o e ec i e en o cemen
o o eign a bi al awa ds. Howe e , cons i u ional
p o ec ions o public and s a e p ope y (a icle
139), he lexible public-policy excep ion, and
p ocedu al/adminis a i e weaknesses con inue o
impede eliable en o cemen . Recen judicial
cla i ica ions a e p omising bu incomple e.
Ta ge ed e o ms (s a u o y de ini ions,
implemen ing p ocedu es, judicial doc ine, and
adminis a i e aining), combined wi h ca e ully
d a ed con ac ual wai e s and p ac ical
586
Ad . J. Manag. Humani . Soc. Sci. (2025), Volume 1, Issue 9, 579-586
mechanisms o add ess sanc ions- ela ed
complica ions, can econcile legi ima e so e eign y
conce ns wi h he demands o in e na ional
comme cial a bi a ion. I implemen ed
hough ully, hese e o ms would educe
unce ain y o c edi o s and in es o s and be e
align I an’s p ac ice wi h he objec and pu pose o
he New Yo k Con en ion.
Disclosu e S a emen
No po en ial con lic o in e es epo ed by he
au ho s.
Funding
This esea ch did no ecei e any speci ic g an om
unding agencies in he public, comme cial, o no -
o -p o i sec o s.
Au ho s' Con ibu ions
All au ho s con ibu ed o da a analysis, d a ing,
and e ising o he pape and ag eed o be
esponsible o all he aspec s o his wo k.
Re e ences
[1] Ala i, H. (2020). S a e Immuni y and
En o cemen o A bi al Awa ds agains S a e-
Owned En e p ises: The I anian Expe ience.
A bi a ion In e na ional, 36(4), 465-492.
[2] Al-Hajji, M. (2019). Public Policy and
En o cemen o A bi al Awa ds in Islamic Law
Ju isdic ions. Jou nal o In e na ional
A bi a ion, 36(2), 157-178.
[3] Da zi-Na chali, A. (2017). In es men
Dispu es and A icle 139 o he I anian
Cons i u ion. ASA Bulle in, 35(2), 421-438.
[4] Fazeli, M. (2023). Public policy excep ion o
en o cemen o o eign a bi al awa ds:
Applica ion o A icle 139 o he Cons i u ion o
I an. SSRN.
[5] Joneydi, L. (2010). Na ional egime o
en o cemen o o eign a bi al awa ds in I an.
Compa a i e Law Re iew, 1(1), 23-38.
[6] Moba aki, B. (2024). Compa a i e analysis o
in e na ional comme cial a bi a ion laws in
I an and he UNCITRAL Model Law.
In e disciplina y S udies in Socie y, Law, and
Poli ics, 3(5), 93-105.
[7] Böcks iegel, K. H. (2014). Applicable law in
dispu es conce ning economic sanc ions: A
p ocedu al amewo k o a bi al ibunals.
A bi a ion In e na ional, 30(4), 605–614.
[8] Böcks iegel, K.-H. (2015). Applicable law in
dispu es conce ning economic sanc ions: A
p ocedu al amewo k o a bi al ibunals.
A bi a ion In e na ional, 30(4), 605–614.
[9] B ekoulakis, S. (2023). The public in e es in
a bi a ion. A bi a ion In e na ional, 39(2),
203–210.
[10] Che alie , M. (2024). In e na ional sanc ions
enac ed agains Russia as o e iding manda o y
ules—on which oo should in e na ional
a bi a o s s and? Jou nal o In e na ional
Dispu e Se lemen , 15(1), 144–171.
[11] De B abande e, E., & Holloway, D. (2017).
Sanc ions and in e na ional a bi a ion. In
Resea ch Handbook on UN Sanc ions and
In e na ional Law, Edwa d Elga Publishing.
304–329
[12] Dupon , P.-E. (2015). The a bi a ion o
dispu es ela ed o o eign in es men s a ec ed
by unila e al sanc ions. In Economic Sanc ions
unde In e na ional Law (pp. 197-217). T. M.
C. Asse P ess.
[13] Gao, B. (2025). The impac o economic
sanc ions on he alidi y o a bi a ion
ag eemen s and a bi abili y. Lec u e No es in
Educa ion Psychology and Public Media, 96,
58-64.
[14] Landol , P. (2023). Rela ed sho e discussions
on manda o y no ms / public-in e es
applica ion in a bi a ion — use ul o
sanc ions/public-policy in e play, see
A bi a ion In e na ional special discussions.
[15] Maka enko , O., & Mesqui a, L. V. (2023).
Challenges o legal gua an ees o he
en o cemen o a bi al awa ds in in e na ional
comme cial cases. Access o Jus ice in Eas e n
Eu ope, 1(22).
[16] Mau, S. (2019). Recogni ion and en o cemen
o he awa d. In In e na ional Comme cial
A bi a ion in Hong Kong: A Guide, Hong
Kong Uni e si y P ess. 203-230
[17] Rich e , D. (2019). The impac s o public
in e na ional law on he en o cemen o o eign
a bi al awa ds. In Law o In e na ional T ade
in he Region o he Caucasus, Cen al Asia and
Russia (pp. 435–489). B ill.
