امیرحسین لوائی برندق

Online proceedings in international commercial arbitration institutions have, in recent years, become one of the essential tools for achieving efficiency, speed, and effective access to private justice. The expansion of cross-border commercial relations, the increase in disputes involving foreign elements, and the need for arbitral institutions to respond to technological developments have led online proceedings to be regarded not merely as a technical option, but as an integral part of the legal framework of institutional arbitration. The significance of online proceedings in this context lies in their direct connection with the fundamental principles of arbitration, including party autonomy, equality of the parties, the right to be effectively heard, and adjudication within a reasonable time. The manner in which rules on online proceedings are designed may therefore affect the validity of arbitral awards at the stage of recognition and enforcement.

Within this framework, the German Arbitration Institute has regulated online proceedings in a relatively systematic manner in light of its legal sources and institutional regulations. The legal basis of arbitration in Germany is found in Book Ten of the German Code of Civil Procedure, in particular Sections ۱۰۲۵ to ۱۰۶۶, which were adopted in ۱۹۹۸ under the influence of the UNCITRAL Model Law and provide a flexible framework for arbitration, including the use of electronic means. At the institutional level, the arbitration rules of the German Arbitration Institute—especially the versions updated after ۲۰۱۸ and their supplementary instruments—recognize the use of electronic communication for notifications, exchange of submissions, and the conduct of hearings as permissible and valid. These rules empower arbitral tribunals, subject to compliance with due process guarantees, to hold hearings either in person or virtually and to use videoconferencing for the examination of parties, witnesses, and experts. In addition, requirements relating to data security and the confidentiality of information are addressed within data-protection policies aligned with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation.

By contrast, the ACIC has regulated online proceedings in a more limited manner within the framework of its domestic legal sources and institutional rules. The legal basis of arbitration in Iran consists primarily of the ۱۹۹۷ International Commercial Arbitration Act, as well as the arbitration provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, which implicitly accept the use of modern tools within the framework of party autonomy. At the institutional level, the arbitration rules of the Iran Chamber Arbitration Center vest discretion over the conduct of proceedings in the arbitral tribunal and allow for the exchange of correspondence and documents through electronic means. However, explicit and detailed provisions governing the conduct of online hearings, digital identity verification, the remote examination of witnesses and experts, and cybersecurity standards have not been systematically developed. As a result, online proceedings are, in most cases, based on ad hoc party agreement and case-specific decisions of the arbitral tribunal rather than on a consolidated institutional mechanism.

With respect to the conditions of online proceedings, the German Arbitration Institute identifies equality of the parties, effective participation, the validity of electronic service, and the protection of data confidentiality as essential requirements for the legitimacy of online proceedings, and these requirements are expressly reflected in the text of its rules or practical guidelines. At the Iran Chamber Arbitration Center, respect for the right of defense and the adversarial principle is likewise considered a fundamental condition of proceedings; however, the absence of clear institutional guidelines on how these principles are to be implemented in a digital environment reduces the level of legal predictability.

Ultimately, the principal difference between the two institutions lies in the degree to which online proceedings have been institutionalized within codified rules. Relying on domestic legal sources aligned with international standards and on the adoption of specific regulatory provisions, the German Arbitration Institute has integrated online proceedings into the ordinary mechanisms of institutional arbitration. By contrast, the Iran Chamber Arbitration Center remains in a transitional phase, where the use of online proceedings is largely supplementary and agreement-based. This divergence may affect party confidence, the reduction of procedural challenges, and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards at the international level.