Arbitration and the politics of sovereignty: the privatization of justice

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20099781

Abstract

This study examines the political and legal dimensions of arbitration agreements in Iranian law, analyzing how they redefine judicial authority, state sovereignty, and the boundaries between public and private justice. From a political perspective, it situates arbitration at the intersection of neoliberal legal reform and Islamic jurisprudence, examining whether its expansion represents a market-driven erosion of sovereignty or a path toward legal modernization in accordance with Islamic values. Through doctrinal and comparative analysis, the study explores the fundamental legal provisions of the Iranian Code of Civil Procedure alongside the Islamic principles of Sulh (reconciliation), highlighting persistent structural and institutional challenges, such as legislative fragmentation, deficiencies in enforcement, and the absence of a unified arbitral authority, that limit its effective implementation. The research argues that arbitration in Iran does not function merely as a procedural instrument, but as a politically charged mechanism that redistributes sovereign power and reflects the country's engagement with global legal pluralism. To reconcile efficiency with public accountability, the document advocates for a coherent reform strategy that integrates Islamic principles, institutional coherence, and transparency into arbitration practices. In this way, it presents arbitration as both a test and an opportunity for Iran's constantly evolving balance between sovereignty, globalization, and the privatization of justice.