Document Type : Research Article


1 Ph.D. student in Private Law, Mazandaran University, Babolsar. Iran

2 Associate Professor, University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services, Tehran, Iran.


The most important mechanism for achievement the truth in international commercial arbitration is opting out the type of governing system on arbitration process. In this regard, the arbitrators should select the appropriate system among the adversarial, inquisitorial and hybrid systems. Flexibility of international commercial arbitration process as a private solution for dispute resolution and the specific needs of each case in this area required that the arbitral tribunal takes into account the conditions governing in the cases of international commercial arbitration and chooses the efficient system for arbitration process.This article in parallel scrutinizing and studying the difficulties of each approach of for recognition the appropriate system in international commercial arbitration process analyses the types of governing system on arbitration process the approach of the Prague Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration that approved in December of 2018 tries to introducing effective mechanisms in discovering the truth.


A) Books & Articles
-Acharya, Madhav Prasad (2003) “The Adversarial v. Inquisitorial Models of Justice” Kathmandu School of Law Research Series Journal, pp. 63-70, available at:
-Ainsworth, Janet (2015) “Legal Discourse and Legal Narratives: Adversarial Versus Inquisitorial Models”, Seattle University, Legal Discourse and Legal Narratives Language and Law / Linguagem e Direito, Vol. 2, Is. 1, pp. 1-11, available at:
- Born‚ Gary B. (2009), International Arbitration: Law and Practice, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.
- Dupeyron, Carine (2016) “Shall Courts Assistance Arbitral Tribunals in Gathering Evidence?”, ICCA Congress Series, No. 19, pp. 1-30, available at:
- Findley, Keith A. (2011) “Adversarial Inquisitions: Rethinking the Search for the Truth”, New York Law School Law Review, Vol. 56, No. 911, pp. 911-941, available at:
- Finkelstein, Ray (2011) “The Adversarial System and the Search for Truth”, Monash University Law Review, Vol. 37, No 1, pp. 135-144, available at:
- Freiberg, Arie (2010) “Post-Adversarial and Post-Inquisitorial Justice: Transcending Traditional Penological Paradigm”, Legal Studies Research Paper, No. 2010/17, pp. 2-26, available at:
- Froeb, Luke M. and Kobayashi, Bruce H. (2011) “Adversarial Versus Inquisitorial Justice”, in Procedural Law and Economic, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing available at:
- Gilbert, James (2011) “Judicially Assisted Third Party Discovery in Aid of Foreign International Commercial Arbitrations under the Evidence Act 2006”, LLB (HONS) Research Paper, Vol. 525, pp. 1-61, available at:
- Isele, Teresa (2010) “the Principle Iura Novit Curia in International Commercial Arbitration”, International Arbitration Law Review, Vol. 13, Is.1, pp. 14-26.
- Kankkunen, Juho (2014). Document Production under the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, University of Helsinki, Faculty of Law, Master’s Thesis, available at:

- Kasolowsky, Boris and Trittmann, Rolf (2008), “Taking Evidence in Arbitration Proceedings between Common Law and Civil Law Traditions: the Development of a European Hybrid Standard of Arbitration Proceedings”, UNSW Law Journalو Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.330-340, available at:

- Kidane, Won (2012) “The Inquisitorial Advantage in Removal Proceedings”, Akron Law Review, Vol. 45, Is. 3, pp. 2-70, available at:
- Kelsen, H. (1994) “Sovereign Equality of States as a Basis for International Organization”, Yale Law Journals, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 207-220, available at:
- Kubalczyk, Anna Magdalena (2015) “Evidentiary Rules in International Arbitration – A Comparative Analysis of Approaches and the Need for Regulation”, Groningen Journal of International Law, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 85-109, available at:
- Kurkela, Matti S. and Turunen, Santtu (2010). Due Process in International Commercial Arbitration, New York: Oxford University Press, available at:
- Landoltt, Phillip (2012) “Arbitrators’ Initiatives to Obtain Actual and Legal Evidence”, Arbitration International, Vol. 28, Is. 2, pp. 173-223,
- Lew, Julian D. M. and Mistelis, Loukas A. and Michael Kröll, Stefan (2003). Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, New York: Kluwer Law International, Chapter 21, pp. 521 – 551, available at:
- Moses, Margaret L. (2008). the Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, New York: Cambridge University Press, available at:
- Moses, Margaret (2014) “Inherent Powers of Arbitrators to Deal with Ethical Issues”, Loyola University Chicago School of Law Research Paper, No. 2014-016, pp. 1-19, available at:
- Omeroglu, Ekin “Taking Evidence in International Arbitration” Coventry Law Journal, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 1-16, available at:
- Parisi, Francesco (2002) “Rent-Seeking Through Litigation: Adversarial and Inquisitorial Systems Compared”, International Review of Law and Economics, Vol. 22, No. 2, George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 00-28, pp. 1-36, available at: or
- Park, William W. (2010) “Arbitrators and Accuracy”, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol. 1, Is. 1, pp. 25-53, available at:

- Quadri, Kafayat Motilewa and Kadaouf, Hunud Abia and Ishan Jan, Mohammad Naqib and AbdulWahab, and Ahamat, Haniff (2015) “Adquisitorial: The Mixing of Two Legal Systems”, International Journal of Humanities and Management Sciences, Vol. 3, Is. 1, pp. 31-36, available at:

- Ringnalda, A. (2010) “Inquisitorial or Adversarial? The Role of the Scottish Prosecutor and Special Defenses”, Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 119-140, available at:

- Salomon, Claudia T. And Friedrich, Sandra (2013) “Obtaining and Submitting Evidence in International Arbitration in The United States”, American Review of International Arbitration, Vol. 24, Is. 1, pp. 549-590, available at:
- Schaefer, Jan K. (2016) “Court Assistance in Arbitration—Some Observations on The Critical Stand-by Function of the Courts”, Pepperdine Law Review, Vol. 43, Is. 5, pp. 522-540, available at:
- Solum, Lawrence B. (2004) “Procedural Justice”, Southern California Law Review, Vol. 78, Is. 1, pp. 182-320, available at:
- Summers, Robert S. (1999) “Formal Legal Truth and Substantive Truth in Judicial Fact-Finding – Their Justified Divergence in Some Particular Cases”, Law and Philosophy, Vol.18, No. 5, pp. 497-511, available at:

- Townsend, John M. and Elsing, Siegfried H. (2002) “Bridging the Common Law-Civil Law Divide in Arbitration”, Arbitration International, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1-7, available at:

- Wigwe, Chris (2012) “Commercial Arbitration: Powers and Duties of Arbitrators in Arbitral Proceeding”, Port Harcourt Law Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 242-249, available at:
- Zaki, Ahmed (2006) Adversarial or Inquisitorial: Which Approach is closer to Arbitration? A Thesis Submitted to the American University in Cairo. Dept. of Law,, available at:
- Zekos, Georgios I., (2008). International Commercial and Marine Arbitration, London: Routledge-Cavendish.
ب. منابع اینترنتی
-“Search for the'Correct' Answer: the Role of the Courts and Arbitral Tribunals” (2015), Davidson, Nicholas and Choi, Augustine available at:
- “Admissibility and Presentation Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration”, ) 05-03-2019(, Economou, George C., and Associates, available at:
-“Washington Conference (2014) International Commercial Arbitration, Report for the Biennial Conference in Washington D.C”, International Law Association, available at:
- “Comparative Analysis between Adversarial and Inquisitorial Legal Systems”,(2017), Justice, Adele, available at:
- “UNCITRAL 2012 Digest of Case Law on the Model Law on International Commercial”, Arbitration, Sales No. E.12., V.9, (2012), United nations available at:,2-e.pdf