عنوان مقاله [English]
Today, referring to arbitration is a common practice in commercial dispute resolution. One of the conditions incorporated into arbitration agreements is a condition called unilateral, one-sided, optional, asymmetrical and hybrid arbitration clause. The purpose of such a condition is to make both arbitration and judicial proceedings available to the parties so that they can choose the one which best meets their benefits and has more guarantees to enforce a judgment against the other party’s assets. A review of case law in different jurisdictions reveals significant disagreement among courts. While a number of courts have declared such conditions to be either invalid or of essential deficiency, other courts, respecting the parties’ agreement, have treated them as valid and enforceable. Accordingly, in this article, in addition to a review of the reasons for invalidity of these conditions, a theory is studied which considers these conditions valid unless inconsistent with public order, commutative justice, equity or mutuality of obligations. Of course, each of these reasons, in accordance with the applicable law governing the contract will prevent the validity of these clauses.