منابع فارسی
1. پیلوار، رحیم و محمدرضا ساری (1403)، « اسباب تحقق شروط ناقص در داوری تجاری بین المللی و راههای مقابله با آنها با نگاهی به شرط داوری وایپو»، دوفصلنامه تحقیق و توسعه در حقوق خصوصی، دوره 1، شماره 1، 78-109 doi: 10.22034/jpl.2024.718551
2. محسنی، حسن (۱۳۹۷)، «چالشهای ابلاغ (سنتی، الکترونیک، سابقه و زبان)»، فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق خصوصی، دوره ۴۸، شماره ۲، ۳۲۱–۳۴۱.
3. محسنی، حسن و صائبکیا، پویا (۱۴۰۴الف)، «بیگانگی با زبان دادرسی مدنی و کارکرد ترجمه؛ مطالعه تطبیقی»، مجله آیین دادرسی مدنی تطبیقی، سال اول، شماره ۲، ۱۷۵–۲۰۰.
4. محسنی، حسن و صائبکیا، پویا (۱۴۰۴ب)، «زبان ابلاغ قضایی بینالمللی در آیین دادرسی مدنی و برخی چالشهای آن»، فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق خصوصی، دوره ۵۵، شماره ۳، ۴۵۵–۴۷۸.
5. نهرینی، فریدون(1398)، آیین دادرسی مدنی، جلد دوم، تهران، گنج دانش
6. هراتی، مصطفی (1404)، « تعارض میان اصل آزادی قراردادها و الزامات نظم عمومی در قراردادهای خصوصی و دولتی در حقوق فرانسه و ایران »، دوفصلنامه تحقیق و توسعه در حقوق خصوصی، دوره 2، شماره 4، 349-376 doi: 10.22034/jpl.2025.2070694.1238
منابع انگلیسی
1. Bantekas, Ilias (2020), Language Selection in International Commercial Arbitration, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol. 36, No. 1.
2. Berk Demirkol (2016), Interpretation of the Dispute Settlement Clause in Turkish Investment Treaties with Turkic States , Arbitration International, Volume 32, Issue1.
3. Born, G. B. (2014), International commercial arbitration (2nd ed.), Kluwer Law International.
4. CEEG (Shanghai) Solar Science & Technology Co., Ltd. v. LUMOS LLC,829 F.3d 1201 (2016).
5. Fortese,F., & Hemmi, L. (2015), Procedural fairness and efficiency in international arbitration, Groningen Journal of International Law, 3(1).
6. Fouchard, P., Gaillard, E., & Goldman, B. (1999), Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on international commercial arbitration, Kluwer Law International.
7. Hanotiau, B., & Caprasse, O. (2008), Arbitrability, Due Process, and Public Policy Under Article V of the New York Convention: Belgian and French Perspectives, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 25, No. 6.
8. ICC Commission on Arbitration (2008), Introduction to guide to national rules of procedure for recognition and enforcement of New York Convention awards, ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin (Special Supplement).
9. International Law Association, Committee on International Commercial Arbitration (2002), Final Report on Public Policy as a Bar to Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards, New Delhi Conference.
10. Karrer, Pierre A. (2004), Arbitration and Language-Look for the Purpose, Croatian Arbitration Yearbook, Vol. 11.
11. Kurkela, M., & Turunen, S. (2010), Due process in international commercial arbitration (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press.
12. Lo, Chang-fa (2016), Beyond Semantics and Semiotics-Arguing for a Clearer Set of Arbitration Rules on the Issues of Translation and Language Interpreting, Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2.
13. Moser,M. J., & Choong, J. (2009), China and Hong Kong. In F.-B. Weigand (Ed.), Practitioner's handbook on international commercial arbitration, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press.
14. Ng, Tiffany (2014), Choice of Procedural Law in International Commercial Arbitration: Providing 'Proper Notice' to a Foreign Party to Ensure That the Arbitral Award Can Be Enforced, UC Law Business Journal (formerly Hastings Business Law Journal), Vol. 10, No. 2.
15. O'Hare,J. (1996), The denial of due process and the enforceability of CIETAC awards under the New York Convention: The Hong Kong experience, Journal of International Arbitration, 13(4).
16. Queen Mary University of London (2015), 2015 international arbitration survey: Improvements and innovations in international arbitration, School of International Arbitration.
17. Sant,G. (2011), Overcoming language traps in depositions of Chinese-speaking witnesses. New York State Bar Association International Law Practicum, 24(2).
18. Tung, Sherlin (2017), The Importance of Languages in International Arbitration and How They Impact Parties’ Due Process Rights, Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, Volume 10, Issue 1.
19. Veteran Petroleum Ltd. v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 228, Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (Nov. 30, 2009).
20. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (1985), Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the Work of Its Eighteenth Session, Vienna, 3–21 June 1985, UN Doc. A/40/17.
21. Waincymer,J. (2010), Reconciling Conflicting Rights in International Arbitration: The Right to Choice of Counsel and the Right to an Independent and Impartial Tribunal, Arbitration International, Volume 26, Issue 4.
22. Wilske, S., et al. (2016), The view from Europe: What's new in European arbitration? Dispute Resolution Journal, Volume 71, Issue 2.
23. Wilske, Stephan (2016), Linguistic and Language Issues in International Arbitration- Problems, Pitfalls and Paranoia, Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, Volume 9, No.2
24. Boog,C., & Moss, B. (2013). The lazy myth of the arbitral tribunal's duty to render an enforceable award, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2013/01/28/the-lazy-myth-of-the-arbitral-tribunals-duty-to-render-an-enforceable-award
26. Clemmie Spalton(2012), Panel ‘Authenticates’Local Courts Requirement, GLOBAL ARB. REV. NEWS, http://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1031396/panel-authenticates-local-courts-requirement
27. Gerbay,R. (2016, June 6). Due process paranoia. Kluwer Arbitration Blog. Retrieved from http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2016/06/06/due-process-paranoia/
28. Kılıç İnşaat İthalat İhracat Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/1, Decision on Article VII.2 of the Turkey–Turkmenistan Bilateral Investment Treaty (May 7, 2012), http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0932.pdf
29. Kılıç İnşaat İthalat İhracat Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No.ARB/10/1, Separate Opinion of Professor William W. Park, (May 20, 2013), http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw5002_0.pdf.
31. The Russian Federation v. Veteran Petroleum Limited, PCA Case No.2005-05/AA228, Judgment of Hague District Court (April 20, 2016), http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7249.pdf.
32. Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 227, Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (Permanent Court of Arbitration 2009), http://www.italaw.com/cases/1175.
33. Yukos Universal Ltd. v. The Russian Federation (Dutch Supreme Court, Judgment of 5 November 2021), https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw16556.pdf
34. Yukos Universal Ltd. v. The Russian Federation (The Hague Court of Appeal, Judgment of 18 February 2020), https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw12000.pdf
35. Yukos Universal Ltd. v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 227, Final Award (July 18, 2014), italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw3279.pdf
