Assignment of Arbitration clause or Arbitration agreement is very important in internal and international Arbitration and it has accepted in the law of other countries for example the U. K. and the U. S. In this regard there are some proponents and opponents each one has him/her own arguments. Article 481 of civil procedure code provides that the death of one of the parties to the agreement leads to termination of Arbitration Thus if Arbitration concludes under separate binding contract or in under the terms of article 10 of civil code, that Arbitration will be terminate by death of one of the parties. It means that legal assignment of the contract, doesn`t cause assignment of Arbitration clause. This article, concludes that Arbitration clause can be personal.

stating the elements of Arbitration agreement and their analysis in relation with Iran general rule of contracts has a major impact on determining the type and validity of the agreements as well as arbitrator legal position. In addition, this analysis has an impact on the arbitrator's type and scope of responsibility. In this paper, we have addressed the existing theories about the legal status of the arbitrator, including its semi judicial or contractual nature. The, we have studied the advantages and disadvantages of the Arbitration in the view of the arbitrator, parties and legal logic, and the type of responsibility in each theory. Taking into account the existence of Arbitration agreement in the cases, the impact of the agreement on the legal position, and vice versa, has been examined. Providing a practical analysis about the nature of an Arbitration agreement, a legal Arbitration flexible commentary is presented under the title of “ contract in the contract theory” , which in the view of the writer embodies both contract and semi judicial and also reduces the disadvantages as much as possible. In the conclusion, the positions of arbitrator and parties towards each other have been expressed on the basis of this analysis. After criticizing different theories on the arbitrator's position, individual judge is proposed as the appropriate theory.

Background and Aim: The formalities of Arbitration agreements seek to make sure that the parties involved have in fact reached an agreement. As well, the issues associated with the realization of the formal condition and the consent for Arbitration are often intertwined and considered together. In Iran’, s legal system, the formalities of Arbitration in international trade differ on the basis of 1. Whether they are considered by a national court or Arbitration authority,2. The stage of the agreement. After analyzing various theories, the New York Convention and, where possible, the easier formalities in Arbitration law in both state judicial authorities and private ones are accepted. Method: This research is of theoretical type and the research method is descriptive-analytical and the method of data collection is library and has been done by referring to documents book and articles. Ethical Considerations: In order to organize this research while observing the authenticity of the texts honesty and fidelity have been observed. Results: The convergence of the dominant way of thinking in the legislative system of statutes in Iran with the dominant international law governing international Arbitration in formalities foreseeing the validation of Arbitration agreements holds promise for a facile settlement of differences of Iranian businessmen taking into account the new findings in international trade. Conclusion: Currently, in both the statutes of Iran and the approach of the international Arbitration bodies emphasizing the performance of organizational Arbitration, there is a need to implement formalities on validating the international trade Arbitration agreements. It is done to facilitate the procedure regardless of the stage at which it is-on the national and international level-and despite difficulty in identifying the dominant law.

Arbitration agreement grant an authority to arbitrator for resolving the dispute, but it does not eliminate the jurisdiction of the court. So that, if the action in relation to matters falling within the scope of the agreement commences in the court, it will be resolved, even though the arbitral process would have been initiated. To ensure the commitment of the parties to the Arbitration agreement, in the Iranian International Commercial Arbitration Act, the USA Federal Arbitration Act, the UK Arbitration Act, the Uncitral Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards an approach has been recognized, namely stay of legal proceedings, that is considered as indirect sanction for enforcement of the Arbitration agreement. This remedy is established when jurisdiction of the court is demurred by the interested party seeking performance of the Arbitration agreement; provided the validity of the Arbitration agreement has been ascertained by the court. This remedy can be emerged in various orders including order of non-admissibility, order of decline jurisdiction and order of referring the parties to Arbitration. The last order has better function than others because, without dismissing litigation, the dispute is referred to Arbitration and, consequently, in addition to saving of time and cost, the court proceedings will continue if the arbitral process does not achieve the result.

“Extension of the Scope of Arbitration agreements to Third Parties in the General Sense” is one of the controversial topics in the legal world. Some, citing the non-judicial nature of Arbitration and the basis of its agreement's effect on the parties' consent, believe that this effect also includes the parties' successors and related third parties. Others, emphasizing that Arbitration falls within the scope of the litigation process, believe that judgment is a sovereign matter that is entrusted to the Arbitration institution only in certain circumstances, at the discretion of the state. In the present study, using a descriptive-analytical method, in response to the question of whether an Arbitration agreement is transferable to others, relevant legal doctrine and statutory provisions are examined, and the views of the two aforementioned groups are compared by identifying the “Concept of Succession and Third Party and Their Independence from Each Other”, “The Basis of Legitimacy and Jurisdiction of Arbitration”, and by citing positive law and judicial precedent, “The Rule of Impossibility of Extending the Arbitration agreement to Third Parties in The General Sense in Iranian Law” is discovered and inferred; Thus, in addition to the fact that referral to Arbitration is a completely exceptional matter, under no circumstances is a broad interpretation of the Arbitration agreement possible with respect to the successors of the contracting parties and third parties.

comparing the conditions to match the accuracy of contracts in terms of conditions and the Arbitration agreement In the Code of Civil Procedure no definition is offered of Arbitration, but paragraph C of article one of the code of Arbitration in international commerce has offered a definition if it. Arbitration agreement is contract and agreement by and between parties throughout which the manner of resolving the upcoming or current disputes is bestowed on a third party for Arbitration except for judicial courts. Proviso falls under the category of the term contract which is inserted in the beginning of the article 190 of the mentioned code because it is intended by and is mutually agreed by the parties and the two parties by free will write it to establish this condition. Within the domain of the term transaction which stands at the top of the mentioned article 190. The condition of Arbitrations an independent condition, despite its appearance which is a proviso, is that it has an independent essence and is valid and in terms of independence is considered as an independent legal act such as contracts.

Concluding of the Arbitration agreement is based on the principle of party autonomy but this principle is restricted by public order. In other words, although the Arbitration agreement is mainly based on the private agreement of both parties, it is not correct that the common will of both parties have an absolute authority to refer any disputes to Arbitration. Sometimes the law forbid or restrict the reference of some disputes to Arbitration, and the reason for these are based on the basic concept of public order and interest; thus, the settlement of some disputes are merely on the authority of the courts and if the arbitrators proceed to issue an award about such disputes, that award will not be applicable. This article will outline the opinions of Iranian scholars with regard to the effect of public policy on the Arbitration agreements as it could help to understand the floating essence of public policy. In addition, this article set forth to analyses the most important cases in relation to arbitrability which are the Art. 139 of the constitution, bankruptcy claims, family disputes, intellectual property claims, securities claims and also labor and employment contracts.

According to the Arbitration agreement, the arbitrators have the authority to settle the dispute of the parties. The invalidity of the Arbitration agreement or the arbitrator's award will have a mutual effect on each other. On the one hand, issuing a decision by the Arbitration authority is based on the authorities of the Arbitration agreement,On the other hand, in binding Arbitrations, the arbitrator, by issuing a decision once, is freed from further proceedings, unless a further agreement is made by the parties. The necessity of writing an essay is that in the case of annulment of the arbitrator's award, there is a difference of opinion and procedure regarding the subsequent jurisdiction of the judicial authority and Arbitration in future disputes in the Arbitration and judicial system of Iran. In this essay, this issue has been investigated and it has been emphasized that the wording of the note under Article 491of Iran’, s Civil Procedure According to the fact that "in cases where the matter is not referred to Arbitration through the court and the arbitrator's opinion is invalidated, the litigation will be dealt with in the court by filing a petition" refers to the dominant case of Arbitration, i. e. binding Arbitration,However, in absolute Arbitrations, the arbitrator's award is annulled, according to the purpose and philosophy of the parties' agreement to arbitrate, the Arbitration agreement is not destroyed, and there is still the possibility of settlement by the arbitral institution. The research method in this essay, while studying legal sources using library tools and studying the judicial precedent, is a descriptive-analytical method of applied type.

Introduction: Arbitration has a contractual nature and is subject to the sovereignty of the will of the parties, but in some cases, the legislator imposed the referral of claims to Arbitration on the will of the parties and caused the contractual nature of the Arbitration clause to disappear or be limited. By doing this, he has placed the Arbitration outside the will of the parties. This issue causes some moral conflicts in the discussion of compulsory Arbitration. Therefore, this research has been done with the purpose of examining the position of compulsory Arbitration in Iran's legal system and the ethical challenges in it with a descriptive-analytical approach. Material and Methods: The research was a review method, in order to achieve the goal of the research, in addition to electronic education books and virtual education in this field, articles related to the research keywords from 2004 to 2022 from the databases of Civilica, Magiran, Sid, Researchgate, Science direct, was reviewed Conclusion: Based on the findings of the research, it can be concluded that compulsory Arbitration in Iran has ethical challenges in the field of implementation and interpretation, the most important of which is the issue of the right to action and judicial justice. In the context of ambiguities in mandatory Arbitration, even if the method of Arbitration becomes ambiguous, the arbitrator has the duty to find out the will of the legislator with the principles and rules of interpretation, which creates a moral conflict for the arbitrator.

The Arbitration agreement should be considered as a collateral contract which is inserted in the main on tract (sale, carriage of goods, insurance, etc).Therefore, the question raised is whether the invalidity of the main contract could have any legal effect on the Arbitration agreement. In case the response would be positive, we should admit that we are, here, facing a vicious circle, for, the arbitrator who makes a decision declaring the main contract invalid, declares in fact that he has no competence to decide as an arbitrator due to the fact that the invalidity of the main contract means that the Arbitration clause was invalid as well.For the purposes of preventing such a dilemma most legal systems have opted for the theory of severability of the Arbitration agreement and, therefore, do not consider that in case of the invalidity of the main contract the Arbitration agreement should be considered invalid as well.The theory of severability has been admitted by the Iranian Law on International Commercial Arbitration, but rejected by the Code of Civil Procedure.The object of this article is to study the issue in question in comparative law as well as to analyze and evaluate the so called dualistic solution adopted by the Iranian legislation.