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.

Although the Compulsory arbitration is not a new legal matter in Iran and many other jurisdictions, forcing the parties to insert the arbitration agreement in their contract is both new in Iranian legal regime and unprecedented elsewhere. One of the most salient forms of such compulsion is perhaps the one in Article 20 of the Third Five-year Development Plan of Iran, where the legislator requires that the arbitration agreement shall be inserted in the Shares Ceding contracts and duly signed by the parties. This new requirement of Iranian legislator, raises a number of new questions with regards to the nature and effects of such arbitration. In the current research paper, after reviewing the history of matter in Iranian legal regime and comparing it with some other jurisdictions, the writers attempted to discover the reasoning(s) of the legislator for such a questionable innovation. To this aim, the main concentration of the writers was on Article 20 of the Third Five-year Development Plan of Iran, as the most salient example of such Compulsory arbitration. The main question to answer was whether the jurisdiction of such an arbitration panel is arising out of the legislation (like other Compulsory arbitrations) or it could be considered as the parties’ intentions. The writers, for several reasons, concluded that Compulsory arbitrate by forcing the parties to include the arbitration agreement in the contract, shall in no way be construed as contractual arbitration, but it is the same as other Compulsory arbitrations, i. e. those by legislation.

In order to resolve some disputes, the legislature has designated a kind of arbitration which is referred to as "Compulsory arbitration. " In this type of arbitration,the parties to the dispute, the arbitrator and the judiciary have legal authority. In our country, due to the limitations of Compulsory arbitration, this method of resolving disputes is not very common and its importance needs to be expressed. The present research has tried to make a comparative study of the volition of arbitrators during Compulsory arbitration in the two legal names of Iran and France. It was concluded that France, having a comprehensive arbitration law, while determining the Compulsory arbitration for all specialized disputes and determining the executive regulations for it, as well as mentioning the arbitration tactics for resolving disputes, has limited the volition of the litigants and the arbitrator in a way that they are committed to the law in a better way. In our country, cases of Compulsory arbitration are listed in only a few scattered legal sources and the arbitrator has the volition to determine the arbitration tactics and the volition of the litigants to choose the dispute resolution authority is evident. In order to protect the rights of citizens during disputes, it is necessary to formulate executive rules for Compulsory arbitration and to increase the authority of the judiciary in some cases of Compulsory arbitration by limiting the volition of the litigants and the arbitrator.

Today arbitration centers offer significant services in context of arbitration. Offered services in centers are not identical, some of centers may perform different activity than others. One of major activities of arbitration centers is scrutiny of the arbitration proceeding. In centers such as the ICC Court of arbitration and ICSID also scrutiny of the ward take place. Scrutiny of ICC Court take place to draft ward and for issues of form, the tribunal is obliged to follow the Court suggestion. In ICSID scrutiny is an quasi-judicial oversight and center has the right of review and annulment of arbitration award. In this article we will examine the question of whether this type of monitoring is to intervene in the arbitration tribunal or national courts proceeding.

Just and essential proceedings by the considering authority requires to comply with trial principles, a matter that has been accepted by the Judicial Authorities. In the arbitration Authorities also due to Judicial function of arbitration work the observance of trial principles is necessary contrary to arbitration formalities. One of the principles binding by the arbitration Authority is the acceptance of lodging counterclaim by the respondent. Comparative study shows that unlike other countries that legislated this matter, in Iran not only the legislator but also jurists did not pay noteworthy attention to this topic. Regarding the counterclaim in arbitration it is to be said that this claim is admissible when it is in the scope of arbitration agreement or clause. In addition to the conditions of counterclaim the said claim is acceptable when there does not exist its barriers. Set-off also is dependent on the claim and with restitution of claim the set-off is discarded. Moreover, the mere restitution of original claim will not render the termination of counterclaim which is under consideration.

The expansion of arbitration rules and the increase in number of claims in insurance disputes have magnified the need for the acceptance of arbitration in this area more than ever. Although different prohibitions and limitations exist, the acceptance of the general principle of arbitrability reinforces the mindset where arbitration is allowed in insurance claims. Despite this, the legislator has not explicitly mentioned arbitration in the law on "Compulsory third party liability insurance for motor vehicle accidents", and this silence and the existence of certain rules, has led to doubts about the acceptance of arbitration in such claims. Reservations regarding the issues that may arise in public order due to arbitration, the failure to mention arbitration in the provisions of the Compulsory Insurance Law, and the vagueness of some of the provisions of the law have led to the ambiguity of the arbitrability of insurance claims. Nevertheless, these doubts can be resolved if a clear distinction between civil liability and criminal liability insurance coverage is placed. Once this happens, there is no obstacle stopping the acceptance of arbitration. In this study, the descriptive and analytical method was employed. Furthermore, the legal limitations and prohibitions in referring insurance claims to arbitration, and the advantages and disadvantages of accepting arbitration, have been analyzed.

With a view to importance of the place of arbitration in settlement of disputes, encouragement of the population of a society for reference to an arbitrating foundation is necessary.One of the aims of dispute parties from reference to arbitration instead of reference to justice dept. is being released from prolongation of governmental proceedings (justice dept.), which is in practice attained, and realization of this aim is not possible without application of arbitration technique and its mechanisms. Governmental proceeding in courts has a start and an end point, in other words, it is started with submission of a petition and establishment of the first court session and ended with termination of proceeding and issuance of a verdict during a period of one week after announcement of proceedings termination.In internal and international arbitration it is also necessary that a start and an ending point (the arbitration period) is determined and arbitrator becomes obliged to announce the arbitral award in the determined respite. In the internal arbitrations, non-observance of this period and an announcement of arbitration award after the determined period of arbitration result in cancellation of this award. In the international arbitrations with a view to the principle of speed in commerce and whereas arbitration is mainly common in the commercial, transportation and insurance contracts, etc. if the parties determine the arbitration period, the arbitrator is obliged to announce his award during the determined period and if no period is determined, with consideration of the internal by-laws, the arbitrator is obliged to announce the arbitral award during a period of three months. Not announce arbitral award by the arbitrator in the determined period and his delay result in his disqualification from announcement of arbitral award.

Despite the fact that autonomy is known as one of the approaches related to the nature of arbitration, it is a type of rule-making mechanism in international commercial arbitration. This mechanism, based on the contractual nature of arbitration and aimed to achieve the goal of arbitration, which is the final peaceful resolution of the dispute, directs rule-making toward reducing court intervention, giving broad powers to the arbitrator or arbitral tribunal, and limiting the agreement that conflicts with the goal of arbitration. This article, using a descriptive-analytical method, first describes the quality of the autonomous mechanism and concludes that the autonomous mechanism is not specific to international commercial arbitration; rather, it is a rule-making approach that can also be applied in domestic arbitration. Then, it compares rule-making in the two legal systems of England and domestic arbitration in Iran. The use of the autonomous mechanism has led to the efficacy of the arbitration institution in English law. Rule-making based on the autonomous approach can mitigate or eliminate the inefficiency of domestic arbitration in Iran.