Morality as somehow involving rationality and IMPARTIALITY received classic expression in philosophy of Kant who frankly speaks of “rational and impartial spectator” in contemplating the universal law. The overall aim of this paper is to show (1) that the idea of morality implies rationality and this will be reached at in refuting the moral scepticism; but (2) it does not necessarily indicates IMPARTIALITY, since the justification of the principle of IMPARTIALITY does not solve the problem of justifying particular moral principles. I will start with the question “Why should we be moral?” and then turn to moral rationality to refute moral scepticism, finally the relationship between rational morality and the principle of IMPARTIALITY will be reconsidered.

IMPARTIALITY is not only common proceedings rights for litigants but also it is common charge in relation to the legislator in the approval of procedure law and to prepare of impartial structure and the judge and the involved people in the case. The accused is fixed party in the proceedings and its counter party is or personal plaintiff (if to be determined by the crime) or society ( if to be injured the society order and to be society tendency as the test in criminalization) or sovereign ( if it determined by the crime and may to discriminate its interest and interest society) or all of them. They are equipmented by the several arms in order to sovereignty on the accused. In the process of legalization and determining of the structure usually infringement of IMPARTIALITY is on be half of the sovereignty or the society. The infringement of IMPARTIALITY is result in the consideration or the interest in relation to case subject or litigant.

In this study, it will be tried to describe Parfit’s interpretation of Kantian IMPARTIALITY by referring to Parfit’s work as well as to criticize the mistakes of Parfit’s vision. Then, the author's solution as the alternative view in this debate will be predented. To sum up, author believes that the Parfit’s vision hasn' t fully success in structure, content and consequent. It means that he couldn’t match his work (in interpretation of Kant) with the other part of Kantian thought, he couldn’t present an acceptable content about IMPARTIALITY in Kant’s philosophy and he couldn’t produce moral- useful results from his analyses. To reform Parfit’s mistakes, the author will refer to Kantian third critique, which is known as the power of judgment. According to this part of his philosophy, we cultivate our self and we learn an impartial view that is educated to live by beauty and ethics. This term can constitute a moral agency and can prepare a common criterion of moral knowledge.

One of the requirements and guarantees of the principle of neutrality is to conduct preliminary investigations by an independent judge and to distinguish the prosecutor from the investigating authority.In this regard,the investigator entered the structure of the department of justice and the prosecutor's powers were prosecuted as a party to the limited criminal proceedings.Although the principle of IMPARTIALITY and the necessity of observance of it in Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of our country have been emphasized,but its requirements and aspects Particularly in the preliminary stage of the preliminary investigation, officials have been neglected.In the same way, prosecutors still have the power to investigate and arrest the defendants in a large number of crimes and the investigator does not have complete independence in conducting investigations.Moreover,despite the adoption of the judiciary system,in some crimes and in the courts of the section,the system of public courts (all stages of proceedings by the judge of the unit( are applied,which is contrary to the principle of neutrality.In this article, the principle of neutrality and its components in the preliminary investigation and the degree of adherence of the legislator of our country to the requirements of this principle have been analyzed.

Arbitration as a parallel way of trial with state courts, is universally accepted. In this method of proceeding nomination of an arbitrator by either party has long been a common practice. However, the exclusive role of the will of each party in choosing an arbitrator constituting this confusion that the arbitrator appointed by each of the parties, which Article 459 of the civil procedure law of Iran define as partyappointed arbitrator, is the representative of the party who elected him and to set forth the fundamental question of whether independence and impart iality duties apply to the co arbitrator? By reviewing the features of arbitral tribunal it seems that the use the name of mandatory or representative on the party appointed arbitrator is by no ways in conformity to the arbitrator's function in arbitration, resulting in challenges to the necessity of his/her independence and IMPARTIALITY. These elements attempt to limit the parties' free will into appointing and removing arbitrators as well as carrying legal procedures. After examining the stances of the most important legal systems on the subject, this article tries to analyze the scope of the duty of independence and IMPARTIALITY on party-appointed arbitrators in order to specify their true positions and distinguishing them from any other similar institutions.

The purpose of arbitration is to resolve a dispute and this brings the arbitration closer to the judiciary, then it creates the impression that the arbitrator must also be subject to the same conditions as are necessary for the judge. These are qualities that are essential to a judge but are optional for the arbitration body, that is, arbitrator or arbitrators appointed by the parties to the dispute. Even if, this feature does not conflict with the “, judgmental" feature of arbitration, and the requisiteness of having the character of a judge by the arbitrator, was not called into question, at the very least, it casts doubt on the necessity of the arbitrator's independence and IMPARTIALITY. Because, generally, the parties to the dispute select persons for arbitration that are somehow related to them. This is more evident in three-person judgments. Because in this type of arbitration, essentially, the parties to the dispute have the full discretion to choose their own arbitrator, and usually, they look for a judgment that has the most affinity, relevance, and affiliation with them. This article by separating the concepts of independence and IMPARTIALITY will review and analyze the prevailing approach in international arbitration.

The propagation of utilization of arbitration as a method of dispute resolution depends on the public confidence in the method. In this regard, the independence of arbitrators and their IMPARTIALITY are necessary conditions for the realization of such confidence. Independence and IMPARTIALITY of arbitrators ensure a fair trial in arbitration and the lack of aforementioned features makes it impossible to trust the fairness of the dispute settlement process and its result. The importance of confidence in the health of the dispute settlement system is to the extent that many international instruments have frequently emphasized on the necessity of the two above-mentioned features. In the recent decade, contemporaneous with the incredible development of arbitration, the debate over independence and IMPARTIALITY of arbitrator has become important and controversial because neither national laws nor international provisions provide a clear definition of the said concepts. This article set out to explain the exact point that the independence and IMPARTIALITY are distinct concepts and are not interchangeable with each other, Independence is concerned with the relationships between the arbitrator and disputing parties, while IMPARTIALITY considers the arbitrator's conduct over the equal treatment with the parties. The aforesaid distinction includes such a legal effect that each of these two concepts shall be considered as an autonomous and separate cause for challenging arbitrators.

Wherever, legal document implies judicial independence, IMPARTIALITY of judiciary is next to it. Judicial IMPARTIALITY like judicial independence is fundamental requirement of judgment and basic description of the judiciary. IMPARTIALITY is the matter that more than the other features of the judiciary is in consideration of people and the most fear and Dissatisfaction from the function of judiciary is caused by the lack of this feature. People may do not understand the necessity of judicial independence but know that IMPARTIALITY is their Absolut rights and follow up observance of that. Litigating of 662 lawsuit from 1970 until 2021 at European court of justice proof this remark. The Judgments which implies of court procedure and many legal content such as distinction between subjective and objective IMPARTIALITY. In this paper determine concept of judicial IMPARTIALITY and its instance in accordance with practical procedure of courts and European court of human right.

This study set to examine the effect of ethicality culture themes on the auditor’ s IMPARTIALITY in the light of the moderating role of transformational leadership of the auditor’ s partners. This study was an applied research project that was carried out through a descriptive-correlational method in a time span of 6 months. The sample of the study was comprised of 211 auditors working in the Iranian Auditing Organization and the private auditing companies that were selected through simple random sampling. In order to collect data, first the validity and reliability of a questionnaire was confirmed and then it was used to collect the data. To analyze the data and test the study hypotheses, partial least squares (PLS) regression was used. The results indicated that the ethical culture in auditing firms has a significant, positive effect (4. 76) on the auditor’ s IMPARTIALITY. Moreover, it was revealed that as a moderating variable, the transformational leadership of the auditor’ s partner strengthens (4. 37) the positive effect of ethicality culture on the auditor’ s impartial behavior.