Ma`rifat

Arbitration, as the most important method of resolving conflicts between individuals, attempts to better identify and expedite the resolution of disputes, considering the advantages such as speed of proceedings, maintaining confidentiality, and reducing costs, to reduce the workload and delay of proceedings that have become prevalent in the judicial system, and to resolve disputes non-judicially. Arbitration by someone who is determined by the selection of the partners and who, upon fulfilling the conditions, consents to the implementation of his right and ruling, is called a conciliation judge. This ruling is effective and enforceable, but what restrictions the conciliation judge's scope of activity requires, which are not the criteria for an arbitrator, is a matter of debate. In a descriptive-analytical method, this study aims to examine the evidence for the jurisprudential legitimacy of arbitration in order to identify the similarities and differences between these two institutions. Of course, given the many advantages of arbitration, it also has some shortcomings. By enacting new laws in line with legal rules and standards and amending current laws, perhaps clear horizons can be promised for protecting people's rights and developing social understanding.