---

In article 496 of the Procedural Civil Code of procedure in Public and Revolutionary (Enghelab) Courts in civil cases, Iranian’s legislator, has prohibited referring bankruptcy dispute to arbitration. In American law system, such a prohibition has been provisioned with the recognition of the exclusive jurisdiction for special courts to settle the bankruptcy disputes itself in 28 U.S. § 157 –Procedures.
Since the economic crisis in recent years has followed (caused) increasing of bankruptcy in both individuals and trading companies, such a prohibition expels a large number of commercial disputes from the sphere of arbitrable issues. Deprivation of the many benefits of arbitration is justified only if the study of such a prohibition reasons justifies the exclusive proceeding in national courts.
There are ambiguities regarding the domain of this prohibition in both countries. Recognizing the scope of non-arbitrable disputes is depend on the understanding of this prohibition causes. Research results show that the difference between bankruptcy and arbitration codes, in both countries, is the most important reason for such prohibition and this difference is such an important that prevents reconciliation between bankruptcy and arbitration.
In Iranian law system, the mentioned prohibition includes the bankruptcy itself and its basic related issues. In American law system, only the basic issues of bankruptcy are not referable to arbitration. So, non-basic issues are included in the arbitrability principle.
 

---

The broad concept of arbitrability in American law involves the inclusion of an arbitration clause on the subject of the dispute as well as referability the matter to the arbitral tribunal. The legislator forbids some claims in accordance with the political, social, and economic interests of the community from referral to arbitration. " competence-competence " principle allows the arbitration authority to comment on the issue of the discretion of the arbitrator`s jurisdiction arising from the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement. The Federal Arbitration Act does not explicitly exclude the competence-competence principle , but the court practice in america has accepted the principle of independence of the arbitration clause as a condition of arbitration and also exemplifies the authority of the arbitrators to determine their jurisdiction. By virtue of revised uniform arbitration act, the resolution of the dispute about the existence of the arbitration agreement and the inclusion of the subject in the arbitration agreement is principally within the jurisdiction of the court. International Commercial Arbitration act of Iran, while accepting the principle of independence of the arbitration clause, provide that the arbitrator can decide on his competence, as well as on the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement.
In domestic arbitration, although the opponents of the principle relyon Article 461 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Iran, but the implied intention of the parties as the basis for accepting the qualifications of the arbitrators in determining their jurisdiction can be invoked.
 

---

Airline passengers in many cases do not sue against the carriers because of damages caused by delays, cancellations and bodily injury, which, of course, has led to the dissatisfaction of passengers with industry and is also in conflict with consumer rights. It is by the fact that Is is not worth taking claims to a national court due to the high cost of litigation, time consuming and insignificant amount of compensation. Therefore, a mechanism is needed to support passengers. In European countries, this support and mechanism has been achieved through arbitration chambers, However based on Article 34 of the Montreal Convention like the Warsaw Convention (Article 32), arbitration as a means of resolving litigation arising from the liability of the carriage of cargo was approved exclusively. The important question is arisen, then, is whether passenger claims can also be referred to arbitration. In this regard, based on the tendency to arbitration and according to the examination of preliminary talks, in addition to the carriage of cargo, to the carriage of passengers is developed and it is proved that there is no prohibition in Iranian law in this regard; In particular, it is not desirable to abandon litigation or refer to the Iranian judicial system, which is incapable of resolving such litigation. Therefore, by accepting the principle of arbitrability of this category of lawsuits, based on the progress of Europeans