Background and Aim: The person selected for arbitration may die or resign. In such cases, the arbitrator must be selected by a permanent and impartial authority without suspicion of bias and at the same time aware of the issues of dispute resolution. The authority that has these characteristics is the courts. The purpose of this article is a comparative study of the intervention of the court in determining the arbitrator in Iranian and American law.
Materials and Methods: This article is descriptive and analytical. Materials and data are also qualitative and data collection was used in collecting materials and data.
Ethical Considerations: In this article, the originality of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness are observed.
Findings: The findings showed that in American law, According to Section II of the Federal Arbitration Act, the arbitration clause is "valid, inviolable and enforceable". The express purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act was to establish arbitration as a method of adjudicating claims in the courts of law. The Federal Arbitration Law accepts the principle of independence of the will of the contracting parties in the determination. In this way, it is accepted that arbitration is based on the consent of the parties.
Conclusion: Both in Iranian law and in Ganglis law, apart from the restrictions imposed by the necessity of public order in the field of compliance with procedural principles, especially the arbitral nature of trials, the parties are free to choose applicable procedural rules.