Judicial supervision is considered as integral part of the arbitration process, which is theoretically a rule derived from the principle of competence- competence. This rule means that the supervising court, regardless of the decision of the previous court at the time of the arbitration hearing, Supervises public jurisdiction by considering the contract and the arbitral award. Given that the relationship between arbitration and the court in all legal systems has raised many issues that the law is not explicit about, it seems necessary to examine the scope and effects of court supervision of this relationship in terms of competence. Therefore, the present article, which examines the analysis of court supervision of arbitration competence, seeks to answer the question of what is the position of court oversight in terms of formation, scope and effects? The findings of this study indicate that, in order to exercise court supervision, the existence of some conditions and the absence of obstacles are necessary. In the supervisory phase, in addition to controlling the general competence, the court is also responsible for appointing the competent arbitral tribunal, and despite the legislator's silence, the court supervision also includes the annulment of the arbitrator's incompetence. In the case of supervision, according to the principle of competence- competence, the court can also enforce the annulled judgement in another country and consider the annulment judgement to have a territorial effect. The effects of the court's supervision on the annulment case are mainly reflected in the presumption of annulment of competence judgement.

Among the essential components of human rights within any administrative and political system is the guarantee of human dignity and respect in interactions with governmental institutions. In this regard, the protection of citizens' rights necessitates the moderation of power, accountability and responsibility of the government and state authorities, and their subjection to the rule of law. Therefore, the incorporation of various oversight mechanisms, such as judicial supervision through ordinary or administrative courts, is foreseen in statutory law. In the Romano-Germanic legal system, or countries inclined toward this model, the High Administrative Court bears the responsibility of judicial review over the enactments and decisions of governmental bodies. The legal system of Iran has likewise followed this approach; however, certain institutions, such as the Guardian Council, have been excluded from the judicial oversight of the Administrative Justice Court. In light of the current legal framework, statutory law provides explicit and unequivocal provisions that allow no room for interpretation. Specifically, according to the note of Article 12 of the Law on the Administrative Justice Court, the enactments and decisions of the Guardian Council are not subject to judicial review. Nevertheless, any statutory provision is open to free legal interpretation, and legal doctrine can serve as a catalyst for transformation in this regard. This implies that the reasons for the Guardian Council’s immunity from oversight, as well as the necessities and requirements for its accountability, must be clarified. In this article, the authors adopt a descriptive-analytical method to examine the issue. As a conclusion, it may be stated that the rule of law, the principle of separation of powers, and the principle of legitimate expectation constitute the foundational justifications for the necessity of subjecting the Guardian Council to judicial review. Preventing the abuse of power, avoiding judicial error, curbing unreasonable decisions, adhering to the principle of proportionality, and prohibiting conduct based on ill intent are all cases that may render oversight over this institution necessary.

Administrative appointments are internal decisions which normally have legal effect, Administrative measures are so differents, but how dose not refer to citizens. In some legal systems internal decisions are not subject to judicial review. This article proves that Administrative Justice Court has jurisdiction to administrative appointment, but given that this is not general decision which can n ot be Complain in Plenier Assembly. An administrative authority can not give a general effect to administrative appointments. Investigation into the legality of administrative appointments relates to the branchs of A.C.J. It requires adopt a new approach to Concept of beneficary, so reasonable interest criteria rather than other criteria.

The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court acts independently in carrying out his/her functions. S/he is responsible for investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the court. If the prosecutor concludes that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, s/he shall submit to the Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation, together with any supporting material collected. If the Pre- Trial Chamber, upon examination of the request and the supporting material, considers that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, and that the case appears to fall within the jurisdiction of the Court, it shall authorize the commencement of the investigation. Functions and powers of the Pre-Trial Chamber provided for in the statute of the ICC gives the Pre-Trial Chamber the authority for permanent Survey on the prosecutor's functions and powers.

Legislative authorities have determined a referee called the Disciplinary Council of Construction Engineering Organization to investigate the guild violations committed by construction engineers. From the point of view of the principles of public law, the constitution as well as the views of the Guardians Council, judicial review on this council is necessary. However, the legislator has not specified any competent court as the reference of judicial review on the Disciplinary Council of Construction Engineering Organization. In the judiciary as well, pointing to the non-governmental nature of the Construction Engineering Organization, the Public Board of the Administrative Justice Court has not approved the competency of this court to investigate the decisions made by the Disciplinary Council of that Organization. In addition to, the Public Board of the Supreme Court did not consider the decisions of the Disciplinary Council of the Engineering System Organization to be subject to appeal in courts, citing the word "certainty" authorized in Article 24 of the Engineering System Law. Now the question is what is the legal solution to solve this legal and judicial challenge? Regarding the resulted condition, it is suggested for the Public Board of the Supreme Court to modify its already adopted approach to “the certainty of the decisions of this administrative tribunals” in the new decisions about the united practice; because this approach contradicts the religious, constitutional law, and the staute. Certainty of these rules refers to the certainty of administrative and executive procedure and cannot be generalized to judicial certainty. In the second step, as a long-term plan, the Administrative Justice Court should be recognized as a competent reference to investigate the complaints about the decisions of all the administrative tribunals. This procedure is more adapted to the concept of administrative proceeding. Therefore, with modification of the rules,

Pre-judicial supervision of investigation and prosecution entails the supervision of actions, judicial and investigative decisions of institutions in charge of prosecution and investigation, especially actions that impact individual rights and freedoms such as detention orders, conducting searches of residences and individuals during the pre-trial phase. The present research is a descriptive-analytical method, while using library tools with scrutiny on the role of prejudicial supervision in controlling the actions of those custodians of prosecution and investigation, explain the importance and position of the said institution in guaranteeing a fair trial, crystallizing the presumption of innocence and determining the principle of balancing the rights of the parties in a criminal lawsuit under the shadow of the principle of rule of law and the principle of jurisprudence. Among the important consequences of the use of the judicial supervision institution is the increase of public trust in the functioning of the judicial system, ensuring its efficiency and preventing the abuse of legal powers by the prosecution and investigation authorities. The findings of the research indicate the confirmation of the effective role of the prejudicial supervision institution in guaranteeing the rights of the litigation parties in a criminal case and reducing the grounds for violation or aggression of their rights.

Reasonableness is one aspect of judicial review in the common law system. Its origin was in England, however it has been introduced and applied in other countries with some modifications. This criterion is used in the US legal system as one way of violating the informal rules of administrative agencies under the heading of “ arbitrary and capricious review” which is expressed in article 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The present article, in light of case laws, describes and analyzes developments in the application of the above criteria in the courts of the United States. Over the time, interpretations of courts have been changed and their deferential interpretations have moved to hard look ground. Hard look ground seems to call for more judicial scrutiny and more heightened standards of judicial review than had been traditionally demanded from the arbitrary and capricious test. In hard-look doctrine, courts should carefully review administrative agencies decisions to ensure that the agencies have genuinely engaged in reasoned decision making. The hard look doctrine is simply a reflection of the courts view of how an effective and meaningful process of judicial review should be conducted. Accordingly, the administrative agencies should examine all the important dimensions of the matter and the alternative solutions and, by referring to the documentation, provide detailed justifications of their new decisions and changes to their previous procedures.

Administrative police as a concept for maintaining public order was born in French law to secure public security, public health, public tranquility and human dignity. Considering it as a guarantee for rights and freedoms and hence the internal peace in the society would be no exaggeration. It is of great importance to exert judicial control over administrative police’ s actions and decisions. The importance is more obvious hereon due to its administrative responsibility and narrowing the scope of rights and freedoms while exercising police authority. Studying the verdicts of French Council of State (Conseil d’ É tat ) and content analysis both reveal that incompetence (subjective, territorial and temporal), non-adherence to administrative procedures or violating defense rights are some reasons that may cause the annulation of decisions. Proportionality as a well-shaped principle provides proper criteria for evaluating legality by deliberating the existence of potential threat for public order and the necessity of decisions.