Introduction: Arbitration has a contractual nature and is subject to the sovereignty of the will of the parties, but in some cases, the legislator imposed the referral of claims to arbitration on the will of the parties and caused the contractual nature of the arbitration clause to disappear or be limited. By doing this, he has placed the arbitration outside the will of the parties. This issue causes some moral conflicts in the discussion of compulsory arbitration. Therefore, this research has been done with the purpose of examining the position of compulsory arbitration in Iran's legal system and the ethical challenges in it with a descriptive-analytical approach. Material and Methods: The research was a review method, in order to achieve the goal of the research, in addition to electronic education books and virtual education in this field, articles related to the research keywords from 2004 to 2022 from the databases of Civilica, Magiran, Sid, Researchgate, Science direct, was reviewed Conclusion: Based on the findings of the research, it can be concluded that compulsory arbitration in Iran has ethical challenges in the field of implementation and interpretation, the most important of which is the issue of the right to action and judicial JUSTICE. In the context of ambiguities in mandatory arbitration, even if the method of arbitration becomes ambiguous, the arbitrator has the duty to find out the will of the legislator with the principles and rules of interpretation, which creates a moral conflict for the arbitrator.

JUSTICE is an ideal concept which human beings have always sought since the beginning of civilization. From the viewpoint of most scholars, JUSTICE is a virtue and a source to other virtues. Some have even gone so far that they give the same weight to JUSTICE as they do to all other virtues.This article reviews JUSTICE from the viewpoint of ancient Greek philosophers and recent western ones. It considers economic JUSTICE from an Islamic perspective and summarizes it in optimum allocation of resources NO.52, Autumn 2009 6 and facilities, elimination of poverty and financial needs, as well as socioeconomic development. Our constitution considers JUSTICE as a major goal and the general policies of Article 44 are aimed to realize this goal.This article also investigates the issue of JUSTICE Stock and provides reasons to prove this programme violates the sacred value of Islamic economic JUSTICE. So it is unfair to use the word “JUSTICE” for such stocks.

The "criminal JUSTICE" which is considered a crime and "criminal JUSTICE" and "criminal JUSTICE" both known as the classic or traditional model of criminal JUSTICE have come to light in recent decades with various facets of their efficiency and performance. this a number of criminologists and lawyers have sought to move the classical criminal JUSTICE system and the new JUSTICE system entitled "Restoration of JUSTICE" has entered criminal and criminal JUSTICE. This model in the opinion of its supporters can in addition to resolving the disputes that have been created by committing the crime the hostility of the tension and the resulting disagreement between the victim and the offender in the local community within the framework of the process of mediation negotiation and collective reconciliation And fix and repair various methods In this paper considering the title of the research these two systems of JUSTICE have been studied and adapted accordingly.

the economic, political and social evolutions during the 1980s caused the criminal policies with emphasizing on the criminal strategies and separation from the scientific approaches in crime control face excessiveness and additionally putting aside the welfare policies, they have separated from criminal JUSTICE also. For efficiency of social policies in enabling people to access social JUSTICE, it is necessary the relationship between these two concepts. Social JUSTICE does not occur without criminal JUSTICE and criminal JUSTICE without social JUSTICE is useless, inefficient and unfair. The most important reasons for distinguishing between social JUSTICE and criminal JUSTICE are neglecting the role of citizens for proposing social and criminal policies and granting the citizenship rights being bound to obey obedience laws, emphasizing on criminal policy for reduction and prevention of crime, separating the criminal policy organization from social and welfare ones, applying management skills and techniques in organization of criminal JUSTICE systems, emphasizing on the quantity of the system achievements instead of focusing on the enhancement of quality and also the absence of the common guiding principles or general principles to codify criminal and social policies toward a goal. Besides dignifying the criminal procedures, the relationship between social JUSTICE and criminal JUSTICE has a significant importance to prevent budget waste, human and material resources and time and causes the citizens access the equal opportunities. The other positive consequences of the relationship between these two concepts are the citizen interest to the community, increasing legal stability and occurring legality. Achieving these results cannot take place unless the practical principles to creating relationship between them are recognized. The principles are: recognizing all citizens and respecting their rights, redistribution of opportunities, resources and equipment in order to increase citizen participation in community, the balance of citizen responsibility and stability and holism (comprehensiveness) in policing.

Judgment is the most important output of a judicial system. It is the most valuable document and the most complete proof, reflecting the truth hidden in the case in question, especially if a decision is expressed in the form of a” judgment on the merits” on the case, decisively ends the dispute and expresses the judge's final opinion regarding the nature of the case (Article 299 of the Iranian Civil Procedure Code). This task has been given to the courts and it is the real mission and the main project of the Judiciary. Review of a judgment, delineating its strengths and sometimes its shortcomings and inadequacies, is the best assistance one can render the administration of JUSTICE. Based on this belief, I have gone to a judgment that is highly worthy of criticism. Non-existences, deficiencies, shortcomings and inadequacies are evident in this judgment. A Judgment that ends a dispute relying the efforts of multiple people through several original and ancillary claims, but fails in its main mission. In this short research, first the text of a judgment, then its writing inadequacies and substantive challenges are mentioned. In the midst of this discussion, the essential elements in making a magnificent, useful and worthy judgment shall be set forth.

McDonaldization is an official process in which the principles of fast food restaurants are exercised. The McDonaldization of various social institutions has succeeded because it provides advantages over other, usually older, methods of doing business. It has made McDonaldized social institutions bureaucratic and rational in a Weberian sense and, thus, more efficient, calculable, predictable, and controlling over people (often by nonhuman technologies). The principal problem with McDonaldized institutions, and another characteristic of the process, is irrationality or, as Ritzer calls it, the “irrationality of rationality.” A primary purpose of this essay is to expose some of the irrationalities of “McJUSTICE” and to suggest some possible responses to them.

Procedural JUSTICE concerns the way and method of drawing JUSTICE System. Questions about it are remarkably persistent. We can find here different Theories: What is the aim of civil dispute resolution; Accuracy or solving the conflicts of interests anyway. Some others, in the utilitarian tradition have argued that procedural fairness can be reduced to the calculation of costs and benefits. The third theory called Participation that assumes that the very idea of a correct outcome must be understood as a function of process that guarantees fair and equal participation. The participation is not well-defined, because it rests on uncertain and varying foundations: for this reason, we will investigate four interpretations for it such as: Dignity, Satisfaction, Rational discourse and finally, Gaming.

The issue of JUSTICE is one of the wide-ranging and challenging issues that, despite the complex texts about JUSTICE in Western sources, the Islamic approach to it is weak. Studies show that despite the importance of JUSTICE in political and social jurisprudence, theoretical dimensions that lead to systematization or trend-setting structures have not been raised and strengthened in this approach. Except for some of the books and articles that have been published in the last two decades and presented good comparative studies that can inspire new researches, most of these studies are still involved in issues such as knowing or not knowing the rules of JUSTICE, JUSTICE as a criterion for Friday and congregational imamate., the difference between the sharia and customary meaning of JUSTICE, criticism of women's rights and duties with the measure of JUSTICE and the like. Therefore, a research that proposes to strengthen those theoretical dimensions of JUSTICE that leads to pragmatism and structuring about it is necessary. Therefore, this article aims to strengthen this dimension and to present the necessities that are necessary in organizing a pragmatic theory of JUSTICE, and because in the last century, one of the challenges of JUSTICE, especially its Islamic approach, rights and benefits Social is for women, the field of investigation and comparisons has been placed on the issue of JUSTICE for women. Weighing each ruling with JUSTICE means to consider JUSTICE as the criterion of all of them or the legislative goal of all of them. Although such a statement is not approved, it is necessary to fill the empty space of mandatory rules with fair laws and legislate fair laws in the administration of the country and governance. As some authors believe, if the rulings in the laws of the Islamic Republic are in accordance with the explicit text of the Qur'an and frequent hadiths, they are the same revelation and cannot be criticized by the standard of JUSTICE, but in the case of other laws, if the revelation is silent, they are evaluated by the standard of JUSTICE. As a result, if JUSTICE is a criterion in some of the laws of the country, among the most important topics in this regard is the processing of the theory of JUSTICE, which includes clear theoretical and practical aspects as a strategy for managing society. Although these dimensions have been the focus of domestic researchers in the studies of the last two decades, they need to be explored more and focused on micro-issues. In the path of transition from the praise of JUSTICE in its religious studies to practical theoretical processing, one should know what is the most important theoretical and practical challenge of JUSTICE in this field. This is the main question in this article. To answer this question, the author's effort is to present one theoretical consideration and two practical considerations in the theorizing of JUSTICE centered on women. The theoretical consideration deals with the challenge of the inequality criterion, and the practical consideration deals with the two issues of perception measurement and indexing for JUSTICE, and in all cases, it focuses on the issue of women. After collecting the necessary data, the method of the article is content analysis and a documentary and fundamental article.

Restorative JUSTICE is frequently portrayed as a new paradigm of criminal JUSTICE, which differs sharply from the dominant paradigm of retributive JUSTICE. Retributive JUSTICE paradigm focuses on punishment and just desert. In this paradigm crime defined as violation of the state.Retributivism is the view that punishment is justified on the grounds that wrongdoing merits punishment.Restorative JUSTICE paradigm emphasizes on problem solving and restores victim, offender and community. In this paradigm crime defined as violation of one person by another. "Restorative JUSTICE" signifies those measures that are designed to give victims of crime an opportunity to tell the offender about the impact of the offending on them and their families, and to encourage offenders to accept responsibility for, and to repair the harm they caused. Its general aims are to reduce re-offending, to restore the relationship between the victim and the offender that was disturbed by the offence, and to improve victim's experiences with the criminal JUSTICE system.

The need for JUSTICE to govern the state of affairs is a fundamental condition that is disturbed by other conditions; nothing like inhumane inJUSTICE and the foundation of overthrow. The purpose of this research is to introduce the young generation to the important issue of JUSTICE, which is the true calm, and, at the same time, lost in the modern world today, in order to achieve its true meaning and to realize JUSTICE in depth and in life. The concept of JUSTICE and its place and value in Islam is explained. The issue of JUSTICE and JUSTICE is one of the important issues of the sacred religion of Islam and its most important sources are the Quran and Sunnah. In fact, the need for a ubiquitous community is to establish and enforce JUSTICE in all areas.