منظور از صلاحیت از نظر قانون اختیار و تکلیفی است که قانونگذار به مرجع قضایی جهت رسیدگی به دعوائی می دهد. شناخت انواع صلاحیت دادگاه دارای اهمیت، از این جهت است که با شناخت هر یک از انواع صلاحیت می توان قواعد مربوط را به خوبی تحلیل و آثار متفاوتی را بر هر کدام بار کرد. صلاحیت مراجع در سه دسته ذاتی، نسبی و محلی قراردارد. صلاحیت ذاتی یا همان شایستگی اختصاصی یک مرجع قضایی یا غیرقضایی در رسیدگی به امور یا دعاوی اعلامی از ناحیه قانونگذار است. قواعد مربوط به صلاحیت ذاتی از قواعد آمره است و توافق برخلاف آن امکان ندارد. صلاحیت مربوط به اتحادیه و اتاق تعاون از نوع صلاحیت ذاتی است چرا که مراجع قضایی و اداری هر یک، از صنف جداگانه ای با مختصات و ویژگی های خاص خود هستند و ذاتاً با هم متفاوتند و صلاحیت آنها نسبت به دعاوی خاص مرجوع الیه ذاتی است. در رابطه با صلاحیت نسبی نیز با توجه به اینکه بحث صلاحیت نسبی وقتی مطرح می گرددکه هر دو مرجع تالی و عالی دارای یک ماهیت و جنس یکسان باشند، یعنی هر دو مرجع یا باید قضایی باشند یا هر دو مرجع باید غیرقضایی باشند تا بتوان میان آن دو صلاحیت نسبی به مفهوم خاص برقرار کرد. لذا موضوع صلاحیت نسبی در مراجع داوری منتفی است. .

The purpose of adopting rules and regulation for the determination of courts’ jurisdiction is to categorize duties of courts on the basis of subject-matter of disputes, crime and so on. In civil procedure rules, jurisdiction is normally divided into subjective-matter, territorial and value jurisdictions. There are situations in which courts are given competence, for specific purposes, to deal with a dispute, even though they do not have the above-mentioned jurisdictions. This is called prorogation jurisdiction. This article aims to examine jurisdictional rules and prorogation jurisdiction cases.

The right to exercise jurisdiction in civil matters lies with the court to which a case is referred. However, the findings of courts vary and one court's ruling could contradict another court's ruling on the same matter, in a way that a court declines jurisdiction and refers the case to another court but the latter court could refuse to accept jurisdiction too. In such a case there is a conflict of jurisdictions. Law (legislation) offers various solutions depending on the nature of the jurisdictional conflict. There exist various forms of jurisdictions such functional and local jurisdictions. However, functional jurisdiction is a corollary of the classification of the courts jurisdiction according to their nature, kind and rank. The classification of the courts jurisdiction on the basis of geography is called local jurisdiction. In this research, I have strived to explain the concept of jurisdiction and conflict of jurisdictions by highlighting the advantages and disadvantage of Civil Procedure act of 1379 (2000).  

One of the important issues in arbitration is to resolve the conflict between the competence of the court and the arbitration authority. Denial of the competence of the court arises from the principle of competence-competence. This rule means that because of the competence of the arbitral tribunal, the court does not have competence until the end of the arbitration proceedings due to the suspension effect. The competence of judicial authorities is a general ond, while the competence of arbitral tribunals is specific. Therefore, the competence of arbitral tribunals is exceptional, and while narrowly interpreting their competence in cases of doubt concerning the competence of arbitral tribunals, based on the principle of general jurisdiction of judicial authorities, the competence of arbitral tribunals has an exceptional nature. The agreement of the parties to the dispute to refer to arbitration does not negate the absolute jurisdiction of the court, and the court performs its assisting duties by the law during the arbitration process. The Negative Effect of competence-competence means that the arbitrators must be the first judges of their own jurisdiction. Therefore, the supervision of the courts is postponed until the stage of annulment or execution of the arbitration award according to the arbitration agreement.

The exclusive character of a jurisdiction means that other jurisdictions could not acknowledge the matters which are attributed to that jurisdiction by law. The exclusive jurisdiction is only related to civil jurisdictions. Consequently, the exclusive competence of penal or administrative jurisdictions may not be discussed. Additionally, the attribution competence is distinguished from the exclusive competence. In fact, the forbiddance resulting from the attribution competence is limited to commencement of an action, but after this phase, the attribution competence of a jurisdiction may not impede other jurisdictions to accept the incidental matters and defensive remedies. In fact, a jurisdiction, before which an action is brought as an exception, could accept this action, even if this action is out of its attribution competence. In contrast, such a jurisdiction, could not accept these actions, if they are within exclusive competence of other jurisdictions.

Principle of competence- competence means the arbitrator's ability to recognize his or her competence. This principle has been introduced to support the efficiency of arbitration as a means of resolving disputes. The true place of this principle is when there is doubt as to the validity or scope of the arbitration agreement. Nowadays, French jurisprudence and doctrine have specified the scope of this principle, While this principle is not regulated in our law and there is no comprehensive knowledge about it. According to that principle, It Will not find the item independent claim to the annulment of the arbitration contract. The arbitration agreement is manifestly void or unenforceable. In the case of consumer and labor contracts, for example, it does not incompetence the court. Therefore, in this article, an article is suggested to be dedicated to the explicit expression of this principle in the Code of Civil Procedure.