Arbitration agreements are recognized in both the Iranian and English legal systems as contractual instruments for the resolution of disputes; nevertheless, they diverge in several fundamental structural and functional respects. Under Iranian law, arbitration is characterized as a binding juridical act whose validity and continuation may be extinguished prior to the issuance of an arbitral award on grounds such as the death or legal incapacity of a party, the dismissal or removal of the arbitrator, or the mutual consent of the parties. Notably, implied rescission is insufficient to bring arbitral proceedings to an end, rendering the survival of the process contingent upon clearly defined statutory prerequisites and the sustained intention of the contracting parties. By contrast, within the English legal framework—particularly under the Arbitration Act 1996—arbitration is generally treated as definitive and enduring. The setting aside or recommencement of arbitral proceedings is permitted only in narrowly circumscribed circumstances and typically requires renewed party consent, underscoring a strong normative commitment to legal certainty, procedural finality, and institutional stability. This comparative analysis illustrates that the Iranian legal order adopts a more adaptable approach to the extinction of arbitration, whereas English law prioritizes conclusiveness, continuity, and foreseeability in arbitral proceedings. These doctrinal and practical divergences carry significant implications for the drafting of international arbitration clauses and for the strategic selection of an appropriate arbitral regime in the context of cross-border disputes.