Judicial precedent and legal doctrine referring to the principle of general jurisdiction of courts stated in principle 159 of constitution have the opinion that arbitration is an exceptional method of dispute resolution, and therefore, in cases of doubt regarding the arbitrator’s competence, the arbitrator will be disqualified and the court will have jurisdiction. Based on this interpretative approach, between the court and the arbitration, there is a principle in favor of the court which requires that the interpretation of the arbitration rules be done against the arbitration and in favor of the courts of justice.
The present article uses a descriptive analytical method to explain that under the influence of the principle of sovereignty of will, arbitration is a natural and not an exceptional method of dispute resolution. Principle 159 of constitution cannot be considered as a ground to consider arbitration as exceptional because the principle explains importance and centralization of judicial affairs in the judiciary, but it does not determine the position of the arbitration and whether this method of dispute resolution is natural or exceptional compared to the court.