As economic relations become increasingly complex and commercial disputes escalate, arbitration has emerged as a highly effective mechanism for resolving disputes. However, under Article 496(2) of the Iranian Civil Procedure Code, bankruptcy disputes are categorically excluded from arbitration. This exclusion stems from the nature of bankruptcy, which extends beyond a private dispute between a merchant and creditors and constitutes a legal institution with substantial economic and social consequences, closely connected to public order and the rights of third parties. Adopting a descriptive–analytical approach and relying on library-based research, this study examines the legal justifications for the non-arbitrability of bankruptcy disputes in Iranian law. It assesses the possibility of referring certain ancillary claims to arbitration. A comparative analysis of the legal systems of the United States, France, and Germany reveals that the core bankruptcy claim and the declaration of cessation of payments are non-arbitrable due to their direct effects on creditors’ rights and economic public order. Nevertheless, some ancillary and contractual disputes that do not interfere with the liquidation process or debt distribution may be arbitrable under specific conditions. The study concludes that reconsidering the absolute prohibition on arbitration in bankruptcy matters may enhance procedural efficiency and accelerate dispute resolution.