Among the definitive criteria for international jurisdiction, consensual jurisdiction has a valuable place in foreign law and cross-border instruments. Despite the entry into force of the Hague Convention on choice of court agreement in 2015, Iran has so far not taken any action to accede to this Convention. Nevertheless, must first be assessed the status of the agreement on a choice of court and the resulting international jurisdiction in the Iranian legal system. Because, if it is proved that consensual jurisdiction is not compatible with the principles of the Iranian legal system, then the discussion on Iran's accession to The Hague Agreement 2005 will be meaningless. Moreover, it is no longer possible to require that Iranian courts, as the case may be, deny or hear claims under the jurisdiction agreement or enforce foreign judgments based on it. Although many authors do not believe in this kind of agreement and its jurisdiction, the study found that consent-based jurisdiction is also accepted in Iran's legal system; however, reaching this conclusion has been through a process of negating and modifying the views of predecessors and explaining new approaches and regulations. In fact, Party Autonomy of will is also accepted in Iranian procedure law and Disrespect for the agreement on the choice of the court and the jurisdiction agreement based on it is a clear example of violation of the obligation, contrary to international public order and even the morals of the community.